.22 rimfire with pellets and nail gun blanks

Status
Not open for further replies.

jmorris

New member
Topic on another forum had me trying out .22 cal pellets propelled by a nail gun blank today. I tried out the #2,3 and 4 power ranges today in a 24" .22 rimfire barrel. *The #4 disintegrated the pellet but it looked like the #3 and #2 were making round holes in paper at 15 yds or so, so I fired a few at a .112" thick (11ga) steel plate and the #3 was pretty close to making it through, the #2 made a significant dent as well and my RWS 34 left nothing except the lead smear.

Got out the chronograph and the #2 sent the 14.3 grain pellet out at 2067 fps. The #3 went 2141 fps. Will note that the #4 load separated the case on both shots fired and the #3 separated 2 of 5 but the #2 load seemed ok.

IMG_20141018_123047_071_zps959ad9ff.jpg
 
I experimented with .22 pellets in my .223 with up to 1 grain of Red Dot. The results were OK but never got around to trying them at the range. I fired them all inside my garage at a round of firewood...

Tony
 
Consider a letter to a journal of forensic medicine. They may be interested, especially given the sorts of velocities these things reached. If someone got themselves killed messing around with things like this, it'd be helpful for pathologists to know just what the combination is capable of.
 
Because I could make a 14.3 grain pellet make 133+ ft/lb of energy when an RWS 34 makes 15 ft/lb and most .22 LR don't make that energy and to get that velocity out of a rimfire you need a .17 HMR.

And I had a few minutes today...
 
Years ago, at a gun show, someone was selling a pellet rifle that used 22 blanks to propel the pellet. If memory serves me, I believe that firearm was maid in Mexico.
 
Are you thinking of the old Daisy VL "magic Fuzz" caseless rifle maybe?
If so that was specifically designed for the special caseless ammo made specifically for it.

I'm curious how the barrel might lead up from the high velocities as well.
 
Interesting experiment!

Compared with a typical .22 rifle w/o a suppressor, how loud were the shots?
 
I think it's a stupid idea also. Been there, done that sort of thing.
50 years ago I figured I would try Hilti nail gun loads with 22 cal air gun pellets for some home grown 22 mag loads. I took my marlin single shot 22 and loaded one up. Pulled the trigger and KA-BOOM. The breech split, the pin that holds the barrel in the breech sheeted off. The cartridge brass was blown back into the firing pin groove. Instant junk gun, trash can candidate!
I was very lucky that I did not get seriously injured.
 
I'm not sure of the actual discussion you saw, but I also had the conversation on another forum and it referenced this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOZpy55U-jY

SAAMI max for .22LR is quite low, some 24k PSI max or somewhere near there, isn't it? Compare that to modern... or better, I should say... popular calibers and it falls short. A good reason for that is the age of the chambering itself, always have to be wary of very OLD guns that are chambered for the same thing. Another good reason is the construction of the brass cartridge case, the rimfire style of priming makes for a folded case head that is inherently less able to resist higher pressures.

So I'm curious about the pressures at work in these blank cartridges...
or maybe I should say, where these are designed to operate. For whatever it is they do when they are discharged, a large part of the equation is whatever is resisting the blast. In the case of their actual design, it's going to be some sort of industrial nail or brad. In the case of these guys and their testing, it's a lead pellet of known weight.

When you take these little blank rounds and you put an obstruction in front of them that is -NOT- what they were designed to do, you are altering the max chamber pressure of their design... which I can't say we even know from the get-go. Off hand, I can't even guess if a 14 grain pellet is lighter or heavier than whatever the nail or brad is that's meant to be used in the industrial application for which they were intended.

In this day and age, gun manufacturers can certainly make chambers and barrels that can handle a .22LR round that were upped from 24k PSI but the question becomes... can the cartridge case withstand it? Can the unlocked breech/blowback design handle it? And how long before someone slips a hot .22LR in to a 100-year old platform of some sort?

We know this from conventional centerfire handloading: if we take a known full-pressure cartridge and we knock more than HALF the bullet weight off it, we know that we'll need to increase the powder charge to bring the round up to pressure spec. And that's if we can find a bullet that will fit. (because we don't typically see that wide a range in one bullet diameter.) In fact if we did... we would most likely also change powders entirely to address the radically different bullet weight.

I think all of that adds up to the possibility that these nail gun blanks were built & designed specifically to run at a higher pressure than .22LR ammunition, and that's why these pellets are hitting like hammers compared to ammo from the same exact firearms.
So, who else thinks this is a really dumb thing to do?
I find it interesting far more so than "dumb." Depending on the HOW and WHERE, it's just testing and experimenting. If it's not your cup of tea, you probably shouldn't take part in it. And it does kind of sound like it isn't your cup of tea.

Back to the subject:
if the pellets placed in front of these blanks are less in weight than the actual nails or brads used in the tools for which these are designed...

then all the OP actually did was run them at less pressure than the blanks were designed. But in all likelihood, he ran them at a pressure over spec for the rifle itself. Without knowing more, we don't know.
 
I find it interesting far more so than "dumb."
Firing anything in any firearm other than the cartridge and loads it was designed to use is "interesting" in a laboratory, and dumb anywhere else

But someone has to win those Darwin awards
 
Baloney. Blanket statements thwarting any and all everything outside your own personal scope of approval goes far beyond nonsense on many levels.

If Elmer Keith felt exactly the same way you do or he were the type to subscribe to it, the .44 Magnum wouldn't exist.

So your feelings are duly noted-- perhaps a different thread would meet your approval.
 
If Elmer Keith felt exactly the same way you do or he were the type to subscribe to it, the .44 Magnum wouldn't exist.
It's probably worth noting that Keith blew up a gun or two in the process of developing his brain child. Maybe that was smart, maybe it wasn't, but it was his choice and he understood the risks he was taking.

In a public forum like this it's important that the risks are plainly set forth for those who may not understand the dangers involved.
 
very cool idea. not sure why so many are up in arms about, seems like a fun experiment. more power to ya. I am sure you are intelligent enough to do it safely. thanks for sharing, and keep us up to date with the evolution of your project.

I might just get a hankering to play around myself. I will probably attempt to pc or tumble lube the pellets first
 
In a public forum like this it's important that the risks are plainly set forth for those who may not understand the dangers involved.
Perhaps -- and perhaps more so when it's in the terms of service of the forum, as we often do in the handloading and reloading area of this site when we're posting some of our loads & experiments.

It might also be helpful for MANY if they took the same precautions before they sat down in front of a computer and read about *GASP* what other folks might be doing in their own lives :eek: and then discussing on the internet. :p

Quite a dangerous little world we live in. Let's just keep in mind that statistically speaking, you're enduring far more risk by driving your car to that shooting range than you are by actually -being- there.
 
I wonder how those blanks would work behind actual .22 caliber bullets?

30-grain: http://northamericanarms.com/cbb100.html

img_5794_1.jpg


So I'm curious about the pressures at work in these blank cartridges...
or maybe I should say, where these are designed to operate. For whatever it is they do when they are discharged, a large part of the equation is whatever is resisting the blast. In the case of their actual design, it's going to be some sort of industrial nail or brad. In the case of these guys and their testing, it's a lead pellet of known weight.

When you take these little blank rounds and you put an obstruction in front of them that is -NOT- what they were designed to do, you are altering the max chamber pressure of their design... which I can't say we even know from the get-go. Off hand, I can't even guess if a 14 grain pellet is lighter or heavier than whatever the nail or brad is that's meant to be used in the industrial application for which they were intended.
Keep in mind what these are intended to do. You don't need a firearm to drive a nail into a 2x4. These are used to drive nails into concrete or steel. That means the "projectile" (nail) is going to meet some significant resistance when the tip encounters the concrete or steel surface, while the head is still in the barrel. That's not too different from firing a rifle with mud plugging the barrel. You don't think that's going to create some pressure?
 
Last edited:
Quite a dangerous little world we live in. Let's just keep in mind that statistically speaking, you're enduring far more risk by driving your car to that shooting range than you are by actually -being- there.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends on what kinds of things one does at the range.

This is a forum dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership and in that context, it's worthwhile to let people know when they are doing something potentially dangerous with firearms.
 
I was one of the naysayers in "the other thread".

I still don't think it's a good idea, but we don't know what safety precautions and test conditions jmorris used. He may or may not have been excruciatingly paranoid in his preparations and testing.

Calling it a "dumb" idea is a bit harsh without having all of the applicable information.


I still think it is a good idea to warn people that this is not a good idea, but berating someone for trying it is a bit much....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top