I got some of the new improved golden bullets yesterday. When I repackaged 100 of them into a used CCI box to prepare for extended testing. I noticed one of the bullets was askew a bit. I wiggled the and it was finger loose and spun freely. I checked several others and there were many more like this. I've seen this before about 8 or 9 years ago in a bad batch of bullets I got. I suspect the only real improvement is in terms of priming based on the reviews thus far and what I can see from the box I just go. Crimps varied a lot when viewed through the clear cci box. I know from reloading that consistent crimp is one of the keys to consistent combustion and accuracy........ We will see if this indicator affects performance. I think in some actions such as a 10/22 with a tight chamber one might find bullets getting munched and deformed during cycling because of poor crimping. I can't believe Remington would be so sloppy with crimp. Maybe they have a hard time with consistent case length or they are running several lines with machines that give different crimps into the same bulk packaging.
Remington's "improved" golden bullets?
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Joined
·
1,769 Posts
I wonder how many different types of machinery they use to produce their rimfire line? I've shot Vipers that fire just fine, even their cheap lead Thunderbolts are crimped prefectly although I did have 3 duds out of 50 rounds last time I shot them 
Joined
·
587 Posts
I had similar problem with Blazers recently including the bullet actually being crooked in one case.
I had about 20 bullets in that shape, I emailed them, they responded in a day and sent me a new box for fee
I had about 20 bullets in that shape, I emailed them, they responded in a day and sent me a new box for fee
Joined
·
9,420 Posts
Crimp on .22's
Gonna throw out some stuff here on crimp on .22's that may cause some controversy but here goes anyway.
In late 2010 and early 2011, 7 shooting buddies and I decided to test some stuff relative to .22's. We recently, Aug 2010, got High Speed Internet for the first time and that opened up a whole new world for surfing gun stuff. Found and settled on RFC and never looked back.
Two of the things we looked at, out of 3, and tested were the comments on concentric bullets and tools like the Nielson Brothers "out of round" $400 indicator for that which turned out to be a $400 paperweight. Couple of highly qualified RFC members helped there.
Another set of tests, that kinda came from that, was crimping of .22's and if being non concentric when measured at the nose, had any measurable decrease in accuracy. THIS WAS ABOUT 99% BULK ammo but we did mess with some target stuff also.
Measurable accuracy difference were not there in either case. Loose or tight crimp or non concentric bullets, even when we bent em waaaay over.
We all handload like the OP and have done so for over 40 years and all of use cast as well and a fundamental rules are repetitive crimp, seating depth and bullet sizing to the forcing cone and bore.
IMO (here is the controversial part maybe) handloading rules for center fire don't seem to apply much on .22's. You can't control any of those other than buy a brand that shoots well in an individual firearm.
We talked to and emailed a number of technicians and "shooten" engineers about that and some other topics and the general consensus is that since the .22 chambers on the driving bands and has a heeled bullet that different things happen then with centerfires. The first is that when the cartridge is chambered, assuming a quality firearm, that the driving bands tend to cancel out loose bullets and in most cased forces the rest of the bullet to be square to the bore assuming the driving bands are square which in most cases they are because the bullets are formed not cast. This also causes a better "gas" seal in most cases kinda cancelling out the crimp to a large degree.
Secondly since the bullet is so soft and heeled that the heel expands to fill the case before the charge is consumed and that also enhances the gas seal.
All of this is accompanied by a case expansion of very soft brass, as compared to reloadable cases for centerfires.
We shot over 1,000 bullets spread across 5 different brands that were deliberately loosened , bent etc. and compared to hand selected "tight" crimp and concentric bullets, the results were inconclusive enough to consider shooter error as a the prime factor and not the cartridge.
Even bent up some target ammo like Ely and shot em out of target grade weapons and results were also inconclusive.
Maybe just us cause we don't much shoot paper anymore and only one of us is a benchrester but don't mean we forgot how.
noremf(George)
Gonna throw out some stuff here on crimp on .22's that may cause some controversy but here goes anyway.
In late 2010 and early 2011, 7 shooting buddies and I decided to test some stuff relative to .22's. We recently, Aug 2010, got High Speed Internet for the first time and that opened up a whole new world for surfing gun stuff. Found and settled on RFC and never looked back.
Two of the things we looked at, out of 3, and tested were the comments on concentric bullets and tools like the Nielson Brothers "out of round" $400 indicator for that which turned out to be a $400 paperweight. Couple of highly qualified RFC members helped there.
Another set of tests, that kinda came from that, was crimping of .22's and if being non concentric when measured at the nose, had any measurable decrease in accuracy. THIS WAS ABOUT 99% BULK ammo but we did mess with some target stuff also.
Measurable accuracy difference were not there in either case. Loose or tight crimp or non concentric bullets, even when we bent em waaaay over.
We all handload like the OP and have done so for over 40 years and all of use cast as well and a fundamental rules are repetitive crimp, seating depth and bullet sizing to the forcing cone and bore.
IMO (here is the controversial part maybe) handloading rules for center fire don't seem to apply much on .22's. You can't control any of those other than buy a brand that shoots well in an individual firearm.
We talked to and emailed a number of technicians and "shooten" engineers about that and some other topics and the general consensus is that since the .22 chambers on the driving bands and has a heeled bullet that different things happen then with centerfires. The first is that when the cartridge is chambered, assuming a quality firearm, that the driving bands tend to cancel out loose bullets and in most cased forces the rest of the bullet to be square to the bore assuming the driving bands are square which in most cases they are because the bullets are formed not cast. This also causes a better "gas" seal in most cases kinda cancelling out the crimp to a large degree.
Secondly since the bullet is so soft and heeled that the heel expands to fill the case before the charge is consumed and that also enhances the gas seal.
All of this is accompanied by a case expansion of very soft brass, as compared to reloadable cases for centerfires.
We shot over 1,000 bullets spread across 5 different brands that were deliberately loosened , bent etc. and compared to hand selected "tight" crimp and concentric bullets, the results were inconclusive enough to consider shooter error as a the prime factor and not the cartridge.
Even bent up some target ammo like Ely and shot em out of target grade weapons and results were also inconclusive.
Maybe just us cause we don't much shoot paper anymore and only one of us is a benchrester but don't mean we forgot how.
noremf(George)
Joined
·
5,447 Posts
Good test George, I agree with your findings.
I think the accuracy just has to do with the priming, powder and bullet, with the first two being the most important.
The only thing I found that made a difference in my rifle with the Wolf was rim thickness. In most cases, it's a waste of time to sort rim thickness, but I have found wolf MT that varied from .036" to .0415", with most being around .038". Cull the few that are way different than the bulk helps get rid of some fliers. Most ammo has much tighter specs, seems there are 3 to 5 per box that are way different than the rest. I use them to season a clean barrel.
I looked at CCI SV and every rim from one box was within .005" of the median size, pretty darn good consistancy for low priced ammo.
My Best, John
I think the accuracy just has to do with the priming, powder and bullet, with the first two being the most important.
The only thing I found that made a difference in my rifle with the Wolf was rim thickness. In most cases, it's a waste of time to sort rim thickness, but I have found wolf MT that varied from .036" to .0415", with most being around .038". Cull the few that are way different than the bulk helps get rid of some fliers. Most ammo has much tighter specs, seems there are 3 to 5 per box that are way different than the rest. I use them to season a clean barrel.
I looked at CCI SV and every rim from one box was within .005" of the median size, pretty darn good consistancy for low priced ammo.
My Best, John
Good discussion
George, that was some great information but there is something you haven't considered.............
Rifles with "sporting' chambers do not headspace on the bullets driving band but rather on the rim. Your information does help explain something I have noticed.
In some loose chambered rifles like a standard 10/22 cheap promotional ammo can somtimes go pop, boom, pft, crack but then when the same ammo is put into a tight chamberd rifle like a CZ or 10/22 with Bentz chamber it fires consistently and accurately. I've seen as much as a 1 to 2 inch difference in group size at 50 yards depending on the guns selected and ammo tried.
If we consider the case of 38 super which originally headspaced on the rim and was notorious for inaccuracy issues we know the solution was to shorten chambers enough to set headspace on the case mouth and accuracy greatly improved.
I propose that what we have seen in the variability of 22 ammo performance in different 22s may be the rimfire equivalent. Perhaps in tight chambered rifles that lightly engrave the bullets, crimp has little to no effect on accuracy because the driving band and the start of the rifling does indeed determine headspace like the mouth of the case does for auto pistol rounds like 9mm and 45 acp.
An equivalent condition does not exist in 22 LR sporting type chambers were the bullets often jump some distance into the rifling. In this type of 22, headspace is set by the bolt headspace and thus the rim of the case. This may explain why rim thickness has been shown by some to "improve" accuracy and why others call it a waste of time. There may be a direct relationship to how the 22 used sets heaspace and the effect of different factors on accuracy. We all know that minimizing 10/22 headspace is often used to improve accuracy especially of stock guns.
I suspect that because the driving band does not provide resistance needed for consistent start pressure in sporting type chambers, headspace and also crimp may have a greater affect on accuracy in this situation like it does when loading centerfire rounds such as 38 special and 44 mag that require roll crimp and benefit from uniform trim length which affects crimp consistency.
This may also explain why some ammunition that is of higher quality and generally has more consistent crimp displays tremendously better accuracy in sporting chambers but may only produce marginally better accuracy in tight chambered arms like a match rifle.
So while the inconsistent crimp of golden bullets may not have much if any affect in 22 rifles that headspace on the driving band as your tests have concluded, I propose that rimfires with sporting type chambers will produce inconsistent results because because they in fact rely heavily on crimp to achieve consistent start pressure rather than resistance on the driving band.
I have found federal bulk for example shoots really well in my 10/22 with GM barrel and CZ 452 which routinely print groups at 50 yards under 1" but lousy from my stock 10/22 which can fire select lots of ammo sub 1" at 50 yards......
In addition to feed reliability, crimp also has an effect on sealing out moisture for long term reliability. I'm looking forward to doing some controlled testing and seeing how well these "improved" golden bullets stack up against older lots of Golden's and competing products like winchester "xperts". I am particularly interested how much better or worse my old lot of Dupont made Goldens with the U headstamp will be than the "New and Improved" product.
I think I may have to get help loading magazines so I can do this as a "blind" test to eliminate my bias.
George, that was some great information but there is something you haven't considered.............
Rifles with "sporting' chambers do not headspace on the bullets driving band but rather on the rim. Your information does help explain something I have noticed.
In some loose chambered rifles like a standard 10/22 cheap promotional ammo can somtimes go pop, boom, pft, crack but then when the same ammo is put into a tight chamberd rifle like a CZ or 10/22 with Bentz chamber it fires consistently and accurately. I've seen as much as a 1 to 2 inch difference in group size at 50 yards depending on the guns selected and ammo tried.
If we consider the case of 38 super which originally headspaced on the rim and was notorious for inaccuracy issues we know the solution was to shorten chambers enough to set headspace on the case mouth and accuracy greatly improved.
I propose that what we have seen in the variability of 22 ammo performance in different 22s may be the rimfire equivalent. Perhaps in tight chambered rifles that lightly engrave the bullets, crimp has little to no effect on accuracy because the driving band and the start of the rifling does indeed determine headspace like the mouth of the case does for auto pistol rounds like 9mm and 45 acp.
An equivalent condition does not exist in 22 LR sporting type chambers were the bullets often jump some distance into the rifling. In this type of 22, headspace is set by the bolt headspace and thus the rim of the case. This may explain why rim thickness has been shown by some to "improve" accuracy and why others call it a waste of time. There may be a direct relationship to how the 22 used sets heaspace and the effect of different factors on accuracy. We all know that minimizing 10/22 headspace is often used to improve accuracy especially of stock guns.
I suspect that because the driving band does not provide resistance needed for consistent start pressure in sporting type chambers, headspace and also crimp may have a greater affect on accuracy in this situation like it does when loading centerfire rounds such as 38 special and 44 mag that require roll crimp and benefit from uniform trim length which affects crimp consistency.
This may also explain why some ammunition that is of higher quality and generally has more consistent crimp displays tremendously better accuracy in sporting chambers but may only produce marginally better accuracy in tight chambered arms like a match rifle.
So while the inconsistent crimp of golden bullets may not have much if any affect in 22 rifles that headspace on the driving band as your tests have concluded, I propose that rimfires with sporting type chambers will produce inconsistent results because because they in fact rely heavily on crimp to achieve consistent start pressure rather than resistance on the driving band.
I have found federal bulk for example shoots really well in my 10/22 with GM barrel and CZ 452 which routinely print groups at 50 yards under 1" but lousy from my stock 10/22 which can fire select lots of ammo sub 1" at 50 yards......
In addition to feed reliability, crimp also has an effect on sealing out moisture for long term reliability. I'm looking forward to doing some controlled testing and seeing how well these "improved" golden bullets stack up against older lots of Golden's and competing products like winchester "xperts". I am particularly interested how much better or worse my old lot of Dupont made Goldens with the U headstamp will be than the "New and Improved" product.
I think I may have to get help loading magazines so I can do this as a "blind" test to eliminate my bias.
Joined
·
5,447 Posts
Another good point, that was something I was thinking about as most 22's you buy today do have a sporting chamber and just going from a sporting chamber to a match type chamber can have a good effect on the accuracy.
When the bullet is loose in a sporting chamber, nothing comes into contact with the nose or even the first driving band, so it is possible for the round to enter the rifling at a slight cant which it will stay at all the way thoiugh the barrel, exiting the barrel with the same slight cant which equils a flier.
It is for that reason that I plan on re chambering most of my 22's with the EPG match reamer. I have already done it to one, I need to deepen it as too much of the bullet is now in the lands, I want the land to just make a little contact with the first driving band and whatever contact it makes with the nose of the bullet.
My Savage BRJ will be the next rifle that I will re chamber. It will also be threaded as will the action. My gunsmith friend will do the threading as he is better at it than me, he also puts a special cut at the end of the barrel and back of the action that acts as a lock. The more I can have the action and barrel act as one solid piece, the better the accuracy will be.
If the results are good, I'll save for a Benchmark barrel and change out the stock Savage barrel, but if the rifle ends up shooting better than I do, I'll leave the stock barrel, I have a good one on there now.
I'm kind of hoping it shoots great groups with the stock barrel, then there is nothing but some time invested, I already bought the PTG reamer with the rotating pilot.
The other consideration is just how accurate do I need the rifle to be. If it shoots in the .1's, can I really shoot better than that ? I'm shakier than I used to be due to meds and an injury, so the stock barrel may be the ticket, right now in calm wind I can already shoot .2's and consistant .3's, that is really almost good enough, I'd just like to get rid of some of those pesky fliers that are not my fault and I think re chambering will go a long way in helping.
You made an excellent point :bthumb:
My Best, John
If I got a Svage with a bad barrel, I would hang a custom tube on it for sure.
When the bullet is loose in a sporting chamber, nothing comes into contact with the nose or even the first driving band, so it is possible for the round to enter the rifling at a slight cant which it will stay at all the way thoiugh the barrel, exiting the barrel with the same slight cant which equils a flier.
It is for that reason that I plan on re chambering most of my 22's with the EPG match reamer. I have already done it to one, I need to deepen it as too much of the bullet is now in the lands, I want the land to just make a little contact with the first driving band and whatever contact it makes with the nose of the bullet.
My Savage BRJ will be the next rifle that I will re chamber. It will also be threaded as will the action. My gunsmith friend will do the threading as he is better at it than me, he also puts a special cut at the end of the barrel and back of the action that acts as a lock. The more I can have the action and barrel act as one solid piece, the better the accuracy will be.
If the results are good, I'll save for a Benchmark barrel and change out the stock Savage barrel, but if the rifle ends up shooting better than I do, I'll leave the stock barrel, I have a good one on there now.
I'm kind of hoping it shoots great groups with the stock barrel, then there is nothing but some time invested, I already bought the PTG reamer with the rotating pilot.
The other consideration is just how accurate do I need the rifle to be. If it shoots in the .1's, can I really shoot better than that ? I'm shakier than I used to be due to meds and an injury, so the stock barrel may be the ticket, right now in calm wind I can already shoot .2's and consistant .3's, that is really almost good enough, I'd just like to get rid of some of those pesky fliers that are not my fault and I think re chambering will go a long way in helping.
You made an excellent point :bthumb:
My Best, John
If I got a Svage with a bad barrel, I would hang a custom tube on it for sure.
Joined
·
9,420 Posts
Other stuff to consider
More stuff to consider beyond what we checked out. Slick and thanks.
The 3rd test we did was to use Paco's Acu'Rzr and also DRock's and do the sizing to actually match the chamber. Accuracy increases when they match.
74% measureable increases in accuracy
16% no difference
10% really sucked
Maybe #3 was due to rim thickness. . . . hmmm.
This was over 20 weapons, not target stuff but "normal" .22's, whatever normal is. Pistols and rifles, bolt and semi automagical, revolvers and semi handguns. Shot over 4,000 rounds all with bulk ammo over a 7 month period. Used bulk cause we wanted to test what the average shooter buys.
We did all three of the tests because we are all retired, had the time, had the experience in shooting and had the money.
We all came away with not only a better understanding of the round called .22's and a distinct feeling on how accurate that stuff can be even with zillions of em being made. The design is a wonder in our opinion.
The one I really enjoyed was the concentricity testing. I have a jewelers lathe and made up collets to hold the rounds with a digital gauge to measure out of round on the nose and also on the driving bands. Even went so far as to remove the lube on the bullets. Out of round on the nose did not do squat. Had all kinds of emails back and forth, and phone calls, with the Nielson Bros and when I brought up that the bands had more to do with centering the round than the nose of the bullets they no longer answered my emails or phone calls.
Me and two other guys from RFC thought that was funny.
noremf(George)
More stuff to consider beyond what we checked out. Slick and thanks.
The 3rd test we did was to use Paco's Acu'Rzr and also DRock's and do the sizing to actually match the chamber. Accuracy increases when they match.
74% measureable increases in accuracy
16% no difference
10% really sucked
Maybe #3 was due to rim thickness. . . . hmmm.
This was over 20 weapons, not target stuff but "normal" .22's, whatever normal is. Pistols and rifles, bolt and semi automagical, revolvers and semi handguns. Shot over 4,000 rounds all with bulk ammo over a 7 month period. Used bulk cause we wanted to test what the average shooter buys.
We did all three of the tests because we are all retired, had the time, had the experience in shooting and had the money.
We all came away with not only a better understanding of the round called .22's and a distinct feeling on how accurate that stuff can be even with zillions of em being made. The design is a wonder in our opinion.
The one I really enjoyed was the concentricity testing. I have a jewelers lathe and made up collets to hold the rounds with a digital gauge to measure out of round on the nose and also on the driving bands. Even went so far as to remove the lube on the bullets. Out of round on the nose did not do squat. Had all kinds of emails back and forth, and phone calls, with the Nielson Bros and when I brought up that the bands had more to do with centering the round than the nose of the bullets they no longer answered my emails or phone calls.
Me and two other guys from RFC thought that was funny.
noremf(George)
Joined
·
5,526 Posts
This is interesting thread here folks.
Here is a small quote from an article by....Jim Carmichel
The article was...."the Rimfire Revolution"
(Quote Jim)
Test have shown that carefully hand loaded .22rf , with the bullets gently
seated in the case with out crimping, are extremely accurate.
One reason being that the crimping damages the base of bullets, causing loss
of accuracy. But the cost of handloaded .22 ammo would be prohibitive, and
uncrimped .22's would have to be handled very carefully or the bullet and powder will fall out.
Very interesting article he had...from Outdoor life magazine Jan. 1995.
I am going to try out the "New" Remington ammo when I run across some.
Midwest Swiss
Here is a small quote from an article by....Jim Carmichel
The article was...."the Rimfire Revolution"
(Quote Jim)
Test have shown that carefully hand loaded .22rf , with the bullets gently
seated in the case with out crimping, are extremely accurate.
One reason being that the crimping damages the base of bullets, causing loss
of accuracy. But the cost of handloaded .22 ammo would be prohibitive, and
uncrimped .22's would have to be handled very carefully or the bullet and powder will fall out.
Very interesting article he had...from Outdoor life magazine Jan. 1995.
I am going to try out the "New" Remington ammo when I run across some.
Midwest Swiss
Joined
·
1,769 Posts
I wonder if the bulk packaging is causing some of these "defects?"
All those loose bullets dumped loose into those small boxes and then who knows how many cases are stacked on top of each other
All those loose bullets dumped loose into those small boxes and then who knows how many cases are stacked on top of each other
I got a chance to shoot a little today. I loaded 2 clips for my 10/22 with "new" golden bullets. I could hold some by the case and shake them around and visibly see the bullets moving back and fourth on the case with a slight rattle. I loaded some 510 and bullets were uniformly tight. Same with mini mag, Armscore HVHP and CCI Standard Velocity. I fired for accuracy kneeling while resting on the tailgait of my truck at 40 yards with 4X scope on a standard 10/22. The golden bullets did nothing special. I got some of the best accuracy with the Armscore product and CCI standard Velocity. The Remington ammo all went bang (20 rounds) and functioned the action. I had some stovepipes with this batch of 510. I did notice smoke coming out of the action with the golden bullets and sometimes could hear the rounds vary in sound. Remington has a long way to go before I would recommend their product as being equivalent to or superior to other competing products. More formal testing to follow.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
