I had a reload set for reloading 22 when I was young; it was tedious at best, and at less than a buck a box, not worth the hassle. Never expected amo to get this ridiculous. I now wish I never threw that junk out. However, to say they can't be reloaded: if man made it, man can break it, and man can fix it, no exceptions. Can't is not in my vocabulary, sorry to see it in yours.
Joe wrote: September 23, 2013
I just had a Winchester .22lr cartridge separate the base (primer end) while firing. I hope it didn't damage my ARX. Sprayed my arm with hot ash too
Kirby wrote: July 11, 2013
Wow. Talk about learning absolutely everything you ever wanted to know about .22 ammo! Good stuff. Very helpful!
good seo wrote: May 25, 2013
HWINiN Major thanks for the post.Much thanks again. Keep writing.
good seo wrote: May 25, 2013
WHQQYr I loved your blog article.Really thank you!
digital slr lenses wrote: May 14, 2013
bH9Dym A round of applause for your post.Really thank you! Will read on...
Neil Mcculley wrote: November 11, 2012
I find myself liking the 22 magnum is the perfect all around favorite. It seldom has probls. It cost a little more but pushes a stronger punch too it's target. Thanks for great reviews ,
Charles wrote: September 01, 2012
If memory serves (and increasingly it doesn't) an early version of the Winchester Model 63 .22 rimfire semiauto rifle had a cartridge in .22LR length with the larger case and non-heeled bullet of the .22mag. I think Remington had a similar specialty cartridge. They could not compete...their higher price more than offset any technical advantages in the eyes of the buyer.
Greg Hodnett wrote: March 17, 2012
I used to keep a record of misfires. I found some old pages. I noticed that most of my fail-to-fires came in the early months and years of shooting my current rimfire guns. I haven't had a single misfire in 4 years. I do not clean the bore very often, but I do clean the bolt and chamber areas often.
Here is a synopsis of my misfires taken from old records. The prices listed are also old, of course.
Remington H.V. $9.70 per brick: 3 misfires per brick.
Win. H.V. $11.90 per brick: 1 misfire per brick
Fed. H.V. $7.90 per brick: 4 misfires in 6 years (5,500 rounds). 0 misfires in the last 2,000 rounds.
Eley Sport $28 per brick: 0 misfires in 4 years (3,000 rounds).
CCI, various $35 per brick average: 0 misfires in 8 years (about 600 rounds).
I use Eley Sport (1080 vel) most of the time for target work and close squirrels. I think this is very good function quality. I use Federal 510 H.V. for plinking and longer body shots on squirrels. My stash of each brand is less than 2,000 rounds. The next time I buy, I expect the price of Federal 510's will be over $20 per brick, and the Eley Sport will probably be $35 per brick.
Jon Edgar wrote: December 13, 2011
Long ago, I read a pamphlet titled "I, pencil." by Leonard Read. He made a wonderful case for pencil being one of the greatest examples of the glory of modern capitalism. "No one man can make me," the pencil said. It was the result of a highly refined and specialized process. The .22LR is a similar prodigy. Solely by the virtue of its popularity and inexpensive quality, it has risen to a level of sophistication, unbelievably far beyond its more expensive, larger brothers. Thank you for your article. It is truly astonishing how much true genius goes into the lowest and greatest items in the firearms industry.
Be mighty,
Jon Edgar
Blackshirts wrote: July 23, 2011
I actually haven't had a misfire in the last ~1500 rounds of Federal Lightning. Fed. Champions I get 2-3 a box, but upon reinsertion they have worked.
As far as a larger cased .22 it's called a .223.
ntrudr_800 wrote: May 21, 2011
Hey I was thinking. Why not improve the .22lr? How about a company update the .22lr with a case design that is larger than the bullet--similar to the .17hmr. But with the same velocity and characteristics as normal .22lr. We can call it ".22li" for ".22 Long Improved." The case could be made thick enough so it would not chamber in a .22lr. It may bring the cost down. Or at least be more consistent... It should NOT be more expensive than .22lr--it would replace the .22 lr. Again the characteristics of it's ballistics would be the same as the .22lr. It would just be of better design and possibly easier to make.
ntrudr800@aol.com wrote: May 21, 2011
Wow. I read a little article that CCI had helped another magazine write. After some thought I realized that .22lr rounds must not be so easy to create. I often ponder how in all the universe is it so inexpensive--and now I will even more so. I did not realize that *ALL* .22lr bullets were the same size as their case. I hade noticed the Federal Bulk that I have was this way, and thought it was strange. Now I realize the improvement of the .22mag and the .17hmr. I can not get over how beautiful a cartridge the .17hmr is--it looks fantastic. I have been eying some .22lr's lately. Maybe I will, again, consider the .17hmr.
Glocktogo wrote: November 24, 2010
I call BS on the folks who say they've never had a misfire with .22LR ammo. If you shoot more than a brick of the stuff you've had misfires.
A friend and I were out recently with an assortment of bulk pack, subsonic and target ammo, trying to sight in a .22 rifle at 50 yards. It was nearly impossible to do with the huge ammo variances from three different major brand manufacturers. We had several failures to fire in each type of ammo as well. One subsonic load was so erratic that it would occasionally blow debris back in our faces and the sound signature variations from round to round were significant. I could literally see substantial velocity variations at 12X through the high quality glass on the rifle. Some bullets looked like they were going to fall out of the air before they reached the target, only to strike several inches below the rest. I've chronographed some lots of .22LR that had over 200fps extreme spread within a 10 round string.
.22LR is one of the funnest and simultaneously frustrating rounds in existence.
jla wrote: November 03, 2010
TO answer a few of the previous comments about whether the .22WMR & the .17HMR/.17M2 have the same problems as the .22LR, the answer is some, but not all. They still have the problems that come from the design of the case and the rimfire priming system. They do not however suffer from the bullet & lube problems that come from using and outside lubricated bullets as they use a more modern design that does away with the primitive, outside lubricated, heal-type bullet design in favor of conventional jacketed bullets. (This is why the .22WMR's case is larger in diameter than the .22LR's case. The major diameter of the bullet is seated inside the case on the .22WMR and the .17 caliber rimfires in the same way as is done on modern center-fire ammunition.)
I've been shooting rimfire rifles and handguns for most of my life, and I've had my share of misfires in that time. Last time I went to the range with a rimfire rifle -- a brand new S&W M&P15-22 -- was the first time I've ever had a rimfire case actually blow out on me though. The rim let go and it blew the extractor clean off the bolt. Fortunately I was able to find all the parts, which were undamaged, and get it put back together.
Berne wrote: October 06, 2010
I dont know who you folks are or what brand of ammo ya'll are using, but *all* 22 ammo has misfires at some point or another. As a lifelong shooter of the rimfire calibers (.22 s,l,lr, wrm & hmr) i've found that all brands of bullets (and i've been through many many many flavors) they're going to misfire at SOME point.
Some brands are worse than others - you get what you pay for, but i'll NEVER give up my rimfires.
Rick wrote: October 02, 2010
I am an instructor and work with Civil Air Patrol cadets. We use Remington ammo from the CMP. We use many different types and brands of rifles, including CMP trainers and Ruger 10/22s. We have many dozen misfires across all the rifles in 6 hours of shooting. There are primer strikes on these rounds. The instructors have taken to putting a handful of rounds in their pockets to replace rounds for them as they work on their course of fire. On the plus side, I can teach cadets how to clear misfires . . .
STAN wrote: September 30, 2010
Nothing was said about the WMR. what about the 22 magnum round ?
Annie Choakley wrote: September 26, 2010
I wonder why CCI Standard can't come with a little less lube on it. It's so much lube it eventually shuts off the gun.
MIke Peach wrote: September 24, 2010
It's amazing that some have fired thousands of rounds with no problems. I help teach a CCW class and every rimfire we see fails at least once during 50 rounds. That includes what we would normally tink of as reliable guns. Even so, I enjoy the rimfires and shoot them often.
bruggem wrote: September 23, 2010
why is there no double stack mazines in 20 or 25 rounds for 22 lr pistols for hunting
Gary Frey wrote: September 20, 2010
Unbelievable that I have been using .22s for 50 years with no misfires ever. I have shot competively too (300 rds per day) As a manufacturing engineer I see a simple, easy to manufacture design with tolerances that are easy to achieve. After reading your article I fired my T- bolt several times then ran a cleaning patch through it to examine for glass in the residue. Even under 20X magnification I could not see any. Are you sure it is used???
jim hutchinson wrote: September 16, 2010
I own a number of .22 firearms. I have found over the past 55 years that the one constant is that every gun is most accurate with it's own brand of ammo. I have a Win 52-b rifle that shoots a one-hole group with copper plated 37 gr. hollow-point ammo!( foreign made)Hundreds of squirrels have fallen to head shots with this rig.
J Simcoe wrote: September 14, 2010
I've shot literally hundreds of thousands of .22 rounds in my life time and cannot recall ever having a misfire or issue with it. I've found old rounds laying in the desert and put them in my trusty old SA and they fired just fine. This article makes it seem like it's a miracle they work at all but it's probably the most reliable round out there.
Errett L "Reb" Allen wrote: September 14, 2010
I wish to add, that when I first got my HDM, I bought one box of every different frand of ammo I could find. I then proceeded to fire five rounds each from the bench at a 25 yard target. After each group, I placed the target on top of a blank sheet of paper, and carefully drew the outline of each bullet hole. Then I labeled each group with the Date, Time, and brand of ammo. The Remington Hi Vel HP's produced the tightest group. That is why I have ever since used nothig but that brand of ammo. I enjoyed reading all the other comments.
Thanks again.
Doug Eakins wrote: September 14, 2010
I always wondered why some early .22LR match ammo was loaded with Lesmoke (half black-half smokless) powder. It was for more consistant ignition, thus greater accuracy with powders of that time. The ground glass in the priming compound is evidetly not a serious problem with bore wear, as most .22LR barrels are damaged by cleaning rather than shooting.
Ron Willis wrote: September 14, 2010
Wow! After reading your article, it is amazing that .22's work at all. My unscientific research tells me that you get what you pay for. I've found one brand that performs flawlessly in both of my .22 LR semi-autos, but is a bit more expensive. With the cheaper .22 ammo, you get poor performance.
It would be interesting to know if the same problems exist with .22 magnum and .17 hmr ammo manufacturing.
Mark Anderson wrote: September 14, 2010
I, too, have a High Standard target pistol, a first issue Supermatic with barrel weights, as well as one of the lesser known 6" barreled, nine-shot revolver, aptly named "The Sentinal". Many other .22s have come and gone from my gun collection over the years, but the humble .22 cartridge has always served me well, and in 50+ years of shooting them, using various brands, I've never had the experience of a misfire! The difficulty in production makes me appreciate their success in making reliable ammo even more! Thanks so much for this very educational article. Keep up the good work! Sincerely, Mark
Bill Kauffman wrote: September 13, 2010
Even if the lowly .22 rimfire does not have super minute of angle accracy and all. It is one of the best calibers to learn trigger control, safe gun skills and just plain fun in the sun, so to speak. On top of that it is cheap to shoot.
Thomas Lewis wrote: September 13, 2010
You make no mention of the .22 Magnum. I have used a Marlin hammerless lever action .22 Magnum since I was very young and although most people don't know they exist, the .22 Magnum is alive and well with much better performance than that of a .22 LR.
Errett L Allen NRA & CRPA Life Member wrote: September 11, 2010
It is amazing that given the above, I have found the 22 LR to be extremely accurate in my Hi Standard HDM Pistol for well over 50 years. After many thousands of rounds, using nothing but Remington Hi Velocity Hollow Point Ammo, both pistol and ammo continue to be very accurate and reliable. I have so far found only one misfire. That was caused by one cartridge which had no priming compound in the rim of the case.
I have shot thousands of jack rabbits, ground squirrels and several rattle snakes the vast majority with one shot.
After many years of use, I finally had Micro Sight replace the factory sight with the last one they had for the HDM. This is the only alteration I have ever made. It still functions flawlessly. Many years ago the story of my HDM was published in The Fireing Line.
Thank you for the opportunity to write this comment.
Errett L "Reb" Allen
Comments
ADD YOUR COMMENT
Enter your comments below, they will appear within 24 hours
31 Responses to The Impossible .22 Rimfire (Page 2)