.22 v .22 mag?
- Thread starter .38Catt
- Start date
Bob Wright
New member
Even if the .22 Magnum offered no performance advantage, I've found the slightly larger cartridges are easier to handle when your hands are cold.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
New member
Cajun Bass said:
I will agree, but in some cases centerfire revolvers are not legal for small game. During small game only season, center fire handguns are prohibited.
Bob Wright
I will agree, but in some cases centerfire revolvers are not legal for small game. During small game only season, center fire handguns are prohibited.
Bob Wright
L_Killkenny
New member
In which case a .22lr will get the job done. Like I said before, if I had a .22M or a rimfire conversion like the Single Six's I may use it (the .22M) cept for one issue, volume. But to go out and intentionally buy one...... Not on a bet. Better for rabbits and squirrel, OK. REQUIRED for rabbits and squirrel, heck no.
As for SD..... I'd hate to live on the difference in effectiveness between the .22lr and the .22M.
22-rimfire
New member
I think there is little question that the 22 Mag is a better caliber for self defense if you choose to carry a gun in that caliber. For me, the discussion really goes to two guns as is often the case: one for range, plinking, and fun; and one for self defense. The Single Six or the like gives you both, but other than walking around the woods or in your home, I can't see using that platform for self defense. Nothing is impossible. But a smaller gun is much more useful for personal defense if for no other reason than you are more likely to actually carry it (often).
I don't believe that if you choose a rimfire for personal defense that you automatically go for the 22 WMR. But again, I think the 22 Mag is clearly more powerful than the 22LR from any platform when comparing apples to apples.
When I first started out being interested in such things, I chose a 22LR for my general defense gun simply because I shot it better than 357/38spl and the 22LR was my first handgun. I had a Colt Python then, but opted not to use it for defensive purposes unless it just happened to be handy until later in my defensive thinking evolution. I think the odds of needing a gun for self defense are over blown, but it depends on where you live and where your travels take you routinely. But it is the unpredictable event that gets you. For that reason, I carry a airweight J-frame 38spl. But I personally have little hesitation to carry either a 22 Mag or 22LR in a small platform such as the Ruger LCR.
The point about cartridge size also applies. It is much easier to load a larger caliber than 22LR in a revolver. Add in cold hands or fear, and the larger cartridge clearly has an advantage.
I don't believe that if you choose a rimfire for personal defense that you automatically go for the 22 WMR. But again, I think the 22 Mag is clearly more powerful than the 22LR from any platform when comparing apples to apples.
When I first started out being interested in such things, I chose a 22LR for my general defense gun simply because I shot it better than 357/38spl and the 22LR was my first handgun. I had a Colt Python then, but opted not to use it for defensive purposes unless it just happened to be handy until later in my defensive thinking evolution. I think the odds of needing a gun for self defense are over blown, but it depends on where you live and where your travels take you routinely. But it is the unpredictable event that gets you. For that reason, I carry a airweight J-frame 38spl. But I personally have little hesitation to carry either a 22 Mag or 22LR in a small platform such as the Ruger LCR.
The point about cartridge size also applies. It is much easier to load a larger caliber than 22LR in a revolver. Add in cold hands or fear, and the larger cartridge clearly has an advantage.
Dragline45
New member
More often than not I see .223 on the shelves for less than .22mag, and in much more abundance (that is before the whole .223 shortage). I agree with others in that if I need more than .22lr, I am not going to .22mag ill move up to centerfire.
rc said:
Where are you getting these numbers from? Even bulk .22lr averages about 1200fps. The 950fps for .22lr is far from average, and I find most standard pressure .22lr is more expensive and less abundant.
Last edited:
L_Killkenny
New member
Not in a handgun.
Still it's a mute point, both are small game rounds.
Better is a relative term. I've shot enough critters with both to realize that any extra the .22M has on largish varmints and predators like coyotes doesn't add much. A little range, a little less runnin. But both rimfires are really only CNS capable of stops on anything larger than small game and in SD both are gonna rely heavily on the fact that a BG doesn't like being shot or shot at by anything. Not in an actual physical stoppage. If one is the type to rely on that than either will do the job. If one is the type to not rely on that then neither is good enough.
Go LR or go centerfire.
I switched because of the effectiveness of the 22mag with personal protection rounds like the PDX1 for two legged threats. More power in about the same size gun is a win win decision to make.
The Pug also has better sights.
I have to ask...how much more dead were the deer that were shot with the .22 mag than the deer that were shot with the .22LR?
The Pug also has better sights.
I have to ask...how much more dead were the deer that were shot with the .22 mag than the deer that were shot with the .22LR?
newfrontier45
Moderator
I've shot enough critters with both to know that the .22Mag is a significant step up in lethality over the .22LR. Even in a handgun. Particularly on larger varmints.
To say that there is little difference is to say that the .357 has little advantage over the .38Spl. As usual, people usual make up their mind before they get the facts.
To say that there is little difference is to say that the .357 has little advantage over the .38Spl. As usual, people usual make up their mind before they get the facts.
Obambulate
New member
I've shot a lot of rimfire from short barreled revolvers - a couple of NAA minis, an LCR-22, and others. I've tested a wide variety of ammo, both long rifle and magnum.
It's my view that .22 magnum from a short barrel is about twice as effective as .22 long rifle, and the difference is penetration.
For carry I chose the S&W 351c, a lightweight 7-shot DAO .22 Mag revolver.
It's my view that .22 magnum from a short barrel is about twice as effective as .22 long rifle, and the difference is penetration.
For carry I chose the S&W 351c, a lightweight 7-shot DAO .22 Mag revolver.
osbornk: "I think the difference is like the difference between a V6 Mustang and the Shelby 500 Mustang. Same size but one has far more performance."
I think it's closer to using 100+ octane gas when regular 87 octane will work just fine. In most cases (plinking and targets) the "far more performance" is unnecessary, but the additional expense is still there.
I think it's closer to using 100+ octane gas when regular 87 octane will work just fine. In most cases (plinking and targets) the "far more performance" is unnecessary, but the additional expense is still there.
No, 100 octane doesn't do a thing for a car designed for 87, Plinking and targets with 22lr is like a V6 Mustang in normal driving. 22Mag is like a Shelby 500 Mustang on the drag strip when you need to reach out a long way for a groundhog, coyote or other undesirable creature.
I grew up shooting 22lr and 22mags. I am just surprised at the folks who don't appreciate the effectiveness of the 22mag. I guess because it is a 22 caliber, folks assume it's similar to the 22lr. It is a totally different animal. 75 yard one shot kills on a coyote; yeah, it can do it. A good scoped 22mag needs to be in everyone's collection.
newfrontier45
Moderator
100 octane fuel in a car with 8.5:1 compression does nothing.
The .22Mag runs 300-400fps faster than the .22LR with a heavier, true jacketed bullet. Whether you need it or not, that's a lot more than nothing.
The .22Mag IS a more effective round but it's best for field use. It's not a plinker and it's not good for paper punching, you're not gonna go out and burn up 500rds in an afternoon blasting tin cans. It's good for small game, predators and varmints. In that, it excels and it does do a better job than the .22LR.
The .22Mag runs 300-400fps faster than the .22LR with a heavier, true jacketed bullet. Whether you need it or not, that's a lot more than nothing.
The .22Mag IS a more effective round but it's best for field use. It's not a plinker and it's not good for paper punching, you're not gonna go out and burn up 500rds in an afternoon blasting tin cans. It's good for small game, predators and varmints. In that, it excels and it does do a better job than the .22LR.
L_Killkenny
New member
A lot more compared to what? In the firearms world the difference between the .22lr and the .22M is little to nothing. It doesn't move you up into another class, it takes many things the .22lr does and does them better is all. But it doesn't do all things better and the things it does come at a price. Said it before, I'll say it again...... still just a squirrel and bunny cartridge.
Last edited:
newfrontier45
Moderator
Pure nonsense. Like I said before, if 300-400fps is "nothing", then the .357 has no advantage over the .38Spl and the .44Mag has no advantage over the .44Spl.
Then the problem is your perception, like everybody else who derides the cartridge because it's not the .22LR. Like I also said multiple times, the .22Mag is a more effective cartridge on predators and larger varmints. Even more effective than the .22LR out of a rifle.
L_Killkenny
New member
Don't go trying to excuse perception for experience.
One day:
In that pic you'll see two 10/22's and a 597 .22M. Not the first .22M we've used but it will be the last. I've spent the last 33 years trapping and hunting furbearers (up to and including coyote). For most of that time furbearers were a numbers game (i.e. $$$) and 100 critter years were not uncommon. Mostly coon. In that time we have come to accept (regrettably I might add) that about the only thing the .22M is appreciably better for is fox calling mainly due to it's 100-125 yard range. .22lr will kill a fox just fine but getting them into range can be a problem with skittish reds. But for coon it's irrelevant and for coyote it's lame.
The .22M is not suitable for hunting anything more than a .22lr. It'll will give you a bit more range and a bit more room for error. Nothing more.
We could really send this thread into a tailspin with your .357 vs. .38sp. You want that discussion or comparison we'd better start another thread.
One day:
In that pic you'll see two 10/22's and a 597 .22M. Not the first .22M we've used but it will be the last. I've spent the last 33 years trapping and hunting furbearers (up to and including coyote). For most of that time furbearers were a numbers game (i.e. $$$) and 100 critter years were not uncommon. Mostly coon. In that time we have come to accept (regrettably I might add) that about the only thing the .22M is appreciably better for is fox calling mainly due to it's 100-125 yard range. .22lr will kill a fox just fine but getting them into range can be a problem with skittish reds. But for coon it's irrelevant and for coyote it's lame.
The .22M is not suitable for hunting anything more than a .22lr. It'll will give you a bit more range and a bit more room for error. Nothing more.
We could really send this thread into a tailspin with your .357 vs. .38sp. You want that discussion or comparison we'd better start another thread.
Last edited:
Your opinion L_Killkenny. There are people killing deer with 22lr but that dosen't mean it's right for the job. You can't dissmiss over twice the muzzle energy out of a rifle and the much better conctruction of the bullets involved. 22lr may be perfect for your job and wallet but don't go saying it's better for ereyone else here. There is room in the world of fireamrs for the 22lr and the 22mag.