Marlin Model 60 Range Report.

[Daveboone]

I have shot and owned 3 model 60s over the years and one 10/22. The first two model 60s were of unknown age when I got them, but heavily used, abused and worn- but totally reliable. I dont remember what I sighted with at that time (hell, it was 20 years ago plus) but CCI minimags were the preferred for stone cold reliablity and accuracy. I dont remember ever having failure to feeds or other malfunctions (I probably did, but they were so seldom not to be remembered). Ten years ago I picked up a new 10/22 to trick out. I had fun doing it, and when I was done I had a .22 that could shoot only marginally better than the Marlin from a rest, and certainly no better from a field position (with match grade). The durn thing is so heavy and clumsy though, I longed for another model 60- which I recently bought (stainless with carbonfiber stock). Like with any new gun, I gave it a thorough cleaning inside and out, then a light lube of Remoil in the action. I only have a sleeve or so of ammo through it so far, but it has functioned flawlessly. Inexpensive firearms are not made to function reliably with cheap ammo. Cheap ammo is built to lesser standards for a reason: its cheaper! This is more noticeable with semi auto handguns. My .22 rimfires (S&W, Ruger) very quickly weed out economy grade ammo for failure to feeds- it is very audible the difference in sound between rounds at time, or by the total failure to fire (it isnt my guns- I second cycle them in a .22 revolver to confirm it for quality). You get what you pay for. If you want it to go boom reliably, buy reliable. I, like many others, find CCI mini mags the best for the money for field use.

 

[FlyinBryan]

I don't see any useful info there because it isn't scientific.

actually scientific data is exactly what that little chart is. its completely unbiased, and i wouldnt exactly call chronograph data someones opinion.

the most important part of that data to me is the standard deviation of each because you just are not going to get stellar accuracy from ammo with inconsistent velocity.

i find it to be wonderfully useful data. it also confirms why ive had nice results with the winchester wildcats. it does surprise me a bit that remington golden bullets are as consistent in their velocities, but you cant argue with data like that (other than to just say the guy is making it all up which in this case would be silly)

 

[CraigC]

Well Jeff, there's not really much to chronographing loads and recording the results. It just takes time and money. Let's see you shoot a couple hundred bucks of ammo over the screens to rebutt???

Hundreds? Really??? Like I said, I don't doubt one bit that some folks have problems with it, probably the majority of those who claim to. I'm just question the conclusion. For example, I've tried Winchester Xpert, based on the recommendations of folks on the 'net. It was horrible. Accuracy was poor and function was worse. I've shot truckloads of Federal bulk but I have guns that do not function well with them. One or two don't even function at all. Do I conclude that Xpert is crap? Do I splatter the internet with frothing rants about how poor it is? No. I simply conclude that the guns I tried them in don't like them. Which is all I suggest in the case of Remington GB's.

I have my opinion and you won't change it.

That much is obvious.

 

[Picher]

I've been shooting, testing various ammo in many different rifles from stock 10-22s, and custom rigs, including: Remington 40X, 541, 504, Anschutz 64, 54, Winchester 69, 52, CZ 452, Kimber, Marlin 39A, 60, 25, etc.

I've noticed that there seems to be little correlation between velocity standard deviation and actual accuracy on targets at 50 yards (considered standard distance for .22LR testing).

To prove that one particular brand/type of ammo is better than another usually only applies to the manufacturer's batches tested in the rifles used for the test.

As a benchrest shooter, I know that the only way to find the best ammo for a particular rifle is to test multiple batches in a rifle of known accuracy, with several brands/types, but without a tuner on the barrel. After testing all the brands, pick about three of the best for further testing.

That's more testing/expense than most people like/or can afford the cost/time to do so, but it's a common way of finding the best benchrest combination. Once the brand/batch that shoots best, buy as much of it as you can afford...provided they didn't sell it all while you were out testing.

It works for cheaper ammo and factory rifles, but it seems less important to most folks to worry about batch numbers and just generalize by brand/type.

Accuracy costs. How much accuracy you get depends on how much you're willing to spend, both in time and money. If you want top accuracy, spend the money for a top of the line brand, like Volquartsen, Cooper, or Anchutz. In the long run it may be cheaper than putting lipstick on a pig, and the results are usually much better in the long run.

Some of us can accurize rifles to make them quite satisfying, either a 10-22 or some other rifle, but it's almost impossible to do so by buying after-market parts to make a custom rifle...without carefully mating them to the particular action.

JP

 

[Bonesinium]

Now I certainly don't have a gun in this fight, but this stuff is just too good to not point out.

I have my opinion and you won't change it.

Kind of defeats the purpose of ANY scientific study for you then doesn't it?

I like how you refuse to accept unbiased data just because it doesn't agree with your bias. Your posts get more and more ironic throughout this thread. Example two.

I provide all sorts of evidence to back up things I say here. I'm tired of your accusations. I tried to be civil with you but you don't seem to know how to do that. Welcome to my ignore list.

Another post saying something without any evidence to back it up. It could only be more ironic if what you were trying to argue is that you do post evidence to back up the things you say. Oh wait.........

Thank you though. It is pretty funny.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Took the new Marlin Model 60 out to the range to see what it(or me) could do.

Marlin 60 will get you a felony conviction in New Jersey

 

[FlyinBryan]

I provide all sorts of evidence to back up things I say here.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Welcome to my ignore list.

was it you awhile back that said you have shot hawks,,,with iron sights,,,at 1000 yards more than once? and then got confrontational with anyone that giggled about it?

for someone to claim that remington golden bullets are better than something else is not that outlandish, and when actual hard data is introduced that backs it up, its hard to just say "no you are wrong"

the first thing i thought when i saw that chrono chart was "hmm, well i'll be darned"

i think there should be some amount of leeway given, especially if its not hurting anything. you were certainly the recipient of this courtesy with the hawk story.

we can all share our info and opinions here, and that is what most of it is, and they are all valuable, and none should be just ignored short of someone being blatantly confrontational, or name calling.

lets keep it nice.

 

[FlyinBryan]

Marlin 60 will get you a felony conviction in New Jersey

no way!!???

really?

 

[DNS]

My 60 has been one hundred percent reliable with Federal but thats the only ammo I've ever used in it. Sadly i've been hearing Marlins struggling with QC issues lately though.

Remington ammo gets used in my revolvers and a Beretta Neo. For those firearms its its been flawless too. I have found a lot of it at the range with dented noses from not cycling correctly in semi autos though.

 

[CraigC]

You do it because it "proves" your particular ammo is "best".

I'll bet everyone knows Golden Duds are thought of as more accurate than Wolf - at least 4 maybe 5 people do anyway.

Nobody said that.

I'm not gonna relive the whole hawk debacle but anyone interested can read about it here and decide for themselves.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=606434

 

[Mal H]

If I'm so freaking stupid how is it I've managed to win about 10 out of the last 11 rimfire contests held on this board?

Sorry, but when I see claims like that I have to check it out.

August RF match - 1st

July RF match - No entry ("I gave up on trying to get a perfect score after one day of trying.")

June RF match - 1st

May RF match - 2nd

April RF match - 1st

March RF match - Honorable mention (4th)

February RF match - 1st (tie)

January RF match - no entry


I didn't go back any further as there was no need to. Why would you make that claim when it isn't true?

 

[FlyinBryan]

Haven't I seen you in the rimfire competition FlyinBryan? Is that why you follow me around trying to start flames? Is it because you couldn't win against me? Yeah I bet that's it.

lol, wow.

no, you havent seen me shooting in the jeff56 international championship.

i couldnt make it. my agent and shooting coach had me booked up those months taking my grandson to chuck-e-cheese for an appearance and book signing.

check the entries (and your meds)

 

[Art Eatman]

Y'know, when I see folks getting into a squabble over a .22 rifle, I start wondering about Keyboard Kommandos in mommy's basement, beady little eyes staring at a monitor.