Kirk
04-13-2010, 07:09
I had the opportunity to test the new S&W .22 carbine so I thought I’d compare it to rifles capable of excellent accuracy with several kinds of ammo. One 10-shot group (except as noted) was fired at 25 yds with each type of ammo from each rifle. Each group was fired from a rest using the same Tasco 4x16 power scope @ 16x. As testing for each rifle was complete, the scope was moved to the next rifle & roughly rezerored. Several reviews of the S&W reported excellent, sub-MOA accuracy; others got mediocre accuracy. I’d hoped for a sub-MOA gun but it was not to be.
The carbine is nicely made & has a solid feel. The magazine is polymer, as is everything else except the barrel, bolt, trigger & other internal parts and the sights. Interestingly, the magazine is a double stack design. You can see the alternating rounds from the rear of the magazine and from the side through slots cast into magazine body. Feeding & functioning was 100%. The trigger pull on the sample tested was able to lift a 141 oz weight from the floor; trigger pull is about 8 lb, 13 oz which is quite a bit heavier than the advertised 7 lbs. The trigger has a little creep and overall is quite stiff.
The insides of the magazine well is tapered to accept the M&P 15-22 magazine; it can not accommodate a standard AR-15 magazine. Likewise, the upper can not be attached to an AR-15 lower as the lugs have different dimensions. Besides, it would then be a single shot without its special magazine.
Before the accuracy tests, I zeroed the carbine with it’s issue iron sights. These work quite well. Adjustments are positive & repeatable. Since I was firing at 25 yds, I’m not sure if they have the same value as similar sights on a centerfire rifle. I did not do any accuracy testing with the iron sights simply because my vision is such that the front sight is blurry no matter what I do.
The wind remained almost dead calm up until the Mossberg was tested with the SK ammo; then it began to gust. If conditions had held, that group would have been about .50" instead of .70". There were 3 misfires with the Remington ammo out of about 80 rounds fired, none for the others.
The groups are in the linked .pdf document
The carbine is nicely made & has a solid feel. The magazine is polymer, as is everything else except the barrel, bolt, trigger & other internal parts and the sights. Interestingly, the magazine is a double stack design. You can see the alternating rounds from the rear of the magazine and from the side through slots cast into magazine body. Feeding & functioning was 100%. The trigger pull on the sample tested was able to lift a 141 oz weight from the floor; trigger pull is about 8 lb, 13 oz which is quite a bit heavier than the advertised 7 lbs. The trigger has a little creep and overall is quite stiff.
The insides of the magazine well is tapered to accept the M&P 15-22 magazine; it can not accommodate a standard AR-15 magazine. Likewise, the upper can not be attached to an AR-15 lower as the lugs have different dimensions. Besides, it would then be a single shot without its special magazine.
Before the accuracy tests, I zeroed the carbine with it’s issue iron sights. These work quite well. Adjustments are positive & repeatable. Since I was firing at 25 yds, I’m not sure if they have the same value as similar sights on a centerfire rifle. I did not do any accuracy testing with the iron sights simply because my vision is such that the front sight is blurry no matter what I do.
The wind remained almost dead calm up until the Mossberg was tested with the SK ammo; then it began to gust. If conditions had held, that group would have been about .50" instead of .70". There were 3 misfires with the Remington ammo out of about 80 rounds fired, none for the others.
The groups are in the linked .pdf document