It seems like no one really believes there is one majority factor, as I do.
My experience with bulk ammo is that it is overall pretty good, but with the occasional inexplicable flyer. For instance 2" groups, but with a flyer 5" away for no reason other than lack of quality control in the manufacturing of the ammo.
Kozak6 said:
Is that one of those cheap air rifle scopes? If it is, that's pretty rough.
I'd say to tighten up screws and try different ammo.
Yes, just such a scope. They were tight. I had mounted it the week before and checked that everything was tight and had not slid prior to shooting.
Tomcat47 said:
I have the same Model 60 With a Tasco 3 x 9 x 40 set in Weaver mounts and I can easily get under 2" at 100 with CCI Stingers.
Remington Goldens do really well in my Mod 60 too!
Thanks for the 60-specific ammo tips. I'll try Goldens if it turns out to be ammo and it doesn't like the MiniMag I've got either.
forghornl said:
Just for grins, try shooting some at 50 Yds with better ammo, then move out to 100Yds
I actually zeroed the gun/scope by starting at 7 yards, then moving to 25, then 50, and finally 100 yards. The groups were equally bad (in proportion to the ditance) at all distances. So I can rule out wind, at least.
Daveboone said:
Most model 60s have fine accuracy potential...within their limits. BUT...
organized .22 target shooting (with target grade rifles, sights, ammo) is done at only about 50 feet as I recall (at least the local rifle club leagues and high school leagues I know of).
You must be thinking of air rifles. 22s in my club are shot at 100 yards. 50 yards is a common zeroing distance for 22s. One of my favorite gun writers, Sam Fadala, recommended in his
The Book of Twenty-Two to zero a 22LR HV at 20 yards, and it should cross zero again at 80 yards and only be a couple inches low at 125 yards.
InkEd said:
How about choice D.) User error or Just can't shoot worth a darn!
I'm just kidding with you.
That's certainly possible! But I know I'm capable of 2" or better from past experience.
InkEd said:
Seriously buy some quality ammo (I suggest CCI) and try again. You already tried a new scope. (Didn't mention the results.) Also, 6" at 100 yards isn't too bad for an inexpensive little rimfire.
I've got some MiniMag. Forgot to bring it that day though. I think I mentioned that I got the new scope and rings mounted, but haven't been out with it yet. This weekend, hopefully.
Slowr1der said:
Mark the scope rails where the rings are and see if after shooting they are sliding. My bet is they are. As mentioned above this is a very common issue with the Marlin 60's. I absolutely hate those .22 type rails, and I'm not sure why a company would put them on a gun and make them on there so you are stuck using them. To me it just ruins the whole gun. If they had drilled and tapped the receiver instead I think they would have had a great gun. Instead, I'd recommend a 10/22 over the Marlin 60 anyday because of this issue.
I'm with you. The only advantage is that they're universal. Having said that, I replaced the cheapo rings with a set of Weaver tip-off rings. The Weaver ones are serrated, so if they are tightened properly, they are highly unlikely to move, unless the scope takes one hell of a whack. I had a 10/22 previously. While the scope mounting system was superior, I vastly prefer the Marlin 60 so far. The 10/22 took two trips back to Ruger before it was reliable with any kind of HV ammo. The stock is too fat under the barrel for my taste. The barrel is shorter too, which can mean easy handling, but in this case, they'd already added so much weight with the overly chunky stock, it was all for naught. Also, my 10/22 didn't have an automatic last-shot hold-open, so I was always dry firing it by accident. The Marlin 60 is just a lot more elegant rifle, in my opinion. But I do respect the 10/22 and will admit that I probably got a lemon. I like the 22s with non-protruding magazines, and the 10/22 and Marlin 60 are two of the few that are like this. The only one more elegant than the 60, to me, is the Browning, with its slim receiver and bottom ejection. But that's a spendy one.
Sav.250 said:
For starters, I`d start with a good cleaning. I mean ...good.
I'll add that to my troubleshooting list. I admit I bought it used, from a pawn shop, and didn't get a chance to clean it before going out to the range. But now that I have this bad data point, I need to change only one thing at a time. If it shoots well with the MiniMags, then I'll know it doesn't necessarily need to be spotless in order to shoot well. I don't plan to make a habit of it though.[/quote]
Jeff56 said:
For one thing .22 ammo that starts out traveling above the speed of sound will drop below the speed of sound before it gets to 100 yards. That "trans-sonic" phase will cause a big loss of accuracy.
That hasn't been my experience. I tried both standard velocity target ammo and a few types of HV ammo with my 77/22. It shot best with Winchester Super-X HV; not even target grade, just not bulk either. Maybe it has a greater effect on higher speed cartridges?
Red Cent: Marlin 60s have tube magazines. It is one of their endearing features, to me. It gives the combination of relatively high capacity (in my case, 14 rounds) without introducing any handling problems.
CraigC: Good points all. We shall see. I'm betting there is one thing, that once changed, will give a drastic improvement in accuracy. I don't want to feed it expensive ammo if it doesn't need it.
I'm just after a reasonably accurate, relatively lightweight, easy-handling, semi-automatic 22. I'm betting my wife will "adopt" it. She loves shooting my 77/22, but complains about the weight of the rig and the effort required to lift the bolt handle. She loves shooting automatic 22 pistols too.
Sorry for the super-long post, but I felt like I owed it to the folks who took the time to for thoughtful replies.
