Wasps, Bees & Ruger's Model 77/22 22 Hornet

I like breakfast, especially since I stopped concurrently watching what is presented as national news. News is not at all an exercise in delivering useful information, but rather a tool to create animosity over counter sociopolitical philosophy. As a minimum, it grinds away at the human nervous system.

In any event, I have too few brain cells, particularly in the morning, to waste on national propaganda, and wayward adults who insist on labeling themselves “students” when they riot. Even if they are doing no more than destroying the incubators that produce. I do, however, have time to finesse breakfast, and enjoy the meal while I plan my day.

Recently, I had been searching for the ideal egg poacher, as my early incursion into the process left me wanting. Cracking eggs, and dropping their contents into a shallow pan of boiling water does not poach as well as one might think. For me, the result was always a hard yoke, floating in a sea of white, tasteless foam. Sort of like egg flavored meringue.

The Amazon failed rescue

Initially, a dedicated egg poacher was purchased; a $6, two cup, flexible silicon mold with a clear plastic steamer cover. It was to be placed in the microwave, with power reduced to 50%, and cook time set to three to four minutes.

The B cups were too small for the DD jumbo eggs, and the silicon mold was too flexible. Consequently, the mold would collapse, and cover my shirt with raw eggs, when attempting to lift it into the microwave, or the contents would spill out onto the turn table while cooking.

The best result achieved was solid yokes, overdone egg white, and a foundation of semi raw egg with the consistency of head cold ejecta. Yes, really.

The “Happy Pan Full Life” brand solution…

The need to produce iconic grade poached eggs was driving me as though I were… driven. Sometimes I would spend up to five minutes searching Amazon for the holy grail of egg poaching cookware. I found it.

Pictured above, is the $12 “Happy Pan – Full Life Stainless Steel, 2 Cup Egg Poacher, Non Stick, Easy Use Kitchenware, Rust Resistant, Stove Top, Breakfast and/or Brunch Cooking Pan”. Their words, not mine.

Unlike their competitors, the “Happy Pan – Good Smile Day”, and “Happy Pan – With Built In GPS” pans with six to eight egg capacity, the “Happy Pan Full Life” accommodated two eggs, which is pretty much my capacity.

As illustrated with the opening photo, eggs are cooked to perfection in just 3 minutes and 27 seconds. A consistency with enough density to offer satisfying tooth resistance, without being dry or crumbly, and without slurpy, half cooked, wretch inducing albumen.

Eggs parked next to a uniformly dissected,  geometrically correct, Italian sweet sausage link, the dish is consumed by matching one piece piece of egg, with one piece of sausage for a full taste bud sensation. A truly happy meal.

*Both brand of pan and the company referenced as Amazon are complete figments of someone’s imagination. We are not shilling for either.

22 Hornet nostalgia

 

In the 1920s, at Springfield Armory, when it was an actual federal government armory, Colonel Townsend Whelen and Captain C.L. Wotkyns, led the group that designed the 22 Hornet. Production ammunition was made by Winchester.

Available only in bolt action and single shot rifles, the high velocity, small bore, accurate combination proved popular for varmint and small game hunting. Virtually all firearm manufacturers produced a model in 22 Hornet.

The military also found purpose for the 22 Hornet. The wire stocked M4 22 Hornet, bolt action survival rifle was used in survival packs aboard aircraft. Wikipedia, in its penchant for publishing inaccurate information, indicates this was replaced by the M6 over and under in the 1950s, but I know first hand they were still being placed in B52D survival packs through 1970.

In 1938, Winchester introduced the 218 Bee, a cartridge with 18 grains of powder capacity, 3.5 grain greater than the 22 Hornet. Manufacturer’s produced rifles, firearm publications lauded its performance, but it did not gain traction with gun owners.

The 218 Bee’s lukewarm reception could have been the result of introducing the cartridge with flat nose ammunition, and chambered in a Winchester lever action rifle. Warranted or not, the combination gained a reputation for inaccuracy.

I think, perhaps, the more salient point is that the 218 Bee chipped away at the substance of what made the 22 Hornet so popular: efficient use of components, low report, effective on varmints and small game. The 218 Bee added 100 fps of muzzle velocity at 40 grain bullet weight, which added virtually no practical gain in range or killing power.

If a shooter needed more, the 1936 commercial cartridge 220 Swift, or the 1937 Donaldson Wasp wildcat. Both certainly offered more, with a tremendous gain in range and power over the 22 Hornet, and 218 Bee. In any event, the 22 Hornet is still with us, in the U.S. and rest of world, while the 218 Bee is essentially gone.

Like all things firearm related, pragmatism is not a necessary ingredient when preferences are defined. My dream rifle, in addition to the 22 Hornet is a custom BSA Cadet single shot target rife, chambered in 218 Bee. Why? Because it is a nifty combination.

In fact, I wish Ruger would produce a rifle of this type. Based on their technology and engineering prowess, it would be excellent. Then me and six other people in the world who love this concept could buy them.

A different kind of Model 77

The Ruger 77/22’s action is very slick throughout the entire bolt throw. Much of that can be attributed to the non-rotating breech block that allows the bolt assembly to… glide in ways within the receiver. The bolt’s locking lugs are in a mid assembly position, just aft of the breech block. The bolt lift is 90°, or throw as the kids say these days. Throw is actually the full motion of a cycling bolt; not the same.

While rimfire versions of the Ruger Model 77/22 or 77/17 have dual extractors, centerfire cartridges use a single extractor the cartridge’s case head is held securely, beginning when it is pushed from the rotary magazine. The 77/22 would be classified a controlled feed firearm.

The same basic action design is used on the Model 77 type for 17 rimfire to 44 mag centerfire configurations, so it is stout for the 22 Hornet.

An excellent safety

The 3 position swing safety is handy. Full forward to fire, half back for safe without locking the bolt to facilitate emptying the rifle. full back to mechanically block the firing pin and locking the bolt in battery.

The rotary magazine holds 6 rounds, even with the Hornet’s large rim, and fits flush to the bottom side of the rifle. The capacity should be enough for the Ruger 77/22’s intended use, however, it is easy enough to carry spares if more, or a different type of ammo, is needed.

Even with the laminated stock and varmint hunting configuration, the rifle weighs 7 lbs even. The walnut stocked standard version weighs just 6.5 lbs.

Will it work on brown bear? Fair question

The Ruger Model 77/22 was a good sport through handload development. The trigger stayed bacon crisp, the action remained buttery smooth and the magazine fed without hesitation. What? I’m hungry.

The 22 Hornet does not need to be pushed, cajoled or otherwise inveigled to perform at a higher level. That includes modification to the K wildcat version, significantly over pressure loading or buying a 32″ barrel.

The 22 Hornet is a moderate range cartridge intended for recreational target shooting and varmint and small game hunting. The high performance version of the 22 Hornet is called the 222 Remington or 223 Remington or any number of cartridges with significantly higher capacity than 14.5 grains of H2O, and operating with a greater than 49,000 PSI SAAMI Maximum Average Pressure.

If we arbitrarily and capriciously cap anticipated shooting distances at 150 yards… 200 yards on show off days, I do not know if the higher velocity of the 33 grain Speer or the better ballistic coefficient of the 55 Grain Remington bullet is the better choice.

Actually, I do know, but if I spill the beans at this juncture, there would be no point in me writing what follows, or you reading it, for that matter. So let’s pretend I don’t know, let the suspense build, and we’ll all find out together. Remember to look surprised. I know I will.

Beware of the turtle

In some ways, the 22 Hornet requires a little finesse. Hornet bullets are stubby, regardless weight. A short ogive is necessary to seat a heavier weight bullet and still fall within the overall cartridge length specifications, but all have a modest ballistic coefficient. Above, bullets L-R 1,2,3, and 5 are examples of short ogive, or short nose bullets. Numbers 4, 6 and 7 are not actually intended for the 22 Hornet, but can be accommodated for the benefit of an improved ballistic coefficient.

Leave it alone – Seated within maximum cartridge overall length, bullets not intended for the Hornet, labeled 4,6 and 7 above will seat with the transition from parallel shank surfaces to curvature of the nose below the case mouth (Above far left).

There is a concern that the edge of the case mouth will hang on to something when being fed, and it looks sloppy. Beyond that, the recessed bullet presents no real issues. No, I have never had a round hang on the case mouth with a Ruger and its rotary magazine.

A work around to the protruding case mouth is to trim the case back case back 0.080″, to case length of 1.320″, and seat to a 1.720″ cartridge overall length. It is the same approach as using long ogive Hornady FTX bullets in cartridges like the 45-70, to foster a correct bullet/case mouth union while keeping cartridge maximum overall length within spec.

An alternative solution, when possible. load the cartridge to an overall length longer than specification and avoid the short trim case length. Checking the Ruger Model 77/22 with an overall length gauge for each extended nose bullet planned, and checking rotary magazine clearance, it was found that a maximum length of 1.800″ would feed cleanly, and without the bullet contacting rifling.

Subsequently, rounds were loaded to the length noted on the data table and charges adjusted to those lengths and resulting net case capacity.

Handload Data… after sorting out

The following is from collection of handloads, developed over the course of six or seven 22 Hornet projects, updated to reflect short 18.5″ barrel results, as opposed to earlier 24″ barrel results.

Warning: Bullet selections are specific, and loads are not valid with substitutions of different bullets of the same weight. Variations in bullet length will alter net case capacity,  pressure and velocity. Primer selection is specific and primer types are not interchangeable. These are maximum loads in my firearms and may be excessive in others. All loads should be reduced by 5% as a starting point for development where cartridges have greater than 40 grains in capacity and 10% for cartridges with less than 40 grain capacity following safe handloading practices as represented in established mainstream reloading manuals. Presentation of these loads does not constitute a solicitation for their use, nor a recommendation.