Ah, well then, please show me the modern low pressure .299 caliber and down rimfires on the market intended for defensive use or serious hunting.
Reading comprehension 101. I didn't say rimfire was a superior design in sub-.30 caliber cartridges or that there is a demonstrable benefit over centerfire. Obviously, there isn't. What I said is that the limitations of the rimfire design coupled with smokelss powder create a logistical problem in cartridges over .30 caliber, even at lower operating pressures.
If it was viable to do, there would be nuts out there doing it. We have blackpowder and bow hunters. No big bore rimfire hunters though. No makers even suggesting making such cartridges or arms. A "low pressure" .299 cal rimfire would theoretically be suitable for some medium to smallish sized big game hunting, but no such weapons exist. No such cartridges exist. (caveat: that i am aware of)
There were tons in the black powder era, and they were used for all tasks from gallery plinking to dangerous game hunting, and everything in between. And once again, it was the advent of smokeless powder that made those larger rimfires impractical. It could be done today, but would require either a tremendously powerful firing pin spring to smash a sufficiently thick case rim, or a small thin spot in the case rim that somehow indexed correctly on feeding, in order to prevent a rim blowout. Of course, we know that neither approach is feasible.
I disagree that i have failed to "substantiate my claim", to the contrary, several other people, including yourself, have agreed that existing rimfire ammunition (which is what we're talking about here), is less reliable.
No, I did not agree with that, and you have not substantiated it. There's that comprehension thing again. I said that cheap bulk .22 LR is less reliable than most centerfire because of the QC issues with something produced on the order of 3
billion rounds per year at an average cost of $0.03 per round. .17 HM2, .17 HMR, 5mm RMR and .22 WMR are in a different class, with much lower numbers and much better quality (not the least of which is the use of conventional jacketed bullets).
Cheaply produced centerfire ammunition suffers from the same QC related reliability issues.
On top of it, you went on to further state that it's rimmed design is yet another problem for reliable defensive use. And i agree.
No I didn't. Not here, not ever. Why would a rim be a problem for defensive cartridges? The .38 Spl. has a rim. So does the .357 Magnum. Are guns so chambered somehow less reliable than a 9mm or .45 in your world?
I said the rimless design of modern centerfire cartridges was to facilitate better feeding in box magazine firearms. How you get rimmed being a drawback for defensive use from that, especially without differentiating between revolver and automatic, is beyond me. Pretty convoluted thought process, it would seem.
The same pistol chambered for a .22 cal rimless and centerfire cartridge with the same pressure and velocity levels would be a far more suitable defensive arm.
Perhaps the most ridiculous comment you've made thus far. The primary argument against the .22 Rimfires for defensive use is the poor terminal performance. Making the cartridge case different won't fix that shortcoming.
It's fairly obvious at this point that most of what you're saying is just regurgitated from other boards or gunshop conversations, as your previous posts suggest that you don't really have a very good understanding of metallic cartridge design and internal ballistics, but rather just a grudge against rimfires. Get back to us when you can come up with something researched and verifiable.
