22 mag, whats the deal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
The same can be said of any round having the same attributes with only velocity being the variance. When varmint hunting in WY/MT using custom Remington 700 rifles in .223 and .22-250 calibers and my hand loads (which use all the same components), the .22-250 ALWAYS experiences less wind drift when fired at similar ranges versus the .223.


Thank you for proving my point. You're slowly catching on. And you never answered my question. How many convertible .22 revolvers do you own and shoot?
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
The same can be said of any round having the same attributes with only velocity being the variance. When varmint hunting in WY/MT using custom Remington 700 rifles in .223 and .22-250 calibers and my hand loads (which use all the same components), the .22-250 ALWAYS experiences less wind drift when fired at similar ranges versus the .223.
Thank you for proving my point. You're slowly catching on. And you never answered my question. How many convertible .22 revolvers do you own and shoot?
I am guessing this is not for me?
 
Originally Posted By: 4WD
I have really liked my Ruger .22 - don't enjoy shooting it's big brother anymore (.44 mag) ... only thing to consider is a case since it can be very aggravating to misplace the cylinder not in the gun ...
You can get the middle brother. 9mm/.357 mag.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Thank you for proving my point. You're slowly catching on. And you never answered my question. How many convertible .22 revolvers do you own and shoot?
I am guessing this is not for me?

No. My mistake, and I apologize. It was directed at Shannow.
 
Originally Posted By: koffy
I don't understand guys,,,if you have a 22 mag you can fire LR cartridge or you get another cylinder? I'm confused, does it depend
on models?


Others have mentioned this, but all the convertible guns I'm aware of have two separate cylinders. Most are single action for that reason.

I have a bottom of the barrel Heritage Arms convertible. I don't know what they cost now, but I bought mine new in 2012ish and it was right at $200. It's a Single Six sized frame, but has a Colt-type "4-click" action. In any case, it came with two cylinders. The mag cylinder is unfluted, so they are easy to tell apart.
 
The easiest way to understand the whole "needing another cylinder" arrangement, is to take a pair of calipers or a micrometer, and measure the case diameter of both cartridges. You will immediately understand the requirement for 2 cylinders to fire both cartridges. They are different diameters, not just different lengths. Too many try to compare the interchangeability of the .22 short, long, and long rifle cartridges to the Magnum, and say why not? They are all the same diameter. The .22 Magnum is larger, thus requiring another cylinder to safely fire them.

It's a lot like the Ruger .357 / 9 MM convertible Blackhawk. You can fire both the .38 Special and the .357 Magnum out of the .357 cylinder, because the cases are both the exact same diameter. But you must change the cylinder to fire 9 MM cartridges because it's a completely different case that headspaces on the case mouth, not the rim. The bullets are close to the same. (.357 vs. .355). Much like the .22 Magnum is .224, while the .22 L.R. is a bit smaller at .222 or.223.
 
The Ruger Single Six is still quite accurate with .22LR, even with the barrel more properly sized for .22mag.

If I do my part, at 10 yards, without a rest, the .22LR all go into one ragged hole...perhaps a better shooter would notice the accuracy difference between .22mag and .22LR, but the Single Six is a great little pistol.

Despite all the discussion above, for the OP's purposes, it would be a nice pick, and a really nice present.
 
Used to have a Single Six and Rem 22 WMR rifle. The six gun is gone, but I still have the rifle and shoot it with pleasure. Will it come even slightly close to a 22-250, naw, not even close. Is it fun to shoot, you bet
laugh.gif


Would I have a 22 WRM pistol again, no. But there is nothing wrong with them.

Drift as a function of pistol shooting is a joke, right?

If I was looking for a 22 WRM revolver, I'd be looking for a Charter Arms long barrel Pathfinder. Neat gun that fits my hand well, and shoots well enough
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
If you want a real man's 22 hangun round, there's no place to go other than a 22 Remington Jet.

The Jet is a 357 Magnum case necked down to take a .222 diameter bullet.

I did own an S&W Model 53, but it is hard to feed it as even components(brass and bullets) are in short supply. I'm pretty sure it may well be the loudest handgun I've ever shot, and I'm no stranger to pushing wheelguns to their ballistic limits. The first time I shot it inside, everyone on the line cringed-after that it was plugs+muffs indoors and only on an empty range. Otherwise, it was an outside only gun(and still usually plugs+muffs).
 
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: billt460
I said the .22 Magnum with it's higher velocity in the same weight and shape bullet, is LESS susceptible to wind drift, than it's slower .22 L.R. counterpart.
The same can be said of any round having the same attributes with only velocity being the variance. When varmint hunting in WY/MT using custom Remington 700 rifles in .223 and .22-250 calibers and my hand loads (which use all the same components), the .22-250 ALWAYS experiences less wind drift when fired at similar ranges versus the .223.


Bullet for bullet, the .22-250 WILL always have less drift than a .22-250...less DELAY in the time of flight.

The crazy thing is at the transsonic region, where marginally subsonic bullets (bullet for bullet) will always have less wind drift compared to cartridges sending the same bullet out at 1,700-1,800 fps.

Higher Ballistic Co-effient, less DELAY between how long it would take in a vacuum and how long it takes in air...once supersonic, the higher the speed, the less the DELAY becomes.
 
Bottleneck cases have a long history in revolvers-basically back to the first days of the cartridge revolver.

The 22 Jet just took both the bottle neck and the pressures to the extreme.
 
Originally Posted By: bunnspecial
Bottleneck cases have a long history in revolvers-basically back to the first days of the cartridge revolver.

The 22 Jet just took both the bottle neck and the pressures to the extreme.


They've never worked. Even today Magnum Research chambers their BFR in .30-30. Or at least say's they do. I've never seen one, and I own 2 of them. One in .45-70, and the other in .500 S&W. Unless the chambers are kept perfectly clean, and free from oil, bottlenecked cases, (especially one with as much taper as the .22 Jet), will set back against the recoil shield, locking up the gun. It's why S&W discontinued the Model 53, and today it's nothing but a collectors item.

Some years back Taurus was going to introduce a .223 revolver in the Raging Bull series. They could never get it to work. Case setback was the reason why.
 
I looooove our .22 mag Marlins. Accurate as can be, easy to shoot, more expensive than .22 LR but still less than .223 or other "real" calibers. Most .22 mag ammo seems to be pretty clean, as well, without near as much residue to scrub out as any .22 lr I've shot.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: bunnspecial
Bottleneck cases have a long history in revolvers-basically back to the first days of the cartridge revolver.

The 22 Jet just took both the bottle neck and the pressures to the extreme.


They've never worked. Even today Magnum Research chambers their BFR in .30-30. Or at least say's they do. I've never seen one, and I own 2 of them. One in .45-70, and the other in .500 S&W. Unless the chambers are kept perfectly clean, and free from oil, bottlenecked cases, (especially one with as much taper as the .22 Jet), will set back against the recoil shield, locking up the gun. It's why S&W discontinued the Model 53, and today it's nothing but a collectors item.

Some years back Taurus was going to introduce a .223 revolver in the Raging Bull series. They could never get it to work. Case setback was the reason why.


Funny that you claim they "don't work" yet 44-40 was the second most common chambering of the Colt SAA, followed by 32-20 and 38-40.

S&W cranked out a lot of revolvers in 32-20-I have two. You can still buy a new 44-40 from Colt and a couple of the other clone makers.

Clearly bottleneck cartridges CAN work in revolvers, and have a close to 150 year now history of doing so.
 
Originally Posted By: bunnspecial
Funny that you claim they "don't work" yet 44-40 was the second most common chambering of the Colt SAA, followed by 32-20 and 38-40.


All 3 of those cartridges are hardly bottlenecked. They are slightly tapered. They are also designed as extremely low pressure black powder rounds. Because of that, along with the fact the cases have very thin necks which allow them to obturate easily, and in the process grip the chamber walls, they can be fired in revolver chambers. Modern high pressure bottlenecked cases have to be much thicker, and are much more difficult to grip the walls in revolver chambers without setting back. Even in modern smokeless loadings, the cartridges you mention generate very low pressures. Hardly in the class of the .223, or most others including the .22 Remington Jet.

Question. If bottlenecked cartridges pose no problem in revolvers, why don't we have them? Why did S&W discontinue the .22 Jet? Why didn't Taurus follow through with it's .223 Raging Bull? They had months of engineering, along with tens of thousands of dollars invested in it. It would have sold like hot cakes. I would have bought one immediately. It would be a varmint hunters dream. But no can do. The fact remains that high pressure modern bottleneck rifle cases cannot be successfully chambered in revolvers. If they could, they would be. The market would certainly support such chambering's. The limitations of high pressure bottleneck cartridge design, and the revolver itself will not.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
I'm glad Shannow brought up that topic. I learned something new.


Me too!

I learn a lot from this forum...and from Shannow in particular...
 
If I'd have known that it was about a revolver, I wouldn't have commented...and should have taken the discussion to the other thread sooner.

Wednesday after work, I tried a different gun club to the rifle club I was in since 1996...new club has a pistol range alongside the rifle range...told me that if I bring my daughter (14, so she's legal), they'll let her fire a couple of .22 revolvers, and a .22 "911".

If she gets the bug (hope she does), I'll be pursuing how to obtain one here in Oz.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
If 10mm is ok for bears, why not 357 mag?
6 7 8
Replies
158
Views
12K
burbguy82
V
What size cleaning rod
Replies
15
Views
1K
Scott S
W
45 Super
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
mr_boring
A
How many mags?
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
billt460
S
Inexpensive caliber to shoot
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Scott S
Back
Top