22 Mag experiment

[ron]

I've shot a few 22 mag rifles and I once had a six inch Charter Arms Pathfinder pistol That wasn't accurate enough for me so I sold it. I wouldn't mid having nice 22 mag rifle if it was an accurate one. Recently I acquired a High standard 2 shot Derringer that has 2.25 inches of rifled barrel and overall from breech to muzzle the barrel measures 3.75".

I first shot the little gun with Armscor 40 gr JHP ammo and wanted to try it with some other ammo and thanks to a tip from a member here I was able to get one box each of Rem 40 grain PSP and CCI 40 grain JHP from DE on Francis. Lacking a chronagraph, I did a comparative penetration test with used textbooks from EWU. One book was 150 pages and the other was 470 pages. I placed these two books on top of a phone book.

I first fired the Remington, then the CCI and then the Armscor. The Armscor was noticeably louder than the other two and penetrated the furthest. All three bullets deformed and lost weight but dry paper is not a medium for testing expansion or weight retention. only penetration. I covered the first book with white paper and drew 3 dots with a sharpie in a diamond patterned and fired the little derringer point blank with about a one inch gap. the muzzles flame burnt a nice one inch hole around each little .22 caliber bullet hole

the Armscor went through the front and rear hardbound covers of the first book and all 150 of its pages and the two other brands did the same thing. But the Armscor went all the way through the front hardbound cover of the second book plus all 470 pages and ended up imbedded in the back hardbound cover.

The Remington 40 grain pointed softpoint ammo came in second place, penetrating the first two hardbound covers, the second hardbound cover. and 314 pages of the second book. The CCI 40 gr JHP ammo only made it to 205 pages of the second book. I also had a Hungarian copy of a walther PP with a 3.9 inch barrel and shot that into the center of the book and it penetrated the same as the armscor with the projectile embedded in the back cover of the second book.

Accuracy testing at a 12 foot distance didn't really show any superiority of one brand over the other. Interestingly, the little High standard Derringer seemed to actually be more accurate when I didn't use the sights. These guns are made to be fired using he middle finger, which places the gun lower in your hand and there's nowhere for your index finger to go except alongside the barrel so that you're actually pointing at the target with your index finger which is an xlnt design. Too bad the gun can't be made in a more powerful caliber. I once suggested to Smith and Wesson that they make a proprietary cartridge that was based on a stretched 25 auto case to the length of a 22 magnum, but you think those shitheads would listen to me? Nope.

Such a cartridge could drive a 50 grain bullet at about 13-1400 fps out of a short barrel and close to 2200 fps out of a rifle barrel, plus it would be reloadable. It would work in both revolvers and semi-autos because the 25 ACP parent case is a semi-rimmed cartridge. And the whole reason I suggested it to S&W in the first place is that 22 mag revolvers have to have a heavy trigger pull because the brass on the 22 mag case is thicker than the 22 LR.

So since a 25 magnum base on a stretched 25 auto case is a center-fire cartridge, revolvers chambered for it could have a lighter trigger pull than a revolver chambered for a 22 magnum.

[scrappy]

Very interesting test. Well done. Interesting thought about the 25cal cartridge. What facinates me about that is that I wrote to remington with almost the exact same idea about 1981. Got about the same response you apparently did.

[ron]

I did some further testing and compared the Speer Gold dot 22 mags to the armscor, CCI, and Remington. The speers out-penetrated the CCI and the Remington and came very close to the Armscor in the hard dry paper medium. In a softer or more fluid medium I suspect the Speers would expand more, possibly reducing penetration somewhat but my tests showed that they're loaded to higher pressures than the CCI's and the Remingtons and it could also be that they achieve peak pressures sooner out of the shorter barrels which is what the manufacturer claims.

I also compared my Hi-standard to a Ruger LCR using the same ammo and the Ruger produced slightly more penetration with the same ammo, indicating that even with a shorter 1.875" barrel that the Ruger has a "faster" barrel (and probably a tighter barrel) than the High standard 2 shot Derringer that has 2.25 inches of rifled barrel.

I thought that a 25 magnum would be a really good round for small guns, better than a 22 mag and way better than a 25 auto and would have solved the problem that 22 magnums have thicker cases and require a harder hammer strike necessitating a harder trigger pull. I also thought that it would make a very cool little small rifle varmint cartridge almost like a 25-20.

But Smith and Wesson was either not interested in any "NIH" proposals (Not Invented Here) or whoever received the actual letter never passed it on to anyone with any technical knowledge who was capable of understanding it. And then the last possibility is that the company was downsizing their product line and adding something new at that point in time just was not in the cards especially since they would not only have to adapt one of their guns to a new chambering but would have to partner with a company like Remington to come out with a new round like they did with Smith and Wesson with the 44 and 41 Remington mag chamberings.

[edzz]

Barrel length is a funny thing, on your derringer it’s measured from the breach face so the chamber length is included, where as with your revolver the length of the cylinder (the chamber length) is not included. I drought with the 22 magnum you are losing much due to the cylinder gap on the revolver there for the revolver may have a longer “effective” barrel.

[ron]

Barrel length is a funny thing, on your derringer it’s measured from the breach face so the chamber length is included, where as with your revolver the length of the cylinder (the chamber length) is not included. I doubt with the 22 magnum you are losing much due to the cylinder gap on the revolver there for the revolver may have a longer “effective” barrel.

I think you're right. if I were to measure the Ruger's cylinder length including cylinder gap and combine it with it's barrel length it would most likely exceed the overall length of the derringer from breech to muzzle.

But the effect that individual barrels have on velocity is something that depends on very small differences in dimensions and machining. I once chronagraphed two 357 magnums with the same ammunition and one was a Ruger Security-Six 2 3/4' barrel and the other was a Smith and Wesson model 19 with a six inch barrel and the short barreled Ruger delivered slightly higher velocities. With mass produced firearms you can take two rifles off the same assembly line manufactured on the same day on the same assembly line and one will have a "Faster" barrel than the other. And many rifles with 26 inch barrels will give lower velocities than ones with 22 inch barrels because of the fact that there are "fast" barrels and there are "slow" barrels as a result of very slight differences in machining.

So Ideally, if you buy a rifle with a 26 inch barrel it will be a fast barrel rather than a slow barrel so that you get the most out of the extra length but you'll never know until you chronagraph it. With rimfire rifles it's different situation because 18 inches or even less (16"with standard velocity ammo) is about the maximum before you reach the point of diminishing returns and beyond that point barrel friction begins to slow the projectile down. But, with barrels of equal thickness, a longer barrel is supposed to stabilize the bullet better.

Generally with any barrel the tighter the dimensions the higher the velocity, but small differences in the smoothness of the inside of the barrel effecting friction also play a role and the smoother barrel will be the faster barrel compared to one that even only is slightly less slick. But even between air-gauged barrels that have been hand lapped, there are still differences. And with revolvers, differences in the amount of cylinder gap and the trueness of the alignment between cylinder bore also have a minor effect.

[scrappy]

I have seen this trend in gun write ups for the past 10-12 years where Rugers tend to be "fast" and S&W's tend to be "slow" in comparison. Rugers of recent mfg also seem to be able to group with the best efforts of S&W as well.
I saw a G&A article about 20 years ago where they took 6 identical M-629 Classics and compared them to each other. About as apples to apples as you could get. There was quite a difference in velocities among them, with 2 that really seemed fast compared to the others. It was an interesting read.
To the cartridge idea you talked of, I have alwas been kind of taken with the old 25 Stevens rimfire round. Always thought that a little modern bullet/loading technology could completely revive this classic. That was my inspiration for the idea I sent to Remington anyway. I imagined a centerfire version that would have essentialy been a streched 25ACP case making it a reloadable cartridge suitable for any small game up to coyotes.

[ron]

I have seen this trend in gun write ups for the past 10-12 years where Rugers tend to be "fast" and S&W's tend to be "slow" in comparison. Rugers of recent mfg also seem to be able to group with the best efforts of S&W as well.
I saw a G&A article about 20 years ago where they took 6 identical M-629 Classics and compared them to each other. About as apples to apples as you could get. There was quite a difference in velocities among them, with 2 that really seemed fast compared to the others. It was an interesting read.
To the cartridge idea you talked of, I have alwas been kind of taken with the old 25 Stevens rimfire round. Always thought that a little modern bullet/loading technology could completely revive this classic. That was my inspiration for the idea I sent to Remington anyway. I imagined a centerfire version that would have essentialy been a streched 25ACP case making it a reloadable cartridge suitable for any small game up to coyotes.

The compariiason that you mention camparing Smiths to Smiths I think has more validity than comparing Smiths to Rugers. I read and article recently about 41 nag reaload and the author had an 8 3/8ths Smith in 41 mag that was producing velocities with the 41 mag that were approaching marlin carbine velocities, so there are S&W's with fast barrels as well as slow ones and that's true of ALL guns. As far as getting manufacturers to come up with new chamberings, you have to keep in mind that they're pretty "Gun-shy" about doing that because there is simply no predicting what the public will decide that they like, and logic never has very much to do about it except in the case of the 243 and the 244/6mm Remington where Winchester saw it as a combination Deer/Varmint round and Remington was it as strictly a varmint round.

But the way I saw it was that it was neither one was any better than the 257 Roberts except that the 257 wasn't loaded to the same pressures as the 24's and the public is fixated on velocity figures as if that's all there is to understanding ballistics.

Probably the best company most willing to try something new these days is Hornady and they really picked a winner with the 17 HMR. But before they decided to come out with the cartridge they made sure they had more than one manufacturer to provide platforms for it and they were able to do that with Ruger, Marlin and savage and it was a round that was easily adaptable to any platform which chambered the parent cartridge, the 22 WMR. Simarlarly I'd didn't work very well in semi-autos which was also true with the 22 mag except for guns that were specifically built around it. As an example Ruger was never able to make a version of the 10-22 in either 22 mag or 17 hmr that functioned to their satisfaction.

However Winchester just came out with that 17 Super Rimfire and they may have picked a winner there because it produces the magic 3000 fps velocity figure and the savage rifle that it's chambered in is a nice one and affordable, too, and I'd also like to see Taurus come out with a "Raging Banshee" pistol version in that chambering.

[scrappy]

Finaly got around to shooting the Marlin 22mag rifle I borrowed from a buddy. That thing SHOOTS! A plastic jug of some sort on the hill well past the 200yd mark was an easy target with open sights. I sent him a text and told him that he didnt know it yet, but he's selling me that gun!

[ron]

Finaly got around to shooting the Marlin 22mag rifle I borrowed from a buddy. That thing SHOOTS! A plastic jug of some sort on the hill well past the 200yd mark was an easy target with open sights. I sent him a text and told him that he didnt know it yet, but he's selling me that gun!

Yeah, I need to get me one of those.

[scrappy]

I was very impressed with it. The stock is shaped very well, the bolt worked smoothly, ejection was very enthusiastic, feeding was flawless and accuracy was superb. Judging by the fit/finish I was thinking it was an older gun. Turns out he bought it new 5 years ago. I had thought that this was in the time of low quality control from Marlin, but apparently not.

[ron]

I was very impressed with it. The stock is shaped very well, the bolt worked smoothly, ejection was very enthusiastic, feeding was flawless and accuracy was superb. Judging by the fit/finish I was thinking it was an older gun. Turns out he bought it new 5 years ago. I had thought that this was in the time of low quality control from Marlin, but apparently not.

Is it a model 982, or is it an XT?

[scrappy]

Its a 782.