NAA Pug Chrony Test

[naalover]

I took a North American Arms Pug and tested three different types of .22 Magnum and eight types of .22 Long Rifle ammunition. Here are my results:

Photos can be seen here: http://naaminis.blogspot.com/2010/08/north-american-arms-pug-ballistics.html

North American Arms Pug Ballistics Summary

"For self defense using your Pug revolver, the choice is clear: The Winchester Super X 22 Magnum delivers more power more reliably to the target than all of the other cartridges tested."



(NOTE: Scroll through the stats for the conclusions)

With a 4-1/2 inch overall length, 2-3/4 inch height and just a one inch barrel, the North American Arms Pug .22 revolver is the smallest .22 magnum revolver in the world. Its small size makes it an ideal gun to carry when anything larger would be impossible. Think swimming trunks and jogging shorts.

I've seen a lot of discussion about the ideal round to carry in the Pug, but no definitive ballistics tests to decide one way or another. One popular--and expensive--round many people like to have onboard their Pug is the CCI Maxi-Mag HP+V. With a 30 grain jacketed hollow point bullet, CCI claims over 2200 feet per second on their box. Granted, their results were gained from shooting out of a rifle, but impressive nonetheless.

I went to a big box gun store to find some .22 magnum rounds to feed through the Pug. In addition to the Maxi-Mag HP+V, I bought the CCI Maxi-Mag HP 40 grain jacketed hollow point with a claimed 1875 feet per second on the box. I also purchased some Winchester Super X 22 Winchester Magnum jacketed soft-tip hollow points. There was no claim of speed on the Winchester box.


The chronograph was placed approximately 10 feet away from the shooting bench. I shot 10 rounds of each type of bullet, making sure to clean the barrel of the gun with solvent and a brush between each brand of ammunition. The Winchester Super X was first up. The results are under the photo:


Temperature: 68 degrees fahrenheit.

Elevation: 8500 feet above sea level.

Bullet Weight: 40 grain (gr.)

Highest Velocity (Hi): 903 Feet Per Second (FPS)

Lowest Velocity (Low): 852 FPS

Average Velocity (Avg.): 877 FPS

Extreme Spread (ES): 51 FPS

Standard Deviation (SD): 16
_______________________________________________________________
CCI was next to be tested. I chose the Maxi-Mag HP+V's because I was excited to see how they compare to the Winchester:



Temperature: 69 Degrees

Elevation: 8500 Feet

Bullet weight: 30 gr.

HI: 986

Low: 839

Average: 913

ES: 147

SD: 38
_______________________________________________________________

Last, but not least, the CCI Maxi-Mag HP:



Temperature: 73 Degrees

Elevation: 8500 Feet

Bullet weight: 40 gr.

HI: 854

Low: 771

Average: 824

ES: 83

SD: 23
________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSIONS:

I was surprised by the results of this test. At first blush, the HP+V CCI Maxi-Mags seem to really scream along. They are pretty fast, but when you run a simple ballistics calculation on all three bullet types, the results are surprising. I visited this site to figure out the ballistic energy of each ammunition type and here are the results:

Formula used:
Energy = .5 * weight * velocity^2 / 7000 / 32.175

Where weight is in grains, and velocity is in feet/second.

7000 is grains per pound, and 32.175 is acceleration due to gravity.

It can be re-written:
Energy = weight * velocity^2 / 450450
(Source)

Winchester Super X .22 Magnum: 68.29 ft-lbs

CCI Maxi-Mag HP+V: 55.11 ft-lbs

CCI Maxi-Mag HP: 60.29 ft-lbs

The Winchester Super X clearly comes out on top in this test. Even though the CCI HP+V is moving faster, it's a full 10 grains less weight than the other two in the series. After shooting the magnum rounds out of the Pug, I noticed a lot of unburned gunpowder on my notepad as I wrote down each result. My theory is that the one inch barrel of the Pug is way too short and you end up with a large slug of unburned powder being pushed behind the bullet--especially with the supercharged CCI rounds. If you want a good .22 magnum round to carry in your Pug, you can't go wrong with the Winchester Super X jacketed soft tip hollow point.

The next series of tests were run using .22 long rifle ammunition, and those are even more revealing than the .22 magnum test. I chose eight different types of 22 long rifle bullets from the same big box store for a good representation of what might be available to most people. I'll describe each type above and give the results below each photo.




CCI Mini-Mag 22LR

Temperature: 77 Degrees

Elevation: 8500 Feet

Bullet weight: 40 gr.

HI: 838

Low: 754

Average: 808

ES: 84

SD: 25
________________________________________________________________

CCI Mini-Mag 22LR HP

Temperature: 78 Degrees

Elevation: 8500 Feet

Bullet weight: 36 gr.

HI: 858

Low: 792

Average: 834

ES: 66

SD: 20
________________________________________________________________

Winchester Xpert HV Bulk Pack

Temperature: 76 Degrees

Elevation: 8500 Feet

Bullet weight: 36 gr.

HI: 860

Low: 756

Average: 818

ES: 104

SD: 32
________________________________________________________________
Remington Viper Truncated Cone


Temperature: 77 Degrees

Elevation: 8500 Feet

Bullet weight: 36 gr.

HI: 857

Low: 764

Average: 812

ES: 93

SD: 29
________________________________________________________________
Winchester Super SpeedHP Plated Hollow Point

Temperature: 78 Degrees

Elevation: 8500 Feet

Bullet weight: 37 gr.

HI: 888

Low: 738

Average: 846

ES: 150

SD: 40
________________________________________________________________
Winchester Super SpeedRN

Temperature: 78 Degrees

Elevation: 8500 Feet

Bullet weight: 40 gr.

HI: 801

Low: 693

Average: 745

ES: 107

SD: 33
________________________________________________________________
**Federal Spitfire Hyper Velocity Hollow Point**

Temperature: 77 Degrees

Elevation: 8500 Feet

Bullet weight: 31 gr.

HI: 931

Low: 891

Average: 915

ES: 40

SD: 11
________________________________________________________________
Peters High Velocity

Temperature: 76 Degrees

Elevation: 8500 Feet

Bullet weight: 40 gr. (Unknown Bullet Weight)

HI: 708

Low: 551

Average: 622

ES: 157

SD: 53
________________________________________________________________
Conclusions:

I'm going to dispense with one type of ammunition right off the bat: The Peter's rounds are junk in my opinion. I've never seen them before, and I would prefer never to see them again. My hand was black with soot after I shot ten rounds of that stuff, and it performed poorly against all the other brands.

I want to point out the Spitfire ammunition by Federal. Of all of the ammunition tested, including the 22 magnum rounds, this was the most uniform. With an extreme spread of 40 feet per second and a standard deviation of just 11, the Spitfire rounds are made to exacting tolerances. I shot 10 rounds out of a second box just to make sure this stuff was for real... It is.

When compared to the CCI HP+V, the Spitfire is actually faster with a heavier round! Check out the difference in case size and come back when you pick your jaw up off the ground:




My testing shows that the case on the right (!) propels a 31 grain bullet to 915 feet per second. That's two feet per second faster than the 30 grain projectile from the CCI case on the left. It's not quite the most powerful round you can shoot out of the Pug, but it is the fastest of the ammo I've tested so far!

Out of the 22 long rifle rounds tested, the Spitfire, with 57.61 ft-lbs of energy has the highest probability of consistently delivering that level of energy into the target. With a standard deviation of only 11 feet per second, the Spitfire will deliver more power over time than any of the other rounds. It is more powerful (and far cheaper) than the CCI Maxi-Mag HP+V, and very close in power to the CCI Maxi-Mag HP round which delivers 60.29 ft-lbs of energy.

The only other round which outperforms the Spitfire is the Winchester Super X 22 Magnum. With 68.29 ft-lbs of energy, it delivers nearly 10 ft-lbs more energy to the target than any other bullet tested. It is the second most reliable round tested, with a standard deviation of 16 feet per second.

For self defense using your Pug revolver, the choice is clear: The Winchester Super X 22 Magnum delivers more power more reliably to the target than all of the other cartridges tested.

Stay tuned for my next installment. I'll be testing the accuracy of these different rounds out of the Pug.

 

[ewayte]

Any keyholing? My wife's S&W 351PD keyholes when using CCI 40 gr. as opposed to the HP+V.

 

[naalover]

@ewayte, I haven't done extensive target-shooting with paper just yet. The small amount I have done shows no evidence of keyholing whatsoever. I've shot at steel targets from 10-15 feet pretty reliably with this little gun. Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35ldFXYu_oM

 

[rklessdriver]

naalover-
Those Peters .22lr rounds are re-boxed Remington Thunderbolts. I bought a box myself from Gander Mtn to try out.... same disapointing results.

My NAA mini is the .22lr only one and I keep it loaded with the Federal Spitfire.
Will

 

[ClemsonAl]

Another option

I have a NAA 22 mag(no Pug)and as it is an up close and in your face type of gun, I keep rat shot for my first round. If the attacker can't see, it gives you time to escape or totally ruin his day with 4 more HP's

 

[naalover]

@ClemnsonAl, I see your logic, but think about the threat. If you are at the point where you feel threatened enough to not only draw your weapon, but fire a round, why would you give your attacker consideration where he does not? If you are at that point, you need each and every shot to count. Why compromise your chance of escaping with you or your loved one's life by using a round that is clearly inadequate to stop an attack?

 

[evan price]

naalover, Hornady makes a similar cartridge to the CCI +V 22wmr called the V-max, it is also 30-grain, 2200 fps. Any chance of comparing to the CCIs?

 

[naalover]

@Evan, If I can find some of the Hornady rounds, I'll definitely try them. 22 Magnum is very difficult to come by in different iterations these days, and the only Hornady rounds I've found are the .17 HMR.

 

[ms6852]

naalover what kind of trigger pull do you have on your pug? Great info by the way, thanks.

 

[naalover]

@ms6852, my bathroom scale test is showing a consistent 4.0 pounds of trigger pull on the Pug.

 

[Shear_stress]

Thanks for the thorough post! Gotta agree with the Peters as well. Junk. They actually keyholed out of my S&W Kit Gun.

As for your conclusion, I don't really see much that indicates a real-world superiority of the .22 WMR over the .22LR out of a barrel as short as the NAA Pug's. We're talking about muzzle energies in the 50-70 ft-lb range here. Frankly, I'd be surprised if the WMR's numerical advantage translates to a significant difference in terminal ballistics. On the other hand, the WMR's greater noise, flash and practice cost seem like definite disadvantages.

 

[Erich]

8500 feet above sea level?! Wow . . . most folks down low aren't going to get your velocities. Where are you, anyhow? My range is pretty high at just under 6k feet.

It's amazing what a little more barrel will do: my 4" Bearcat (converted by Bowen to .22 Mag) will throw Winchester 40-gr .22 Mags (both the FMJ and JHPs) at 1450 fps, and the lightweight 30-grain .22 Mags howl out at over 1600 fps.

 

[Walkalong]

Hornady makes a similar cartridge to the CCI +V 22wmr called the V-max, it is also 30-grain, 2200 fps. Any chance of comparing to the CCIs?

I recently chronoed that through my NAA Mini .22 Mag.

 

[ClemsonAl]

Ratshot

I carry my NAA in my left pocket as a back-up gun. Like I said, it is an in-your-face type gun. IMO, I don't consider a NAA adequate as a primary carry weapon. I do love them and wish you well with your Pug.

 

[wnycollector]

I just picked up a NAA mini combo (22 mag/22lr) I plan on grabbing the chronograph after I get back from vacation and testing/checking out aguila subsonic 60gr .22lr, armscor 40gr JSP .22 mag and Winny Super-X 40gr FMJ .22 mag.

 

[38snapcaps]

I sure don't understand people that say they don't trust a mini revolver for a primary, but only as a backup. This seems absolutely silly to me. All this "primary-backup" semantics is absurd!

When you use a gun for self defense do you truly believe the assailant knows the difference? When the gun is used it IS a primary, first or second occasion. In reality, if the .22 Magnum is good enough to be called "backup", then it can be good enough to be "primary". Good enough for one application but not good enough for another? What's the difference?

If you relegate the gun to some kind of lower tier how much confidence are you going to have in using it? If you don't trust it to protect you then you have no business having it in your hand in the first place. Self defense is more mental/attitude than the actual fight or what gun you have. Tell the 80 year old guy who drove off three thugs with his mini revolver his gun can't be considered a primary. It was, you know. Are saying he would be better off with nothing? It's not a primary, by your definition, so it couldn't have saved his life?

You mean to tell me a bullet going 1,000fps is not good enough, just because it's a .22? I get so tired of the attitudes of people that have a psychological need for a big caliber gun writing endless nonsense about the supposed ineffectiveness of a .22. These guys need to study some police and forensic reports for Real World facts. Fact: a properly placed .22 will do more damage then a soft tissue hit with a .45. Go to the Box O' Truth website and tell me how anemic the .22 magnum is.

Please, let's get real here!

 

[ClemsonAl]

Back-up vs. Primary

Sure , a well placed 22 to the brain will take down a human or animal better than a 45 soft tissue wound. But in a real world self defense situation you don't always have that perfect shot. This is when blood loss can be the deciding factor in stopping someone. This is why police,military, and most ccw civilians prefer a bullet that makes a bigger hole to increase the blood loss. Like I said, I carry my NAA in my pocket because it is small and I like it.

 

[naalover]

For those of you questioning the effectiveness of the .22 round, here's an eye opening article on the effects of different bullets on living targets:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer.htm

My favorite quote from this article:

"The horrific error in putting your faith in either kinetic energy or a Taylor Knock-Out value should be obvious. If you believe in TKO, a 12 gauge Foster slug is 13 times more deadly than a .223 Remington, almost four and one half times as lethal as a 30-30, and over 350% more deadly than a .308. It would also characterize the .22 LR rimfire as virtually worthless, though it outpenetrates our .223 Remington round, our 12 gauge Foster slug, and remains the most popular professional assassination cartridge of all time. Does anyone believe that?"

 

[ms6852]

Naalover thanks for the response. Four pounds does not seem all that bad for a trigger pull. I had a 38 derringer with what seem like a 8 pound pull and never liked it. But I think the 22 magnum will be ok.

 

[Shear_stress]

For those of you questioning the effectiveness of the .22 round, here's an eye opening article on the effects of different bullets on living targets:

The numbers you quote are for gelatin, not living tissue and the penetration figures were for a .22LR from a rifle length barrel. This is a subtlety that often slips by in discussions of .22 effectiveness.

You mean to tell me a bullet going 1,000fps is not good enough, just because it's a .22? I get so tired of the attitudes of people that have a psychological need for a big caliber gun writing endless nonsense about the supposed ineffectiveness of a .22. These guys need to study some police and forensic reports for Real World facts. Fact: a properly placed .22 will do more damage then a soft tissue hit with a .45. Go to the Box O' Truth website and tell me how anemic the .22 magnum is.

Please, let's get real here!

As a first step toward getting real, let's dispense with the straw man arguments and attempts to psychoanalyze others here. Second, please point out where the Box O'Truth tests a .22 magnum out of a pistol or rifle. They did test the .22 LR out of a Freedom Arms revolver with a 1" barrel and found penetration to be poor.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot26.htm

Handguns are pretty ineffective compared to other firearms and .22 handguns are 100% on the low range of effectiveness, especially when that projectile leaves a 1" barrel. While guns like NAA Mini-revolvers are definitely better than nothing, they have severe limitations that their users should be mindful of. The OP has done a good service to those users by posting the above data.

Any gun one chooses to carry will have trade offs. Pretending yours doesn't and then using a lot of huffy, declarative statements to defend your choice may make you feel better on the internet but won't help you one bit in "the real world".

 

[naalover]

Shear Stress, I believe you make good points. I was presumptive in saying the article was eye opening. For me, it was. You are correct about those being gelatin tests, but I will say that I think brassfetcher does a better job of testing by using actual ballistics gelatin. His tests, using a 1-1/8 inch North American Arms mini and .22 magnum rounds are closer to the Pug, which uses the same rounds. Here are his results:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/NAAminiRevolver22Magnum.html

The interesting thing is that the channels shown in his gel are very similar to the channels shown in the illustrations in the piece I posted above.

Not to disparage Box-O-Truth, but here's a photo of my chest next to a gallon jug:



He stipulates that a bullet traveling through 24 inches of water is equivalent to traveling through 12 inches of ballistics gelatin, but he fails to take into account the seven layers of high-density polyethylene the bullet must travel through as it enters and exits each milk jug. Add the layers of denim on top of that, and you have a pretty good ballistics barrier not being taken into account. A proper test in water would have to be unobstructed.

More food for though on this limitless debate!

 

[38snapcaps]

"Straw Man"? Now this is getting to be fun, circa 1939. Okay, my turn:

"Ignore the man behind the curtain". His way is the only way. "100% on the low range", and "they have severe limitations" are not to be considered declarative statements made in defense of personal choice.

My point was not to start a caliber debate but to question why ANY particular handgun, if not adequate to be titled "primary" can be considered sufficient as a "backup". Was that so hard to understand?

The internet is a wonderful research tool, for those with adequate reading comprehension. In it can be found many many testimonials by ER nurses and doctors, EMT's, police officers, and everyday citizens-the .22 Magnum bullet, fired from a handgun, has proven to be a capable instrument for self defense. Sad to say, some people do not find THAT world to be the "real world". Makes one wonder, what world are they living in?

Please excuse my erroneous ballistics reference, I was thinking of the Brassfetcher website.

 

[Shear_stress]

"Straw Man"? Now this is getting to be fun, circa 1939. Okay, my turn:

"Ignore the man behind the curtain". His way is the only way. "100% on the low range", and "they have severe limitations" are not to be considered declarative statements made in defense of personal choice.

Heh, heh, heh. Somewhere in your rush to craft a snarky post you forgot that a "straw man" is a logical fallacy, and one you are so fond of you use it in every one of your posts. Since you have trouble recognizing it, I'll give you a hypothetical example: "Doncha just hate it when you're trying to talk about rimfire ballistics in NAA Mini-Revolvers and some people have to butt in with their personal dogma about backup guns."

The internet is a wonderful research tool, for those with adequate reading comprehension. In it can be found many many testimonials by ER nurses and doctors, EMT's, and police officers-the .22 Magnum bullet, fired from a handgun, has proven to be a capable instrument for self defense. Sad to say, some people do not find THAT world to be the "real world". Makes one wonder, what world are they living in?

A board with a nail through it is a "capable instrument for self defense", but that doesn't mean there aren't better alternatives. The point of this thread is to talk numbers; your arguments are couched in blanket statements about what "some people" (whoever they are) think. Besides, "the plural of 'anecdote' isn't 'data'".

My point was not to start a caliber debate but to question why ANY particular handgun, if not adequate to be titled "primary" can be considered sufficient as a "backup". Was that so hard to understand?

Yup, it was a bit hard to understand why you brought it up as it has nothing to do with the original post. Try to stay on topic.
------------

Moving on:

I think brassfetcher does a better job of testing by using actual ballistics gelatin. His tests, using a 1-1/8 inch North American Arms mini and .22 magnum rounds are closer to the Pug, which uses the same rounds. Here are his results:

I agree with you there, though I'd again argue that there's not a yawning difference in gel penetration between the .22LR and .22 magnum from that short barrel length.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/NAAminiRevolver22Magnum.html
http://www.brassfetcher.com/22minis.html

 

[ricebasher302]

Thanks for posting naalover.

 

[pezo]

I had the best penetration and deformation leading to asymmetrical expansion with winchester dynapointes during my unscientific phone book test. I had reliability issues with cci brand ammo to steer me away from them. Winchester does make a good .22 mag for these little revolvers. I believe heavier bullets work well in this category. Also copper plated bullets over copper jacketed bullets which don't achieve the velocity to expand and the jacets restrict deformation and expansion. Heavy copper plated bullets are key.