.22 Long came up pretty short today

[TTv2]

I bought a Charter Arms Undercoverette in .32 S&W Long a few months back. Included with the gun was a box of ammunition in that caliber (six rounds of which had clearly been stored in the gun for some time.) If I shot those rounds in a gun chambered for .32HRM, I'm pretty sure I'd expect beforehand that they would be weaker, though still properly made.

Would u expect .32 Magnum to be weaker than .32 S&W Long? Cuz that's kind of the situation I have had with .22 Long and .22 Short.

I cannot think of a reason .22 Long should be slower than .22 Short when it is advertised as being faster.

 

[MedWheeler]

What was the box-stated velocity of the Shorts? I wonder if they were made using a faster-burning powder, intended for handguns. I don't know if anyone does that.

Incidentally, I got some new respect for Shorts when I recently shot a handful of them through a LR-chambered NAA Mini. At about 40 feet, it was still easy to hit a Frisbee-sized target, or at least dance close enough to it to know I could. It made me actually crave one of their Short-chambered revolvers.

 

[TTv2]

What was the box-stated velocity of the Shorts? I wonder if they were made using a faster-burning powder, intended for handguns. I don't know if anyone does that.

Incidentally, I got some new respect for Shorts when I recently shot a handful of them through a LR-chambered NAA Mini. At about 40 feet, it was still easy to hit a Frisbee-sized target, or at least dance close enough to it to know I could. It made me actually crave one of their Short-chambered revolvers.

It wqs Aguila brand and the box says 1095 fps. The CCI Longs say 1215 fps.

I have no reason to believe the Shorts were intended for shorter handgun barrels, but it is possible that a fast burning powder is used in them over a slower one in the Longs.

As for the NAA, I wouldnt go smaller than the LR models as the only thing that gets reduced is the length of the gun by like half an inch. The LR minis are already small enough and going to Shorts only, you do lose a penetration.

They would be cool to own and look at tho.

 

[MedWheeler]

TTv2 writes: (about the NAA in .22 Short)

They would be cool to own and look at tho.

All the reason I need (and all the reason I have!)

 

[Demi-human]

I wouldn't call a Ruger SR22 an improper firearm,

What is stamped on the barrel?

Does it correlate with this?


It sounds like some one complaining their mud tires don’t fit on their Subaru even though it’s a “proper 4x4”.

What does the chamber ring from a shorter case have to do with anything?

Proper cartridge for the chamber friend.

I had no issues with that in the revolvers I was shooting Shorts with.

Completely non-sequitur with the opening post.


Sorry you had such a bad time. Rust collector’s link is a good one. I’d suggest you take a read.
Like many things, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

 

[TTv2]

What is stamped on the barrel?

Does it correlate with this?
View attachment 1082755

It sounds like some one complaining their mud tires don’t fit on their Subaru even though it’s a “proper 4x4”.


Proper cartridge for the chamber friend.


Completely non-sequitur with the opening post.


Sorry you had such a bad time. Rust collector’s link is a good one. I’d suggest you take a read.
Like many things, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

The fact remains that out of every gun I shot the .22 Long in, .22 Short was faster. Any belief that the .22 Long is loaded weak for "ancient" rifles is hooey because all those "ancient" rifles are capable of shooting the .22 Short, which apparently is hotter ammo.

And I have never heard of a .22 Long rifle that was not safe to shoot .22 Shorts from.

 

[Demi-human]

You are conflating speed with pressure.

It is safe, you’ll just ruin your chamber.

 

[Remington1911]

In case anyone is interested in the development of the 22 rimfire, here is a good article. https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/development-rimfire-ammunition The 22 long was an evolutionary step from the original short to the eventual long rifle. Though at one time less expensive than long rifle ammunition, it is now more expensive because of reduced demand and low volume. It is produced to feed guns designed for it, and that is the only thing at which it excels.

You mean like every other cartridge.....so thats why I can't make those 9mm work in my 380.

I know a snarky comment, and I will read the link. We can look at 380 and 9 as another example, same size boolet, just a shorter 9mm.

My frustration in not pointed at you, but more the uninformed OP, stop making such crap ammo CCI, these are the words he signed off with, and a more uninformed statement could not be made on the subject.

I do and don't want to call the OP out on his words. I would have had no issue with a post of why bother with Longs, I tried it and it just shot like "crap" out of everything I tried.....here is a person with an open mind not understanding the reasons behind 22 long. I do not expect everyone, even hard core gun nutz to know everything....what I do expect is to not be calling out as "crap" things you do not understand.

I will read the rest of the posts, and see if any comments help further the understanding, but I think I am done here.

 

[Remington1911]

No, I was surprised that it wasn't faster than .22 Short was out of handguns, especially when the advertised velocity of the Shorts were over 100 fps slower than the advertised velocity of the Longs.


What does the chamber ring from a shorter case have to do with anything? I had no issues with that in the revolvers I was shooting Shorts with.

I wouldn't call a Ruger SR22 an improper firearm, it's actually a very proper one and well made.
Other than the H&R which is chamber for .22 Long, the .22 Shorts were fired out of .22 LR chambers, which is a much more "improper" ammo to shoot than .22 Long is, which is the exact same case length as .22 LR, yet the Shorts achieved a higher velocity. This was the case in the H&R .22 Long revolver as well.

Well so much for that.....You still don't get it do you....it is not proper for the ammo you used, in this case 22 long.

Now I don't know the SR22 I do not own one, but I can tell you on the side of my "ancient" Remington 552 says 22 short-long-longrifle S-R-LR. So the gun is designed to chamber those rounds. To tell the truth on the three "ancient" rifles I really don't know if they are marked, I doubt the polish and german old are marked bet that old winchester is, might look.

In looking at rugers web page it says....caliber 22LR. It says the gun uses a 22LR caliber round, you did not follow directions by shooting something not stated. Now if the gun says on the side it will shoot all I will gladly retract my post, and issue a public apology, I don't know, I am just going off rugers web site, you own the weapon I do not. But going off rugers site and it saying 22LR....welp.



Now they don't make the 552 anymore, so I had to hit other sites, at this point if I was home I would take a pic of the guns markings where it says what it chambers, you know to beat that dead horse a little harder, the thing we are all told, and tell noobs all the time, shoot what is written on the side of the gun. Sure a 50BMG will fit in a shot gun but I don't think it is a real good idea.
Here is what I found on the 552



I think I am done here, not sure but is it something like lead a horse to water kind of thing.

 

[starnbar]

Well I am glad we got that ironed out.//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

[rust collector]

You mean like every other cartridge.....so thats why I can't make those 9mm work in my 380.

Your snark is off the mark. You can fire 38 special in 357 magnum chambers. Forty-five Colt will also work in 454 Casull chambers. Those cartridges give you options. 22 longs are loaded only because the guns they are designed for work best with them. The OP was not using them for that purpose.

 

[Remington1911]

Your snark is off the mark. You can fire 38 special in 357 magnum chambers. Forty-five Colt will also work in 454 Casull chambers. Those cartridges give you options. 22 longs are loaded only because the guns they are designed for work best with them. The OP was not using them for that purpose.

that is known, as well as the 44 special. I would concede the point if the manual does not say you can shoot 38's in a 357. Bet it does, I know the 40yr old book for my marlin lever gun says it does and will hold one more round.

Swing and a miss.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

When I see .22 Long I assume the ammo maker made a short production run for folks who have old guns for .22 Long.

I still have six boxes of .22 Short High Velocity which turned out to be much hotter than the general run of .22 Long. I set them aside years ago in case I run into a. 22 short only gun.

There used to be an economical incentive as late as the 1950s and 1960s to buy the cheaper Short and Long for plinking or pest control. Today due to economy of scale production, .22 Long Rifle is mass produced and available cheaper than short or long.

I was tempted to buy a box of .22 Long High Velocity because I heard it would run in a Nylon66 ".22 LR Only" and allow two extra rounds in the tube magazine.

In general though I leave 22 Long on the store shelf for someone who might need it.

 

[TTv2]

Well so much for that.....You still don't get it do you....it is not proper for the ammo you used, in this case 22 long.

Now I don't know the SR22 I do not own one, but I can tell you on the side of my "ancient" Remington 552 says 22 short-long-longrifle S-R-LR. So the gun is designed to chamber those rounds. To tell the truth on the three "ancient" rifles I really don't know if they are marked, I doubt the polish and german old are marked bet that old winchester is, might look.

In looking at rugers web page it says....caliber 22LR. It says the gun uses a 22LR caliber round, you did not follow directions by shooting something not stated. Now if the gun says on the side it will shoot all I will gladly retract my post, and issue a public apology, I don't know, I am just going off rugers web site, you own the weapon I do not. But going off rugers site and it saying 22LR....welp.

View attachment 1082793

Now they don't make the 552 anymore, so I had to hit other sites, at this point if I was home I would take a pic of the guns markings where it says what it chambers, you know to beat that dead horse a little harder, the thing we are all told, and tell noobs all the time, shoot what is written on the side of the gun. Sure a 50BMG will fit in a shot gun but I don't think it is a real good idea.
Here is what I found on the 552



I think I am done here, not sure but is it something like lead a horse to water kind of thing.

Did you not read my posts? I shot the Longs out of more than just the SR22 and really the only reason I shot .22 Long out of the semi autos was to see if they would cycle and feed well and they actually did, which I was surprised by.

For the revolvers tho, of which the H&R is one of the and, again it is a true .22 Long chambered gun, the Shorts were faster.

And in case you are not aware, the case length of .22 Long and .22 LR is the same because it is the same case, the only difference is the bullet as .22 uses a longer bullet. So, all the speculation that the chamber is so vastly different and it causes the .22 Long to somehow lose velocity, but .22 Short doesnt, makes no sense.

 

[TTv2]

Since we're on the topic of .22 Long, does anyone know if anyone other than CCI makes .22 Long ammo? I'm tempted to buy a different brand and see if there's much difference.

 

[Remington1911]

Did you not read my posts? I shot the Longs out of more than just the SR22 and really the only reason I shot .22 Long out of the semi autos was to see if they would cycle and feed well and they actually did, which I was surprised by.

For the revolvers tho, of which the H&R is one of the and, again it is a true .22 Long chambered gun, the Shorts were faster.

And in case you are not aware, the case length of .22 Long and .22 LR is the same because it is the same case, the only difference is the bullet as .22 uses a longer bullet. So, all the speculation that the chamber is so vastly different and it causes the .22 Long to somehow lose velocity, but .22 Short doesnt, makes no sense.

So you shoot something out of a gun it is not made for, don't like the results and call it crap......yea I think I have you very well.

 

[TTv2]

So you shoot something out of a gun it is not made for, don't like the results and call it crap......yea I think I have you very well.

It should not be slower than .22 Short. Agree or disagree?

 

[Barbaroja]

I find it odd that your comparing aguila.22 short with cci 22 longs. Your seem to be comparing apples and oranges in my mind.

I didn’t see where you posted your chrono data on the two rounds. What was the difference between the advertised velocity and what you were seeing?

 

[Remington1911]

I find it odd that your comparing aguila.22 short with cci 22 longs. Your seem to be comparing apples and oranges in my mind.

I didn’t see where you posted your chrono data on the two rounds. What was the difference between the advertised velocity and what you were seeing?

I have given up, I have some 22 longs with a box vel of 700fps, they are cci. Some people choose to die on specific hills fine with me....I tried and failed to explain, done trying.

 

[TTv2]

I have given up, I have some 22 longs with a box vel of 700fps, they are cci. Some people choose to die on specific hills fine with me....I tried and failed to explain, done trying.

Is your .22 Long ammo the CB stuff that is advertised as 710 fps on the box?





Do you understand that the .22 Long ammunition I was shooting was this ammunition, which is advertised at 1215 fps?



I do not expect out of a handgun that the velocity would be anywhere near 1200 fps, but I do not like that .22 Short is faster when its advertised MV is lower.

 

[TTv2]

I find it odd that your comparing aguila.22 short with cci 22 longs. Your seem to be comparing apples and oranges in my mind.

I didn’t see where you posted your chrono data on the two rounds. What was the difference between the advertised velocity and what you were seeing?

My data:

CCI Long advertised MV- 1215 fps
Aguila Short advertised MV- 1095 fps

.22 Short Aguila from H&R Young America:
782
736
763
792

.22 Long CCI from H&R Y. America:
612
633
617
620

.22 Short Aguila from Heritage revolver:
1023
1004
1023
982
982

.22 Long CCI from Heritage:
883
941
913
902
865
871
895
889

.22 Long from Ruger SR22
908
970
896
930
903
947
930
920

I didn't record the .22 Short data from the automatics, but they were the same 75-100 fps increase over .22 Long. Also, a reminder that the H&R Young America is the only true .22 Long chamber, the others are all .22 LR.

 

[TTv2]

I do want to update this topic as I shot more of the .22 Long yesterday. Brought another semi auto as I wanted to see if it would cycle it and surprisingly enough it did, but I could not load more than 10 rounds in the mag as the slots on the sides of the mag caused the rounds to start sticking out of them the more rounds were put in. There was one issue with the shorter OAL of the Long, but the CP33 magazine is weird.

Anyway, I do have to say that at 50 yards the recoil with the .22 Long is noticeably low, lower than any other .22 LR ammo I have ever shot. Thus, because most .22 LR's I have shot it with have been able to cycle the .22 Long, I cannot say it doesn't have some use. Not even CCI Quiet can claim to be lower recoil and even if it was, it would be pointless as it does not cycle the bolt far enough to pick up a new round.

I am still not pleased with how low the velocity is with .22 Long from a pistol, but I do think I'm going to buy more .22 Long ammo in the future because it has been fun to shoot, albeit pricey.

 

[KY DAN]

Speaking about .22 Long, not Long Rifle. I've never bought or shot or even seen this ammo in person before, so when CCI finally had some in stock on their website I figured I'd buy a couple boxes and see what the deal was as I have an H&R revolver chambered in .22 Long.

The good news is that .22 Long fed and cycled well thru semi autos (I only shot pistols today, dunno how it'd work in rifles, but I assume fine) with any issues likely being general rimfire issues. It also did appear to be fairly accurate, I was only shooting steel, but my POA and POI did not shift much between .22 Long and .22 LR.

The bad news is that .22 Long is extremely weak, at least this CCI ammo I have is. On the box it says 1215 fps, which I know is for a rifle, but from the pistols I shot today Aguila .22 Short was actually faster with the same 29gr bullet. Compared to general 40 gr standard velocity .22 LR, the .22 Long is maybe 20-30 fps faster, but that's with a 29gr bullet.

My opinion is don't buy this ammo unless you can get .22 LR. About the only use for .22 Long is if nothing else is available it will work or for those with old guns that are only chambered for .22 Long and not .22 LR, the .22 Long does appear to shoot more accurately than .22 Short does.

Thanks for making such crap ammo, CCI!

Your the kinda of guy that watches flock of birds fly over and is outraged when they defecate on you.

Each cartridge does something the other does not, you don't seem to understand nor respect that .

There is no arguing with you on the point because you don't grasp simple principles of cartridge design

 

[rust collector]

The back-and-forth is useful in a table tennis match, less so in this context. Let's call it a day.