Why is the .22 mag so darn loud?


PDA






Guvnor
December 19, 2012, 10:56 PM
Maybe its just me...but I find the .22 mag to be extremely loud and the blast rather uncomfortable to be around at indoor ranges. Why does this relitively tiny round have such a wicked report out of most pistols??

If you enjoyed reading about "Why is the .22 mag so darn loud?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Stress_Test
December 19, 2012, 11:04 PM
Loud is relative. Try some full-power .357 magnum rounds and then the .22 mag won't seem so bad!

Btw, a gun always sounds louder when somebody ELSE is shooting it.

Action_Can_Do
December 19, 2012, 11:04 PM
The 22 mag generally breaks the sound barrier. Most magnums do, hence the dramatic increase in volume.

Mauser lover
December 19, 2012, 11:17 PM
The 22 mag generally breaks the sound barrier.
This.

a gun always sounds louder when somebody ELSE is shooting it.
And this.

gazpacho
December 19, 2012, 11:39 PM
22 WMR is a rifle round, even more so than 22 LR. Since this is in the revolver section, I'm assuming you mean its loud while being fired from a revolver. On top of the speed of sound thing, rifle cartridges out of short barrels tend to be quite loud.

NG VI
December 19, 2012, 11:52 PM
Probably because it's surprisingly high-pressure for a rimfire round. Even .22LR is rated at about 28K PSI for the top SAAMI loads.

Don't know why that would make the .22 Mag seem louder than larger calibers like 9mm that have both more case volume and greater chamber pressures.

joneb
December 19, 2012, 11:59 PM
I shot a 22 mag. revolver with a 2" barrel, and it was very LOUD. But I don't think it was breaking the sound barrier :confused:

CraigC
December 20, 2012, 12:24 AM
The .22Mag and .22LR both run the same pressures, around 22,000CUP. The .22Mag is loud not because it goes supersonic but because it's loaded with a lot of slower burning powder (magnum revolver burn rates) relative to its bore size. Which means a lot of expanding gases through a small hole. IMHO, a .22Mag semi-auto (closed breech) is significantly louder than any .357 revolver. An AMT Automag II will often be the loudest gun on the range. About the only thing louder is a .30Carbine pistol or a heavily loaded .32-20 with 2400 or H110.


22 WMR is a rifle round
Not really. It shares more in common with magnum revolver cartridges than rifle cartridges and behaves much the same.

PO2Hammer
December 20, 2012, 03:03 AM
It's very pleasant to shoot in a 10" Contender and almost shootable without hearing protection in my 25" CZ Lux, but yeah, in a revolver, it's bad.

I think CraigC nailed the technical reasons.

steveno
December 20, 2012, 05:57 AM
it isn't that loud at all in a rifle when most of the powder is burned up in the barrel. I had a S & W M-651 with a 4 inch barrel and it was very loud with a lot of muzzle flash

230RN
December 20, 2012, 06:37 AM
CraigC : +1

steveno:

it isn't that loud at all in a rifle when most of the powder is burned up in the barrel. I had a S & W M-651 with a 4 inch barrel and it was very loud with a lot of muzzle flash

Double-ditto on that. Try 38 +Ps in a two-inch barrel. I call it my Fourth of July gun because the blast and flash is like a 16" aerial salute. Twelve inch ball of white-hot gases right in front of your baby blues.

I found the flash didn't blind me temporarily when I mounted a laser on it and started firing from bottom-of-rib-cage level. No, that's not hip-shooting because I was using a sight... just way below eye level, was all.

brnmw
December 20, 2012, 09:55 AM
Breaking the sound barrier for something the size of a .22 Mag. bullet is not what makes it loud. I think CraigC said it best: The .22Mag is loud not because it goes supersonic but because it's loaded with a lot of slower burning powder (magnum revolver burn rates) relative to its bore size. Which means a lot of expanding gases through a small hole.

The sound of a bullet breaking the sound barrier is not the same as an F-14 Tomcat breaking the sound barrier. Magnum rounds break the sound barrier but it's the high pressures associated with the blast at the muzzle that is loud.

Case and point I have had bullets fly past me breaking the sound barrier, "loud yes.... that loud" No, it was loud enough to make me hit the deck :cuss:, but that was about it. Think about suppressors... they muffle the muzzle blast (Escaping pressure from the muzzle upon exit)... but if you don't use subsonic loads you still hear the bullet break the sound barrier only giving away your position, it's nothing more than annoying for the people that hear only that but not the muzzle blast which is really what is painful.

***So small bullet, High Pressure, High Velocity out the muzzle creates that effect.

murf
December 20, 2012, 01:20 PM
the powder gases (pg) exit the muzzle of the barrel at much more than the speed of sound.

the 22 mag cartridge has more powder, hence more pg pressure when the bullet leaves the barrel, hence more noise.

the shorter the barrel, the more pg pressure in that barrel at the time the bullet leaves that barrel. more pg pressure, more noise.

if the barrel is long enough, the pg pressure will be low enough, hence the pg speed low enough to be subsonic (if the bullet doesn't get stuck in the barrel).

silencers are not made for revolvers because they cannot silence the supersonic gases exiting the barrel/cylinder gap.

fyi,

murf

Quoheleth
December 20, 2012, 01:26 PM
Same situation with a .30 Carbine out of a Blackhawk.

It'll make even a deaf man scurry for his ear plugs.

Q

jim243
December 20, 2012, 01:27 PM
Don't know why that would make the .22 Mag seem louder than larger calibers like 9mm that have both more case volume and greater chamber pressures.

Smaller exit hole, just like putting water through a 1/2 pipe as aposed to a 3/4 inch one, higher water pressure. Think of it as a .22 inch pipe vs a .355 inch pipe.

Jim

brnmw
December 20, 2012, 03:09 PM
silencers are not made for revolvers because they cannot silence the supersonic gases exiting the barrel/cylinder gap.

fyi,

The silencers bit was just an example to explain something.... also FYI Nagant 1895 actually did have silencers issued in small #'s (Gas seal "revolver"): So to say silencers are not made for revolvers would also not be 100% accurate either.

Again just using "silencers" as an example to explain something. Thanks... ;)

murf
December 20, 2012, 04:35 PM
brnmw,

didn't see your silencer post. was just throwing out info on the op's question. nothing personal. nothing is 100 percent!

only effective silencer for a revolver i have ever seen is the towel rapped around the whole gun and hand of don vito corleone in "godfather II".

murf

brnmw
December 20, 2012, 05:17 PM
murf: Sorry about that, thought the fyi was for me. :)

Guvnor
December 20, 2012, 05:36 PM
Makes sense now, thanks for the replies.

I was watching youtube vids of the .22 mag Automag pistols, found out they used to make them in .30 carbine as well :eek:. I think I'd just pack up and go home if i was in the firing lane next to one of these.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iaeZjKbly4A

Deer_Freak
December 20, 2012, 09:28 PM
I have a Heritage rough rider with a 9" barrel. It's not that bad compared to my centerfire pistols. The CCI short barrel loads do shoot better but they aren't even close to a 22 wmr fired from a rifle, even with the 9" barrel.

A 22 wmr fired from a rifle has almost as much energy as a 9mm fired from a 4" barrel

smkummer
December 21, 2012, 08:10 AM
I wear both foam and ear muffs when shooting this revolver. Its like a M80 going off right in front of oneself. The gunfight is over just from the muzzle blast requardless if I hit someone or not.

KeithET
December 21, 2012, 11:41 AM
You don't get something like velocity/energy for nothing. Increased velocity/energy comes at the price of a louder report, no way to change this. As stated previously as compared to a 357mag the 22mag is closer to a mouse fart in its report.

KeithET

CraigC
December 21, 2012, 12:28 PM
As stated previously as compared to a 357mag the 22mag is closer to a mouse fart in its report.
Not in my experience, especially for an auto like the Automag II.

Clark
December 21, 2012, 02:41 PM
There is a threshold between a BB gun sound and a loud Bang that is very close in powder charge.

I have designed guns that send 150 gr at 440 fps and sound like a BB gun with no suppressor.

When the escapement gasses from behind the bullet exceed 1 atmosphere above ambient, a super sonic gas ball forms in front of the muzzle. This makes no sound until the gas slows down to the speed of sound. At that point a wave propagates off the ball with amplitude +2A and -0A. That is the very near field and the amplitude drops off with distance. The sound spectrum is that amplitude down to the frequency that corresponds to 1/2 wavelength is equal to the gas ball diameter at the time for first propagation.

What does it all mean?
a) All guns have the same loudness, that is the threshold of cavitation.
2) Bigger guns can make more low frequency, a big deep boom from the 50MBG
3) The size of the gas ball depends on the amount of powder and the volume of the bore area times barrel length.

What does THAT mean?
The 22 mag has a lot of powder for how much barrel volume it has. Pistols are louder than rifles for the same cartridge.

bluetopper
December 22, 2012, 01:06 PM
The burn rate of the powder in the 22 Mag is designed to be fully burned up in a rifle length barrel. Out of a pistol, a large percentage of the powder is still burning and the gas is still expanding at a tremendous rate when the bullet exits the barrel. All this equals lots of flash and lots of boom.

This condition is more pronounced shooting factory 223 cartridges out of a short barreled Thompson Contender handgun.

Loudness is all tied to the burn rate of the powder, not the amount, no matter what some say here.

CraigC
December 22, 2012, 01:12 PM
The burn rate of the powder in the 22 Mag is designed to be fully burned up in a rifle length barrel.
This is pure myth. Powders are chosen for the cartridge, its operating pressures and case capacity, not barrel length.

Ehtereon11B
December 22, 2012, 07:03 PM
I fire .22Mag out of a little 1 1/8th inch barrel even without hearing protection. It isn't all that bad in outside ranges or situations. Now indoors and off to the side that is a different situation and sounds almost like a 9mm.

Clark
December 22, 2012, 07:53 PM
parisite
Loudness is all tied to the burn rate of the powder, not the amount, no matter what some say here

The text book we used for Acoustics was "Fundamentals of Acoustics"
by Lawrence E. Kinsler
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Acoustics-Lawrence-E-Kinsler/dp/0471847895

Chapter 7 spherical acoustic waves, here is a pic of two pages of the 1950 book I was studying in 1976. I was trying figure out how a 22 CB long could make so much noise with a 22" barrel and so little with a 24" barrel.
I had all that math in my head, but I could not figure it out.
I asked professors, and I asked everybody.
Then I asked Randy Ketchum proprietor at Lynnwood Guns and ammo.
He said it was the threshold of super sonic gas escapement.
He is a fellow gun experimenter.

http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx220/ClarkM/775pounds50CBshortintheshoulder1grRedDotthen3grRedDotdownthethroat10-4-2012.jpg

With what I learned from Randy and what I figured out about expansion ratio, I was able to design a 50 caliber wild cat, rifle, and double press dies, and without a suppressor, the most I can get is 798 fps 186 gr bullet and sounds like a pellet gun. That is with 2.8 gr of Red Dot.

I think with help I have the principal, and with help I got the pressure, and with help I got how many DB all guns make.

So I now believe I understand gun noise and can design things that work.

bluetopper
December 23, 2012, 12:23 AM
Just beware of the .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer......plugs and muffs required........lol

murf
December 23, 2012, 10:26 AM
noise is also directly (in an inverse sort of way) proportional to the distance your ear is from the source (muzzle of the weapon) of that noise.

a certain noise at 10 inches from your ear will be half as loud at 20 inches from your ear.

murf

Clark
December 23, 2012, 07:51 PM
murf

noise is also directly (in an inverse sort of way) proportional to the distance your ear is from the source (muzzle of the weapon) of that noise.

a certain noise at 10 inches from your ear will be half as loud at 20 inches from your ear.

That is called the inverse square law of field theory.
That works for far field [further from source].
Predictions get more messy in the near field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field

murf
December 23, 2012, 09:32 PM
clark,

we are talking about sound waves, not electromagnetic waves.

murf

Clark
December 23, 2012, 10:02 PM
Sound waves and radio waves are very different frequencies and mediums, but the wave lengths are the same, and so is much of the math for field theory.
I had to study both, and I have got paid for both, but I am not very good at either.
Tweeters in speakers are like wave guides in micro wave and woofers in a speaker are like a 2 meter radio at 100 MHz.

If you Google near field acoustics, it is out there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_levitation

The same principals apply.

HiVel1
December 24, 2012, 09:12 AM
certain military people used to fire their 9mm Browning Hi-Powers right next to the ears of certain other people they were holding as enemy combatants. usually these people would tell anything the captors wanted to know after one (or a few) rounds up close and personal.
Loud noise is not good for your ears. It is useful in certain circumstances.

I do like my snub 22 Mag S&W-despite the noise -protect your ears and fire away!!

45crittergitter
December 29, 2012, 09:13 PM
Because you're not wearing hearing protection like you're supposed to, silly! :rolleyes:

natman
December 30, 2012, 01:43 PM
This is pure myth. Powders are chosen for the cartridge, its operating pressures and case capacity, not barrel length.

It would appear that Hornady disagrees with you:
Powder

Optimized for short-barreled firearms, the 22 WMR features clean burning propellants with low flash and blast to help protect night vision. [emphasis added]

http://www.hornady.com/store/22-WMR-45gr-Critical-Defense/

The market for 22 mag ammo has traditionally been very rifle oriented and most 22 mag loads are loaded for optimum performance in a rifle length barrel. The new loads introduced that are designed for pistol use get around one of the major objections of using such ammo in a pistol, the ear splitting blast and blinding flash.

CraigC
December 30, 2012, 03:58 PM
...low flash and blast to help protect night vision.
Operative phrase. Not to mention bullets designed to expand at pistol velocities. Highest velocities are still achieved with the same slower burning powders as the so-called "rifle loads". The myth is that the .22Mag is a poor performer in pistols because "it's a rifle cartridge" and loses too much velocity. This is nonsense, unless you believe the .357 is also a poor performer in handguns. It's all a matter of perspective.

JohnBT
December 30, 2012, 08:46 PM
I won't say it's a poor performer in a revolver and have never measured it, but after owning a 5.5" Single-Six Convertible since 1972 I suspect the cylinder flash and the big fireball from the muzzle are sapping a little something from the downrange performance.

Over the years I've been surprised by the number of people who stopped by to ask what I was shooting that was so noisy. Always indoors.

John

CraigC
December 31, 2012, 12:39 PM
It's no different than the revolver cartridges also available in carbines. They use the same powder and have the same velocity gain in 18-20" barrels. Does the fact that the .32-20, .38-40, .44-40, .44Mag and .45Colt gain 300-400fps in rifles make them useless in handguns? Certainly not. Even standard 40gr JHP's are running 150-200fps faster than your average .22LR high velocity load out of a rifle, with a better, heavier bullet. So if a .22LR rifle firing a 36gr hollowpoint at 1200fps is an effective 100yd critter getter, how is a .22Mag pistol launching a 40gr at 1400fps useless???

JohnBT
December 31, 2012, 01:34 PM
Certainly not useless, just a little bit expensive from the prices I just checked.

Yesterday I discovered 6 boxes of 30 gr. Winchester Supreme that I'd forgotten about. I bought it for my CZ American years ago and never tried it in my Single-Six. I could probably double my money on it by selling it and just shooting up the 40 gr.

I've been stocking up for retirement for about 10 years.

John

natman
January 1, 2013, 10:46 AM
Operative phrase. Not to mention bullets designed to expand at pistol velocities. Highest velocities are still achieved with the same slower burning powders as the so-called "rifle loads". The myth is that the .22Mag is a poor performer in pistols because "it's a rifle cartridge" and loses too much velocity. This is nonsense, unless you believe the .357 is also a poor performer in handguns. It's all a matter of perspective.

This post makes your meaning much clearer than the previous one. I agree that there is a common misconception that the pistol 22 mag loads somehow have higher velocities than rifle 22 loads when fired from a pistol. That is not the case. What Hornady and others have done is provide pistol loads that provide similar velocities to rifle loads without all the flash and bang with the additional advantage of bullets designed to work at handgun velocities.

However, I don't recall anyone in this thread mentioning that misconception. The title of the thread is "Why is the .22 mag so darn loud?" and in that context I believe that Parasite's comment of:

The burn rate of the powder in the 22 Mag is designed to be fully burned up in a rifle length barrel.

is correct.

CraigC
January 1, 2013, 12:14 PM
I agree with the first part.


in that context I believe that Parasite's comment.....is correct.
Not really. Like I said, the powder used in the .22Mag is that of a magnum revolver round. Certainly not a rifle powder. Powder is chosen for the cartridge, its capacity and pressure range, not barrel length.

natman
January 1, 2013, 12:51 PM
I agree with the first part.



Not really. Like I said, the powder used in the .22Mag is that of a magnum revolver round. Certainly not a rifle powder. Powder is chosen for the cartridge, its capacity and pressure range, not barrel length.

He never said it was "rifle powder", whatever that is. He said, and I'll quote it again:

The burn rate of the powder in the 22 Mag is designed to be fully burned up in a rifle length barrel

That's true for most 22 mag loads, and that's why most 22 mag loads are so loud when fired in pistols. There's nothing mythical or mysterious about it.

Powder certainly is chosen based on barrel length and Hornady says so in plain English. I'll quote it again:

Powder

Optimized for short-barreled firearms, the 22 WMR features clean burning propellants with low flash and blast to help protect night vision.



That's as plain as Hornady and I can make it.

CraigC
January 1, 2013, 01:24 PM
Jesus, my comments are with regards to velocity and you keep bringing up those specialty loads with low flash powders. Two different things. You're just not understanding what I'm trying to say.

The point: Lots of people have this weird idea that the .22Mag was "designed for rifles" and therefore is NOT "designed for handguns". Implying that the powder used is not optimum in handgun length barrels. That if the cartridge were "designed for handguns" it would use a different powder. Parasite's post alluded to this. It is pure myth. WITH THE RARE EXCEPTION OF SPECIALTY LOADS WITH LOW FLASH POWDERS, powders are not chosen for barrel length. They are chosen for the cartridge's capacity and pressure range. FACT: The same powders will yield the highest velocities regardless of barrel length. So no, the powders used in the .22Mag are not chosen to yield the highest velocities in 18" barrels. They are chosen because they yield the highest velocities in ANY barrel length and are compatible with the cartridge's capacity and pressure range.

The point is, some folks perceive the .357Mag and .44Mag to be handgun cartridges, yet consider the .22Mag to be a rifle cartridge. When in reality, they all fall within the same parameters and use the same powders. The same powders yield the highest velocities regardless of barrel length.

The .357 and .44 reach maximum velocity in 18" barrels. Are they "designed for rifles"???

JohnBT
January 1, 2013, 04:04 PM
When I got my Savage 24 .22WMR/.410 in the early '60s I don't know if anyone had even made a .22 WMR handgun. Everybody I knew thought of as a rifle round. The Savage 24 was the first gun out, followed by a Winchester pump gun.

The round wasn't introduced until 1959.

John

P.S. - Okay, after a little looking around, S&W and Ruger did have handguns chambered for it early on.

natman
January 1, 2013, 05:51 PM
Jesus, my comments are with regards to velocity and you keep bringing up those specialty loads with low flash powders. Two different things. You're just not understanding what I'm trying to say.

The point: Lots of people have this weird idea that the .22Mag was "designed for rifles" and therefore is NOT "designed for handguns". Implying that the powder used is not optimum in handgun length barrels. That if the cartridge were "designed for handguns" it would use a different powder. Parasite's post alluded to this. It is pure myth. WITH THE RARE EXCEPTION OF SPECIALTY LOADS WITH LOW FLASH POWDERS, powders are not chosen for barrel length. They are chosen for the cartridge's capacity and pressure range. FACT: The same powders will yield the highest velocities regardless of barrel length. So no, the powders used in the .22Mag are not chosen to yield the highest velocities in 18" barrels. They are chosen because they yield the highest velocities in ANY barrel length and are compatible with the cartridge's capacity and pressure range.

The point is, some folks perceive the .357Mag and .44Mag to be handgun cartridges, yet consider the .22Mag to be a rifle cartridge. When in reality, they all fall within the same parameters and use the same powders. The same powders yield the highest velocities regardless of barrel length.

The .357 and .44 reach maximum velocity in 18" barrels. Are they "designed for rifles"???

I'm afraid you've missed the point of this thread. It's all about why the 22 magnum is so darned loud when fired in pistols. And whether you like it or not, it's because the 22 magnum was originally designed for use in rifles. True, these same loads may produce slightly more performance in pistols, but only at the cost of severe blast and amazing flash, even in daylight, so much so that the round is of limited use in pistols.

In response, Hornady and others have developed special loads BASING THEIR POWDER CHOICE ON BARREL LENGTH for use in pistols. Let's take a look at the flaws in your logic:

Implying that the powder used is not optimum in handgun length barrels.
The powder in most 22 mag loads isn't optimum for handguns, it produces far to much blast and flash for little, if any, velocity gain.

That if the cartridge were "designed for handguns" it would use a different powder.

Loads designed for handguns DO use a different powder.

Parasite's post alluded to this. It is pure myth. WITH THE RARE EXCEPTION OF SPECIALTY LOADS WITH LOW FLASH POWDERS, powders are not chosen for barrel length.

So powders are not chosen for the barrel length in which they will be used, except for the proven case where they were.

I see where your coming from, now that you've explained it, and the 357/44 mag analogy is interesting, but IMO 22 magnum ammunition WAS designed for rifle use and it's only recently that anyone decided to formulate loads with handgun use in mind.

murf
January 1, 2013, 06:17 PM
natman,

the ruger single six magnum (chambered for the 22wmr) came out in 1959.

winchester designed the 22wmr cartridge for their model 61 rifle. that rifle came out in 1960.

the 22wmr muzzle velocity is about 30 percent greater than the 22lr (rifle or pistol, i believe).

muzzle flash and blast is comparable to a fast stepping 357 mag load, imop.

the round may have been designed for a rifle but, obviously, is used in both rifles and pistols and has been for 53 years.

murf

stevehenry1
January 2, 2013, 01:09 AM
In the dating of cartridges, you are all missing an important point. There was (is) a cartridge BETWEEN .22 rf and .22 magnum. it was the .22 WRF ( Winchester Rim Fire) I believe it was the predecessor to the .22 mag. Physically it was the same size as the .22 mag, except the length MAY have been shorter. I know the two would both fit my revolver w/ the magnum cylinder. The .22 WRF was lower powered and CHEAPER. If I remember, only the magnum was jacketed hollow point. This could be the source of some of the age question

CraigC
January 2, 2013, 11:48 AM
I'm afraid you've missed the point of this thread.
I'm afraid you missed my first post in this thread. I'm not at all missing the point. The thread has been derailed because some erroneous statements were made and now we have an argument.


The powder in most 22 mag loads isn't optimum for handguns, it produces far to much blast and flash for little, if any, velocity gain.....Loads designed for handguns DO use a different powder.
My whole point in all of this is, YOU ARE WRONG and you obviously have not read a thing I've written. The .22Mag, while originally chambered in rifles, is for all intents and purposes, a magnum handgun cartridge. I'm sorry but if you think it uses slow burning rifle powders, you are wrong. You know what powder the .17HMR uses? Lil Gun. What else is Lil Gun used for? What other powders have a similar burn rate? Winchester 296 and Hodgdon H110. The powders utilized in the .22Mag, for one last time, are the same powders used in magnum revolver cartridges. Why? Because powders are chosen for a cartridge's powder capacity and pressure range, not barrel length. Your short barrel loads are designed for short barrelled self defense guns and that is the rare exception. They are assembled for less muzzle flash with bullets that expand at lower velocities, NOT designed for maximum velocity.

Why don't you take five minutes to browse your loading manual to see what powders are used in cartridges like the .22Hornet and .218Bee? I'll save you the trouble. What you will find is that the powders yielding the highest velocities are the same used in magnum revolver cartridges like Lil Gun, 296/H110. Not rifle powders. Why? Because powders are chosen for a cartridge's powder capacity and pressure range, not barrel length. If you were right and I was wrong, then those RIFLE CARTRIDGES should use rifle powders. They do not.

Because powders are chosen for a cartridge's powder capacity and pressure range, not barrel length.

The powders used in the .22Mag will yield the highest velocities, regardless of barrel length. Why? Because powders are chosen for a cartridge's powder capacity and pressure range, not barrel length.

The .22Mag behaves EXACTLY like the .357 and .44Mag's. There is typcially a 300-700fps gain from revolvers to rifles. However, like I've said MANY times, the same powders yield the highest velocities, rifle or revolver. The .22Mag is no different. Rifle barrels yield about 500fps higher velocity than revolver. Like I also said before, in a handgun the .22Mag is 150-200fps faster than a .22LR rifle. It's 400fps faster than a .22LR handgun. So no, you're wrong again, there is not "too much flash and blast for no gain". All it takes is a chronograph and a little experience. Which I guess is too much to ask. :rolleyes:

Does any of this make sense?

HiVel1
January 3, 2013, 11:56 AM
Right on-also if you shot the new 22 Mag Self defense revolver ammmo in a rifle it works really well-more velocity than the 2"revolver and good accuracy --what else can you say? You got it right!

sixgunner455
January 3, 2013, 01:39 PM
Geez, guys, chill out. :D

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c334/sixgunner455/someoneiswrongontheinternet_zps2abcc70a.png

natman
January 3, 2013, 06:03 PM
I'm afraid you missed my first post in this thread. I'm not at all missing the point. The thread has been derailed because some erroneous statements were made and now we have an argument.

My whole point in all of this is, YOU ARE WRONG and you obviously have not read a thing I've written. ……

Because powders are chosen for a cartridge's powder capacity and pressure range, not barrel length.

The powders used in the .22Mag will yield the highest velocities, regardless of barrel length. Why? Because powders are chosen for a cartridge's powder capacity and pressure range, not barrel length.

The .22Mag behaves EXACTLY like the .357 and .44Mag's. There is typcially a 300-700fps gain from revolvers to rifles. However, like I've said MANY times, the same powders yield the highest velocities, rifle or revolver. The .22Mag is no different. Rifle barrels yield about 500fps higher velocity than revolver. Like I also said before, in a handgun the .22Mag is 150-200fps faster than a .22LR rifle. It's 400fps faster than a .22LR handgun. So no, you're wrong again, there is not "too much flash and blast for no gain". All it takes is a chronograph and a little experience. Which I guess is too much to ask. :rolleyes:

Does any of this make sense?

First, I did read your posts and I do agree with parts of what your saying. I understand that the 22 mag uses “handgun powders” not “rifle powders”. I do see the similarities between the 22 mag and the 357/44 mag. However you've decided to arbitrarily class these as "magnum handgun cartridges" and are using that as "proof" that the 22 mag wasn't developed with rifle use in mind, despite admitting that that's how it's usually used.

The 30 carbine fits nicely into this group as well. It's more-or-less straight walled (before you disagree I know it's slightly tapered), it uses similar powders, produces similar ballistics and, like the 22 mag, makes LOTS of blast and flash when fired from a pistol.

So despite its similarity to the 357/44 mag are you seriously going to argue that the 30 Carbine wasn't developed with rifle use in mind?

I view the issue from the other way around; I think the 357 and 44 mag would be considered rifle cartridges if evaluated on their ballistics in long barrels and are only considered "handgun cartridges" because of their undeniable development history in handguns. If you're going to class cartridges on their development history, then the 22 mag is a rifle cartridge.

I don't know what more to say about "Because powders are chosen for a cartridge's powder capacity and pressure range, not barrel length."

I've shown you a crystal clear example of how that's not necessarily true. Here's a couple more:

The load is the 38 Special +P Short Barrel® Gold Dot

• True, bonded-core bullet velocity-tuned for optimum terminal performance
• Nickel-plated case
• Low-flash propellant
• Famous CCI® primers

New - Gold Dot® Short Barrel® Personal Protection - 22 Win. Mag.
The newest addition to the Speer® Gold Dot Short Barrel line is the 40-grain .22 WMR hollow point. If this is the personal defense chambering you prefer, then this specialized new round is a must-have. Optimized for use in 2-inch barrels, it's designed to provide less kick, and will get reliable expansion.

Manufacturers DO use different powders based on barrel length. Velocity is not always the most important criteria.

Chanting "powders are chosen for a cartridge's powder capacity and pressure range, not barrel length." isn't going to make it true.

So while I understand your "magnum handgun cartridge" and "Not based on barrel length" premises, I'm afraid I must still respectfully disagree with them when used to come to the conclusion that the 22 magnum wasn't developed with rifle use in mind.

I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree if we can't come to agreement on what is, in the final analysis, a difference in perspective and opinion. I hope you can do the same.

CraigC
January 3, 2013, 11:01 PM
So despite its similarity to the 357/44 mag are you seriously going to argue that the 30 Carbine wasn't developed with rifle use in mind?
I'm saying intent doesn't matter. The powders are chosen for the cartridge and its pressure range, the barrel length is immaterial. If what you want is maximum velocity out of these cartridges, which is what we get from the factory, the powder choice is the same, whether the barrel is 6" or 20". I don't know how I can make that more clear.

If you're gonna keep riding that short barrel load goat then I'm not going to participate any further because you're obviously not understanding what I'm saying. I've already stated that it's the rare exception and it is done for reasons other than velocity. The use of low flash powders is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Two Old Dogs
January 4, 2013, 06:33 PM
The manufacturer chooses the powder for a particular cartridge based on the acceptable pressure level (SAMMI) and the desired ballistic results desired. And, yes, barrel length is a factor. Maxium velocity is achieved at the point of powder charge burn out. It is virtually impossible to achieve maxium velocity consistently in a manufacturing process that contains variables such as lot to lot variation of burning rate of commercial powders, tolerances necessary in a production run of a partular cartridge, minor variances of bullet weight and on and on. The manufacturer therefore selects a powder that will give acceptable pressures and burn out at an optimum barrel length to produce an optimmum, not maximum velocity over a production run of the cartridge that is being loaded.

Powder burn out in long guns is generally somewhat less than average barrel length for that particular cartridge. No manufacturer would select a powder that consistently was still burning after it left the barrel since that would add to cost and be poorly received by the consumer even if that powder produced acceptable pressure levels and desired ballistic results.

Powder burn out in the relatively short barrels of handguns is more difficult to achieve and some powder is going to be still burning when the bullet leaves the barrel. That is one reason that handgun cartridges fired in rifle length barrels produce more velocity than in handgun barrels. However, if you check loading recommendations for handgun cartridges fired in rifles, you will generally find that slower burning powders which burn out further up the barrel will produce more optimum results that are not obtainable if that load were fired in a handgun with a shorter barrel.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why is the .22 mag so darn loud?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!