Federal ammo ?

toyfj40 · Post by **toyfj40** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:04 pm

I bought some .22LR Federal ammo at Cabelas and cannot determine
what the difference(s) are ...

exhibit A: Federal #710. GameShok / High Velocity.
-- Copper-Coated-Solid 40-grain, box of 50, $1.79

exhibit B: Federal #810. GameShok / High Velocity.
-- Copper-Coated-Solid 40-grain, box of 100, $3.99

when I looked up #710 vs #810 'ballistics' at
http://www.FederalCartridge.com/default.asp?menu=1&s1=1
select: Rimfire -and- 22LR -and- CopperPlatedSolid
and the only two that come up are 710 & 810
check each and Compare...
and every ballistics-statistic is the same value !! ??

anyone know what the difference is ?
package-count should not be a different 'product number' ...
thanks

19Sep Edit: SunuvaGun, I double-checked with Federal and
#710 and #810 are the SameLoad, just packaged differently.

DancesWithSquirrels · Post by **DancesWithSquirrels** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:19 pm

package-count should not be a different 'product number' ...

Unfortunately I believe that is probably it. Works that way for other stuff. Like toilet paper, beer, candy, etc.

DWS

Post by **Bullseye** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:27 pm

CCI does the same thing for their Green Tag and Standard Velocity Target brands. The Green tag has higher QC specifications but both versions come off the same production line equipment.

R,
Bullseye

Ripsaw · Post by **Ripsaw** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:37 am

Interesting explanations. This is akin to bottled water producers filling different named bottles out of the same tap. and charging different prices.
What a racket !!

Ripsaw

greener · Post by **greener** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:18 am

They have to do something with production lots that don't meet QA specs, but will work. Selling it at a lower price, when the buyer knows (or should know) that it won't be quite as consistent as the good stuff beats pulling the bullets apart and separating the pieces. Other than the savings on time and material, I strongly suspect that the loose, bargain ammunition is manufactured to less stringent tolerances. I'm not surprised that it doesn't do as well as the "good" stuff.

Every wonder how Intel came up with the Celeron? When it first came out, it was a cpu that didn't quite meet Pentium specs. Worked, but not quite as well.

greener · Post by **greener** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:27 am

Ripsaw wrote:Interesting explanations. This is akin to bottled water producers filling different named bottles out of the same tap. and charging different prices.
What a racket !!

Ripsaw

You are buying a name. When you complain about the price of gasoline, think about how much more per gallon you are willing to pay for water. The only brand worth the price was "Outhouse Springs." America's first recycled water. (Real product with a short production run)http://commercial-archive.com/104554.php

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:33 am

greener wrote:They have to do something with production lots that don't meet QA specs, but will work. Selling it at a lower price, when the buyer knows (or should know) that it won't be quite as consistent as the good stuff beats pulling the bullets apart and separating the pieces. Other than the savings on time and material, I strongly suspect that the loose, bargain ammunition is manufactured to less stringent tolerances. I'm not surprised that it doesn't do as well as the "good" stuff.

Every wonder how Intel came up with the Celeron? When it first came out, it was a cpu that didn't quite meet Pentium specs. Worked, but not quite as well.

Maxes sense to me, better to take a little loss than to throw the stuff in the trash and take a really big loss, As well as I shoot the cheap stuff probably matches my abilities, Tried some CCE Standard and Green Tag and shot some groups off a rest and the Green Tag at twice the price was not twice as accurate.

greener · Post by **greener** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:29 am

Throwing a few tons of loaded ammunition in the trash would probably cost a great deal more than just the loss of raw materials, manufacturing cost and loss of sales. Reprocessing the ammuntion to recover lead and brass would also seem to be a high-dollar procedure from the safety and environmental requirements.

Although I think I see a difference between high velocity and standard velocity ammo in my .22's, it usually isn't enough to stick exclusively to the SV ammo. A while back, I did buy two bulk packs of Federal hp from Walmart (same lot number) that was absolutely terrible from accuracy, FTF's and ejection problems that I couldn't pin on the pistols or rifle. Decided to give them another try and got a box with a different lot number. The problems disappeared. If I ever get to the point that the ammo is making a significant percentage of accuracy and repeatability differences, I will probably start buying the better stuff and buy better pistols. I expect that to happen just before the next ice age.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:33 am

greener wrote:Throwing a few tons of loaded ammunition in the trash would probably cost a great deal more than just the loss of raw materials, manufacturing cost and loss of sales. Reprocessing the ammuntion to recover lead and brass would also seem to be a high-dollar procedure from the safety and environmental requirements.

Although I think I see a difference between high velocity and standard velocity ammo in my .22's, it usually isn't enough to stick exclusively to the SV ammo. A while back, I did buy two bulk packs of Federal hp from Walmart (same lot number) that was absolutely terrible from accuracy, FTF's and ejection problems that I couldn't pin on the pistols or rifle. Decided to give them another try and got a box with a different lot number. The problems disappeared. If I ever get to the point that the ammo is making a significant percentage of accuracy and repeatability differences, I will probably start buying the better stuff and buy better pistols. I expect that to happen just before the next ice age.

Friend you are starting to make more sense every day. How close to the next ice age do you think it will be?
10:30 AM< here and we still do not have any temperature as it is still nothing out side.
My shooting abilities and my ammo are the same, slightly better taht mediocre.

greener · Post by **greener** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:47 am

From some of the emails I've gotten from the west side of the state, sounds like the Ice Age started on Feb 3. -6 at about 9:30 in Portage. My friend said he put on his cross country ski's and had about a 5 minute ski adventure, cold and about nothing visibility.

Post by **Bullseye** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:50 am

You guys sure don't follow the news, haven't you heard we're having a Global Warming trend; I guess all that cold weather is just a figment of your imaginations.

R,
Bullseye

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:33 am

Bullseye wrote:You guys sure don't follow the news, haven't you heard we're having a Global Warming trend; I guess all that cold weather is just a figment of your imaginations.

R,
Bullseye

Boy I muist have a vivid imagination and Bear too, He went out to do his morniong ritual and he told me it was frozen by the time it hit the ground. Itt was so cold we brought his woofs into the house and they made no siynd until they thawed out, they look like little sowballs laying in the snow.

greener · Post by **greener** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:49 am

Yep, and I know my kids in Michigan would like to see a bit more GW right about now. Funny how folks are happy when the winter weather is warmer than normal, don't like the below average temps as much, and move to warmer climes to avoid cold weather and still worry about global warming.

As an environmental professional who works for a company that specializes in renewable, low carbon emission, electrical power generation, I can discuss this topic with a straight face with regulators. I'm looking for a way to blame AGW on my shooting results. I'm sure the additional atmospheric carbon dioxide is deflecting bullets from their true course and it is the true cause of the case of jerkitis I developed yesterday.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:59 am

greener wrote:
As an environmental professional who works for a company that specializes in renewable, low carbon emission, electrical power generation, I can discuss this topic with a straight face with regulators. I'm looking for a way to blame AGW on my shooting results. I'm sure the additional atmospheric carbon dioxide is deflecting bullets from their true course and it is the true cause of the case of jerkitis I developed yesterday.

Rob, you have managed to come up with an excuse that no one else has ever heard, you deserve an award of some kind for that. Just short of noon and we finlly have some temperature as it is now 1.

Ripsaw · Post by **Ripsaw** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:14 pm

Thank goodness for global warming !!

Otherwise the current -10 (-36 with wind chill) in my little corner of the Upper Midwest would be even more cold and brutal than it is. It's comforting to know that the global warming crowd has my best interests at heart. This morning you could see your breath in my basement !!
I'll fire up the woodstove and in a shot time it'll be 75 degrees, I'll load for a while, Do my chicken wings and watch the Superbowl with my bride.

Ripsaw

GunTalk-Online.com

Federal ammo ?

Federal ammo ?

Package Count