Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 6/10/2003 11:47:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2003 8:23:40 AM EDT by GLOCKshooter]
ooops, screwed up trying to edit.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 11:49:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2003 11:55:03 AM EDT by VonFatman]
Yes, dry fire the Ruger all day.
(it says this in my manuals
Mk1 & Mk2)
No, there are no "quiet" loads which
will not cause some level of perm.
hearing loss. The frequency at which the
"soft/quiet" loads explode are within
a range...that range is what gets hammered.
Don't push mow grass, weed eat, chainsaw, rider
mower, ride with the windows down at high speed
etc....it's a long list that many ignore
for ease of living.
Oh, and "soft/quiet" rounds are MUCH louder in
handguns...a simlar round in a rifle will have
a far different impact.
VF
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 1:17:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2003 1:18:38 PM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

1) Can I dry fire it?

Yes. To your heart's content.


2) Can I fire one of the "quiet" loads without hearing protection?

VonFatman is right. I've seen people do lots of dumb things where their hearing is concerned. They think they can "get used to it" after awhile. What they fail to realize is they're not "getting used" to anything, their hearing is actually becoming damaged, so for your actual question, NO. Not if you value your hearing.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 1:51:05 PM EDT
In addition to the hearing damage aspect of firing "quiet loads," some loads advertised as subsonic won't cycle semi auto action.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 6:36:26 PM EDT
If the noise is an issue with you and you live in a state where suppressors are legal, talk to Jim Dandy. He is quite knowledgeable on supperssors.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 7:26:46 PM EDT

If the noise is an issue with you and you live in a state where suppressors are legal, talk to Jim Dandy. He is quite knowledgeable on supperssors.

Hold on now, I OWN a couple of suppressors and I enjoy talking about them, but I am hardly knowledgable in that area.

If you want to talk suppressors and get technical, then try Subguns.com or the Full-Auto forum here on the AR15 board. Lots of S.O.T.s and manufacturers haunt those places as well as more experienced users like drfcolt and QuietShooter.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 9:04:05 PM EDT
Glockshooter, it sounds like you don't have the manual, as it says on the barrel, they are available free.
Not too sure about a 4 inch bull barrel, I think it may be 5 1/2 inch.
If the rear sight is fixed, it could be a standard model...which are great too.
Not sure what a "quiet load" is...even the sub-sonic makes noise.
You may single load CB caps, those are quiet. But using a lot of them can foul the chamber for the .22 long rifle it's supposed to shoot.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:41:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2003 2:44:06 AM EDT by GLOCKshooter]
Thanks for the replies.

Don't have the manual, got the pistol and 3 mags in what I consider a couldn't pass up deal. It has a fully adjustable rear sight. The front sight is all black and the rear face is relieved, like it was designed to snag on a holster. Of course I realize it was designed for target shooting, not CCW.

I'm not particularly "worried" about noise, it's just some folks had said that with Aguilar SS ammo (sp) it would be like shooting a cap gun. I just thought it would be nice to have a gun I could shoot without hearing protection. If it is along the lines of a lawnmower, I figure I could take the occasional shot or two, but would not make a practice of it, or do so at a full range session.

It may be 5 & 1/2". I haven't really checked it out very much.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:34:53 AM EDT

I'm not particularly "worried" about noise, it's just some folks had said that with Aguilar SS ammo (sp) it would be like shooting a cap gun.

They're full of crap.


Don't have the manual, got the pistol and 3 mags in what I consider a couldn't pass up deal.

CLICK D LINK
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 7:24:40 AM EDT
About that "fish hook" front sight...not my style either.
Nothing like lining up on the bullseye only to find a piece of fuzz in your sight picture.
I have ground a few vertical and dotted them or got a ramp unit fron a Single six, their western syle revolver.
Noise wise, true, some emit more decibles than others but they all will eventually affect hearing, long term.
Don't forget shooting glasses...it may be "only" a .22 but hot brass or a ricochet in an eye ball would ruin an otherwise nice day.
Sorry for the reminder.
And yes, you snagged one of the classic modern "great fun guns".
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 8:16:28 AM EDT
Always check to see that the stop pin is in place before you dry fire. It falls out easily when you remove the bolt. I put a dent in my breech face by not reading the manual throughly.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:12:12 PM EDT

Noise wise, true, some emit more decibles than others but they all will eventually affect hearing, long term.

I've found even shooting a lowly .22 rimfire rifle for an extended period in an OPEN area can affect your hearing. No way would I think that shooting a .22 LR pistol with low power rounds without hearing protection would EVER be acceptable.
Link Posted: 6/15/2003 7:53:28 PM EDT
1) The Aguilla SSS round is very hot in that it fires the bullet at sub-sonic velocity, BUT IT'S A 60grn BULLET! This round was designed to be fired from a suppressed pistol/rifle and to give superior ballstics to the sub-sonic .223 cal rounds currently offered.

2) I would consider it safe to shoot the Aguilla Colibri round without hearing protection. This round is no louder than a pellet gun, but will not cycle a semi-auto.

I've played around with both of these rounds using my AWC 10/22 and an SWR MKII.
Link Posted: 6/15/2003 9:48:28 PM EDT

I've played around with both of these rounds using my AWC 10/22 and an SWR MKII.

That's a good way to void your warranty. Neither of the guns mentioned have a twist rate quick enough to stabilize the SSS to prevent baffle strikes. I'm also pretty sure that AWC and SWR specifically warn against their use just as AAC and Gemtech do.



This round is no louder than a pellet gun, but will not cycle a semi-auto.

Don't think so. It's still loud enough from an unsuppressed pistol to require hearing protection. Secondly, it'll cycle the MKII, but not the 10/22.
Link Posted: 6/15/2003 10:22:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/15/2003 10:23:46 PM EDT by TREETOP]
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 12:11:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mach1:
Always check to see that the stop pin is in place before you dry fire. It falls out easily when you remove the bolt. I put a dent in my breech face by not reading the manual throughly.



You're not the only one, only I knew better. I was re-assembling in a hurry and dropped the bolt. I always do a function check, just to make sure, and as I was pulling the trigger I saw the pin on the ground. It was too late, my finger was already moving and I have a very light trigger. Luckily it was only $5.00 to have the chamber reamed and accuracy does not seem to have been affected.
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 2:40:19 AM EDT

This is incorrect, twice. The Colibri rounds have NO powder, it's a 17gr or so lead bullet propelled by primer only. It will not cycle ANY semiautos, and it's easily as quiet as a pellet gun.

I didn't catch the Colibri reference, I was still thinking of the SSS round.
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 10:02:40 AM EDT
O.K., so Colibri is proably cool every once in a while without hearing protection, don't make a habit of it, all other rounds a no-no?

Link Posted: 6/16/2003 6:36:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:

I've played around with both of these rounds using my AWC 10/22 and an SWR MKII.

That's a good way to void your warranty. Neither of the guns mentioned have a twist rate quick enough to stabilize the SSS to prevent baffle strikes. I'm also pretty sure that AWC and SWR specifically warn against their use just as AAC and Gemtech do.



This round is no louder than a pellet gun, but will not cycle a semi-auto.

Don't think so. It's still loud enough from an unsuppressed pistol to require hearing protection. Secondly, it'll cycle the MKII, but not the 10/22.



And you would be wrong on both counts. Both the MKII and the 10/22 will stabilize the SSS rounds out of the barrel. These bullets will destabilize at distance as the bullets lose velocity due to the slow twist rate of the barrel; out of my 10/22 this distance is about 50yrds. You can buy a 1in9 twist barrel from Volquartzen that will stabilize the SSS out to greater distances. The SS will cycle both semi-auto pistols and rifles while the Colibri will cycle neither one. By the way JD, I'm not really concerned with voiding the warrenty. If I have a problem, I'll drive down the street and get Joe (Joe Gaddini of SWR) to fix it.
Link Posted: 6/16/2003 6:45:47 PM EDT

And you would be wrong on both counts. Both the MKII and the 10/22 will stabilize the SSS rounds out of the barrel.

No, you're wrong. The MKII and 10/22 both have twist rates that're too slow to stabilize the bullet.

From my AAC Phoenix owner's manual:

"We also caution against the use of the 60 grain Sniper Subsonic loading from Aguila, as it tends to de-stabilize in barrels with a standard twist rate of 1 in 16. A 1 in 12 or faster twist rate is necessary for satisfactory accuracy from this loading in a handgun."

I seem to recall that most everyone else who produced integral MKIIs gave this same admonishment.


By the way JD, I'm not really concerned with voiding the warrenty. If I have a problem, I'll drive down the street and get Joe (Joe Gaddini of SWR) to fix it.

So are you trying to impress us with the name dropping or are you bragging for sucking up?
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 3:43:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:

And you would be wrong on both counts. Both the MKII and the 10/22 will stabilize the SSS rounds out of the barrel.

No, you're wrong. The MKII and 10/22 both have twist rates that're too slow to stabilize the bullet.

From my AAC Phoenix owner's manual:

"We also caution against the use of the 60 grain Sniper Subsonic loading from Aguila, as it tends to de-stabilize in barrels with a standard twist rate of 1 in 16. A 1 in 12 or faster twist rate is necessary for satisfactory accuracy from this loading in a handgun."

I seem to recall that most everyone else who produced integral MKIIs gave this same admonishment.


By the way JD, I'm not really concerned with voiding the warrenty. If I have a problem, I'll drive down the street and get Joe (Joe Gaddini of SWR) to fix it.

So are you trying to impress us with the name dropping or are you bragging for sucking up?



1) JD, if all you know is what you read, you need to get out more, and if you believe everything that you read, you're dumber than I give you credit for. My AWC Ultra II is extremely accurate with the SSS round out to 50 yards. At about 70 yards, the bullet begins to destabilize, the yaw rate of the bullet increases, and key-holing of the targets happens. A 1 in 9 barrel is needed to stabilize the SSS rounds to greater distances (like the heavier rounds for the AR), and that is the reason Volquartsen is producing that barrel. My shooting partner has the Volquartsen barrel in both a 10/22 and a 77/22 and the SSS round is deadly accurate to as far as your elevation adjustments will allow.

2)If everybody else gave the same admonishment, then maybe you could be so kind as to sight some other references. I know that SWR does not issue such a warning. The reference to Joe Gaddini is just that, a reference to a manufacturer that will stand behind their product. It is a rare trait in a company in this day and age, but a respectable trait.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 5:24:48 AM EDT

JD, if all you know is what you read, you need to get out more, and if you believe everything that you read, you're dumber than I give you credit for.

Your intelligence is the one in question here, pal. Why are you even using subsonic ammunition in a suppressor that's ported to handle standard and high velocity stuff? THAT is DUMB.


The reference to Joe Gaddini is just that, a reference to a manufacturer that will stand behind their product. It is a rare trait in a company in this day and age, but a respectable trait.

I never implied or inferred that he wouldn't stand behind anything he made. In fact, I don't know too many suppressor manufacturers who don't stand behind their cans.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:15:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:

JD, if all you know is what you read, you need to get out more, and if you believe everything that you read, you're dumber than I give you credit for.

Your intelligence is the one in question here, pal. Why are you even using subsonic ammunition in a suppressor that's ported to handle standard and high velocity stuff? THAT is DUMB.


The reference to Joe Gaddini is just that, a reference to a manufacturer that will stand behind their product. It is a rare trait in a company in this day and age, but a respectable trait.

I never implied or inferred that he wouldn't stand behind anything he made. In fact, I don't know too many suppressor manufacturers who don't stand behind their cans.



Hey JD, you tell me another manufacturer that produces a "60grn" round for the .22cal (subsonic or otherwise), and I'll shoot it instead.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 10:43:13 AM EDT

Hey JD, you tell me another manufacturer that produces a "60grn" round for the .22cal (subsonic or otherwise), and I'll shoot it instead.

And the point would be what?
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 11:24:30 AM EDT
Top Top