Thoughts on Remington .22 JET

C

cdoc42

New member
I just read an article in "Guns" magazine about the .22 Jet and how it's popularity disappeared because the cylinder locked up when firing the Jet cartridge. The discussion included the use of a TC barrel, which I found intriguing.

I have a Jet -Model 53 S&W with an extra cylinder for shooting .22 Long Rifle. I never had any lock ups with the Jet, but, then neither did I shoot it a lot due to cost of cartridges. That led to no interest in reloading it, either.

I contacted TC (S&W now) to find they no longer make a barrel for the .22Jet.

What has been the experience of Jet owners?
 
Bottleneck/tapered cartridges in a revolver don't make any sense. You're stuck with the same capacity as the base cartridge (.357 Mag) but your projectiles is very small, in the Jet's case .22.

It was also nowhere near as fast as it was advertised to be with velocities not much faster than what comparable .22 Magnum ammo could get in a revolver.

Bottlenecks are best used in rifles and semi auto pistols.
 
True that factory ammo was loaded down, but the author of the article the OP mentioned was handloading to much higher velocities. I had one back in the early 80's and as long as I degreased the chambers and cases well, I didn't have setback problems. I don't still have the reloading data from back then, but I was getting almost 40% higher velocity than factory Remington ammo. I had a 10 inch Contender barrel too, with a 2X handgun scope, and it shot one ragged hole at 50 yards. Only game I ever shot with it was a grouse and the exit hole was the size of a golf ball, not much left to eat. It was a fun little cartridge to play with.
 
Dufus said:
If that's the case then what's up with the 32-20, 38-40, 44-40 etc??
Click to expand...
When those were introduced in the 19th Century they were intended for lever action rifles first, then other companies realized they would work in revolvers, which gave people the option to use the same ammo in both handgun and long gun.

Today they're obsolete. There's a reason no major revolver manufacturer makes any chambered in any of those today.
 
If that's the case then what's up with the 32-20, 38-40, 44-40 etc??
Click to expand...
Those three are all black powder cartridges. Black powder is a whole different critter. It burns at the same rate whether is confined or exposed & it operates at a significantly lower pressure than a smokeless propellant (which burns faster when it's confined).
That difference in the rate of burn can & does affect how the case expands in the chamber. The slower burning smokeless causes the case to move rearward as it burns & pressures climb.

In the same time frame of the .22 Jet - there were a number of Wildcats - .357/44 Bain & Davis, etc..

The .22 Jet can be used in a revolver - as can lots of other bottleneck cartridges, but, you have to take some care as to what you load & how the gun is maintained.

Here's another thread dealing with the same subject:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6285634
 
Those three are all black powder cartridges.
Click to expand...

Granted, those were designed before the advent of smokeless powder, but they have evolved into smokeless cartridges just as the venerable 45 Colt has done.

The comment in post #3 made a statement that I responded appropriately to.

Also, I am not disregarding the fact that the 22 Rem Jet had some problems, but other posters have stated their fix to the problem, and I agree with them.

Hodgdon Reloading site has lots of smokeless loads for each one of the cartridges that I referred to.
 
There's a reason no major revolver manufacturer makes any chambered in any of those today.
Click to expand...

You are correct if you narrow it down to "major revolver manufacturer".

BUT, you are incorrect in labeling them obsolete.

It is simply the laws of supply and demand. BUT, lots of people here and ones that I know personally would buy if available.

Just because Wikipedia says it, doesn't necessarily make it so.
 
Uberti and Pietta aren't major revolver manufacturers?! They make tens of thousands of Colt pattern revolvers and Schofield revolvers. Do you have to produce DA revolvers and snub pocket guns to be considered a major manufacturer? They chamber SAA's in 32-20, 38-40, and 44-40. Colt still sells SAA's in 44-40.
 
Last edited:
My brother had a Model 53 many years ago, with an 8 3/8" barrel (there were a few made with a 5" long barrel-very rare to see). His had an auxiliary cylinder, along with the inserts, chambered in .22rf. I remember that the cylinder walls on the Jet had to be very dry or the cases would stick after being fired. As I recall, he even applied alcohol to the chambers and wiping them clean as an extra step in keeping the walls of the cylinder dry.
The Model 53 was a beautiful revolver. I'd love to have one.
 
jglsprings, I posted a thank you for the link to Bullberry but for some reason I see it didn't make it. So here it is again: Thanks for the link.
 
dgludwig,your post stimulated my need to measure my barrel as I don't recall it being long. It measures 5" to the frame and 5-13/16" to the cylinder. I may be mistaken, but somewhere along the line I got the impression that was a common size and the longer 8-3/8" was more rare-?

A friend, now deceased, had a similar one with the cylinder inserts. In those days he and I followed each other's paths so I ended up with mine as a result. I recall it was "used" but less than 6 shots were fired as the owner reportedly was taken back by the report and muzzle flash. This was around 1969. I paid $135 for the piece, including the extra .22LR cylinder. As a result, I have no inserts, nor, obviously, the need.
 
Granted, those were designed before the advent of smokeless powder, but they have evolved into smokeless cartridges
Click to expand...
Yes/no/maybe....many of those black powder cartridges were factory loaded with black powder for decades after smokeless was introduced.
I recall reading that tidbit in old distributor price lists.

Just as 1873 didn't bring an abrupt end to the cap and ball era, or the introduction of the Maximum Machine gun bring a halt to the Gatling Gun - smokeless didn't designate an end to black powder.

Shooters are among the most reactionary people the world has ever known, ;)
 
I remember, oh so many years, hell, decades ago, when the Jet came out....thought it would be the Zoot Capri of handgun varmit rounds and still retain the ability to plink with .22 LR's. Unfortunately, the Jet case caused lock ups, for many and that cooled my interest. Just some thoughts from an old Phart...Rod
 
dgludwig,your post stimulated my need to measure my barrel as I don't recall it being long. It measures 5" to the frame and 5-13/16" to the cylinder. I may be mistaken, but somewhere along the line I got the impression that was a common size and the longer 8-3/8" was more rare-?
Click to expand...

From the Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson regarding the barrel lengths available on the Smith & Wesson Model 53 revolvers: "...4-inch, 6-inch or 8-3/8-inch barrel lengths available (5-inch rare)". It should be noted that this is the only reference source that I've ever seen that mentions a 5-inch barrel length for the Model 53, so this claim is suspect, imo, until more evidence is uncovered.
The 8-3/8-inch barrel brings a 10% more collector's value, everything else being equal.
 
The difference between the old black powder rounds and the modern .22 Jet is a combination of working pressure and the dimensions of the cartridge itself, including shoulder and neck length, shoulder angle, etc.

Compared to the three blackpowder rounds, the Jet has a HUGE shoulder with a very short neck.

That long shoulder acts as a piston to push the cartridge back under pressure, while there's simply not enough neck to grab the cylinder walls and help counteract the backwards force imparted by the shoulder.

The higher the pressure generated by the load, the worse the problem becomes.
 
"From the Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson regarding the barrel lengths available on the Smith & Wesson Model 53 revolvers: "...4-inch, 6-inch or 8-3/8-inch barrel lengths available (5-inch rare)""

I find this confusing How are the lengths being measured? From the muzzle to the frame is 5 inches. But to the cylinder I get 5-13/16 and I honestly cannot argue there is a 3/16" gap between the end of the barrel and the face of the cylinder, so I wonder where 6" comes from?
 
Barrel lengths for most things revolver is from the forcing cone to the muzzle. That is, before the revolver is assembled, measure the barrel length!

For States I know of that have a barrel length regulation for pistol HUNTING, the length is from the primer of a bullet to the muzzle. This evens out the differences between single shot, auto loaders and revolvers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top