Cleaning a Marlin .22 Rimfire Rifle

Here again, I find myself dispelling a myth circulating around various shooting circles. This time I will be dealing with the basics of how to clean a Marlin .22 rimfire rifle, but first the crap going around that all these new, and even some experienced shooters are buying into. It goes something like this: "If you have a Marlin rimfire, don't ever clean the barrel until it gets so bad that your groups open up, since Marlins don't aren't accurate if they're clean. When shooting a new brand or style of ammo, shoot at least 100 rounds before checking accuracy so the barrel will become stabilized for that particular round." That is pure and utter B.S. in it's entirety.

The Marlin rimfire rifles are extremely accurate right out of the box, in fact they are generally as accurate as custom rimfires costing hundreds of dollars more. What Marlin has done is give the .22 caliber barrels 12 lands and grooves instead of the customary 6, and it works splendidly. Just like any other gun though, one must find through trial and error what particular fodder that his/her particular rifle prefers.

Have the laws of physics been changed specifically for the Marlin .22's making them different from all other guns? Point of fact is, all rifles perform their best and shoot most accurately (when using the proper ammunition that the particular gun shoots best) when the barrel is clean. No gun shoots better when it's barrel is dirty, not grungy, not fouled with copper, lead, plastic, powder, carbon, or other gunk.

Essentially what is happening is as one shoots, the barrel becomes fouled with carbon, unburned powder, lead, (sometimes copper) and bullet lube. As the barrel becomes fouled, the interior dimensions obviously change, becoming tighter and tighter, which can make some ammo fit the bore better for a short time, making it seem accurate, until the barrel becomes so gunked up that it starts sizing the bullet, and that's when accuracy really starts to take a nose-dive. Some rimfire shooters, when testing ammo, don't clean the barrel between ammo changes, so they aren't really going to find out what shoots best in their rifle. They think they are, but in essence all they are getting is false results based on a barrel that is getting dirtier and dirtier, instead of giving each type of ammo a fair shake with a clean barrel free of fouling.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to shoot a particular bullet at least a hundred times before hoping it starts shooting more accurately. When it comes time to clean, I don't want to have to shoot another hundred or so rounds to refoul the barrel so it will shoot tight groups again. It just sounds ridiculous! I want a bullet that shoots as accurate from the first shot after cleaning until the shooting session ends and I clean my rifle again. I expect that from my centerfire guns, and my rimfire Marlin is no different.

So don't listen to the "don't clean your Marlin" crowd, they're spouting total nonsense.

How did the rumor get started? A famous gunwriter once wrote (wrote several times actually), that with modern non-corrosive rimfire ammo, cleaning a rimfire barrel can do more harm than not cleaning it. Point of fact, if cleaned properly, it is not damaging to the rifle. What is damaging is cleaning your rifle from the muzzle instead of the breech, without a rod-guide, which can damage the crown. A cheap aluminum rod can collect grit and become embedded in the rod, scratching the rifling. Over use of abrasive and corrosive solvents can lessen the life of a barrel. To fix this though, use the proper products. Use a one piece stainless steel rod, and if you must clean from the muzzle, use a rod-guide. Use non-abrasive and non-corrosive solvents. Follow proper cleaning procedures recommended by the manufacturer. Another point to consider, non corrosive or not, powder fouling still attracts and holds moisture which can cause rust and pitting. The only thing standing between that moisture and your barrel is a little lead fouling, maybe.

My main point, for those of you who got lost in my rambling, is this: Buy a few boxes of several different types of ammo for your rifle. Clean your barrel when changing ammo, so you are starting off on even footing with each new brand or type of bullet. This will be the proper way to tell which ammo your rifle prefers. When done shooting for the day, clean and lubricate your rifle thoroughly before storage. Once you find what ammo your rifle likes best, you can rest assured it will perform admirably from the first shot out of a clean barrel until the end of the shooting session.

Slam-Fires and the Remington 700

There is a growing rumor going around both the internet forums and many shooting circles about the Remington 700 action being very prone to slam-fires. It seems everyone knows someone who knows someone who has had their model 700 slam-fire, almost killing them or someone else in the process. Interesting thing is, no one seems to have ever had this happen to themselves. Think about it!

Let's put this rumor to rest right now. Slam-fires are not common for the Remington 700 series of rifles. If you have a factory original 700 that slam-fires (which is quite rare), call Remington and arrange to have your rifle repaired.

I am not saying that slam-fires cannot happen. They do, and 99% of the time, it is because the the rifle is mis-handled, or improperly modified. Let's see what can contribute to slam-fires and what you can do to reduce the possibility of a slam-fire:

• When operating the bolt, do not slam the bolt forward when loading a round into the chamber. This is hard on the rifle, an unnecessary abuse. When operating the bolt, use a smooth motion with only enough force to chamber the cartridge.
• Do not over-lighten the trigger pull. This is the main reason people do have slam-fires. They work the trigger over improperly, or reduce the pull so that it is too light. When combined with the afore-mentioned habit of slamming the bolt closed on a live round, guess what happens? The jarring of the bolt being closed too hard is enough to cause the sear to release, and walla, a slam-fire happens. So, if you have had any trigger work done, pay special attention to the line above.
• Over-lubrication. Yes, you read it right. The trigger mechanism is precision crafted, with tight and exacting tolerances. A small drop of lube at key points is all that is needed to keep things working smoothly. Too much oil can gum up the works as well as become too thick a buffer between parts, changing the overall fit of the parts.
• Some dummy wasn't paying attention and had something caught inside the trigger guard when cycling the action, pulling on the trigger as the bolt closed. The person using the rifle doesn't want to admit his mistake, so he blames the incident on a slam-fire.
• Non-qualified gunsmiths or poor quality gunsmithing has screwed up your rifle making it dangerous. Even the best gunsmiths can make mistakes too. If it started slam-firing after a trip to a gunsmith, that's a pretty obvious clue that many people seem to overlook.

Don't be afraid of shooting that Remington 700 rifle! Millions of these rifles have been produced, and the 700 action is relied upon by both military and law-enforcement. If there was a serious design flaw or defect causing all these slam-fires, these government entities would be looking to someone else for their rifles.

A clean, well maintained rifle is far less likely to malfunction than one that is dirty, poorly maintained, roughly handled, etc. Take care of your guns and they will take care of you.

Ruger 77/50

I blame the gunrag writers for the failing sales of the Ruger 77/50 which ultimately led to it's early and unfortunate demise. Most of the writers, so it seems, were biased against the 77/50 without giving it a fair chance. It seems most of them shunned it, calling it a poorly planned "me too" entry into the muzzleloading rifle world. And why? Here are the three main reasons:

1. It is based on their strong and popular 77 series centerfire rifles, instead of having been created from the ground, up.
2. It has integral scope ring mounts built into the receiver.
3. It is not rated for the latest fad of magnum powder charges.

As for basing the gun on a center fire rifle, Remington did the same thing, with the 700 ML, as has Savage with their 10ML-II. Why the writers chose to pick on Ruger and not the others for doing this is beyond me.

Now, I would just like to note that this is a modern inline muzzleloader. I have noticed that most people end up putting low-powered scopes on their modern inlines, unless state law forbids them for hunting. All Ruger did was make it easier for the consumer to do this, like they always have. They were even kind enough to throw in a set of matching scope rings with the gun. It's worth mentioning that the receiver is also drilled and tapped to accept a receiver sight, which is what I am planning on putting on mine in the near future, unless a good deal on a fixed power Burris scope comes along.

Next I will attempt to address the non-magnum power rating of the Ruger. It is rated for a maximum charge of 120 grains of black powder, not the magnum 150 grains that's all the rage lately. Now, I'm not sure how many people have really sat down and realized that a good hunting charge for a .50 caliber projectile is usually around 70 to 100 grains of black powder or suitable black-powder substitute like Hodgdon's popular Pyrodex line. Any thing over 100 or so grains, substantially increases recoil, while the gains in velocity and energy are minimal. There is only so much powder that can be burned in a barrel, and the rest gets blown out with the blast, unburned, but adding to the weight of the load being discharged, therefore increasing recoil. This is fine for those who like to be needlessly abused by excessive recoil, but I personally choose to submit myself to as little recoil as is necessary to accomplish the task at hand.

Why the magnum craze then? Simple, one hand washes the other, right? The same thing is happening in the centerfire rifle world, magnum everything. It has simply followed into the muzzleloading world. People rush out and upgrade to magnum rated firearms, and in turn, have to buy propellant for these guns more frequently. Everyone benefits except the consumer's bank account.

In any event, thanks to the gunrag gurus, this spelled the unfair demise of the well built Ruger 77/50. Some even go so far as to claim ignition problems plagued the 77/50. Now think about this: if a product is plagued by a known defect or problem, it gets around quickly. The message boards on the internet will be filled with chatter about it. Not so with the 77/50, only a few postings on any of the thousands of websites have any reference to ignition problems. Why? Because it's the exception, not the rule. The culprit is the breechplug nipple is a minute bit oversized, making the percussion cap hard to seat. A simple fix, just polish the nipple and everything is good. If that's not your cup of tea, Ruger offers breech plugs that convert the rifle for use with musket caps. Cabela's has a 209 shotshell primer conversion kit. In essence, you now have your choice of the three popular inline ignition methods at your disposal for the 77/50.

The 77/50 is a fine gun. The medium length 22" barrel makes the rifle fast handling, a dream to carry in brushy or heavily wooded areas, while being plenty long enough to provide more than enough bullet velocity to get the job the done. The version I have is the All-Weather version, with a stainless steel receiver and barrel, and synthetic stock. The synthetic stock is very rugged, not at all like the cheap feeling, lightweight, flex-o-matic synthetic stocks slapped on other brands. The fit and finish of the rifle is top notch, which is to be expect from an arms maker such as Sturm, Ruger and Company, Inc.

My main complaint about this rifle is the synthetic ramrod. I do not like it very well. The bullet pusher/jag end is not removable. The handle end is threaded for ramrod accessories, but as such, one cannot leave an aftermarket bullet starter for their favorite bullet attached to the ramrod. To put the ramrod back into the thimble and through the stock, the ramrod has to be free from any accessories. This is not convenient at all for those who insist on shooting spitzers from sabots. I'm not a fan of the plastic tipped bullets anyways, I'll stick with flat-nosed conicals, thank you very much, and for that, the factory supplied jag on the ramrod works like a charm. I would still have much preferred a solid aluminum ramrod to the flexible synthetic one supplied.

The breech-plug wrench supplied with the gun is too small to fit over the breech-plug by a hair. I had to spend a whole 30 seconds with the dremel to polish enough metal off the wrench to make it fit right. It should have fit right from the beginning, and had I gone directly to the range without checking fit first, I would have been very upset.

These complaints are minor though, and should by no means be a deal-breaker on this strong, good-looking, and well built front-stuffer. The MSRP is around $600, they were selling for about $450, but can be had for around the $200 mark, new in box, if you know where to look. I picked mine up for $210 out the door, and can honestly say this muzzleloader is a literal steal at that price. For the quality it would have been worth paying full retail price, but I'm glad I didn't have to.

.30-30 Winchester aka .30 WCF

I find it somewhat amusing that so many people believe the historic .30-30 Winchester cartridge is an under-powered, useless round. It seems that these days of most everyone being magnum-crazed, anything without the magic "M" word is obsolete. Nay-Sayers would panic you into believing that anything human or deer would be impervious to the .30-30 cartridge, and that the bullet would just magically bounce off the skin, leaving no damage.

First of all, the .30-30 was America's first smokeless powder rifle cartridge, but it got it's name because it was originally developed to be a .30 caliber round pushed by 30 grains of black powder. Synonymous with the .30-30 Winchester cartridge is the gun that was made to fire the first smokeless powder rifle cartridge, the Winchester model 1894, later to become known as simply the model 94. The Winchester lever-action repeating rifle, first chambered for the .30-30 in 1895, set the world hunters and lawmen alike on their ears. Never before had these men seen such a flat-shooting, powerful, recoil-friendly rifle in a compact, easy to carry repeating rifle.

Over the course of the smokeless powder cartridge, no other round can claim to have taken as much game as the .30-30 Winchester round. If it was good enough then, it is still good enough today. The .30-30 has more than enough power to quickly and humanely kill deer sized game, as is proven by the sheer numbers of deer taken with this more than adequate chambering. Most wounded deer that run off and are never recovered are normally blamed on the cartridge being too under-powered, but truth be known, it was most likely shooter error rather than bullet failure. When placed in the vitals, a 150 or 170 grain bullet from the .30-30 is just as deadly as any other bullet. The current crop of bullets, as has been for decades, are well engineered to provide adequate penetration and reliable expansion at velocities common to the .30-30 Winchester. Quite frankly, deer haven't evolved into bullet-proof hided animals, but are still relatively thin-skinned game as they have always been. And they sure don't strut around in the woods wearing ballistic body-armor. And speaking of such, read on...

The .30-30 cartridge is powerful enough to penetrate through any soft body armor, as well as some with steel trauma plates. This kind of kills the Nay-Sayers' theories about the .30-30 being a poor man stopper. I can assure you it is quite a bit more effective than most any handgun cartridge would be. It makes a perfect defensive arm where over-penetration is not a problem, such as on a farm, where neighbors are nowhere near.

Now I'm not trying to make the .30-30 sound like the perfect cartridge, for it is not. Like anything else, it does have it's limitations. At best for the average shooter, it is a 100 to 150 yard gun, while practiced and capable marksmen can stretch that to around 200 yards, which even at that range, the bullet has enough energy to kill a deer quickly and efficiently. However, much past that, it loses too much energy to expand or penetrate reliably, and it's more rainbow-like trajectory (compared to more modern cartridges) make hitting on target difficult for all but the most seasoned shooters. This is a woods or brush cartridge mostly, not best for a shot across the valley from one ridge to another. That's where the faster, flatter shooting modern bottleneck cartridges with spitzer tipped and boat-tail based bullets really shine. But anything under 150 yards, a shot in the boiler-room from a .30-30 will on a deer or, dare I say elk, make the critter just as dead as would a .300 Winchester Magnum.

Most rifles chambered for the .30-30 Winchester are lever action rifles, such as the recently discontinued Winchester model 94 series of rifles and the Marlin model 336 series of rifles. Available in barrel lengths ranging from 26" to 18", with 20" barrels being the most common. Both tradition straight gripped, and pistol gripped rear stock versions are available, and on average these guns weigh around 7 or 8 pounds. The Winchesters tend to be a bit lighter weight than Marlins, thus the Winchester offers up slightly more felt recoil. Having owned and shot both versions extensively, a 1964 Winchester 94 Antique, and a 1987 Marlin 336CS, I can tell you that both are quick handling guns, and the recoil is not unmanageable, nor unpleasant in either rifle. Either one would make a wonderful hunting gun for deer or hog where long range shots past 150 yards are not expected.

A few words on yardage, camouflage, and hunting skills: Most hunters do NOT have any type of range-finding devices with them on their hunts, and most stories about those 300 yard shots are greatly exaggerated. In the woods, when buck fever sets in, that 300 or 400 yard shot is more likely to have actually been around 100 or 150 yards. Even with a high-powered, long-range, magnum caliber, mega-scoped rifle, most shooters can't accurately hit anything deer sized from further away than about 200 yards maximum, and most shots at deer present themselves at under 100 yards. Another thing to consider, knowing and hunting with a limited-range rifle will make you a better hunter. You will learn to be quieter in the woods, you will learn how to approach and stalk your game animal. You will learn to use your senses more efficiently, and learn how to better control your body as a whole. In short, you will learn to do more than just align the crosshairs on your target, you will learn to actually HUNT, and for your effort, you will have experiences and skills that far surpass the average Elmer Fudd clomping through the woods decked out in the latest fashion-camo and blaze orange vest. Honestly, camo is a crock that makes the hunter feel better and more concealed, but it's downside is that extra feeling of concealment usually leads to a false sense skill in stealth. I've hunted in red flannel shirts, and denim blue-jeans all my life and have had deer walk right by me within arms reach, without paying me any mind. You really don't need all that over-priced fashion-camo stuff, unless you just want to blow your money on it.

Now back to the main topic: RCBS lists the .30-30 Winchester in the top ten among die sales. Wherever ammo is sold, .30-30 seems to be a good seller. Interesting, considering no one seems to want to admit to owning or shooting one. It seems almost taboo to speak of ever having or currently owning one. Over 5,000,000 Winchester 94's have been sold since it's introduction, and who knows how many of the other brands. For such a laughed at and scorned cartridge, sales seem to be rather brisk. Lots of people are buying them, but no one is admitting to it. It's time to get over the magnum cartridge fad and realize that just because it doesn't go 3 or 4 times faster than the speed of sound, doesn't mean it's useless and obsolete.