Using hot 22LR ammo in old guns

[Trey45]

CCI mini mag 40 grain listed at 1235 fps
CCI Velocitor 40 grain ammo listed at 1435 fps
Aguila Interceptor 40 grain ammo listed at 1470 fps

Are there any dangers involved in using these high velocity rounds in older rifles?
50 plus years old.

[Heavy]

What I found out after purchasing very old Smith&Wesson 22/32 4" kit gun at a yard sale. It would handle the new rim-fire ammo but would stick in the chambers and have some swelling. Called Smith&Wesson and the man told to shoot standard and or subsonic ammo. Also wanted them to refurbish the old revolver. New blueing etc. he said no go because if anything messed up they did not have the parts to fix. So subsonic and CB caps are what it gets feed now.

[zuke]

Why?
Get a newer gun to use, their made out of better metal.
Rifle or pistol?

[Jim]

Trey, I wouldn't hesitate to fire any of those you listed in guns that were made in the mid 1900's.

[Trey45]

Why?
Get a newer gun to use, their made out of better metal.
Rifle or pistol?

I have around 15 22LR's, some new, some old. The purpose for my question was to ascertain if one or more of these high performance cartridges ended up in one of my mid and early 1900's guns it wasn't going to harm it.

Thanks Jim, that's pretty much what I figured too, I just needed to hear it from someone else.

[gnoahhh]

If the gun was built since the advent of HV ammo, I should think one could get away with it- IF it's in sound condition and built to an intelligent design. I certainly wouldn't fire that stuff in an old boy's single shot (what we called "cat rifles" when I was a kid)- Stevens Crackshots, early Favorites, Visible Loaders, etc. due to an almost non-existent safety margin. Nor would I fire it in early autoloaders such as a pre-1932 Woodsman that would sustain damage from the increased battering.

Personally I never felt the need for the hyper-velocity stuff. As a rule it's not as accurate (at least in any of my guns) and doesn't kill little critters any more dead than a well placed standard velocity bullet.

[jh45gun]

Stick with the standard loadings why batter the gun.

[KCSO]

What gun? 22's range from Flobert to Browning and the gun makesa lot of difference. In a Rolling block or Flobert I would say to go easy unless the gun has been rebarreled recently, but in say a Remington 513 or Browning T bot go for it.

[9.3X62AL]

I've only had one rifle or handgun where this question came up--a first-year Marlin Model 39 (1922?) that pre-dated HV ammo's onset.

Like mentioned above, the hyper-velocity 22 LR stuff has never shot that well in my firearms. I lean heavily toward CCI Mini Mags these days as my "default" go-to 22 LR chow. It runs consistently and reliably, and seems to be at or near the top in the accuracy results with my guns. There are a couple (SIG Mosquito and Winchester 290) that refuse to run on anything else. It's not cheap, but who needs the aggravation posed by bulk-box **** that stalls, misfires, jams, and squibs?

[Jon K]

I tend to stay away from high velocity ammo.....rebarrel or not.
I have a Marlin Model 29, which are rumored to be prone to cracked firing pins. Is this pressure or metalurgy??? I would rather not have to deal with the headache.

Jon

[jhrosier]

I loosened up an old bolt gun shooting CCI Stingers. Fortunately it had no great value.
I would only shoot standard velocity ammo in an old or valuable older gun because of this.

Jack

[fecmech]

I'm not sure it makes any difference. I was on a site sometime back that listed the pressures for .22 ammo and what surprised me was that it was all the same at about 24K psi. Even std velocity .22's were at that pressure along with the HV stuff. Go to page 8 and 9 on the rimfire section of this link, it shows all the rimfire cartridge specs. (under SAMMI/ANSI standards)
http://www.saami.org/specifications_...tion/index.cfm

[gnoahhh]

Those figures are for maximum allowable pressure, not what the different cartridges actually generate.

[fecmech]

Those figures are for maximum allowable pressure, not what the different cartridges actually generate.

That's true but faster powder means less powder. Less powder means more profit, as long as you are in spec where would you load a price sensitive ammunition like .22 rimfire that you manufacture by the Gazillions???

[gnoahhh]

Huh? Not sure I understand your question.

[fecmech]

Huh? Not sure I understand your question.

As a manufacturer you use specifications and limits to your advantage. You will use the fastest powder that you can to get the velocity you desire by working close to the maximum pressure as your limit. By using the faster powder you use less powder to achieve your desired velocity.
Since I don't know loads for .22 rimfires I'll give you a centerfire example. Lets say you as a manufacturer want to sell .38 spl 158 gr swc's at an advertised velocity of 800 fps. You can safely load them at that velocity with say 3.5 grs of bullseye and 16000 psi. You could also achieve that velocity with approx 6.7 grs of Blue Dot at roughly 13-14k psi. Why would you as a manufacturer want to use more of a slower powder to achieve the same velocity that you can do more cheaply with less powder at a higher pressure and still be safely within specifications. There is no advantage for you as a manufacturer to work to lower pressures.

[gnoahhh]

That may well be true, but it doesn't mean that those pressures listed on the SAAMI chart are what those various types of .22RFs are actually operating at. Those numbers spell out what they recommend as maximum safe operating pressure and nothing more.

It would indeed be interesting to see what pressures the various types and brands of RF ammo actually generate.

I seriously doubt that in this litigious age the manufacturers are offering stuff that's on the ragged edge of those SAAMI specs. The last thing they want is to be flooded with lawsuits from idiots wrecking their guns and injuring themselves by firing high pressure ammo in old relics. But, I could be wrong.

[fecmech]

I don't think manufacturers load on the "ragged edge" of anything. They are working with"In house" ballistic labs, they do spec the powders they buy and are working with new brass and bullets. I don't think it's much of a stretch for them to test for and achieve ballistic uniformity that keeps them near but uniformly under the pressure spec. They could care less about old guns etc, that's built in to the pressure specification originally (ie. 44 spl sammi spec). As long as their ammo meets SAMMI specs for max pressure, extreme pressure spread etc they are building a safe consumer commodity that would be relatively immune to lawsuits.

[Bongo]

I know this is an older thread but I want to give some personal experience that may save someone some aggravation. I shot some Aguila Intercetor ammo from my 1953 Marlin 39a and it broke my firing pin. I was lucky to get a correct replacement pin. I won't go any hotter than CCI mini-mag hp in it now.

[Bazoo]

In 1930, they came out with the first high velocity 22 long rifle, and by 1932 guns were made to suit. Any gun made after 1932 should be perfectly fine with a steady diet of high velocity 22.

CCI stingers came out in 1967, which was the first hyper velocity 22 lr. So its safe to say guns before that are not going to fair well with hyper velocity LR usage, and guns made since then should be fine. However, Its my opinion that the use of hyper velocity ammo is more subjective to the strength and type of firearms it should be used in.

~Bazoo