Why is the .22 mag so darn loud?

[CraigC]

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]

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]

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.



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]

Just beware of the .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer......plugs and muffs required........lol

 

[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.

murf

 

[Clark]

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]

clark,

we are talking about sound waves, not electromagnetic waves.

murf

 

[Clark]

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]

loud noises

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]

Because you're not wearing hearing protection like you're supposed to, silly!

 

[natman]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.22 magnum.

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]

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.

Does any of this make sense?

 

[HiVel1]

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!