.22 LR: why none with Ballistic tip like .17 HMR
- Thread starter fljp2002
- Start date
Why are pointy Bullets a bad combo with a semi?
It exists~called 17M2. A CCI Stinger case necked down to .17. (see photo in my avatar) If the question had to do with a 22cal ballistic tip, then I'm inclined to agree with Chappy. Not enough speed generated in a case like that to launch a 22 cal BT fast enough to have the desired result. (my opinion only, no science to back it up
)What always comes to mind is the Hornady 30gr. 22 WMR. Most of us are lobbing 40gr. 22LR loads around without a second thought, with what...2-3 grains of powder? Those Hornady 22WMR loads ARE .22 cal ballistic tips that are 25% lighter, and being launched by about 2X the amount of powder. When looking at centerfires (for comparison) a .224", 40gr.-55gr bullet might have 25+ grains of powder behind it, which speaks to the effective range, and dramatic effect ballistic tips produce. So, I don't know the exact "why"..but looking at how .22cal BTs are actually loaded commercially, sure seems to suggest they need more speed than the powder charges 22lr cases can hold, can generate. (crappy sentence, but point made)
In the sense that it is a hollow point, just with a plastic tip inserted. The tip is meant to help initiate expansion of the bullet, especially at lower velocities. They can be explosive at high velocities... good for some applications, not so much for others.
As to why it isn't offered in .22 LR? Perhaps ammo makers never saw a need for it or a market? Conventional hollow points seem to get the job done when varminting. Another thing, is that the added length would likely be an issue for loading into most magazines for the .22's currently out there in the market if used on a standard 40gr bullet. It might have to be shortened so much that the lower bullet weight simply won't carry enough energy downrange to be a viable cartridge at .22's low speed, as in, you're still better off with a 40 gr hollow point than a 25-ish gr ballistic tip. The speed of .17 HMR makes up the energy difference.
To do a long sleek bullet like a ballistic would cause stability issues. With the typically slow 1-16" twist of a LR, it would be a problem. If you look at the 32-33 grain pointed bullets for the .22 WMR, they are pretty short and stubby and shed velocity pretty good.
Just guessing, but maybe pointed bullets wouldn't go fast enough to take advantage of their shape? I dont think spitzer bullets are very efficient at subsonic or slightly sonic velocities. Making a 22LR bullet fast enough to take advantage of spizter bullets would probably require necking down, in which case you basically have a .17 HMR Mach 2.
22LR ammo is cheap to make, and the lead bullet performs very well. What would a ballistic tip add other than cost?
Here is a picture from 1966 of a Remington 22 LR hollow point bullet (unfired on the left) and after passing through an arm (on the right)
Here is a picture of the arm
Would a ballistic tip perform any better?
Here is a picture from 1966 of a Remington 22 LR hollow point bullet (unfired on the left) and after passing through an arm (on the right)
Here is a picture of the arm
Would a ballistic tip perform any better?
Should not be an issue with the rimfire I would think
Economics, mostly.
The economics of producing a different sized bullet, the rim fire bore is smaller than the centre fire 22 bores. And the economics of trying to sell a product that does nothing better than the products already available.
.17 cal rim fire ammo is designed to use the same bore diameter as the centre fire ammo. The cost of that ammo is mainly the price of the bullets.
Between the obvious added costs, reflecting in to higher priced ammo, I would hazard an estimate that putting a pointy varmint bullet, on to a case that already has a set finite limit to the pressures it can be loaded to(SAMMI specs, already established for .22 rimfire), would produce a product that performed quite poorly, for a bunch of money, and which would cost the companies involved a bunch of Money to attach their name to what would end up a commercial failure.
.22 Rimfire Magnum is out there, 5mm is not really a going concern, 17M2 is marginally better, availability wise. 17HMR has a pretty solid market niche. 17 Winchester Super Magnum, is....?.... aside from having been saddled with the Savage gun looking fairly distinctive, requiring that the buyer both desire that cartridge, plus that style rifle, or spend a LOT more money on one.
For similar money, one can load a Hornet or a .223, if you really wanted that bullet.
Donny Fenn1
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Kootenays
Are there? Because the two I had were recalled by the manufacturers due to safety issues with cases blowing up.
- Location
- Saskatoon Saskatchewan
Its likely difficult and unnecessary to ad a plastic tip on a non copper jacketed bullet. A pure lead bullet wouldn't hold the tip well and 22lr is too low of a pressure round to use jacketed bullets
Tube magazines ?
Ok, you guys are gonna have to walk me through this...
What’s the danger of a pointy plastic tip in a RIMfire tube? What am I missing?
22LR ammo is cheap to make, and the lead bullet performs very well. What would a ballistic tip add other than cost?
Here is a picture from 1966 of a Remington 22 LR hollow point bullet (unfired on the left) and after passing through an arm (on the right)
Here is a picture of the arm
Would a ballistic tip perform any better?
Terminally? Maybe not. But it should help flight ballistics, no? Higher bc... retains speed... less drop... more uniform nose... more accurate?...
Donny Fenn1
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Kootenays
So if the velocity and bullet composition of a 22LR doesn't make sense for a ballistic tip, why do they exist in air rifle pellets?
