Shooters Forum banner

.22 short, .22 long, .22LR ballistics question.

4K views 32 replies 17 participants last post by  JBelk 
#1 ·
I recently purchased a new .22 pump rifle. I zeroed it at 25 yards with all three of the above rimfire ammunition types. Why, after zeroing with .22LR then checking the point of impact at the same range with .22 short and .22 long ammo, did these lower velocity rounds impact higher on the target than the .22LR? In fact, the .22 long POI was about two inches above the .22LR, and the .22 short impacted about two inches above the .22 long. I would have thought that at a close range like that there would be little difference in POI and, if anything, the slower moving short and long rounds would strike just a little lower than the faster .22LR rounds, all other things being equal of course.
 
#5 ·
Yep, what he said. You will find that with pretty much any firearm.

Welcome

RJ
 
#7 ·
I've duplicated the same thing but without 22 longs in a Remington 510 Targetmaster but didn't put two n two together until just now.

RJ
 
#8 ·
all other things being equal of course.
Welcome.

I think that is your problem, they aren't equal. Whether a dwell time issue as suggested, or a harmonic issue from the different components being used; things are different. There isn't only a single primer compound, or single powder(only variable by amount). So there could be several things fighting you on this one. 😉

Cheers
 
#9 ·
Thanks for the comments everyone. I was shooting from a rest (sandbag on a picnic table anyway). Also, the bullet weights are as follows: .22 short - 27gn, .22 long - 29 gn, .22 LR - 36 gn. Advertised velocities (I haven't chronographed them): .22 short - 1105fps, .22 long - 1215fps, .22 LR - 1280fps. So, obviously all other things weren't equal. It's just kind of perplexing and I couldn't come up with a reason for the seemingly non-sensical results. Dwell time and and harmonics, especially with such light bullets, seem the most likely explanations.
 
#10 ·
As 'they' say, 'your results may vary', and without chronographing those loads in that rifle you won't know for sure, but with those 'advertised velocities' the 'barrel dwell time' does not seem a plausible explanation. If anything, the lighter bullet weights of the short and long would produce less recoil than the LR, and with not that much difference in muzzle velocity, one would expect the opposite result at the target...the short and long 'should' impact lower on the target, no?
 
#13 ·
While harmonics always exist, the amount of dispersion difference (2" for each load) at 25 yards sure seems (to me) to be excessive for that to be the reason. 'Barrel whip' may be a good term to illustrate a principle or condition, it is certainly a very liberal use of the word 'whip' as relates to an 18" heavy barrel 22 rifle when one attempts to envision that effect in a literal sense!;):) Yeah, I know (and I have been there) rimfire 'barrel tuners' attempt to corral barrel whip in a consistent fashion to 'ensure' the bullet exits the muzzle at the repeatable precise time.:rolleyes::cry:
Similar to loading centerfire ammo, sometimes loads with the same bullet and very similar ballistics just simply hit the target at [sometimes significantly] different points. I think that is what is happening here.
It would also be interesting to take some of those same lots of ammo and duplicate the 'test' with a different rifle to see if the results are duplicated.
 
#24 ·
When I was about 10 years old my Dad tried the stingers in a Remington Nylon 66, almost every one of them stuck in the chamber and he had to use the tip of his pocket knife to pop them out.
 
#16 ·
I never was a big fan of the Stingers for small game...too destructive! When they came out in 1975, with a marketing release that bordered on a 'sliced bread' analogy, I 'bought into it' thinking they'd be great for squirrel hunting. First, I found they were not as accurate (in my firearms) as what I was used to and wanted. Second, I thought they were louder. Third, body shots tore things up a bit more than I wanted. I remember once I was out hunting with my TC Contender with a 10" octagon barrel when I shot a big fox squirrel in the head at about 30 feet on a limb of a big Oak tree. When I picked him up, the skull was multi fragmented (read...mush!) and the bullet did not even exit. In head shots, I guess that's okay, but you can't always make head shots. For varmints or pest control, they are likely a good option, but I had other firearms for that purpose.
 
#17 ·
Long old guy ramble.


We get interested in other’s question..esp. the ones that seem simple, but turn out to be complex.

I just always liked pump .22’s. Winchesters, Remingtons, Rossi clones, Taurus clones, Savage, Noble, etc. Not a collector, were just working guns that passed though.

Some (that were able) were scoped, some tank sighted, most were open iron. While I didn’t consider them target guns, they did see some paper shooting.

Good clean oldies got valuable, for what I was doing, would be better to beat up a clone.

Most of the other action types would “kind of feed” the shorter rounds. Not too many “other action types” were made to function with all three lengths on .22RF’s. That was the draw to pumps...they cycled normally with nearly anything…..22 shorts and CB’s got used often.

They all seemed to show more shift than other rifle types. 4” of total spread is more than I’ve found unless I was running .22ammo that was extremely different (CB caps, non lead, 60gr.,sub-sonic, hyper sonic, etc). Basically trying to make it happen.

Horizontal shifts and vertical shifts….most gave a bit of both. Do not remember anything that spread as far at short range as the 4” you mention, other than ammo that was so inaccurate the “groups” were just kind of random holes.

Current ammo situation makes that kind of testing near impossible.

Gave up on the “why”...sometimes it just is what it is. So long as the groups were always in the same place and the same size when tested, it was a useful .22.

IF I found just a vertical difference between ammo (say .22 short Vs. .22LR)… open sights with a step elevator sometimes would make that a one step difference….other times, I’d have to file one of the steps to get that one-step effect.

I put it down to barrel vibrations and changes in stress in a “wiggly” system. Tube mags, a moving fore end that gets shucked back and forth...they do seem to respond to grip pressure. Some are better at isolating the forearm mechanics than others.
 
#18 ·
Just saying in my experience, that 'Stingers' are one shot kills on feral cats, skunks and the alike. CB caps are really good too. Stingers hit like no other round. Accuracy in the Wife's model 39a would make me sound like a liar. The nicest thing I ever did, or the greatest mistake I ever made, was to give her that rifle. So, thank you dear for the CZ 457 LUX in .22 lr and I will meet you at the range.
 
#20 ·
Just one of those things…..rifles shoot well what they want to shoot well, no matter what we want.


In days when we could easily get an assortment of .22’s to try out, would try out as many as I could find. If ONE hyper-vel .22LR shot well, really didn’t care which brand.


Give you that Stingers have changed from their introduction….was not pleased with the early ones. Do believe they got better, but back then they got the name “Stinkers” for a reason.


In the original posters case, the shift between different ammo is the problem.


Value of “Why” would assume we have some way of stopping it from happening. We like to think we can control things. Sometimes, we can’t.


So long as the shots form up into clusters in the same place each time…and you know what you loaded into the rifle….should be able to hold a bit low or a bit high.
 
#21 ·
The OP did not specify whether all the ammo he tested was the same brand, had the same bullet weight, and whether the rifle was designed for use with shorts, longs, and long rifles. But, like any other rifle cartridge, you change any of the components (primer, powder, bullet) and you're going to get a different point of impact. I otherwise cannot explain why the, supposedly, less powerful rounds shot higher, but the OP should not expect to get the same on-target performance from the different cartridges. I'd say pick one and stick with it, or plan to re-zero if he decides to change the cartridge.
 
#22 ·
Well, good point, JDinFbg. I have no explain or theory for why my Wife's (she likes it when I capitalize her Role) Marlin 39a shoots CB caps and Stingers out to around 50 yards at 3/4 inch minute of feral cat. You just pick it up, throw a bead on it and bang it. Some very wise sages here have said more'n a couple of times, "it's because". I run with that.
 
#25 ·
Different types of rimfire ammo will impact differently on target just the same as different ammo and loads do in a centerfire rifle, and probably even more so in rimfires. Each .22 in my experience is a rule unto itself. Meaning that each has its likes and dislikes and just because one load shoots well in a particular gun, doesn't mean it will shoot in another. My suggestion is to find what it likes and stick with that particular load.or loads.

Just a note on .22 Shorts. I love .22 shorts and use them fairly often. I found that they can print pretty tight at 25yrds, but start opening up at about 35yrds and once they reach 50yrds they can group twice the size they do at 25. I think this could be remedied by a .22Short Only chambering. But they'll still shoot minute-of-renard out to about 75yrds and still whack hard enough for a quick, clean kill.
 
#28 ·
May be the end of the .22 long….considering ammo production and being able to sell everything they can produce, may not want to waste production time on the lowest sellers.

Just not all that many rifles/pistols that were made specifically for the .22 Long...although the CB longs do seem to still sell well.

Looking for anything good to say about the .22 Long….won’t leave crust rings in a .22LR chamber….but no HP option.

Was a time when the .22 short got more respect….long ago, but folks once took it pretty seriously.

DSCN0963 by Robert Dean, on Flickr
 
#29 ·
The Winchester Model '73 was made in 22 short! I think 'longs' were pretty much replaced by standard velocity LR. The performance is the same.
 
#31 ·
FN made the gun originally in short for the European market. Browning imported a few and now they bring a premium. I wanted one SO bad as a kid.
FN also made the Trombone in 22 short only but I've never seen one for sale.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top