During a bird hunt last October, I found that a short-barreled shotgun of the type usually relegated to home defense offered a number of advantages when pursuing ruffed grouse in the thick woods of eastern Maine. The short, 18.5-inch barrel of my Benelli Nova Tactical was easily maneuvered through thickets and brambles and the gun’s fixed, improved cylinder choke meant shot columns spread quickly, increasing the likelihood of a hit on a flying bird at close range.

While the Nova performed admirably in the brushy grouse woods, its versatility is ultimately limited by the fact that its barrel is not threaded to accept choke tubes. A fixed improved cylinder choke is great for close range bird hunting, but is less than ideal for turkey hunting or when trying to achieve tight buckshot patterns beyond 15 yards. Additionally, my experience has been that the addition of a rifled choke tube will noticeably tighten slug groups.

In order to add the versatility I desire to a shotgun I love, I ordered an aftermarket Benelli Nova replacement barrel from Carlson’s Choke Tubes of Atwood, Kansas. While the company distributes a small variety of these Turkish made aftermarket barrels for the Benelli Nova and Supernova (as well as for the Remington 870), the model I acquired comes with a Carlson’s rifled choke tube installed.

Above: The Carlson’s Benelli Nova aftermarket replacement barrel (top) compared to the Benelli Nova factory barrel.

Specs and features

The barrel has a 3.5-inch chamber, sports a chrome-lined bore, is made from grade 4140 steel, and is equipped with a rifle style front sight. The rifled choke tube is made from 304 high stress stainless steel and has a twist rate of 1:35. The barrel’s length without the rifled tube installed is 18.5-inches. With the rifled tube installed, the barrel’s length is a shade under 19.5-inches. The barrel’s threads will accept choke tubes of the Benelli Mobil type.

A rifled choke tube? But why?

Rifled choke tubes are a much maligned piece of equipment, often derided by hunters and shooters who have never used one. While it is true that a few inches of rifling at the end of a barrel will do little or nothing to help stabilize the type of saboted shotgun slug designed for use in a fully rifled bore, my experience has been that a rifled tube will improve accuracy out to 100 yards when slugs with a nose-heavy design (such as Fosters and Brennekes) are used.

Above: A look down the business end of a rifled choke tube.

Sight compatibility concerns

Upon inspecting the new barrel, my biggest concern was that the front sight will not be compatible with ghost ring rear sight currently mounted on the Nova’s receiver. The front sight on the factory barrel protrudes to a height of approximately 1-inch while the sight on the aftermarket barrel is less than ½-inch high. I’m concerned that there won’t be enough adjustment allowed by the rear sight to accommodate the low profile sight on the new barrel. If this is the case, it will give me an excuse to have the gun drilled and tapped for an optic mount.

Above: The front sight on the Carlson’s replacement Nova barrel.

I plan on getting the new barrel to the range for a trial this Friday, barring inclement weather or a range closure.

Update 8/12/13: I took the barrel to the range today and unfortunately, my fears about the rear sight not being compatible with the front sight were confirmed. I was unable to adjust the rear sight enough to get any rounds on paper at 50 yards. A meaningful review of the barrel will have to wait until I can have my gun drilled and tapped for an optic, which is something I’ve been meaning to do for a while anyway.

  (47)

In a recent post, I wrote that I had recently acquired a Zastava M85 chambered in 7.62x39mm. The rifle, manufactured by Serbia’s Zastava Arms and imported by Century Arms International, is a compact bolt action priced just right for a gun that will fill the role primarily as a plinker and secondarily as deer rifle for close to medium range work.

Earlier this week I got the rifle to the local range for its first live fire trial and while there are some characteristics of the gun that are less than stellar, I’m inclined to think it will ultimately fill its intended niche adequately. Here’s the lowdown on the Zastava M85.

Shooting

I couldn’t, in good conscience, title this section “accuracy” as my currently rusty level of proficiency, excessive coffee consumption, and the absence of a scope precluded me from conducting a meaningful accuracy trial.

I was unable to find scope mounts locally for the Zastava, meaning that the Weaver 3-9x40mm scope I purchased with the rifle sat uselessly in its box during the range trip (mounts are currently on order from an online retailer). This was a problem since I am admittedly a poor shot when using basic iron sights like the type that come stock on the M85. I generally do well with scopes and aperture sights such as peeps and ghost rings, but I’m effectively useless with basic irons beyond 50 yards.

Still, I was eager to fire my new rifle and took to the range with a box of Tula, 124 grain jacked hollowpoints and a box of American Eagle, 124 grain full metal jackets. Ammo availability is still a problem at the time of this article’s posting, but I hope to try a wider variety of loads in the near future.

At 50 yards from a bench rest I shot two nearly identical 5-round groups of approximately 2 to 3- inches. Such groups are admittedly mediocre, but are about as well as I’ll do with any rifle that has iron sights.

I’d rather not write about my 100-yard “groups” and I absolutely refuse to submit photographic evidence of their existence. I will say that most of the rounds I fired at least hit the 8×10-inch targets I was using. More practice and less coffee seem to be the lessons here.

Above: 50yard groups through the Zastava M85. The group on the left was printed by the Tula 124 grain hollow point ammo; the group on the right was made with American Eagle 124 grain full metal jacket ammo.

Fit and function

While it would be unfair to judge the rifle’s accuracy potential based on the above test, I was able to take note of the rifle’s mechanical and ergonomic characteristics. In general, I found the rifle comfortable to hold and shoulder. The walnut, Monte-Carlo stock fit me well.

The trigger, while not as smooth and light as one found on a competition-grade instrument, was more than crisp enough for use in the woods, on the farm, or at the gravel pit.

An interesting and much appreciated feature sported by the M85 is a detachable magazine floor plate. Pressing a button located at the front of the trigger guard allows the magazine floor plate to unhinge, meaning the user can quickly and easily unload at the end of a long day afield.

Above: The M85′s detachable magazine floor plate.

The Zastava M85’s action is, unfortunately, less than smooth. If the bolt is not worked just right when ejecting a round, it tends to bind, stick, and require considerable jostling to return forward. I’m hoping that with repeated polishing and break-in from use, the problem will diminish over time.

It should also be noted that extraction of spent, steel cases required substantially more force than the extraction of brass cases. This is of little concern to me as I prefer to buy brass case ammo that can later be reloaded.

The bottom line

Although the Zastava M85 is by no means a perfectly slick machine, I am not one to expect competition level quality from a $450 rifle. If the M85 ultimately always goes off when I need it to, doesn’t break and proves consistently capable of hitting gallon jug sized targets at 50+ yards, I’ll be happy.
(104)

One of the most tedious and least glamorous parts of the whole hunting, fishing, and shooting game is gear maintenance. Though it can be a lot of work and will typically be the last thing a hunter or angler will want to do after a long day in the woods or on the water, it is obviously crucial to the longevity of often expensive equipment. Rust, in particular, is the most ruthless enemy of outdoor equipment, attacking quickly and silently, rotting out fishing equipment and wreaking havoc on the appearance, function, and value of firearms.

Recently, I was sent a sample of a new weapon in the battle against rust; a multi-purpose cleaner, lubricant, and rust remover/preventative called Brownpolymer, which is manufactured by Enjen Joes of Fulton, New York.

Always being eager to try out a new product, I devised a brief series of simple tests, and got to work putting Brownpolymer through the wringer.

Uses

Browpolymer is sold as a multi-purpose lubricant/cleaner that will waterproof metal and wood surfaces, remove rust from metal, reduce friction between metal parts, and will prevent copper and lead fouling inside of rifle and shotgun bores while also increasing muzzle velocity. Additional technical information on the product can be found HERE.

Application

To apply Brownpolymer, simply dab a small amount of the product onto a cotton rag and then vigorously buff it onto a metal or wooden surface. According to product literature, Browploymer must be rubbed to a very thin, invisible, layer as allowing it to remain too thick on the surface of an object will result in the collection of dirt and debris. A very small amount of the product covers a surprisingly extensive amount of surface area. Should Brownpolymer need to be removed, turpentine is the recommended solvent.

Product Trials

A characteristic of the product I appreciated immediately upon opening the jar was the lack of noxious fumes. Many products designed for cleaning and treating outdoor equipment are harsh and unpleasant to work with. Brownpolymer, by contrast, had a pleasing, sweet aroma. I worked with it indoors and never once felt overwhelmed or nauseous.

My first use of Brownpolymer was on my well-worn and battle scarred Remington 870 in 20-guage. I received this gun a gift for my 11th birthday and in the 21 years of its operational life, I’ve used it to bag more game than any of my other guns combined. Inevitably, the gun’s stock bears extensive dings and scratches resulting from countless hard hikes through blackberry brambles and cedar swamps. Some surface rust had also formed on sections of the barrel and receiver, the result of a few periods of a shameful lack of cleaning and proper storage.

Vigorously rubbing Brownpolymer into the 870’s stock diminished the appearance of the scratches and appeared to form a protective coating over areas where the finish had worn off. After treatment with Brownpolymer, a small amount of water dribbled onto the gun’s buttstock beaded up and ran off as though the it had just received a fresh coat of polyurethane finish. Brownpolymer also quickly lifted and removed light surface rust that had begun to form on parts of the barrel.

Above: Water running off the stock of a Remington 870 treated with Brownpolymer.

Upon removing the trigger assembly from the gun, I noticed that minor corrosion had begun to form on the critical parts that comprised the assembly. Application of Brownpolymer quickly removed this rust.

Above: The trigger assembly of the author’s Remington 870 before cleaning with Brownpolymer (left) and after cleaning with Brownpolymer (right).

I also ran a swab of Brownpolymer down the bore of my new Zastava M85. I had previously cleaned the bore using the typically harsh and noxious type of solvent found in most gun cleaning kits. Interestingly, Brownpolymer lifted fouling (presumably deposited during test firing at the factory) from the bore that had been left by the other solvent.

My final test of the product involved a use not specified in its accompanying literature. One of my favorite pairs of hiking boots had become a little too broken in. While this condition makes them exceptionally comfortable during long days afield, it also means they no longer shed water, instead absorbing it with sponge-like efficiency. A brief walk through wet grass results in soaked feet.

It occurred to me that rubbing Brownpolymer into the leather portions of the boots might help to revitalize them, allowing me to wear them for another season or two without having perpetually wet feet. After massaging in some Brownpolymer, water beaded and ran off the boots rather than soaking in.

The Bottom Line

Overall, I was impressed with how efficiently Brownpolymer removed rust fouling from my firearms and with how effectively it repels water. Additionally, I appreciated how a little of the product went a very long way. I used Brownpolymer to treat three firearms and waterproof a pair of boots, and I barely put a dent in the 2-ounce jar I had on hand. I am comfortable recommending Brownpolymer as an addition to any gun room or workshop. (50)

The acquisition of a new firearm is not regular occurrence for me and such an event typically only takes place after a rare windfall or the liquidation of unneeded and unused personal property. It follows that on those exceedingly rare occasions where I can work a new gun into the budget, deciding upon which gun to buy is a tedious, drawn-out, and irritating process fraught with excessive hemming, hawing, and internet research.

When disposable income is limited (and realistically not all that disposable) the inclination is to seek a do-it-all gun or at the very least a multi-purpose gun. In my case, I knew I wanted a light weight, quick handling rifle capable of taking deer at close to medium range that would also be a lot of fun to use to punch paper at the range or plink bits of debris at the local gravel pit. It’s a tall order to fill.

Initially, I had my sights set on a Ruger 77/44, but two factors derailed this plan: cost and availability. I knew that after the addition of a decent scope, sales tax, and possible shipping fees, it was likely that the ultimate price tag for the purchase would be $1,000 or more and thus out of my price range. Additionally, most of Ruger’s fine products are currently back ordered to the fullest possible extent, meaning it was unlikely that I would locate a dealer that had one in stock.

Even though a 77/44 was likely out of the question, I still wanted something that would fill the niche of a mostly fun gun that could take medium game at common woods ranges. Ultimately, I spotted a Zastava M85 in 7.62x39mm on the wall of a local gun shop. Even though the rifle was chambered in a comparatively light round (the 7.62x39mm is ballistically similar to, but not quite as powerful as the venerable .30-30 Win.), it still met most of my requirements: short overall length and light weight, chambered in a deer-capable round that won’t generate enough recoil to make hamburger of my shoulder, and a bolt action for ease of cleaning and maintenance. Additionally, the M85 had a price tag of approximately $450, which was well within my range.

Above: The Zastava M85 (top) is approximately the same size and weight as a Savage Mark II in .22 lr. (bottom).

Admittedly, I had (and still have at the time of this post) a handful of reservations about the M85. For instance, the bolt seems to bind and require a fair amount of jostling to close. Also, my research indicated that the rifle’s extractor is a weak point and is prone to breaking when cycling inexpensive steel cased ammo (the exact kind that most people like to use on water jugs and rotting vegetables). That being said, my research also indicated that the action could be smoothed with a little polishing of the bolt. I’m not that concerned about a potentially weak extractor since the rifle will be relegated to hunting and plinking rather than personal defense. If an extractor breaks, I’ll simply curse, grumble, and order a new one.

Above: a 7.62x39mm round (center) compared to a .270 Win. round (left) and a .308 Win. round (right).

I plan to give the Zastava M85 its initial range trial in a few days. Until then, here are the rifle’s specs.

Make: Zastava Arms of Serbia (Currently imported by Century Arms International)

Model: M85

Chamber: 7.62x39mm (reviewed), .223 Rem., and .22 Hornet

Action: Push Feed Bolt Action

Capacity: 5 + 1

Barrel: 20-inch, blued

Sights: Adjustable iron

Receiver: drilled and tapped to accept a scope mount

Stock: Walnut, Monte-Carlo

Overall Length: 39.8 inches

Weight: 6 lbs.

Additional Notes: Zastava M85s were previously imported by the now defunct Charles Daly firearms and then by Remington from 2006 to 2008 as the Model  799. (96)

As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, in recent years my weapon of choice for all game large and small has been a smooth bore shotgun of one type or another. Admittedly, one of the reasons for this is financial in nature. The economic near-apocalypse of the last few years did not leave me unscathed and the resulting scramble for household austerity forced me to pare down my once extensive firearms collection to the bare bones.

Essentially, I kept only firearms that were incredibly versatile or those to which childhood memories were attached. There is simply no denying that a smooth bore shotgun is possibly the most versatile firearm in existence, capable of all manner of tasks from personal defense to hunting small and large game animals. If you can only keep one gun, it makes sense to keep the shotgun.

An additional part of my newfound affinity for the shotgun is my contrary nature. In America, the rifle is king, especially for big game hunting. Even in locales where centerfire rifles are prohibited for hunting use, most hunters employ a rifled shotgun barrel to milk as much accuracy out of their slug launchers as possible. While such measures are practical, I enjoy going against the grain and love to entertain the fantasy of bagging a deer with a retro smooth bore shotgun at less than 50 yards while other hunters try to snipe them at 200 yards with a scoped rifle. While this fantasy has yet to manifest in reality, I have – after a few years of exploring the capabilities of the smooth bore slug gun – found that such a platform is capable of far more than most hunters assume.

Understand and accept the limitations

In order to fully appreciate a smooth bore slug gun, the operator first has to accept and even embrace the limitations of the platform. A smooth bore firearm is simply never going to demonstrate the same level of accuracy as a rifle and will never excel at distances much past 100 yards with 75 yards and closer being the weapon’s ideal zone. With a 12 gauge shotgun of any sort, MOA groups are pretty much physically impossible due to the size of the projectile itself. Even cloverleaf group will exceed one inch in size.

Additionally, because a typical shotgun slug flies very slowly (usually at 1,600 f/s or slower) and is a very stout, wide, projectile, wind deflection is going to be an issue at ranges beyond 50 yards. I’ve personally witnessed a very gentle, pleasant, cross-wind move my slugs five inches away from the point of aim at 100 yards. The shooter can learn to compensate for a crosswind up to a point, but such a task becomes increasingly difficult with every incremental increase in distance and wind speed.

Finally –due once again to the slug’s poor sectional density and ballistic coefficient – the projectile is going to rapidly decelerate resulting in rapid drop and a significant decrease in kinetic energy.

The bottom line is that if a hunter frequents terrain where he or she cannot get within 100 yards of the quarry, that hunter will be best served with a rifle where legal or a dedicated, rifled slug gun. Just as a pickup truck will never win a race with a Ferrari, a smooth bore slug gun will never be an ultra-long-range game getter.

Advantages

Given its limitations, the obvious question to ask is why a big game hunter would bother with a smooth bore at all. While the reasons are numerous, the most prominent may be the versatility of the platform.

I’ve previously alluded to the fact that I’m not a very good deer hunter. In fact, I may very well be the world’s worst, unluckiest, and probably cursed deer hunter. For whatever reason, I just don’t see too many of the things when I’m after them.

What I do see quite often, are other delicious and abundant game animals such as snowshoe hare and ruffed grouse. When I simply cannot figure out where the deer are (which is pretty much always) I can easily abandon my dreams of big game, load up with some birdshot, and instead try to end the day with some bacon wrapped partridge breast on the grill. A centerfire rifle or rifled barrel shotgun does not allow for such last minute game changing.

Another advantage of the smooth bore gun is the lower cost associated with feeding it in comparison to rifled barrel models. Some of the modern, highly engineered, sabot slug loads now available can cost upwards of $5 per round. Such a price makes adequate practice a costly endeavor. By contrast, inexpensive Foster style slugs such as the Remington Slugger cost $1 a round or less to fire. More premium options such as the slugs offered by Brenekke are considerably more expensive, but are still far more affordable than saboted projectiles.

Ballistically speaking, a basic, Foster or plumbata slug may be ideal for up close and personal big game hunting in thick brush. The reason for this has nothing to do with the fabled brush busting abilities of wide heavy, slow moving chunks of lead. In fact, there exists evidence suggesting that no projectile, large, small, fast or slow is immune to deflection in brush. The real benefit of the shotgun slug at close range is that it’s going to punch a large hole in any animal properly hit and a slug made from a sufficiently hard alloy is going to punch both a large entrance and exit wound. If the quarry doesn’t drop in its tracks due to the massive amount of tissue destruction inflicted by the slug, the large wound should maximize the blood trail, easing somewhat the chore of tracking and finding the animal in places where the woods are exceptionally thick. While there are large bore rifle rounds available that will also poke a gaping hole at close ranges, they simply do not offer the same versatility as a shotgun and are typically a more expensive platform.

Capabilities

Although it is true that a smooth bore shotgun loaded up with slugs will never rival the accuracy of a centerfire rifle or even a dedicated, rifled barrel slug gun, the reputation the smooth bored have for inaccuracy is somewhat undeserved. An adequately sighted –meaning something more substantial than a bead at the end of the barrel – smooth bore shotgun is capable of better accuracy than most would expect. Consider for instance, the targets below.

Both groups were printed by a 12-gauge Benelli Nova Tactical (18.5-inch barrel, improved cylinder choke, and ghost ring sights) from a bench rest position. The left group was made by 1-ounce Brenekke K.O. slugs at a range of approximately 60 yards while the right group was printed at 50 yards by handloads incorporating Gualandi 1-1/8-ounce Dangerous Game slugs. Neither group would win a competition, but both are more than adequate for big game hunting.

Are rifled choke tubes worth the cost?

A hunter who owns a shotgun threaded to accept choke tubes has the option of purchasing a rifled tube which, as the name implies, adds a few inches of rifling to the end of the gun’s barrel. Many skeptics have doubted the assertion that a slug engaging a short rifled section of barrel after already reaching near maximum velocity will be appreciably more accurate and some insist that a rifled tube will in fact be detrimental to accuracy.

Above: A rifled choke tube for the author’s Baikal MP 94.

My experience has been that while a rifled choke tube will improve accuracy for slugs such as Fosters and Plumbatas, which are already balanced to fly true from a smooth bore gun, a rifled tube will likely not stabilize sabot slug loads that are optimized for fully rifled barrels.

After installing a rifled tube in the 12-gauge barrel of my Baikal MP94, three shot slug groups at 50 yards went from two to three inches in size to cloverleaf groups for some loads. At 100 yards, I was even able to print a three shot group using inexpensive Remington Sluggers that was around 3-1/4-inches in size. Once again, such a group is nothing that will win a contest, but it’s certainly nothing to scoff at either.

Above: Slug groups fired through a rifled choke tube. The bottom-most group was the result of 3″ Remington Sluggers fired from 100 yards away.

It is evident that a rifled tube will improve accuracy, but it is debatable as to whether or not the improvement is substantial enough to justify the cost of the tube.

The bottom line

Obviously, a smooth bore slug gun isn’t the be all and end all for big game. If I lived in an area where the terrain was largely open and 100 to 300 yard shots on game were common, the pumpkin thrower would stay in the safe in favor of something much flatter shooting.  However, when the terrain is thick and nasty and the hunting is of the up close and personal variety, a good old fashioned, low-tech smooth bore will find itself right at home. (38)

I have a confession to make. Even though I have been hunting deer for twenty years, I am really, really bad at it. Part of the reason for this is a personality flaw. To me, waking up at dark-thirty a.m. to go sit still in the cold woods for endless hours hoping a deer happens to wander  within striking distance is more akin to a circle of hell than a fun day out. I typically don’t enjoy doing what is required in order to shoot a deer. I’d love to be able to shoot a deer, but my tolerance for tedium is generally too low to make it happen.

The second reason for my lack of whitetail slaying success is due to my location. I grew up hunting in the woods of northeastern Vermont, where due to typically long and snowy winters, deer populations are generally low. A Northern New England hunter simply isn’t going to see as many deer in a season as his mid-Atlantic or southern state counterparts.

What are often abundant in the woods of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine are small game animals such as ruffed grouse (called partridge in New England) and snowshoe hare. What cold, tired, and possibly bored deer hunter wouldn’t love to take home a few birds or bunnies as a consolation prize at the end of a long day of not seeing deer?

The problem with taking small game targets of opportunity while deer hunting is the fact that most deer-capable centerfire cartridges have the potential to turn a small forest critter inside out, leaving no edible meat. While some hunters will keep a rimfire pistol on hand to take small game during a deer hunt, I know that I’m not a good enough handgun shot to make that method work. For me, the solution to game-getting versatility came in the form of the Baikal MP 94 combination rifle/shotgun.

Overview

Manufactured in Russia by Baikal Arms and imported by U.S. Sporting Goods, the MP 94 incorporates both a 12 gauge shotgun barrel and a centerfire rifle barrel in an over/under, double trigger, configuration. The model I ordered consists of a 23.5 inch 12 gauge barrel over a .308 Winchester barrel.  The shotgun barrel is threaded to accept choke tubes and the gun comes with cylinder, improved cylinder, modified and full choke tubes, adding to its versatility. The rate of twist of the .308 barrel is approximately 1:12, which means it should shoot fairly well with middle weight -130 grain to 168 grain – bullets. The gun’s overall length is only 40 inches which will likely make it well suited to the thickly forested terrain I typically hunt. For cleaning and transport, the MP 94 takes down quickly in a manner similar to most over/under shotguns.

Above: The MP94 broken down into its three basic parts

Other versions of the MP 94 pair a 12 gauge barrel with rifle barrels chambered in .223, .30-06., and 7.62x39mm. Additionally, smaller scale models are available that pair a .410 shotgun barrel with barrels chambered for various rimfire rounds.

The gun comes equipped with an integral, 11 millimeter dovetail scope mount as well as one of the most unusual open sights I’ve ever seen.  Windage adjusts by simply turning a screw behind the rear sight blade, but it appears that elevation is adjusts by increasing and decreasing barrel tension via a screw between the barrels. According to the manual, the gun is preset for 100 meter shooting and that it should only be adjusted if necessary. What the manual does not indicate is for what type of ammunition the barrels are preset.

Obviously, I don’t expect the rifle barrel and the shotgun barrel to hit to the same point of aim. My intention is to sight the gun to place the rifle bullets where I need them while keeping the shotgun barrel stoked with a load of birdshot for small game.

First Impressions and Expectations

When the gun arrived at my local gun shop and I was able to look it over for the first time, I was pleasantly surprised. Most of the Russian made guns I had fired in the past were such military surplus rifles as the Mosin-Nagant and SKS which, while functional and accurate enough for the task at hand, were made with no mind paid to fit, finish and aesthetics and effectively gave a big middle finger to ergonomics. Granted, the MP 94 won’t win any beauty contests with its odd duck appearance, but its blued steel and walnut stock fit together seamlessly and the gun shoulders and points naturally. It’s certainly not balanced for wing shooting, but I have no intention of using it to take flying game.

My initial inspection of the gun did yield two areas of concern. First, the triggers are tough. I don’t own a trigger pull gauge so I can’t give numbers, but both the shotgun trigger (front) and rifle trigger (rear) require considerable force to pull. This will likely reduce accuracy to a degree, but I didn’t buy the gun with the expectation of it being a tack-driver. Additionally, I was concerned that the sights (a shallow rear notch and a small front bead) would be difficult to see and line up in low-light conditions.

Above: The MP94′s open sights.

At the range

During my first range trial with gun, my concerns about the triggers and the sights were to a degree validated. Pulling the triggers caused the muscles of my right hand to strain significantly which undoubtedly had an effect on accuracy. Additionally, the sights turned out to be somewhat of a chore to line up, and the tall rear sight blade obscured much of my field of view. With a great deal of practice, I’m sure I could become a crack shot with the gun’s stock sights on a beautiful sunny day, but I’m also sure the sights will be difficult to see in the low light conditions in which deer typically move.

In spite of the triggers and the sights (and an admittedly out of practice operator) the gun printed deer capable groups at 50 yards.

Shot Loads

To see how the MP 94 chucked shot loads, I fired a few rounds of Remington, 1-1/4 ounce  Express size  7-1/2 shot and Remington, 3-inch, (15 pellet) 00 buckshot into sheets of 14×22 inch poster board. At 15 yards through the modified choke tube, the birdshot load yielded a nice even pattern that would make short work of any small game animal that happened to wander in front of my deer stand.

In addition to the birdshot loads, I also patterned a load of 3-inch (15-pellet) Remington 00 buckshot at 25 yards. Through the modified choke, 14 out of 15 pellets hit the poster board and the pattern was irregular and patchy. The buckshot load fared even worse through the full choke tube with only 12 of 15 pellets hitting the target in a pattern that was, once again, irregular. I will likely have to do an extensive search to find a buckshot load that will yield a deer capable pattern at 25 yards or beyond.

Above: the patterns yielded by the MP 94. From left: 1-1/4 ounce #7.5 shot, modified choke, 15 yards; 15-pellet 00 buck, modified choke, 25 yards; 15-pellet 00 buck, full choke, 25 yards.

Single projectile loads

Moving my targets to the 50 yard line, I tried two makes of .308 ammo ( Silver Bear 147 grain FMJ and Remington 150 grain soft points) as well as a few rounds of Remington, 3-inch, one ounce slug loads through the MP 94.

It is somewhat fitting that my Russian-made gun yielded its best group of the day with Russian- made ammo. Employing only the gun’s open sights, I managed to group three shots into 2.5 inches. While such a group won’t win me any medals, it’s certainly small enough to hit the vitals of a deer-sized game animal. The group yielded by the Remington 150 grain load was slightly larger, but this is very likely the result of shooter error.

I was somewhat surprised by how tightly the Remington slug load grouped. At 50 yards, three shots grouped into a horizontal line about 3.5-inches in length. Due to the low velocity of the slugs, the group printed well below the point of aim. The sights are clearly preset for shooting with .308 loads.

Clockwise from top left: 50-yard groups yielded by the Silver Bear, 147 grain, FMJ; Remington 150 grain, soft point; Remington, 3-inch 1-ounce Slugger.

Scopes, slugs, and a rifled choke tube

Several weeks after my initial range session, I obtained the appropriate sized scope mount for the rifle and installed a 2.5-power scope. I also ordered and installed a rifled choke tube from Carlson’s Choke tubes.

The results were 50-yard slug groups that were almost rifle-like in terms of accuracy. The rifled tube enhanced accuracy with all slug loads tested, but the best performance still came from Remington 3-inch 1-ounce Slugger loads. At 50 yards, the scoped MP94 with a rifled tube placed three Slugger’s into one, ragged two-inch group. At 100 yards, the same slugs printed a 3-1/4-inch group which is impressive for a smooth bore shotgun.

Above: The 50 yard group (left) and 100 yard group yielded by the 3-inch 1-ounce Remington Sluggers loads through the MP94 with a rifled choke tube installed.

Unfortunately, the installation of the rifled tube turned out to be a double edged sword. While the tube noticeably improved slug accuracy, it drastically changed the point of impact for the rifle barrel to the point where slugs and .308 bullets no longer struck close enough to each other to land on the same 12-inch by 12-inch target.

Given that with a standard cylinder tube installed, both slugs and bullets landed within the same vital zone sized target at common hunting distances, it is likely that I will l leave the rifled tube behind when pursuing deer. Still, it was interesting to witness how much the installation of a rifled tube can improve slug accuracy.

Conclusion

The MP 94 is clearly capable of doing what I need it to, which is taking all manner of game at common woods ranges. However, I will be making a few improvements to the gun as I can afford them. First and foremost, I need to find a competent gunsmith to improve the triggers. That alone will increase the gun’s accuracy potential. Second, I am going to look into the feasibility of having some kind of peep or ghost ring sight installed. While the addition of a scope did decrease group sizes, the optic changed the profile and balance of the gun in a way I found less than appealing. Even without such changes the MP94 will definitely make a highly versatile woods gun for a variety of purposes.

  (189)

In part one of my investigation into the terminal performance potential of the .22 LR, I tested and examined a variety of subsonic loads for the world’s favorite rimfire round. Among the more interesting results yielded from that round of tests were those of the Aguila 60 grain Sniper Subsonic round. The bullet, which was far too long and heavy to be stabilized by 1:16 rifling twist typical of most .22 LR rifles, apparently rotated end over end during its trip through the gel block creating a cavity far wider than those carved by most .22 LR loads.

The second part of the investigation focused on much speedier .22 LR loads. Velocities of the tested rounds ranged from a fairly middle of the road 1,215 f/s to speeds just shy of 1,600 f/s.  All shots were fired from a Savage Mark IV with a 16-inch barrel into blocks of 10 percent gelatin from a range of ten feet. Results are detailed below.

Winchester 36-grain hollow point

This fairly typical, inexpensive, round for the .22 LR impacted the gel block at a velocity of 1,215 f/s. the hollow tip of the bullet fragmented into tiny lead shards while the stem of the projectile penetrated to a depth of 10-inches. Maximum cavity width was approximately 1-inch and the primary bullet fragment was .272” in diameter with a retained mass of 24-grains. Being cheap and abundant, these basic Winchester hollow points are more than up to the task of pest control and are perfect for vaporizing fun plinking targets such as old fruit and vegetables.

CCI 36-grain Mini-Mag hollow point

In spite of being in the same standard weight and velocity class as the Winchester hollow point, the CCI Mini-Mag yielded noticeably improved performance over its sister round. Such a performance increase is, however, reflected in the higher price of the Mini-Mags.

The bullet impacted the block at a velocity of 1,284 f/s, penetrated to a depth of 10-1/4-inches, and opened a cavity that had a maximum width of 1-3/4 inches. Unlike the Winchester bullet, the Mini-Mag bullet did not fragment but opened up to a diameter of .308” and retained 34-grains of mass.

Above: The cavities carved by the CCI Mini-Mag (top) and the Winchester hollow point (bottom).

Aguila 30-grain Supermaximum hollow point

In spite of an advertised velocity of 1,700 f/s, the Aguila Supermaximum only reached 1,589 f/s from my savage, putting it on par –in terms of velocity – with the CCI Stinger round. To be fair, I only had time to fire and chronograph a single round from the box of 50 and the low velocity figure may have been an isolated issue.

Still, the performance of the Supermaximum in the gel block was hardly unspectacular.  The light, fast, hollow point bullet fragmented explosively upon impact with the smaller bullet shards penetrating to a depth of about 6-1/4 inches. The stem of the bullet came to a rest after traversing 8-1/2 inches of gel. The maximum cavity width was two-inches and the bullet stem was .253” in diameter with a mass of 16-grains.

Above: the Aguila Supermaximum in the gel block

Remington 36-grain Viper truncated cone

In many respects, the Remington Viper outperformed all of the other .22 LR tested during the session. The 36-grain bullet impacted the block at a velocity of 1,385 f/s and completely penetrated the 12-3/4 inch length of the block. The maximum width of the cavity it tore in the gel was two-inches. Unfortunately, the bullet stopped when it collided with the wax backer block placed after the gel, rolled off the test stand, and was never found. I was thus unable to analyze a recovered bullet.

The Viper was the only .22 LR round I tested that penetrated the entirety of the gel block and also carved a two-inch wide cavity. It is clearly one of the more potent .22 loads available.

Above: The path the Remington Viper took through the gel block. The entry point is at the right of the frame.

CCI 40-grain Velocitor hollow point

The CCI Velocitor ran a very close second to the Remington Viper in terms of both penetration and cavitation in the gel block. After impacting a velocity of 1,306 f/s, the bullet cleared the entire 12-3/4 inches of gelatin after tearing a 1-5/8 inch cavity. In a manner similar to the Viper, the Velocitor rolled off the test stand, never to be found. It certainly would have been nice to have been able to examine the condition of the recovered bullet, but the damage done to the gelatin is evidence enough that it held together and did its job.

CCI 32-grain Stinger hollow point

The CCI Stinger is probably the best-known of all the available hyper-velocity 22 LR hollow point rounds and has a well-deserved reputation as a highly effective varmint load. In all honesty, testing the Stinger was an exercise in redundancy, but I had the gelatin and I had the rounds, so why not have a little fun?

The bullet hit the block at a velocity of 1,595 f/s and, as expected, violently fragmented into small pieces shortly after impact. The resulting cavity in the gel was a shade over two-inches in width and the largest fragment (bullet stem) penetrated to a depth of 8-1/4 inches. The largest recovered bullet fragment was .271” in diameter and weighed only 14-grains.

Above: The channels carved through the gel block by the CCI Velocitor (top) and the CCI Stinger (bottom).

Above: Recovered bullets from left to right; the Winchester hollow point, CCI Mini-Mag, Aguila Super Maximum, and the CCI Stinger.

Above: results summary table.

If these informal terminal performance tests demonstrate nothing else, it is the wide range of applications for which the .22 LR is capable. With the proper ammo and a competent operator, the .22 can take small game without destroying an inordinate amount of meat, quickly and humanely dispatch destructive vermin, or in the gravest, most desperate of circumstances, take large game animals and defend life and limb.

Related Article: The venerable .22 LR vs. gelatin part I: subsonic rounds (22)

In spite of its diminutive size and low energy figures, the ubiquitous .22 Long Rifle has remained one of the most useful cartridges in existence since its introduction in the late nineteenth century. When employed at reasonable distances, the round is capable of taking all manner of small game and varmints without inflicting excessive meat or pelt damage.

Additionally, the round has been successfully used to kill large game animals. In fact, according to the 1996 John Krakauer novel, Into the Wild, ill fated outdoor adventurer Chris McCandless used a Remington semi-automatic rifle chambered in .22 LR to kill a moose prior to his death by starvation in the Alaskan Wilderness.  While the .22 LR would not be any ethical hunter’s first (or even hundredth) choice as a moose round, it’s clear the little cartridge is capable of doing more than it’s meant to in a pinch.

With this in mind, I decided it would be an interesting (and fun) exercise to fire various and sometimes unusual .22 LR rounds into gel blocks and compare the results. Given the wide variety of .22 LR ammunition currently in production, I decided to tackle the project by testing a selection of ammo from three different categories: subsonic (under 1,126 f/s MV), standard velocity (1,126 to 1,300 f/s MV), and high velocity (over 1,300 f/s MV). Up first were the subsonic loads.

All shots were fired from my Savage Mark II (16-inch barrel, 1:16 twist rate) into blocks of ten percent gelatin from a distance of ten feet. A chronograph was placed just in front of the gel blocks in order to record impact velocity. Results are detailed below.

20-grain Aguila Super Colibri

The Super Colibri is one of several interesting .22 LR rounds offered by the Mexican munitions manufacturer Aguila. The round is completely free of powder, instead relying only on the pressure generated by the primer to propel its 20 grain projectile to muzzle velocities of 500 to 600 f/s. The Super Colibri and its even milder cousin, the Colibri endow the .22 LR with the ability to perform like an air rifle in terms of velocity and report. Such a light and quiet load makes the Colibri useful for target practice and the control of small garden pests in places where a firearm can be safely discharged but the noise of gunfire is frowned upon.

From the muzzle of my Savage, the Super Colibri impacted the gel block at a velocity of 607 f/s and penetrated to a depth of four inches. The maximum diameter of the damage cavity was approximately 5/8-inches and the projectile did not noticeably expand or shed weight. As long as ranges are kept reasonably close and shots placed well, the Super Colibri should be capable round for game up to the size of rabbits.

Above: The Aguila Super Colibri in the gel block.

40 grain CCI Quiet-22

While the CCI Quiet wasn’t exactly silent, it was noticeably quieter than most standard velocity .22 LR rounds I’ve fired. The bullet impacted the gel block at a velocity of 752 f/s and penetrated to a depth of 8.5-inches. Maximum cavity diameter was approximately 3/4-inches and the bullet showed no visible signs of deformation. The round clearly penetrates enough to kill small game at reasonable ranges, but the lack of expansion means that shots should be chosen carefully.

I have personally witnessed small game animals hit in the heart/lung/liver area with non-expanding .22 LR rounds and run off. Some were recovered while others were not. I am of the opinion that the design of the CCI Quiet could be improved by the addition of a hollow point.

Above: The cavity carved by the 40-grain CCI Quiet in the gel block. The entry point is at the right of the frame.

40-grain Winchester .22 Long Rifle Subsonic Hollow Point

The Winchester subsonic round moved considerably faster than the previous two competitors, impacting the block at a velocity of 1,026 f/s. The bullet broke into five fragments with the largest penetrating to a depth of 9.5-inches. As a consequence of the bullet’s expansion and ultimate fragmentation, the damage cavity in the gelatin was approximately 1-3/8-inches at its widest point. The largest recovered bullet fragment was .261-inches in diameter at its widest point and weighed 26.5 grains.

It is likely that at longer ranges, after the bullet sheds some velocity, the projectile will not fragment as dramatically, instead expanding into the classic mushroom shape.

Above: The Winchester subsonic in the gel block. The bullet ultimately fragmented into five pieces and carved a fairly wide cavity in the gel.

38-grain Remington Subsonic Hollow Point

The Remington subsonic load was just barely subsonic – impacting the block at 1,104 f/s – and subjectively seemed to be the loudest round fired during the range session.  Although it impacted at a greater velocity than the Winchester round, the Remington’s shallower hollow point allowed the bullet to expand into a mushroom shape rather than fragment. The bullet penetrated to a depth of 9-3/8-inches and the resulting cavity in the gel block was 1-7/8-inches in diameter at its widest point. The recovered projectile weighed 37-grains and was .344-inches in diameter.

Above: The Remington 38-grain Subsonic Hollow Point in the gel block.

60-grain Aguila Sniper Subsonic

The Sniper Sub Sonic (SSS) is another odd round from Aguila. Rather than sporting a .22 bullet of in the typical 30 grain to 40 grain weight range, the SSS pushes a 60 grain projectile at a velocity in the 800 to 900 f/s range. In order to make the round cycle and chamber in a standard 22 LR action, the case had to be shortened significantly, to the point where the projectile itself accounts for more than half of the overall cartridge length.

While the long, heavy, bullets could not be stabilized by the 1:16 twist rate of my Savage (they key-holed) I figured they might make an interesting cavity in the gel block.  Indeed, the SSS bullet – which impacted the gel block at a velocity of 813 f/s – penetrated deeper and left a larger cavity than any of the other rounds fired during the range session. The bullet penetrated 11-inches of gel and tore a cavity that was 2-1/8-inches in diameter at its widest point. Since the bullet did not expand or deform in any noticeable way, I am assuming the comparatively large cavity was the result of the bullet tumbling, end over end, through the gel. It would be interesting to see how the Sniper Subsonic performs when fired from a rifle capable of stabilizing such a heavy bullet.

Above: The bullet from the Aguila Sniper Subsonic round in the gel. The comparitively wide cavity in the block may have been the result of the bullet tumbling.

Above: The recovered .22 LR subsonic bullets. From left are the Aguila Super Colibri, CCI Quiet, Winchester Subsonic HP, Remington Subsonic HP, and Aguila Sniper Subsonic.

Above: A summary table of the .22 LR subsonic terminal performance tests.

Related Article: The venerable .22 LR vs. gelatin part II: Standard and high velocity rounds (31)

Among the many types of articles featured on this site, some of my favorites to compose are based on terminal performance tests of various kinds of ammunition. Not only do projects of this nature yield visually interesting results, but they can also yield valuable information on how a projectile is likely to perform in a hunting or personal defense situation.

Since the nature of my terminal performance test are very different from those done by a professional lab, I thought a quick FAQ piece explaining my process would be a worthwhile exercise.

Q: Are your tests scientific in nature?

A: No.  In order to make my terminal performance tests scientifically valid, I would have to fire each round tested into multiple gelatin blocks and then calculate averages and standard deviations for various aspects of the results. While I would love the opportunity to be so meticulous, I simply cannot afford the amount of materials necessary for scientific testing. Additionally, without a climate controlled indoor ballistics lab, keeping environmental conditions from skewing results is impossible.

Q: If your tests aren’t scientific, why bother with them?

A: First and foremost, firing bullets into things and observing the results is just plain fun. It’s the grownup analogue to melting glass bottles in the coals of a campfire or putting pennies on railroad tracks (don’t do the latter as it could possibly derail the train.) Subjecting materials to extreme conditions is simply interesting. Second, even non-scientific testing can yield useful information about a load if results are compared directly to another projectile. For example, if I want to know if my handloaded, home-cast 12 gauge slug load will penetrate deeper than a factory slug in a given test medium, the only way to answer the question is to fire both rounds into the same batch of medium on the same day.

Q: Is a bullet’s performance in a test medium indicative of performance on a game animal?

A: Yes and no. Game animals are composed of a variety of different tissues of varying densities that cannot be easily simulated with inanimate material. That being said, like most animal tissue, blocks of 10 percent density (or greater) gelatin are elastic and comprised mostly of water and is the closest reasonable tissue analogue available.

Q: What does your test setup look like?

A: Basically, it’s a ten percent density gelatin block approximately 12-inches in length backed up by a bullet arrestor box full of ballistic wax (which is wax that has been made soft and malleable by various additives). I know from experience that while 12-inches of ten percent gelatin won’t stop most centerfire rifle and pistol rounds, it will provide a record of the widest part of the cavity created by the bullet. The wax backer blocks – which are highly effective at stopping a bullet that has already defeated a gel block – finish the job by bringing the projectile completely to a halt. Results are then measured by adding the amount of gel the bullet penetrated to the amount of wax penetrated. In some instances, a chronograph may be placed in front of the test setup to measure impact velocity.

Q: What sorts of ammo do you test?

A: Pretty much every category of ammo I can get my hands on. That being said, I will focus mostly on testing loads that are new, unusual, or assembled by me at my workbench. Most common factory loads are tried and true for their intended purposes, so it’s a little redundant at this point to run them through gel blocks. However, common factory ammo will be occasionally tested alongside more exotic ammo and will act as a basis for comparison. (11)

 

Among the new and interesting types 12-guage shotgun ammunition to hit the shelves of gun shops and big box retailers in recent years is the Winchester PDX1 12 Defender. This 2-3/4-inch load sports a buffered payload consisting of a 1-ounce, foster style slug underneath three copper plated size 00 buck pellets and, according to literature printed on the box, is intended to, “provide optimum performance at short and long ranges while compensating for aim error.” Being a fan of all things 12-gauge, I recently obtained a box of PDX1, mixed up a batch of gelatin, and headed to the range for a test session.

At a glance, the Winchester PDX1 load seems as though it could have been modeled after the buck and ball loads sometimes used by infantrymen in the 18th and early 19th centuries. When firing into a column of enemy troops at relatively close range (as was a common combat scenario of that era) a soldier who loaded his smoothbore musket with one large round ball and a small number of buckshot could potentially take more than one enemy out of the fight with a single pull of the trigger.

While such a load made sense for the days when combat consisted of dense columns of troops engaging in volley fire, I am not sure what advantage it offers in a modern home defense situation over a standard buckshot or slug load. Still, the concept is interesting and I had long wanted to fire a round of Winchester PDX1 into some ballistics gel and see what happened.

Needing something to which I could compare the terminal performance of the PDX1 and having a perpetual desire to one-up factory ammo with ammo of my own creation, I also brought along a 12 gauge buck and ball load of my own design. The handload consisted of a three-inch hull stuffed with a 550 grain, .715” diameter round ball topped off with three size 0000 (.380” dia.) buckshot. Total payload weight was approximately 1-7/8 ounces making it a very potent 12 gauge load.

Above: The payloads of the Winchester PDX1 (left) and the author’s own buck ‘n ball handload (right).

Once at the range I conducted both pattern tests and terminal performance tests for both the PDX1 load and my handload. All shots were taken using my Benelli Nova tactical with an 18.5-inch barrel and an improved cylinder choke. The results follow.

Pattern tests

To determine how each load would group their slugs and/or round balls and pattern their buckshot, I fired three rounds of each into targets first at distance of 15 feet and then at 25 yards. At fifteen feet, three PDX1 rounds tore a ragged cloverleaf shaped hole through the bullseye and all buckshot pellets clustered within eight inches of the target’s center.

My handload was similarly accurate at fifteen feet though the round balls printed a slightly larger group and impacted just high of the point of aim. The buckshot from all three rounds stayed within a seven inch circle.

Above: The 15-foot, three round group/pattern yielded by the author’s handload (left) and the Winchester PDX1 (right).

Upon moving the targets to 25 yards, I found that groups and patterns widened noticeably. The slugs from the PDX1 printed a three-inch group just above the bullseye, but only three out of 21 buckshot hit the14x22-inch poster board I was using as a target. Similarly, the round balls from my handloads grouped into a triangular pattern that was four inches long on a side and only three buckshot pellets hit the poster board. It is likely that firing at a target 25 yards distant in a real world situation would leave many large projectiles unaccounted for and that’s never a good thing.

Above: The 25 yard, three round group/pattern yielded by the author’s handload (left) and the Winchester PDX1 (right).

Terminal performance

The pattern tests out of the way, I fired one round each of the PDX1 and my buck and ball handload into my terminal performance test setup at a distance of ten feet. Each payload made short work of the 11-inches of gelatin blocks and imbedded in the ballistic wax backing blocks. The slug from the PDX1 round penetrated 11-inches of gel and an additional 1-1/2 inches of wax while the three 00 buckshot pellets penetrated the entirety of the gel block and an average of 1/3 of an inch of wax. The slug expanded to a maximum diameter of .750 inches. The maximum width of cavity caused by the PDX1 load in the gel was 6-inches.

After firing my handload into the test setup, I was very pleased with myself as the round ball components of the load out-penetrated the PDX1 load by a significant margin. The .718” diameter round ball zipped right through the gelatin and then went on to penetrate 3-1/2-inches of the wax backer. The 0000 buckshot pellets defeated the gel block and penetrated to an average depth of ¼” in the wax backer. The payload created a cavity in the gel that was 5-3/4-inches in diameter at its widest point and the recovered round ball showed little deformation excepting two divots where buckshot pellets were compressed into it during firing. While the performance of the round was impressive, over-penetration could be an issue in some real world situations.

Above: A cross section of the damage the buck and ball loads did to the gelatin. The top “wound” was made by the author’s handload while the bottom “wound” was made by the Winchester PDX1 load.

Above: The wax backer block after absorbing two buck ‘n ball loads.

Above: The recovered projectiles from the handloaded buck ‘n ball load (left) and the Winchester PDX1 (right).

While modern, 12-gauge, buck and ball loads like the Winchester PDX1 are undoubtedly interesting and incredibly powerful, I can’t help but question their practicality. At close ranges (typical of most home defense scenarios) the pattern yielded by such loads offer no improved hit probability over standard buckshot or slug loads – if a shooter can hit a target at 15 feet with a buck and ball load, he or she can probably also hit it with a slug or hail of buckshot. At longer distances, it is likely that even a dead-center hit will still send some buckshot pellets off into the background, which is a potential safety issue. (21)