Printable View
I was surprised at his findings. I had just about talked myself into ditching my 351c for something else, like perhaps a second 43c until I watched that video. I suppose I'll hold on to it for now unless someone offers me a 431 or 432 for trade. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JHC
I’m impressed by both the extra penetration and the fact there is some expansion. That plus the admittedly nebulous advantage of the louder report make .22 Magnum worth looking at again over .22 LR in these snubs.
Unless this fact has changed, the 351C has a heavier mainspring, like 15 lbs. The reason is that S&W engineers observed misfires that they could not explain but then reasoned that the gun's 11 oz weigh is so light that hammer mass when falling caused the revolver to be pushed forward. One result was the cases moving to the rear at the same time the firing pin hit the rim. Hence misfires resulted, and the factory increase spring weight to accommodate this situation.
Mine has the Apex kit. No misfires thus far with decent ammo. The older stuff is hit and miss and I’ll have to check my notes. I’m still not buying into the whole deal about a heavier main spring being necessary on new ammo.Quote:
Originally Posted by willie
No doubt some ammo companies are loading the .22 Magnum with faster powder so the round will perform better in short barrels. For decades we had only ammo designed for rifles or longer barrel handguns. Still, we have to decide if the round's extra cost justifies buying it. Since the .22 Mag round operates at very high pressure, this fact may be the reason that Apex's longer firing pin for J frames is not recommended for handguns chambered in magnum J frames(or for the regular rimfire round guns either).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeler
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharps54
re expansion . . . I could change someday I guess, but for this needle shooter I load ours with CCI 40 grain FMJ. Like I would with a .380.
The idea that faster powder performs better in shorter barrels is a misconception, at least as far as velocity. It is generally held that the powder that gives the fastest muzzle velocity in a long barrel for a given projectile and cartridge will also give the fastest muzzle velocity in a short barrel, keeping maximum pressures and everything else the same. There may be more flash and blast, and perhaps unburned kernels, with the slower powder in the short barrel. In the Lucky Gunner tests, the three cartridges tested are all running around 1100 +/- fps. We don't know anything about the pressures. Bullet jacket hardness is an obvious variable.Quote:
Originally Posted by willie
It is possible to vary the projectile's characteristics (i.e., expansion) to better suit it to slower muzzle velocity expected with a shorter barrel. And with a barrel much shorter than optimal for a cartridge, such as a snubby with .22WMR, the difference in muzzle velocity between the optimum rifle-barrel powder and a faster powder may be minimal, so that the reduced flash and blast of a faster powder becomes preferable. But a cartridge so tailored may fall behind the cartridge tailored for the longer barrel, when both are shot in the longer barrel.
I agree that this misconception may apply to some centerfire handgun applications. Slower powders are more likely to have pressure curves producing higher velocities within acceptable pressure range. Longer barrels take advantage of this type pressure curve. In J frame .22 mag snub length barrels, my opinion(no references)is that Hornady used faster powders to produce their current performance level. Be aware that faster can mean slightly faster and not greatly faster on that long continuum of burn rate. Also I think that advancements in this are proprietary and not disclosed. Two variables are bullet weight and bullet diameter. In the 1960s the Super Vel brand achieved high performance by reducing both. Colt revolver barrel diameter in .38 spl was .354. I would load up hot ammo for my 6 inch Official Police using 9mm jacketed bullets and a heavy load of 2400.
I’m using rifle ammo.Quote:
Originally Posted by willie
The .22 Mag has the same SAAMI rating as .22 LR neither of which is a “very high pressure,” 24,000 PSI to be precise. That’s 11,000 PSI less that standard pressure 9mm.
I’m not using an Apex firing pin, just the springs.
In short my experiences with the 351c have been positive in both function and accuracy. What have your experiences been?
My misfires were with the older J frames series guns. Since I used them for plinking, I was not perturbed by them. I have no personal experience with the current J frame .22's but have thee newer .38 spls, but these do not apply to your question. I did not know that the .22 mag operated at .22 rimfire pressures. I do know that many years ago S&W discontinued the magnum J frames because the .22 mag round caused flame cutting on the top strap. Later, some of their .22 mag revolvers had a metal shield to prevent gas cutting. I have had personal experience with five J frame .22 rimfires but admit to being out of date in the sense that I have not owned a current model. After I wrote the post above, I looked back to determine a reference for my opinion and found an American Rifleman article on the subject of the J frame snubs and the .22 Magnum. I have fired at least 75,000 rounds of .22 l.r. ammo through revolvers: High Standard, S&W, H&R, and Ruger. I became accustomed to occasional misfires. I accepted them as the nature of the beast. I noticed variations from lot to lot. Yes. I received my ammo in lots. I suggest that the person depending on a rimfire for self defense identify at least one lot that shows reliability in his weapon and retain it.