Switch to S&W 351c from 442?

[BillSWPA]

I say no. Ideally, having uniform rim thickness will give more uniform ignition. Rim fire rifle purists claim that in some cases a stronger hammer spring will give more uniform ignition. The chambers that we see in revolvers and Walmart .22 rifles are not target chambers which are held to strict dimensions. High dollar .22rim fire ammo is available but most of us would not or could not tell the difference. I bought a large batch one time at an estate sale. It was made by Lapua. I shamefully rolled tin cans with it.

Uniform ignition is important in a rim fire case because ignition uniformity contributes to pressure uniformity. In the small rim fire case, pressure uniformity reduces variation in velocity. Hence accuracy is enhanced. These same factors are at play in all ammunition, but are viewed as critical in rim fire ammunition. Great variation exist among rim fire brands. At one time Remington was a premium brand but is now considered poor. Many cite Federal's version designed to function well in semi auto's as accurate and problem free. This version has the term auto or automatic in its title. The serious rim fire shooter searches for an offering that is reliable in his particular weapon. If you shoot enough rim fire, you will misfires. In packs of 10 boxes making up a brick, you might shoot 6 boxes, and if they go bang and extract ok, then you will have 4 boxes for serious use. And this sample is small.

Interesting. When you discuss uniform ignition, exactly how is ignition nonuniform if the primer has been ignited? For example, if the priming compound is unevenly spread, does this mean that the speed with which the priming compound will burn will be affacted by whether a particularly thick or particularly thin area is ignited? Or, is the rate at which the ignition is transferred to the powder affected?

[willie]

Yes to both questions as I understand the issue. But first I must say that this subject is one that people argue about. They discuss depth of firing pin strike, firing pin protrusion distance, mainspring force, and rim thickness. Most agree that rim thickness variation causes differences in firing pin strike depth. This is supposed to matter. I can not explain why the priming compound would not burn at the same rate throughout once ignited. But some claim that firing pin shape is a factor. Many discussing these issues are technologically savvy so I expect that they are basing ideas on relevant research findings. And then, some are theorizing. What do I think? Well, I know that even "good' firing pin indentations can fail to set off the priming compound. Perhaps it is spread unevenly and none is under the indention. However, occasionally, letting the firing pin hit the same place a second time will set it off. Or turning the case a bit for a fresh spot for the pin to hit will produce ignition. Regardless, when ignited, the round goes bang within a space of a millisecond.

I admit that I did not clarify the issue for you. I think an explanation can be found in what separates poor rim fire ammo from top of the line offerings. Most likely in these brands, cases vary little in thickness, weight, and overall length. Priming compound is a secret house mixture. Powder has been selected for ideal burning rate. Projectiles have almost no variation in alloy content, diameter, and weight. And finally strict Q.C. rejects individual rounds that are suspect. This same Q.C. might even reject large batches thought to be defective.

[BillSWPA]

Yes to both questions as I understand the issue. But first I must say that this subject is one that people argue about. They discuss depth of firing pin strike, firing pin protrusion distance, mainspring force, and rim thickness. Most agree that rim thickness variation causes differences in firing pin strike depth. This is supposed to matter. I can not explain why the priming compound would not burn at the same rate throughout once ignited. But some claim that firing pin shape is a factor. Many discussing these issues are technologically savvy so I expect that they are basing ideas on relevant research findings. And then, some are theorizing. What do I think? Well, I know that even "good' firing pin indentations can fail to set off the priming compound. Perhaps it is spread unevenly and none is under the indention. However, occasionally, letting the firing pin hit the same place a second time will set it off. Or turning the case a bit for a fresh spot for the pin to hit will produce ignition. Regardless, when ignited, the round goes bang within a space of a millisecond.

I admit that I did not clarify the issue for you. I think an explanation can be found in what separates poor rim fire ammo from top of the line offerings. Most likely in these brands, cases vary little in thickness, weight, and overall length. Priming compound is a secret house mixture. Powder has been selected for ideal burning rate. Projectiles have almost no variation in alloy content, diameter, and weight. And finally strict Q.C. rejects individual rounds that are suspect. This same Q.C. might even reject large batches thought to be defective.

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

Serious rimfire bench rest rifle shooters pay a lot of attention to firing pin geometry where it strikes the case. It's regarded by many/most as a fundamental element of rifle prep. That particular OCD doesn't seem to have penetrated into the pistol world, at least I haven't seen any discussion of it. It may be that the inherent accuracy advantage of a rifle (due to hold, not mechanical accuracy, necessarily) means smaller differences matter in the pursuit of perfection.

[MandoWookie]

Okay, so as of today I have sent 750 rounds of Precision Delta reman wadcutters through the 442, with zero issues with either ammo or gun( with the exception of one split case that made ejection difficult today) , and a notable improvement in my shooting ability with it. I've been using Dot Torture targets to open every range session,and today I finally managed 50 out of 50. So soldiering on, and putting the dedication and time behind the gun has paid off in my performance with it. I focused on the Indian, not the arrow.

I now hate the arrow, though.

It has unfortunately made me even more aware of my dissatisfaction with certain(lack of) features on the gun. The sights first and foremost. As evident by other threads on this board, this is something with no real good solution, only compromises and workarounds. The only good thing about the vestigial aiming references on the the gun is they allow no room for error with regards to sight picture. You either have one or you don't. Great training aid. Kinda how like the .40 Sigma I learned to shoot on made sure to reinforce the fundamentals, because if you didn't have them you were lucky if you hit the backstop. And like the Sigma, I feel like I am fighting every aspect of the gun just to get decent performance out of myself. Unlike the Sigma, where literally almost anything else can perform its job better, there are truly very few things out there that I can see that work as well as Airlite j-frame in its niche, for me.

It is a conundrum. As long as I'm not actually shooting it I like it. But, anything that I can do to improve what I see as deficiencies when shooting , make it less suited for the job I use it for i.e a pocket gun. I've rented a G42, and while it is definitely much easier to shoot, with better sights( and sight options) and perceived recoil, I have misgivings about it in a pocket gun role, reinforced by limited experimentation with trying to draw it from the pocket, with regards to snagging and getting a good grip. Meanwhile the 351c offers most of the features I would like on the 442, in an almost identical package, with the promise of less recoil and lighter weight, while the trade off is this is at the cost of a much less effective caliber, and possibly higher likelihood of issues. My 442 has definitely proven that its one of the good ones at this point.

With that in mind, I have decided that I am not going to get rid of the 442. I am however still planning on getting a 351c, but will put at least as much time behind it, and a great deal of thought on the caliber trade-off, before committing to using it as a carry gun.

TL;DR, The 442 still sucks, I suck slightly less now, 351c still looks tempting despite(and because of) its caliber.