.32 versus .22mag

C

canuck1911

New member
I've been feeling the .22mag is a superior round in a short barrel gun. How do you folks feel about the relative merits?

canuck
 
Hi Canuck.
In a 4" or longer barrel length (6 inch is superior) the .22Mag is an excellent outdoorsman caliber. It serves well on all small game upto the size of a coyote. A 6" barrel revolver gives 1300+ fps with a 40 gr. bullet, and about 175 fp energy. This load also has good penetration, and could be superior to a .32ACP.
In shorter barrels, you lose a lot with the .22Mag due to a large portion of the powder not burning. For example, in a 1.75" barrel .22Mag a 40gr. bullet would have about 1000 fps and 90 fp of energy.
Probably overall the 32ACP is a superior defensive caliber due to types of firearms and defensive bullet designs for the 32APC, and the 22Mag revolver is a better outdoorsman caliber. Chris
 
Yes, I was thinking of these rounds in a NAA 1 5/8" minimag versus a guardian .32. I don't know much about .32 cal bullet choices, but the cci +v stingers are a good .22mag round.
Hunting I would definately go with the .22mag, but short barreled guns, I'm not sure.
 
The comparisons and tests I've seen indicate that the .22mag, in a short-barreled pistol, is a very poor performer, as was already noted, above. A .32 does much better.

The very small NAA guns in .22 mag seem to be particularly ineffective. Better than nothing, to be sure, but not as good as a .32 acp.
 
I went to the North Amrican Arms page. They show, with 30 gr. maxi mag +v, out of a 1 5/8" barrel, 1062 f.p.s. at 8 feet.

For the guardian, in .32acp, they show with 65 grain federal hydrashock, 798 f.p.s. at 8 feet.

I think this gives the edge to the .32 as far as momentum goes. But if I were thinking about the ability to penetrate, wouldn't the .22mag have the edge, with the greater speed behind the bullet?
 
Having fired both a small .32ACP and a very small .22Mag, what I personally chose was a NAA Black Widow. This has excellent sights, a small but excellent grip for control, and is accurate. It is also of little weight. Being an old geezer who shoots revolvers well, it was my first choice for this type of firearm. Very likely the superior penetration of the 22Mag is a tactical advantage over the 32ACP! Also I find that very small autoloaders are a bit more prone to malfunctions. Chris
 
Canuck1911,
I have a NAA .22Mag revolver with the 1 5/8" barrel. When I bought it I went ahead and got the spare .22LR cylinder. I recently ran a few bullets across the chrony so I could determine which bullet was the ideal choice for carrying. Here's my results:

.22 Maxi Mag +V Avg Vel - 1020 fps
.22 Stinger Avg Vel - 1045 fps
.22 Rem Golden HP Avg Vel - 791 fps

Using the above averaged velocities, I was able to determine the resulting energy as listed below:

.22 Maxi Mag +V (30gr bullet) - 69.3 ft lbs.
.22 Stinger (32gr bullet) - 77.6 ft lbs.
.22 Rem Golden HP (36gr bullet) - 50 ft lbs.

I did note that at all ranges, point blank and farther, the Maxi Mags keyholed 9 out of 10 times. They left a hole in the paper target that clearly showed that the bullet hit sideways. The Stingers and all other types of LR's left a nice round hole. :)

Actually the gun didn't do too bad accuracy wise either. I could keep them all within 6 inches at 25 feet. The Maxi Mags were another story though. :( On a side note the little revolver fits perfectly in the side tool pocket or Carhart work pants. I carry mine there all the time. You can't even tell it's there!

So if you choose to get one, I wouldn't get the magnum model. I would stick with the LR. No sense in spending the extra money.

I noticed that you wrote that the NAA reported a velocity of 1062 fps. It sounds like they only reported their highest velocity. In my testing my highest and lowest velocities were 1044 and 978 fps. For the Stingers it was 1072 and 999 fps. Granted, I only tested 100 rounds each.

If they list the .32 65gr bullet at 798 fps, it would develop 91.9 ft lbs of energy. I wouldn't be suprised if the typical velocity averaged more like 750 fps. This would produce only 81.2 ft lbs. Just a thought.

In summary, I have to say I like my little revolver and I feel confident in it's reliability. Comparing the price difference between the Gaurdian .32 and the NAA .22 and the small diference in ballistics, I think the .22 is the better buy. I would have to agree with Ranger Chris that small autoloaders tend to be prone to jambing.

------------------
Gun control is People Control
 
Pumpblast,

That is very interesting results. I too have a minimag, with two cylinders, but have thought about going to the .32. I'll check for keyholing next time I go out. If it happens in my gun as well, then it is definately time to change ammo. That would be too bad, but its certainly good to know - I'd hate to have to rely on such a round. You might want to check out the North American Arms data page - they show data for various types of ammo, out of different guns, and show the high, low, and average. Be interesting to see how it compared with your data.
 
RangerChris,

I would think that with the longer barrel length of the black widow, you definately have the better gun/round over the .32.
 
Pumpblast - why does one even need a .22lr cylinder? Can't you just shoot the .22lr in the mag cylinder? If not, why not?
 
I moved up from a NAA 1 5/8" Minirevolver to a Guardian a couple of years ago. Even if the 22mag and 32acp are comparible (and I'm not convinced), I still think the Guardian is a step forward. The jump from five shots to seven, and the speed at which they can be used, is something to think about. My Guardian does not jam, so I don't see that as a problem!

Now, if NAA came up with a 3" barreled Minirevolver, the barrel profile of their standard mini and the sights of the BW, that would be something! Or maybe a 32 H&R Mag Minirevolver?

I really think that NAA might really surprise us in the future. The minirevolver design has a lot of potential...
 
PumpBlast, If you get a chance, try the 40gr 22Mag. Usually the better sectional density of longer bullets make them more stable. Depending on the ammo used, you'll probably find about 1000fps+ with the 40gr. Also the lighter bullets probably don't penetrate as well, and penetration is the only real advantage the .22Mag has when compared to the 32ACP.
Futo Inu. Don't fire 22lr in the 22Mag cylinder. The 22lr will fit and fire in the 22Mag. But there are chamber dimension differences which increase the possibility of case or case head rupture. This could cause injury to you, and may harm the gun or others near you too. So not a good ideal to use 22lr in the 22Mag!! Chris
 
Okay, who here believes that a .31 caliber 60 grain bullet travelling at 850 fps is less effective than a .22 caliber 40 grain bullet travelling 1000 fps?

Yes, yes, I know E=MVsquared, and I'm too lazy to convert into foot-pounds of energy right now, but I come out with a quick figure of the .32 acp having about 8% more energy than the .22 RMF, and about 25% more momentum (MV) than the .22 RMF. Then you get into things like frontal area, and you find that the .32 has almost 2 times the frontal area of a .22 (1.98X, actually: 0.0754" cross-section for .32 vs. 0.03799" cross-section for .22, using good ole' pi X r squared). That, and reliability of feeding (.32 acp wins, with the right bullets) and the type of pistols offered in that caliber all add up to .32acp just about winning all around as a defensive piece.

Does that mean that I'd feel unarmed with a .22 WMRF? Heck, no! But if your goal is a defensive pistol, the .32, while quite anemic, does beat the rimfire out.

[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited February 14, 2000).]
 
Long Path,

First, let me preface my remarks with an admission of total lack of expertise on what makes bullets effective. What I know I've picked up from the lists, and it may or may not be correct. That said, let me respond to your points.

First, I've heard that to disable someone immediately with a shot you need to hit something vital - brain, spinal chord, heart, major artery, etc. I don't think it matters whether my heart or brain is penetrated with a .22 or .32 - either will stop me very effectively.

What matters is getting the penetration in the first place (I know, placement matters first, but the bullet type won't help with that!). Although the .32 might have more momentum overall, it is spread over a larger mass, and larger frontal area. Per square inch, it would seem the .22 has more momentum, which should result in better penetration. Thus, shot placement being the same, your chances are better with the .22, especially if the person is wearing heavy clothing, is fat, you hit the skull, etc.

I have also heard that if the first shot is not disabling, its blood loss and resultant loss of blood pressure that does the trick.
I don't know which caliber would make a larger cavity - I'm not willing to say its the .32 because the .22 with more momentum might bounce around more. BUT, the .22 has a greater chance of crating an exit wound, which would also increase the blood loss, because of greater penetration.

Finally, I think the guardians are superb guns - I'm thinking of getting one, which is why I started this thread. But, I would think the MiniMag revolver is inherently a more reliable design.

My 2 cents.

BTW, thanks everyone who's chipped in here - I love the discussion, and I'm learning a lot.

Canuck
 
For non-expanding bullets, sectional density is a very good indicator of penetration. Don't have the #'s handy or would post'em.

Another decent measure is the old IPSC/Cooper power factor.

Bullet weight x velocity divided by 1000 is very interesting.

.22 Mag = 31.5
.32 ACP = 51.8

FYI - 9mm (115 @ 1100) = 126.5
.45 (230 @ 850) = 195.5

Giz


------------------
"I don't make enough money to buy cheap stuff" - Mark Manning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top