The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 5, 2009, 03:57 PM   #26
Mike U.
Senior Member
Join Date: April 2, 2007
Location: In Oz, next door to the Lollipop Guild's HQ
Posts: 404
I'd like to take this opportunity to comment on a few other bulk ammo's while answering about the two asked, if ya'll don't mind.

Federal load #750.
Two thumbs up. Accurate, relatively consistent. Good reliable hunting ammo.

Remington Golden Bullets 550 bulk pack.
Two thumbs down. Waaay down. :barf: Terribly inconsistent, spotty accuracy and DIRTY.

Federal Automatch 325 round bulk pack.
Two thumbs up. Waay up. Fairly clean, very accurate for bulk. Very good report consistency. Plenty good enough for small game. Be aware this ammo has a recall notice due to a bad batch that made it out of the factory. My packs were good to go. See for details.

Winchester 333. 333 round bulk pack.
Two thumbs up. Plenty accurate for hunting, good round consistency and not too dirty to clean-up after. Does baaad things to small game. .22 size hole going in, ping-pong ball size hole going out.

Winchester Xperts. One thumb up, one thumb down. Feeding reliability is inconsistent in my semi-autos. Fairly accurate. Fairly consistent sounding rounds. Decent small game round, but does a lot of damage on exiting. Pretty much same description as noted for the Winchester 333 ammo.

This is a game you'll have to play and decide for yourself. As was noted earlier, .22 rifles are notoriously finicky about their likes and dislikes in ammunition. The Winchester Xperts are a good example of this. Feeding reliability was good in my Nylon 66, not so good in my model 60.
The Golden Bullets did not do well in any of my three rifles. It was terribly inconsistent from round to round. This was the sound of a typical string of shots.


Some rounds went supersonic, some had me wondering whether they even made it out of the barrel. And they were the dirtiest rounds I've ever tried this side of Thunderbolts.

Asking for an opinion about .22 ammunition has to be the ultimate YMMV question. My experience with RGB's is a good example. Some will swear by these rounds and I simply cannot catch a break with them. After trying them twice I threw in the towel. I still have half of the second box in the bottom of the catch-all junk drawer. I read of people who won't touch Federal bulk packs due to bad experiences with them whereas I've had zero probs with it. Go figure...

I hope this helps.

Last edited by Mike U.; January 7, 2009 at 07:11 PM. Reason: Correcting grammatical error.
Mike U. is offline  
Old January 5, 2009, 04:42 PM   #27
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: gulf of mexico
Posts: 2,716
Failure rates this high would indicate something wrong with the gun (dirty firing pins giving light strikes?) not the ammo. Some crud built up on the feed ramp or under the extractor?
the trailside was brand new, and neither gun had any probs eating the wolf ammo that same day.
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
troy_mclure is offline  
Old January 5, 2009, 05:31 PM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: December 30, 2007
Posts: 575
most of my .22s are CCI mini mags, that feed flawlessly into my 10/22, never a miss fire.
"Do what you can, what you want, what you must,feel the hunger inside, just don't lose your trust" - KMFDM, Trust.
NRA Member,Minnesota State Safety Certified,
Eagle Scout
Currently schemeing on an AR-15 build.
Tatsumi67 is offline  
Old January 5, 2009, 05:34 PM   #29
Senior Member
Join Date: August 19, 2008
Posts: 131
I'm also on the Federal Bulk bandwagon. Probably 4000 rounds through my 10/22 and I can count the number of ftf on one hand. My S&W .22A is a different story, but the ftf there is more about light strike from the firing pin.
B-Maxx is offline  
Old January 5, 2009, 05:35 PM   #30
Mountain Man
Junior Member
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5
Remington Wildcat .22LR works amazing! I thought the quality would be crap, but it did not jam my ruger pistol a single time! I usually shoot CCI stingers, and boy those babys jam alot. Check it out!
Mountain Man is offline  
Old January 5, 2009, 06:59 PM   #31
Average Joe
Senior Member
Join Date: August 29, 2005
Location: Easton, PA
Posts: 1,101
Depends on the gun, some of my .22's do fine with Federal, and some do fine with Golden bullets. Some dislike both. The .22 is a finicky round.
Average Joe is offline  
Old January 5, 2009, 07:43 PM   #32
Junior member
Join Date: May 4, 2007
Location: Meechigan
Posts: 492
I've shot thousands and thousands of the wally federal bulk. Misfires are pretty rare. I probably have 10,000 or more on hand right now. It's just fun to shoot all day for $8-16. CCI is better and more accurate for sure, but it also costs 5-10 times as much.

I was a Remington bullk shooter but it is horrid these days. I had misfires of about 1/9 or 1/10 in all my 22s. You can also hear some rounds that sound louder or softer than others.
nemoaz is offline  
Old January 5, 2009, 11:07 PM   #33
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2008
Posts: 242
Federal bulk is superior to the rem golden bullets...

I have gone through 2 boxes of Fed 525 Value pack which I believe is the loading #745 which is a Champion Target load which is in the same line up as the renowned fed .510 I believe... It's accuracy is good, not excellent but good in my CZ 452 and its reliability has so far been 100%!!!! I have only about 50 left and not one has failed to fire. I really should post the lot number but I don't have access to it at the moment. Its a great batch... wish I bought more... Personally I have since switched to federal ammo in all my hunting rifles. I feel Federal has better quality control and much better bullet selection compared to Remington in the centerfire categories.

Winchester Dynapoint is also decent if your looking for other bulk options.
Demaiter is offline  
Old January 7, 2009, 07:08 PM   #34
Mike U.
Senior Member
Join Date: April 2, 2007
Location: In Oz, next door to the Lollipop Guild's HQ
Posts: 404
Depends on the gun, some of my .22's do fine with Federal, and some do fine with Golden bullets. Some dislike both. The .22 is a finicky round.
Average Joe,

It's not the rounds that are finicky, it's the firearms themselves.
Some guns are downright crazy finicky with what one feeds them. I don't have this problem with my firearms, but ohhh, the stories I've read. OY!
Mike U. is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 02:07 AM   #35
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2008
Location: the great state of MS
Posts: 147
i have to agree with the masses here.i did a test today and first shot 100 remington golden bullets and at least 1 in a 10 round mag was either a failure to feed or a failure to fire.did the same tests with the federal bulk pack and not 1 failure to do anything but go bang every time i pulled the my money will be spent on the federal bulk from now on.oh yeah the test pistol was a ruger mark 2 bull barrel gov't model.i was,to say the least,impressed with the federal ammo.
whitearrow is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 08:35 AM   #36
Junior member
Join Date: December 31, 2008
Location: youngsville nc
Posts: 195
i have gone thru over 6000 of the winchester 22's from wally world in the past month and out fo all them i had 0 squibs - maybe 100 that did not fire - and maybe 250 dropped in the mud - 25 that made it thru the washer and dryer - and a few that the lab ate ' -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-tin bullets' lol . but they do seem to be some dirty bullets and make a mess with my smithy revolver . my biggest issue now is that wally world now can not keep the bulks in stock here in ral nc and forced to pay 22.00 per 500 for the sorry thunderbolts vs 15.00 for the winchesters and remingtons
boatmonkey82 is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 07:46 PM   #37
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2008
Location: SE Oklahoma
Posts: 491
Gamehunter59, I'm curious as to why you didn't also list Winchester bulk .22LR ammo? Is it still available? I haven't shot any lately as I don't use bulk ammo, but my son does when he's shooting his Ruger .22LR pistol (auto). It seemed like he had a lot of non-firing rounds of the Federal bulk ammo. I had a box of old Winchester X-Perts and they all fired and fed well. Just wondering if their bulk packs were as good?
rifle & muzzleloader -- exhilarating
bowhunting -- obsession
reloading -- addicted
ryalred is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 11:18 PM   #38
Junior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 5
My 10/22 doesnt seem to like the latest batch of Federal 525s I bought. About 1 out of 20 jam. Anyone here like the CCI Blazers?
Wuthrich10 is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 12:31 AM   #39
Mike U.
Senior Member
Join Date: April 2, 2007
Location: In Oz, next door to the Lollipop Guild's HQ
Posts: 404
Blazer fan here! (Raises hand)
They are great, but, I can't find them in bulk so I have to buy the 50 round boxes. That's the only reason I didn't include them in my above comparison post.
Blazers give me above average accuracy, cleaner burning than most and very good report consistency. No pffft! bang! pop! with them.
They also do great work on tree rats when the round nose is sanded or filed flat. They make a very nice satisfying THWACK! on impact.
Mike U. is offline  

.22 , ammo , federal , remington , ruger

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07741 seconds with 9 queries