fail to fire
I didn't intend to take this thread down the wrong path, it started concerning cleaning practices, now we are discussing .22 ammo reliability. In my mind the two are related, perhaps more than others may think, and that's fine by me. Believe what you want, clean (or not) your guns they way you choose.
I would agree that certain brands of bulk .22 have a higher rate of failure to fire than others. There is a certain brand/label that I will not buy, for that very reason. However, another certain brand/label functions very well and provides good accuracy in all my .22's, yet is frequently condemned by others. Go figure. I suspect dirty guns with the naysayers.
I see a lot of really nasty .22's. Fellow dropped off a 1960-70's era Win 190 .22 SA rifle back during deer season, "won't chamber a round, won't run." I ran a cleaning rod with patch down the bore, and out of the chamber pops the front half of a .22 case. Case head separation. I pulled the trigger group and buried up in the gunk was the rear portion/rim of that case. I literally had to scrape the gook from the trigger group and receiver, I doubt the rifle had EVER been cleaned.
If one's never had a failure to fire with a .22,...NEVER.... , I'll go out on a limb and say, you will, eventually. I've got to wonder how much .22 shooting one has done to make such a claim?
On .22's in general, there is a school of thought that the bore does not need as much attention as other firearms and I agree, to a certain extent. Guard against rust, but don't overdo it and damage bore or crown by overcleaning, especially with a cheap, dirty aluminum rod. Semiauto guns actions get a good deal more attention, "clean machines run better" so my Dad said.