PDA

View Full Version : What's the heaviest-bullet commercial .22 WMR ammo?


FirstFreedom
June 2, 2006, 09:09 PM
Anyone make a 50-60 gr+ ??

pumpkinheaver
June 2, 2006, 09:58 PM
Federal used to make a 50 gr load. I'm not sure if they still do but you could check their website.

FirstFreedom
June 3, 2006, 07:35 PM
You are right, and they still do, under their "Game Shok" line, load # 757:

http://www.federalcartridge.com/ballistics/Ammo_Search.aspx?act=choose&firearm=3&s1=1

That may be the heaviest out there - man, a 60 grain sure would be nice to have for a hammer on medium+ game like the big beavers down where I hunt.

skeeter1
June 3, 2006, 08:28 PM
A cursory search at www.cheaperthandirt.com shows that they still carry Federal 50gr. .22WMR, the heaviest I've seen. Frankly, the original 40gr. rounds always seemed good to me, and capable of taking out something the size of a raccoon or woodchuck, maybe even a two-legged predator. I've never tried the 30gr. rounds, and doubt that I ever will.

FirstFreedom
June 3, 2006, 10:45 PM
Well, yes, but a beaver can weigh up to 70 lbs, and specimens have been caught over 90 lbs - I've even read of a 110 lb beaver!; a woodchuck usually weighs only up to 10 lbs.

DR9983M4
June 3, 2006, 10:50 PM
Beaver go down hard and fast with 95-grain .243s, I suppose a 62 or 77 grain .223 would suffice (if you've got the right rifle for a big load), but I'd think you'd have to be awfully close with a .22 WMR to really put them down fast. I've used .30-06 and buckshot on beavers before, seems to be 100% effective without being too much either. Beavers are big bastards

silicon wolverine
June 4, 2006, 12:39 PM
I like .223 for beaver. it always gets the job done and its cheaper than .243 to boot.

SW

dfaugh
June 5, 2006, 10:59 AM
Woodchucks around here go an easy 20-25 lbs. hard to kill with a .22 LR(except w/ headshots), might even be marginal with a .22 WMR..tough little buggers.

Scorch
June 5, 2006, 12:08 PM
I shoot the Federal 50 gr in my 22 mag. They hit hard and shoot well. Maybe not quite enough for chucks except with headshots. Even a 22 Hornet has more OOMPH than a 22 mag!

Varmint Eviscerator
June 5, 2006, 08:18 PM
Are you kidding? You think you need more power then a mag for a WOODCHUCK? Have you ever hunted???? :eek:
I have seen this elswhere,those who have small **** have big guns to make up for it, pathetic! A 22lr with hv HP will kill em deader then dead out to 100yrds, body shot below 75 and head out to 100 will do ya fine with the 22lr. You dont even need a mag, the only reason you need such a high powered rifle is to
1) blow them apart
2) make up for your poor marksmenship,
Yeah admin so what, speach is un tactful and unrefined-it happens to me when I am ****** at such insipient remarks:mad:
He is being insideous concerning hunting and performance!
-Chase
BTW I will NOT recind my comments, and typing in coloquial "web" english is not an infraction, it is however, an infraction to "shpell" improperly and have poor,abysmal sentence structure! While i realize that it is not worthy of any submission to a scholarly source it is certainly worthy of casual speach :mad:

FirstFreedom
June 5, 2006, 09:42 PM
VarmintEviscerator, I believe your post violates one or more forum rules. You may want to edit that to remove your badmouthing of others in such a rude way, not to mention poor grammar/punctuation/capitalization, which is also a rule now on TFL.

Death from Afar
June 5, 2006, 11:13 PM
VE, I shoot a lot of rabbits with .223 AI. Its varminting. I dont think there is anything wrong with it. I actually once shot a hare with a 7.62mm sniper rifle, but that was after a slow day on the range. We actualy thought it was a communist. :rolleyes:

But seriously, dude, your post suggests you should use the minimum power avalible- surely thats not the case? And isnt it the case that by using, say, a .17HMR, .22 Win Mag , or say .17 Remington when a .22LR would suffice isnt "better" ethically? Reducing the chance of the animal suffering? ( I changed to .22Win Mag in my youth for that very reason)

Ernest T Bass
June 5, 2006, 11:14 PM
It’s not a magnum, but Aguila makes a 60 grain .22 lr. The problem is that they slide into the target sideways at 25 yards out of my Taurus 62. I mean, they’re accurate, but for some reason they hit the target sideways and make an oblong hole in the paper.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number2/images/22LR_Aguila_60gr_SSS.jpg


Also, I have personally killed large (25+ pound) raccoons with CCI’s CB long .22’s
(I don’t prefer to use CB caps for pest control, but I’m worried about noise.)

roscoe
June 6, 2006, 12:05 AM
I love those Aguila heavy .22 rounds for penetration. I with they made a 70 or 80 grain subsonic round like them in .22mag.

FirstFreedom
June 6, 2006, 12:12 AM
I with they made a 70 or 80 grain subsonic round like them in .22mag.

That's what *I'm* talkin' about! [/Kip]

Yes, I love the SSS in .22lr - see this post on at least one gun they work in:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198256

Omaha-BeenGlockin
June 6, 2006, 11:56 AM
Picking nits

Isn't all rimfire ammo by definition "commercial" ammo----since the cases can't be reloaded???

Varmint Eviscerator
June 6, 2006, 08:17 PM
the sss tumble *out/in flight* of all *my*guns, including my rf target guns-plus they are sp, so you ethics guys should pick on him:eek: ;) seriously, those bullets are not optimal in terms of killing performance
Chase

FirstFreedom
June 6, 2006, 09:30 PM
Chase (Varmint Eviscerator):

You're being a real knucklehead here. First, you failed to edit your post above which makes little sense, and which runs afoul of forum rules and doubtlessly offended the target of your words, even after being asked to very nicely.

Then there's your last post attempting to assert your version of "facts":

the sss tumble in all guns,

Well, I'm not sure what mean tumble *IN* all guns, but if you meant that the SSS tumbles when they exit all guns, then you're just flat wrong. Read the link in my post above, and you will see that the SSS performs superbly in at least one gun, and doubtless would and does in many with custom barrels with faster twists.

plus they are sp, so you ethics guys should pick on him

How do a soft point bullet necessarily correlate to unethical? Seeing as how soft points mushroom/expand, and are thus chosen as the gold standard of hunting bullets?

those bullets are not optimal in terms of killing performance

Well, it depends on the game and the situation. For deep penetration, they are superior in terms of killing performance. Which is why it is my understanding that some people who's job it is to cull deer populations near airports, etc., choose the SSS for head shots on deer. True that it's not ideal for rapid expansion. But where penetration is needed, it is the better choice.

So, given that you are clearly mistaken about numerous issues, wouldn't you be better off *asking* stuff rather than attempting to *tell us* stuff?

I have seen this elswhere,those who have small **** have big guns to make up for it, pathetic,

Unless you use a .177 pellet for all game that you take, then you too must be compensating in the phallic arena, using your logic.

FirstFreedom
June 6, 2006, 10:05 PM
Oh, yes you are right, Omaha-beenglockin. :) Well, I suppose some people have reloaded rimfires - it's technically possible - but they are few and far between.

buckster
June 7, 2006, 01:06 AM
Just got a CZ 452 today and I had to chose between WSR and LR. The LR is more plentiful in remote areas and inexpensive. My CZ doesn't care, it eats Federal Champs all day at 1/4" clover leafs @ 50. I noticed that at about 1100 fps the .22 was very accurate, so no need for speed. Nothing to get up about. The Aguila's have 60 gr but look at the powder in the picture. You better be up close or have a CZ.

FirstFreedom
June 7, 2006, 02:32 PM
What is a "WSR"?

Varmint Eviscerator
June 7, 2006, 04:24 PM
Alright,back from the goolog (sp) and I am here to defend myself.
1) Your belittleing comments on casual grammar and punction is actually amusing because it tells me you need something to find fault with.
2) I corrected my posts-to some degree. However, if I wanted to hang out with grammar police then my instructors are always happy to have after school company:eek: ;)
3) This exact post is not meant to offend you.
4) The phalic jab was cheap, I will give you that, it was a deragatory statement.
5) To correct you, if you DID use the inverse of the phalic jab then that's a compliment I thank you for it! ( I have taken a myriad of logic courses)
6) Sp, IE in rf terms means SOLID POINT! Which at 900 fps is not going to expand unless it hits heavy bone. At 2200fps exposed lead does different things.
7) I am not reccomending the smallest caliber possible, nor do I condone merciless and in-humane killing with insufficient calibers. I was correcting a common misconception. I was upset at the fact that the guy said the 22 mag was not enough for a wood chuck, if you hunt chipmunks with a 338 lapua mag all the more power to ya, but if you *gotta* (coloquialism,chill) put down/ discourage/intimadate and/or berrate other people for not using an uber gun then you got issues.
In a 22 RF loading you want humane killing so an hp is essential that is, unless you going for a precise head shot.
Chase
BTW knucklehead? Hypocrit.

FirstFreedom
June 8, 2006, 11:14 AM
Knucklehead is a euphamism for what you really are, which is on the order of 100 times a knucklehead. I am in no way a hypocrite - you obviously do not know what that word means.

1) Your belittleing comments on casual grammar and punction is actually amusing because it tells me you need something to find fault with.

I find fault with it, because it's a RULE now on TFL to use good grammar and punctuation. See the former sticky called "Raising the Bar at TFL". Too many nitwits and knuckleheads like you make this place look like the fat albert gang got computers. It's not MY rule - it's the forum's rule. If you do not like it, go find some forums that don't have such a rule and post there.

2) I corrected my posts-to some degree. However, if I wanted to hang out with grammar police then my instructors are always happy to have after school company

No, as of my former writing, you had not corrected your prior post, even though you had had an opportunity to do so, which is proven by the fact that you posted subsequently, and thus saw the intervening posts, including mine, which suggested that you should edit your post which VIOLATED FORUM RULES, including but not limited to personal attacks (unwarranted I might add), and disregard for the "Raising the Bar" idea here at TFL. But you did not change your post.

3) This exact post is not meant to offend you. It did not offend me. It violated forum rules. AND offended that person whom you directed the rude, vicious attack toward (doubtlessly).

4) The phalic jab was cheap, I will give you that, it was a deragatory statement.

Yes, damn straight it was. Thank you for that admission. Now, if you'd just have left your reply with that admission alone, and an apology, then we'd be getting somewhere. But you didn't choose to do that.

5) To correct you, if you DID use the inverse of the phalic jab then that's a compliment I thank you for it! ( I have taken a myriad of logic courses)

That makes no sense, and tells me you probably failed said logic courses.

6) Sp, IE in rf terms means SOLID POINT! Which at 900 fps is not going to expand unless it hits heavy bone. At 2200fps exposed lead does different things.

If you meant solid point, you should have said "solid point", because SP does NOT stand for solid point in the industry and culture of guns - SP stands for SOFT point, not solid point (FMJ). So, again, your mistake.

7) I am not reccomending the smallest caliber possible, nor do I condone merciless and in-humane killing with insufficient calibers. I was correcting a common misconception.

You most certainly DID seem to me (and others) that you were implying that we should use the smallest caliber possible, with what you said. Hey man, if it's a VARMINT (nuisance species), not something you're planning to eat, then it doesn't matter how big of a gun you use - your goal is to eliminate the critter, and the bigger the better (and more humane). There is nothing inherently "unmanly", "unfair", or phallic about blasting a woodchuck with a .30-06 or anything else for that matter. Get over that idea, man - it's just wrong. It's got nothing to do with 'compensating', as you suggest. If anything, it's more humane.

but if you *gotta* [...] put down/ discourage/intimadate and/or berrate other people for not using an uber gun then you got issues.

Dude. No one put you or anyone else down for not using an "uber" gun. No one berated you or anyone else for not using a bigger/uber gun. Where did you get that idea?

In a 22 RF loading you want humane killing so an hp is essential that is, unless you going for a precise head shot.

No, I disagree with that assessment. Non-HPs in .22 mag will work just fine on a lot of small game/varmints. A soft point (SP) .22 mag will expand very rapidly, though perhaps not quite as rapidly as an HP.


And, BTW, you STILL have not edited your post to remove the offensive and unwarranted language.

Varmint Eviscerator
June 8, 2006, 02:46 PM
And I wont. I wont fix it for you either, you wanna get admin to delete it fine! Actually to S-P-E-l-l it out for you, the compliment and truth algorithms are correct-in fact. So if one is handicapped in such a way and makes up for it by using a big "gun" wouldnt the logical opposite be if one has that kind of attribute wouldnt they shoot a small caliber to compensate for how substantial they are?This is going further then I'd like, but i had to clear it up for you. Secondly, the logic classes I passed with an A- average. Third, if you ask anyone who shoots rimfire with non jacketed ammunition will RESPOND TO SP IN THE SAME WAY I DID!!!.
Also Why should I apologize to you? You got up in arms and decided to play PC patrol and be "the better man", you want recognition, praise? fine you're a better person then me, do i care? NO!
Also, once again,with your "sophisticated" manner you should read my post and not jump for the gun so to speak! I STATED originally that I took issue with the fact that the guy was belittleing the 22lr and the 22 mag as insufficient cartridges for suh small varmints- His comments are obviously ignorant and insipient!
AGAIN I know what hypocrit means, i used it correctly-You said I am being a knucklehead-is that in the dictionary, NO its slang, so it is open to interpretation. You call me a knucklehead for being difficult and violating forum rules, yet look who's talking!!! Classic case of hypocrit. You say "damn" then turn around and accuse me of abusing forum rules-yet another case of being a hypocrit, obviously it is YOU who is unfamiliar with the term. Since you obviously need it go to dictionary.com. Might help you decifer my enigma:rolleyes:!
And right now, you're berrating me!
I will stipulate-I MEANT SOLID POINT IN 22lr-SORRY, next time I will scrutinize every post of mine to the utmost degree so as not to make myself suseptable to such internet dribble.
Good day to you, have a good one everyone and happy hunting
Chase

FirstFreedom
June 8, 2006, 03:01 PM
Guys, there you have - V.E. is a firm believer in the big gun = small penis theory - anyone agree or disagree with him?

Death from Afar
June 8, 2006, 04:06 PM
And the correct spelling is "hypocrite" *sigh*

Varmint Eviscerator
June 8, 2006, 08:18 PM
We have a winner, you are like a scanning device with a missing segment of receptor plates, you MISSED MY STATEMENT! I said early it was a jab, the phalic joke, not a belief. That is a blatantly ignorant and incorrect assumption on your part that it is otherwise! Look before you leap. Secondly, you and your cohorts(sp) find trivial errors then pile drive them because you lack substantial intellect or evidence to compose a significant argument.In fact, you cant hold up an argument without reverting back to phrases and simple attacks/jabs! Your argument has no logic, just to nit pick!
BTW, buddy,pal, while i did spell "hypocrite" incorrectly, there is no correlation between my ability to spell the word and my ability to comprehend it. BTW a 22 mag has more energy then a 38special ut a snubbie in almost any configuration. Yet millions of you place your life in that cartridges capabilities against HUMANS not chucks and ground hogs.
-Chase
seems like its me againts TFL, well, gotta fight harder:eek: ;)
and screw it if have grammar mistakes, gotta leave for a social event.

Death from Afar
June 8, 2006, 08:30 PM
Dude, one word- decaf.

VE- What exactly is your argument? That the .22 magnum is a bolt of lightening? Or underpowered? Or both? Or what? And are you saying that a .22 magnum from a snub is more powerful that a .38Sp +P? Huh?

skeeter1
June 8, 2006, 09:05 PM
V.E.--

Seriously, dude, you should look to getting on some Prozac or other antidepressant. Your posts don't seem all that stable for someone with a gun.

Varmint Eviscerator
June 9, 2006, 03:30 PM
Fine, I will stop, my point is that a 22 magnum out of a rifle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a plus P 38special in a snubbie configuration and that people use snubbies with 38 special loadings to defend themselvs against humans. No the 22 mag is not very powerfull when compared to other cartridges, but, it is MOST certainly beyond sufficient for GH, gophers and such.
I can be a stormy petrel but I am a good natured person, I am always coherant,never drink or smoke anything and I have never actually had a temper flare. I was not freaking out, I was having a heated debate, you interpretted it as such.
I am finished, here I wish you all the best of luck, first freedom, Good luck and good hunting.
Chase