Winchester ammo in Mark IV issues - RimfireCentral.com Forums

Go Back   RimfireCentral.com Forums > >

Join Team RFC to remove these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-12-2018, 09:44 AM
cabin22
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Jan 2012
Location: 
Maryland
Posts: 
2,210
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Winchester ammo in Mark IV issues



Log in to see fewer ads
I had my Mark IV Target out yesterday for some plinking & informal target shooting and encountered problems with two types of Winchester ammo.

M22 - several failures to fire. Ejected rounds showed a kind of wimpy firing pin impact but an impact nonetheless, Not every round, but averaged one or two per mag. When moved over to a Henry rifle, it worked just fine.

SuperX Small Game - Several jams on feeding and/or extraction/feeding new round. I think the Mark IV just didn't like the JHP shape of the SuperX bullet. I only tried this in two different mags before I put it away for use in rifles.

After switching to the Fed AutoMatch, I had no issues with function across three different mags, including one that has been marked as my "problem mag."

Anyone else have problems with the M22 or SuperX ammo in their Mark IV pistols?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-12-2018, 11:08 AM
just4grins
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Dec 2008
Location: 
Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 
33
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Winchester ammo in Mark IV issues

I had some minor problems with both in my mk iv tactical (a few failures to fire and extract) I had serious failures to fire and failure to extract with some of the cheaper brands, notably Armscor(which I bought when I couldn’t seem to find anything else). I installed the Volquartzen firing pin and extractor, which eliminated the failure to extract issues and reduced the failures to fire. Nothing will make the failures to fire go away if you have crummy ammo (which the Armscor is) but the Volquartzen parts improved performance. Edit comment: I just checked my order history. The firing pin and extractor that I bought were made by Tandemkross, not Volquartzen. Results were as stated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by just4grins; 11-12-2018 at 10:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-14-2018, 11:06 AM
Arrowhead
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Feb 2006
Location: 
southeastern NM
Posts: 
3,243
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
I would blame the ammo and not the gun. I've had problems with the newer Winchester and Federal bulk in both my MK IV Target and Mk III. Both guns shoot CCI mini-mags and SV without a hitch.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:24 PM
k in AR
US Army Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
May 2003
Location: 
Arkansas
Posts: 
96
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
As Arrowhead said. Even todays Winchester Super X isn't the Winchester I grew up using. CCI is my go to now days and I always get reliable results.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-04-2018, 01:52 PM
Theo98's Avatar
Theo98
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Jul 2013
Location: 
S.E. La, USA
Posts: 
1,037
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by k in AR View Post
As Arrowhead said. Even todays Winchester Super X isn't the Winchester I grew up using. CCI is my go to now days and I always get reliable results.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-04-2018, 02:02 PM
Test_Engineer

Join Date: 
Nov 2014
Location: 
On a Colorado glacier
Posts: 
2,599
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
M22 - several failures to fire. Ejected rounds showed a kind of wimpy firing pin impact but an impact nonetheless, Not every round, but averaged one or two per mag. When moved over to a Henry rifle, it worked just fine.
It's the gun - NOT the ammo.

Winchester brass is a bit harder than CCI, Federal, and many other brands. So it takes a harder hit to ignite reliably. Your Henry is delivering harder FP strikes than your MKIV is. Not unusual, but not exactly an ammo problem.

Quote:
SuperX Small Game - Several jams on feeding and/or extraction/feeding new round.
SuperX is definitely not consistently charged. Some rounds go "bang", while others go "pfffuutt". Not good stuff at all. It takes a very low friction action and maybe even a lighter bolt to cycle it consistently. My "frictionless" MKIII cycles it all day, but my "low friction" MKII fails to cycle quite a bit.

The feed problem is again a gun problem. SuperX is a bit shorter OAL than most other ammo. Remington Golden Bullets are too. The shorter length forces the rounds to feed at a steeper angle. If your mag is too close to the chamber (seems to be the default with Mark pistols and 22/45s), the rims aren't released soon enough to avoid the "flip" mags produce when round's noses are lifted too high.

Very few guns "like" Winchester as they come from the factory. They have to be "trained" to like it.

(Sad thing is Ruger will not fix your MKIV to work with Winchester. They will tell you like others here to just use different ammo. )
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-04-2018, 03:28 PM
Imaposer

Join Date: 
Mar 2006
Posts: 
1,156
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Sorry to disagree on semantics but...

While some of the above is technically correct, it's my opinion that any ammo that is commonly loaded to range between "bang" and "pfffuut", or that requires "frictionless" guns to operate reliably, or that very few guns "like" and need to be "trained", falls under the category of "ammo problem" more so than a specific gun problem.

In general terms, if I have a gun that functions with most ammo, but fails regularly on one specific or a couple of others, to me that falls under an ammo problem. At least for that specific gun. Of course that's just always been my viewpoint. Some guns are just known to be more ammo sensitive than others. Doesn't mean it's a bad gun. It just means you have to feed it what it likes.

Rimfires are well known to shoot better with some ammo than with others, when we're talking about accuracy. And if that's our goal, it falls to us to test and find what it "likes". I don't see reliability as being entirely different. If it shoots others well and not with SuperX, don't use SuperX.

Some guns are more ammo sensitive than others though, so it's a balancing act to find the line that separates the two. A gun that shoots only specific ammo and fails with most others tips the scale for ME, and has become a gun problem.

In the centerfire handgun world, Winchester white box has a pretty bad reputation for reliability. In my experience as well as those in my circle. Some may not have problems, but that doesnt make it "good" ammo. In fact, I use that ammo as the ultimate final test for a pistol I'll rely on for defensive purposes. Once it's proven itself on "good" ammo, I'll run a few hundred rounds of white box through it. If it doesn't choke, I'm pretty confident that that gun is not ammo sensitive and is good-to-go.


Now that it's been mentioned that Winchester rimfire ammo has a shorter OAL than most others, I'm curious... Sounds like I'll spend some time in my ammo chest and a set of calipers soon.

But, with that in mind, and production specs and tolerances being what they are in manufacturing, I can't say that I blame Ruger for their stance on guns that won't function with Winchester. They aren't in business to build ammo specific guns, and endeavor to build guns with a wider usability with a broad range of different ammo from different manufacturers. If they took in warranty claims to suit a specific ammo that fell outside the norm in critical dimensions like OAL, they'd lose profit on those guns.

With that said, there is some fine tuning to be expected for certain applications and guns. Especially modified guns. My short barreled Charger would be one example. It's not the fault of the ammo, or Ruger, that it took a little tweaking to get it to run low velocity subsonic ammo reliably.. But, if I have a gun that runs great on "normal" common ammo, and chokes regularly on one specific brand, for that gun at least, it's an "ammo problem" and I'll use something else.

If SuperX offered something specific that nothing else did, then, maybe it'd be worth tweaking a gun to run it. Otherwise, I'd just move on a long...


Back in the day I shot Winchester Super X almost exclusively as my go-to plinking round. I shot untold thousands of rounds of it, going through 1-2 bricks a week regularly for years, and was always happy with it's overall performance. In more recent years I find much more complaints about it than praise. Just a quick Google turns up a LOT of bad reviews and complaints in various forums, blogs, and videos. In recent times, I can't remember when I last even bothered. Pity really...

Just one guy's opinion of course...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-04-2018, 03:40 PM
jon p
US Army Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Feb 2012
Location: 
winder, ga
Posts: 
7,528
TPC Rating: 
100% (4)
Smile SIMPLE FIX

do not shoot crap ammo !! cci mini mags should do well in your MKIV, it does in both of mine. I quit shooting Winchester junk ammo years ago, nothing but trouble .even federal bulk is superior ! I have never tried armscore after all the complaints I have read. life is too short to waste time / money on crappy ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-04-2018, 03:46 PM
Imaposer

Join Date: 
Mar 2006
Posts: 
1,156
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon p View Post
do not shoot crap ammo !! cci mini mags should do well in your MKIV, it does in both of mine. I quit shooting Winchester junk ammo years ago, nothing but trouble .even federal bulk is superior ! I have never tried armscore after all the complaints I have read. life is too short to waste time / money on crappy ammo.
I agree! My two MK IIs and my MK IV shoot anything I've tried from CCI... MM, SV, Blazers, Subsonic, etc. Same with Federal and Aguila. I never had good luck with Remington rimfire ammo. Even back in the day that I shot Super X all the time with good results. These days, I stay away from both and stick to the three mentions above.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-04-2018, 05:22 PM
Test_Engineer

Join Date: 
Nov 2014
Location: 
On a Colorado glacier
Posts: 
2,599
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imaposer View Post
Sorry to disagree on semantics but...

While some of the above is technically correct, it's my opinion that any ammo that is commonly loaded to range between "bang" and "pfffuut", or that requires "frictionless" guns to operate reliably, or that very few guns "like" and need to be "trained", falls under the category of "ammo problem" more so than a specific gun problem.

In general terms, if I have a gun that functions with most ammo, but fails regularly on one specific or a couple of others, to me that falls under an ammo problem. At least for that specific gun. Of course that's just always been my viewpoint. Some guns are just known to be more ammo sensitive than others. Doesn't mean it's a bad gun. It just means you have to feed it what it likes.
Your point of view is very common and is as valid as anybody's.

A while back, another RCF member summed up my point of view pretty well:

"If your gun shoots Golden Bullets, then I think my gun should shoot Golden Bullets as well."

We can totally agree that Winchester ammo is the worst ammo you can currently buy. But if my MKIII eats it like candy, how can it be an ammo problem? I know my MKII's inability to cycle it is completely a gun problem. But I choose to leave my MKII mainly stock, and I accept the fact that it can't be fed any Winchester.

It also doesn't make any sense for me to buy more Winchester ammo when better ammo is available at a lower price. I get Federal 550 from Walmart for $20 a box. They want about $28 a box for Winchester 555.

But during the great ammo shortage, I bought a case of 555s because it was all I could find. It was worth it to me to "train" my MKIII to like it. Because of that training, I can now shoot anything out there with ZERO failures. No ammo sensitivity at all. Now you have to admit that everyone wants a gun like that. Sort of like everyone wants a great paying job, but not everyone is willing to do the work (like earning a college degree) to get it.

Quote:
Now that it's been mentioned that Winchester rimfire ammo has a shorter OAL than most others, I'm curious... Sounds like I'll spend some time in my ammo chest and a set of calipers soon.

But, with that in mind, and production specs and tolerances being what they are in manufacturing, I can't say that I blame Ruger for their stance on guns that won't function with Winchester. They aren't in business to build ammo specific guns, and endeavor to build guns with a wider usability with a broad range of different ammo from different manufacturers. If they took in warranty claims to suit a specific ammo that fell outside the norm in critical dimensions like OAL, they'd lose profit on those guns.
Well...

taking the time to hand fit and polish all rubbing surfaces to a mirror finish would make these guns cost a ton more. Sales (and profits) would drop because of that and you would be right. Right as far as ending failures to fire and/or eject.

However, failures to feed are almost all entirely due to design. It's a shame really. It would be very easy for Ruger to correct the design so all ammo feeds 99.999%. But they are like almost every manufacturing company out there. They had a design flaw in the very first RST they produced, and they leverage older designs when making a new design. The plus is that the new design is completed sooner and at a lower design cost. The minus is that the flaws from the first design is copied into the next, and the next, and the next. Somebody knowledgeable about the flaws needs to be on the design team. Unfortunately, the guy that designed the magazine body retired years ago. He would be the guy that could look at all the Mark pistols and say "that's not the way I designed this mag to fit!".

Awesome feeding needs the mag to sit at the BACK of the mag well. But all the Mark pistols push the mag to the front. That is the root cause of almost every feeding issue in these guns - not the OAL of the ammo being fed in.

Quote:
Just one guy's opinion of course...
Same here.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-04-2018, 05:26 PM
skywag
US Air Force Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Feb 2011
Location: 
M94
Posts: 
302
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
It is the bad ammo.

Stick with any .22LR that says "Lewiston, Idaho" on the box and your Ruger wil fire each and every time.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-04-2018, 06:56 PM
Imaposer

Join Date: 
Mar 2006
Posts: 
1,156
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Test_Engineer View Post
Your point of view is very common and is as valid as anybody's.

A while back, another RCF member summed up my point of view pretty well:

"If your gun shoots Golden Bullets, then I think my gun should shoot Golden Bullets as well."

We can totally agree that Winchester ammo is the worst ammo you can currently buy. But if my MKIII eats it like candy, how can it be an ammo problem? I know my MKII's inability to cycle it is completely a gun problem. But I choose to leave my MKII mainly stock, and I accept the fact that it can't be fed any Winchester.

It also doesn't make any sense for me to buy more Winchester ammo when better ammo is available at a lower price. I get Federal 550 from Walmart for $20 a box. They want about $28 a box for Winchester 555.

But during the great ammo shortage, I bought a case of 555s because it was all I could find. It was worth it to me to "train" my MKIII to like it. Because of that training, I can now shoot anything out there with ZERO failures. No ammo sensitivity at all. Now you have to admit that everyone wants a gun like that. Sort of like everyone wants a great paying job, but not everyone is willing to do the work (like earning a college degree) to get it.



Well...

taking the time to hand fit and polish all rubbing surfaces to a mirror finish would make these guns cost a ton more. Sales (and profits) would drop because of that and you would be right. Right as far as ending failures to fire and/or eject.

However, failures to feed are almost all entirely due to design. It's a shame really. It would be very easy for Ruger to correct the design so all ammo feeds 99.999%. But they are like almost every manufacturing company out there. They had a design flaw in the very first RST they produced, and they leverage older designs when making a new design. The plus is that the new design is completed sooner and at a lower design cost. The minus is that the flaws from the first design is copied into the next, and the next, and the next. Somebody knowledgeable about the flaws needs to be on the design team. Unfortunately, the guy that designed the magazine body retired years ago. He would be the guy that could look at all the Mark pistols and say "that's not the way I designed this mag to fit!".

Awesome feeding needs the mag to sit at the BACK of the mag well. But all the Mark pistols push the mag to the front. That is the root cause of almost every feeding issue in these guns - not the OAL of the ammo being fed in.



Same here.
All valid points.

And just out of curiosity, have you found a way to improve the magazine positioning so as to alleviate the issues you described?

I'm one of those oddballs that likes tinkering to improve my guns, and like to think that I have a modicum of mechanical aptitude. And Yes, I'd love to have a gun that would feed anything. I'm typically more interested in reliability enhancements over accuracy as it suits most of my shooting needs better.

Not that I've ever experience any issues with any of mine. Reading around here it seems that I've been very fortunate, but mine all function just fine and have always been utterly reliable out of the box. My oldest one, a MK II SS 5.5" BBL has fired a great many thousands of the older Super X back in the day. And I could probably count the times it's choked on my digits. And if I was honest, I'd say that those were probably mostly caused by me not cleaning it until it "needed" it.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-04-2018, 07:08 PM
BadaBing11
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Sep 2011
Location: 
US
Posts: 
628
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
I have never had much luck with Winchester or Remington ammo in any of my guns. CCI standard velocity, Blazer, Federal and Aguila budget ammo all work fine for me for reliability.

I'd bet it was the ammo, not the gun.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-04-2018, 07:15 PM
Arrowhead
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Feb 2006
Location: 
southeastern NM
Posts: 
3,243
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Every one is entitled to their opinion and my opinion is it's the ammo, at lease in my guns. The firing pin indention with both is plenty deep. I have even gone to the trouble to run some of it through three times rotating the round each time for a different place for the firing pin to strike. Some fire, some don't on the second or third strike. No matter. The accuracy with the stuff is poor also and I'm not messing with it anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:42 AM
Tacoma
US Navy

Join Date: 
Jun 2004
Location: 
NE
Posts: 
2,328
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
Simple fix. Just avoid Winchester .22 ammo. I do.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 PM.

Privacy Policy

DMCA Notice

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©2000-2018 RimfireCentral.com
x