2400 in a 22???

[nueces5]

After a little research in the pages of ammunition manufacturers, I see that most use pistol powder in their 22lr. Since they are manufactured for pistols and revolvers as well as for weapons of long barrel like my cz 452 ...
I do not see any specific ammunition for this barrel length. Therefore I was thinking if you can change the powder for some more adequate, slower burning.
Looking in old posts, I saw that some have changed by 4.5 Grains of 2400.
I like my fingers where they are.
Has anyone tried?

[NSB]

What would be the point? Any way to pressure test? Rimfire ammo comes in so many varieties it seems pointless to try and improve upon something that's as well studied as this round. Quality ammo can be had from many manufacturers, ammo that covers the spectrum from mild to wild and has been developed to stay within the safe operating pressures while offering superb accuracy. I've shot well over a half million rounds of .22lr ammo in my life, and I can't think of anything "hand loading" would offer in this area. The time to pull bullets, change powder, and attempt to gain any accuracy seems fruitless. If you want great-outstanding accuracy you aren't going to improve on what Eley, RWS, Lupua, etc. are already providing. For gains in power, there are numerous offerings such as CCI mini-mags, etc. What would be the point?

[northmn]

What would be the point? Any way to pressure test? Rimfire ammo comes in so many varieties it seems pointless to try and improve upon something that's as well studied as this round. Quality ammo can be had from many manufacturers, ammo that covers the spectrum from mild to wild and has been developed to stay within the safe operating pressures while offering superb accuracy. I've shot well over a half million rounds of .22lr ammo in my life, and I can't think of anything "hand loading" would offer in this area. The time to pull bullets, change powder, and attempt to gain any accuracy seems fruitless. If you want great-outstanding accuracy you aren't going to improve on what Eley, RWS, Lupua, etc. are already providing. For gains in power, there are numerous offerings such as CCI mini-mags, etc. What would be the point?

I feel that way also but there are some that insist that reloading is a lot of fun and that they can somehow improve on the factory stuff or save money. Even retired I value my time more than ever as I truly want to enjoy retirement as much as possible. Like I say I totally agree.

Experience has also taught me that if one wants to reload there are other cartridges that make more sense. The 32-20 was developed in black powder times as a small game cartridge and I have shot small game with one. Loaded at 22LR standard velocity speeds it is not all that destructive on game and is easy and fun to shoot. 25-20 reloaded would be better for that purpose, as would be a 22 hornet or 218 Bee. I also have a 357 mag Rossi rifle and the cheap FMJ 130 grain 38 special factory loads are fine. I enjoy shooting my 22 mag and 22LR's but at the cost of ammo would not reload for them. That's what I like about them, I don't have to reload for them.

DEP

[NSB]

I feel that way also but there are some that insist that reloading is a lot of fun and that they can somehow improve on the factory stuff or save money. Even retired I value my time more than ever as I truly want to enjoy retirement as much as possible. Like I say I totally agree.

Experience has also taught me that if one wants to reload there are other cartridges that make more sense. The 32-20 was developed in black powder times as a small game cartridge and I have shot small game with one. Loaded at 22LR standard velocity speeds it is not all that destructive on game and is easy and fun to shoot. 25-20 reloaded would be better for that purpose, as would be a 22 hornet or 218 Bee. I also have a 357 mag Rossi rifle and the cheap FMJ 130 grain 38 special factory loads are fine. I enjoy shooting my 22 mag and 22LR's but at the cost of ammo would not reload for them. That's what I like about them, I don't have to reload for them.

DEP

I pretty much agree on reloading some other cartridges that really benefit. During the "shortage" of rimfire ammo, I found that you can reload .38spl for about the cost of loading .22lr. Using cast bullets and Bullseye powder, you can tailor a very soft shooting round that is cheap to shoot and still deadly on small game if you want to hunt with it. I met some Canadian's back in the late 80's who were reloading .22mag and using WW296 powder. After taking pulling the bullet, changing powder, and reseating a copper jacketed bullet I had to question the purpose of it all. I asked them if they'd ever heard of a .22Hornet? On top of that, they had no idea of what pressure the round was operating at and whether or not it was even safe. Nothing wrong with a bit of experimenting, but sometimes it just doesn't get you anywhere and the journey can be unsafe on top of everything else. Sometimes an ugly baby is just that.....an ugly baby.

[rbuck351]

Other than the " hey look what I did" factor I don't see reloading 22lr to make a lot of sense. The Hornet makes a lot more sense but my favorite is the 25/20.

[nueces5]

it is not about "inventing what has already been invented"
And of course it's easier to go for a 22 hornet.
But I have a pound of 296, the carbine and a lot of ammunition 22, that's why I asked ...
If someone had done it and with what results. I do not want to lose my fingers or break my weapon.

[JBinMN]

it is not about "inventing what has already been invented"
And of course it's easier to go for a 22 hornet.
But I have a pound of 296, the carbine and a lot of ammunition 22, that's why I asked ...
If someone had done it and with what results. I do not want to lose my fingers or break my weapon.

Nueces5,

I do not know the answer to your question. Given time I would guess that others who do will answer. There is a member called , Traffer, who I believe has reloaded .22 cal rimfire rounds & may have the answers for you. You could try contacting him by PM if he does not see this topic & reply here.

G'Luck!
:)

Nueces5,

No sé la respuesta a tu pregunta. Con el tiempo me imagino que los que lo hagan responderán. Hay un miembro llamado, Traffer, quien creo que ha recargado las rondas de rimfire cal .22 y puede tener las respuestas para usted. Puede intentar contactarlo por PM si él no ve este tema y responda aquí.

¡Suerte!
:)

[NSB]

it is not about "inventing what has already been invented"
And of course it's easier to go for a 22 hornet.
But I have a pound of 296, the carbine and a lot of ammunition 22, that's why I asked ...
If someone had done it and with what results. I do not want to lose my fingers or break my weapon.

Shoot the ammo you have and sell the powder or give it to someone who can use it. I think you're headed to nowhere with this project. There's nothing to gain here. Using up powder you have isn't a good reason to do this. You're simply dumping good powder out of the shell to put the 296 in. What is your objective here?

[nueces5]

the goal is to improve the ballistics, if that is possible

[northmn]

Improve the ballistics to what? CCI sells a cartridge called the velocitor which is supposed to drive the 40 grain bullet at over 1400 fps. I have tried them and they do have a little more snap. I also have a 22 magnum which does a bit better. With a 22 LR you are dealing with cast bullets that are heeled. I cannot make recommendations because I don't know what you could achieve but I would almost bet that loading with a relatively slow powder like 2400 would be like using it in a 9mm centerfire pistol. Too slow. When the 22LR was loaded with BP it was loaded with something similar to 4f.4

DEP

[nueces5]

I've tried the velocitor, really very good
also the stinger
but it is very expensive and sometimes difficult to get in Argentina
it is true that soft lead will not help much, let's see if it's worth it, in this case safety is the most important thing, so maybe do some test with little load and with a timer we will see the results

[rbuck351]

I have tried the 22lr reloading kit and have found it lacking with the primer compound. I might be doing something wrong but I don't get reliable ignition. If you are going to pull loaded 22lr and replace the powder I believe 2400 would be to slow and not give good velocities but I'm sure you could try it safely. Start low at about 1.5 grs and work up. The thin 22lr case should easily show pressure signs before it completely lets go.
With room for a bullet, I think 3.5grs would be a case full. I would test by pulling the trigger with a string in a solid older bolt rifle or better yet a TC and work up till you know you have gone to far then back down .5gr and see if you have gained any velocity. My guess is that a powder in the w231, unique or universal clays burn rate would be better choices.
I'm not sure I would call this a practical adventure but I do lots of things like this that probably aren't practical. So, if it's something that itches, by all means scratch it and let us know what you find. Just be careful.

[NSB]

the goal is to improve the ballistics, if that is possible

Nueces5, I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but what does "improve ballistics" mean to you? This is the most popular round on the planet, and it's been around for well over a hundred years. There's probably been hundreds of millions of dollars spent on this round over the last century+ trying to wring every last possible benefit out of it. It's made in hundreds of configurations, and is certainly the most popular competition round ever developed. Do you seriously think you're going to improve upon it by pulling the bullets and changing powder? The powder used in these rounds is certainly a propriatarty powder developed by the ammo companies over the years. Today, there are firearms made that will shoot sub 1moa with high quality rimfire rounds that you can never improve upon. If you're not getting good groups with your gun, try a lot of different brands of ammo and find the one your particular gun likes best. Maybe I'm jaded, but I've shot so much rimfire competition and owned so many different guns that it's simply amazing to think that anything productive could come from this. If you're intent on doing something productive, get a centerfire rifle in any caliber and spend some time at the bench trying to find the load that shoots the best out of that gun. In that case there are many, many tools, bullets, powder, etc available to actually accomplish something positive for yourself. However, if you're determined just make sure you tell everyone "hold my beer and watch this". Just make sure they're standing behind you when you shoot. Good luck.

[nueces5]

rbuck351,just what I think is that you need a slower gun than the usual ones in 22lr to burn inside a long barrel, maybe 2400 is too slow. In such a case, it would be safer to start with slow powder and go up carefully to faster powder

NSB, I have also shot some years in competition with 22 lr, I have tried as far as I could different types of ammo and it was always fun! But I had never considered this until now.
"The powder used in these rounds is certainly a propriatarty powder developed by the ammo companies over the years." You are totally right. It is a pretty crazy idea, born without knowledge of engineering, ballistics, or any other firm basis. I do not even have elements to measure pressures. Maybe I should abandon it. I also want to put a small 90 grains boolit at my 7.65 Arg and see what I can do with that.
The only thing that makes a noise in my head is that the 22lr has the same load for a 4-inch barrel and a 26-inch barrel.

[Traffer]

If you are looking to use a specific powder in 22lr, Quickloads has an experimental entry that I have found to be pretty darn accurate! I would not hesitate to use those numbers. If you decide to try this let us know how it works out.
And WEAR EYE PROTECTION

[Traffer]

I just looked up Alliant 2400 in Quickloads. With any reasonable amount of powder you are not going to get a good burn at all. You are looking at 50% burn or less. No Bueno. Too slow of powder.
Winchester 296 is also too slow. You may get it to shoot but only a 40% or so burn.

[rbuck351]

Yep, starting with a too slow powder is safer than one that is too fast. My guess is that 2400 is too slow to get in trouble but that is just a guess and I would use caution and start with a low charge. Traffer's test with HS6 show that although it is slow for a 22lr it is still fast enough to build enough pressure to blow cases. 2400 is slower yet but it too might cause problems if you can get enough in the case. The 22lr case is quite thin and crushing the rim with the firing pin weakens it even more. This is a project that I would probably leave alone.

[rking22]

Considering that the 22lr has over 100 years of development and the factories have infinite money and other reasources to further develope it, I can’t believe there is any ballistic improvement available to the hobbies. They know “speed sells” so I doubt velocity increase is going to happen with the small case capacity. When pulling the bullet from factory load to change powder you will have great difficulty getting that now damaged bullet crimped into that damaged case repeatably. Also don’t experiment in a blowback auto, bolt could open early splitting cases, fixed breach. When Contenders became popular there was a thought to load the 3030 with faster powders for the short barrels. Bad idea according to IMR when the pressure tested those loads. Optimal powder is really not that dependent on barrel length. Right at 16 inches of barrel is the velocity peak with 22lr, been tested many times. They are not designed for a 4 inch barrel. Experimenting is fun, but I would use that centerfire you have to experiment. Improving a 22lr is like trying to improve prime rib:bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2:

[NSB]

Over the last thirty years of shooting rimfire, I've had quite a few cases rupture at the base of the case where it meets the rim. This is the weakest part of the case due to the metal being formed here to hold the priming compound. I've had these ruptured cases eject burning powder and particulates out the side of semi-auto rifles and handguns. The cases on rimfire ammo are sometimes just too thin to contain the pressure of the round with the factory powder in the ammo. Adding an unknown entity into the equation is dangerous. On one occasion I had an entire brick that was defective and the failure rate was over fifty percent ruptures. These experiments that are done under "no control" conditions challenge Darwinism to its fullest. If you're just that invested in experimenting, try doing something with better controls. I see the end result here as to be akin to a four year old playing with fireworks. Someone's going to get burned. Sorry, but I've been shooting (a lot) for over sixty years and I also retired as a safety manager for a large engineering company. There are simply too many opportunities here for failure. Getting away with something isn't the same as success.

[nueces5]

I think there are some things that can be added to 22 ammo
One of them is to change the burning speed. In Argentina we use a powder gun called A22C, it is similar to W231. I can use longshot, which is similar in burn speed to HS6. Or another Argentine dual-base powder gun, which is called UW2000.
If there is no progress, I will surely move on to other projects. Surely you are right. So do not give importance to my questions, the data that have passed me of guide above help me to have a supported foot and start my way.

[uscra112]

One of my first projects with my then-new interior ballistic software was to try to figure out what powder .22LR High Speed ammo is loaded with. My conclusion, such as it was, was that it's close to Herco, based on pressure required and volume of powder extracted from cartridges I pulled down..

Would I ever try to reload .22LR hulls? Not on yer life.

[Traffer]

The fast pistol powders generally only need one grain of powder to get near maximum. Be warned!

[uscra112]

??? Get a grip, there! I didn't consider the visual appearance of the powder into account at all. Only the weight and volume, and pressure as inferred from the resultant velocity.

I then used Quickload to build a model of the .22 LR cartridge, in which I tried various powders from their database until I found one that fit the observed parameters. The closest was Herco. I didn't say it WAS Herco, only that Herco fit the parameters best.

I at least used a little scientific method..........

[rking22]

Out of curiosity, what chamber pressure did you use with the quick load query? I Think I remember reading that 40,000psi was correct for 22lr hi speed. Many moons ago, so ????

[uscra112]

There's been some wild claims about .22 LR pressures. I kinda "backed into" a pressure by letting QL calculate the pressure necessary to get the observed velocity. You can do this for any cartridge; it turns out that the size of the case matters only a little. Which makes sense, since Newton showed us that deltaVee=Impulse/Mass everywhere in the known universe. Or, using simple algebra, Impulse=mass x deltaVee. The actual value of Impulse in interior ballistics is integral calculus, since it is the area under the Pressure-Time curve.

My original pressure calculation used the model for the .22 Hornet that's already in their database.

In QL you can build your own dimensional model, length, diameter, volume, etc. of a cartridge, which I then did. Measuring the actual water volume of that tiny .22LR case is tedious. I had to use a medical syringe to get the cases exactly level full. A meniscus, positive or negative, throws the measurement off significantly. I did it ten times and took the average. Used a Pact digital scale to do the weighing.

You also have to build a dimensional model of the bullet, which a bit tricky, because the model doesn't allow for heeled bullets, only boattails, so I had to approximate a little there.

All done, using best judgements to fill in the parameters, the typical pressure for High Speed with 40 grain bullet is more like 14,000 psi, and nowhere near some of the claims that have been made.

Subsonics are more like 10,000.

I have not adjusted the model to cover the hypervelocity .22 rounds, (i.e. Stingers). They use a longer case and thicker brass, which means another fussy job of measuring actual volume. Fudging it, by just using the LR case volume, a 32 grain bullet, and assuming that the claimed 1640 fps is out of an 18" barrel, the pressures might be about 20,000, but that's got a higher error bar than my LR calculation.

All this was done in an attempt to get a value for bolt thrust of the .22 Standard Velocity, which I wanted to know so as to judge whether some of the old "boys' rifles" would be safe when converted to .32 Long Colt centerfire.

[rbuck351]

I would suspect that the longer, thicker case is necessary to safely get more velocity from the 22lr. As many different manufactures that have loaded 22lr over the last 100+ years, I think one of them would have found a solution for a faster 22lr in the standard case if it was possible. They obviously tried and found the Stingers longer thicker case to be necessary. Nothing wrong with trying, just be safe doing so.

[uscra112]

Of course. I've tried the dodge of making .25 Stevens rimfire by reforming .17 WMR, and found that the .17 WMR brass is made so thick and hard, so as to contain the pressure, that most of the lightweight boys' rifles that I wanted .25 ammo cannot fire it. Hammers and springs too light.

Going the other direction historically - blackpowder .22 cases were not even brass. They were copper. The WW2 enterprise of making varmint bullet jackets from .22 cases depended on this fact. Copper cased .22 ammo was still being made into the 1930s. "Acorn" blanks used by dog trainers are copper today.

BTW the longer case used for Stingers is I think meant to get the ogive of that tiny bullet closer normal sporting rifle chamber throats, to improve accuracy. Ironically that extra length precludes their safe use in tight "target" chambers, because the brass actually gets squeezed in their shorter throats, which can cause overpressure conditions to occur, possibly bursting rims. At least that's what the mavens at Rimfire Central say.

[M-Tecs]

Out of curiosity, what chamber pressure did you use with the quick load query? I Think I remember reading that 40,000psi was correct for 22lr hi speed. Many moons ago, so ????

SAAMI is 24,000 PSI

https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Z299-1_ANSI-SAAMI_Rimfire.pdf

[Chev. William]

SAAMI is 24,000 PSI

https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Z299-1_ANSI-SAAMI_Rimfire.pdf

That is the Pmax MAP SAAMI lists.
It is NOT the Impulse value as stated by uscra112.
There are Other Limit Numbers involved also to take into account production variations in cases, Propellants, Primers, etc. and the Actual Peak pressure can be higher than the Pmax MAP without incurring damage. the Integrated value of Pressure-Time curve(s) will be a result in a Pressure equivalent lower than the Peak or MAP Values.

Oh, by the way, the QuickLOAD (QL) water volume of the .25ACP case is LOW! I found it has to be increased to get QL calculations to match Hodgdon loading data for the powders specified by Hodgdon.

I expect the Same applies to any straight walled case, .22LR included.

Chev. William

[uscra112]

Quickload didn't have anything at all for the .22LR case in its' database. As stated, I had to construct a model of it myself. The volume I determined by the tedious water-weight method. I know of one other instance where we found the database volume not to coincide with direct measurement, and it was a straight-wall case, but I rather doubt that there's any systemic bias to the case volumes there. Still, proper scientific method requires that you verify all the input parameters yourself, insofar as you can. By actual measurement, not by tweaking inputs until you get an answer you are more satisfied with. That's how the global warming hoax has been operated for the last 30 years.

As for the 24,000 psi max pressure. You CAN get the QL model to calculate 24,000 peak pressure and still yield published velocities, but you have to choose the fastest powders on the list, and load very little of it. The powder charges that I was extracting from my factory High Speed rounds weighed more, which shows me that they weren't loading such fast powders. The weights coincided better with Herco, or Ramshot Silhouette, or Vihtavuori 3N37. According to the Vihtavuori site, 3N37 is specifically developed for .22 Rimfires. www.vihtavuori.com/powder/3n37-handgun-powder/

[Chev. William]

You are Correct uscra112 that Scientific Method indicates an experimenter should verify as much as possible of the basic data points used.
In My case I used Hodgdon's published data which included pressure test results and Velocity/energy numbers.
I do not own any Pressure Testing Equipment suitable for balistics use.

I do own a chronograph with about a 1% to 3% accuracy, not stated by the Manufacturer, but empirical from both my, and others reported, results.

I have begun acquisition of a 'Labradar' Doppler Chronograph but still need some other items, not yet obtained, before i can put it into use.

My "Matching" method of using Hodgdon data for a Specific Cartridge, Propellant, and Projectile to find the 'correction' needed to get QL output to match Hodgdon reported Measured Results, I believe, is reasonable under the Circumstances.

Chev. William

[rking22]

Thank you for the info, my interest was likewise in evaluating the strength of 22lr bolt actions for the 32SWL. Perhaps the 24,000 psi limit is allowing for Stingers??? The 14,000 psi seems more in line with the thin case construction. At any rate, wery good info all around!
M-Tecs, thank you for the link. No idea why I didn't just go look at the source, sometimes I get headed down a path and forget why!

[Chev. William]

In my opinion, Rimfire cartridges need to have their full case, including the Rim portion completely enclosed and supported for 'safe' firing at Pressures above 25,000psi Pmax MAP.

All Rimfire firearms I know of to date do NOT comply with that opinion. Most have only part of the rim area supported by design.

Examples:
= Stevens Favorites, Marksman and Model 44s all hav extractor tip clearance cuts in the breech face that leave part of the rim free of support.
= Marlin "Levermatic" Rifles hav ea 'inverted U' cut in the Bolt face to pocket the Rim, leaving the lower half of the rim unsupported.
= Winchester 1890, 1906, and 62 series Pump rifles in .22LR have a Vertical channel cut in the bolt face to clear the RF Rims, leaving almost all of the Rim unsupported.
= Ruger Standard Auto Pistol has an 'inverted U' cut to 'pocket the RF rim in the bolt face, leaving the Lower half of the rim unsupported.

I believe there are/were .22LR revolvers that are/were made with the rims unsupported by any metal pocket in the Cylinder.

From limited group of .22LR case measurements I believe most Cases have about a .015" wall in the area of the Rim. With rim overall thickness of about .049" and a .015" wall, that would leave about .019" internal space for the Primer Mixture; and a maximum 'crush' of about .019" is also implied.

Powder actuated Tool Loads (PTL) seem to have about the same range of measurements; so it would seem similar pressure withstanding limitations.
BUT: PTL also have a range of loadings that generate higher firing pressures! A Grade 2 or Grade 3 generate pressures that result in propelling a (Breech loaded) bullet out of a Rifle barrel at velocities comparable to actual rimfire ammunition.
PTL loads of grades 4 and above, up to Grade 12, would generate higher firing pressures.
Past Experience firing Grade 7 PTL in a Pistol with a 'Blank Firing Adapter' support this idea (about 200 PTL Fired).

Chev. William

[uscra112]

Thank you for the info, my interest was likewise in evaluating the strength of 22lr bolt actions for the 32SWL. Perhaps the 24,000 psi limit is allowing for Stingers??? The 14,000 psi seems more in line with the thin case construction. At any rate, wery good info all around!
M-Tecs, thank you for the link. No idea why I didn't just go look at the source, sometimes I get headed down a path and forget why!

I thought I'd already posted this, but I don't see it.

My bolt-thrust calculator tells me that the .32 Long Colt load which approximates the bolt thrust of .22 High Velocity ammo has to be pretty light. Won't quote the exact charge of Bullseye that I've used, but the muzzle velocity is about 950 fps, assuming the canonical 88 grain bullet and a 20 inch barrel. I have not yet run this thru the Chrony for validation.

Looking online, my load seems to be comparable to the .32 S&W Long HBWC target load shown in the Alliant database. But: It appears that SAAMI allows 15,000 psi in the .32 S&W Long, which is more than double what I calculated for safety in my Favorites. Many factory S&W Long loadings are probably not safe in a converted .22 "boys' rifle". We can speculate that the .32 S&W Short is commercially loaded to safer pressure, since there's thousands of old, weak revolvers still around, but I have no way to verify it. This is one big reason that I've kept to the .32 Long Colt. It's strictly a handloading proposition these days, and the Colt chamber won't accept the S&W cartridge.