Anyone needing a Model 53 Jet cylinder should search the gun auction sites (Not sure about mentioning specific names so I'll avoid that). The number to search under is 122768622. There is about 8 hours left on the auction and the price is reasonable. I'm not a gun broker, nor am I involved in the auction in any way. Just thought someone might be interested.

Swissman was looking for one of these and I've emailed him twice and he has not responded. Hope one of you guys gets it.

Also, a very well known general auction site has a number of .22 Jet items, to include a forming die set, at a very reasonable price.

Jets seem to be the topic of the day so here is a little follow-on that might be helpful.

S/W - Lifer

I didn't see what the cylinder went for, but last time I looked, it was too rich for me.

I have never heard of anyone having much luck with forming Jet brass. Accuracy always seems to suffer. Jet accuracy with handloads is always hard for me to come by, and the newer the brass, the less trouble I have.

Anyone here have any luck with brass formed from 357s? Would be interesting to hear from you.

I bought Jet cylinders several years ago. Got a deal on 3, don't recall what I paid for them, but it seemed reasonable at the time.

Also have forming dies but have yet to try them. I regard them as "plan B" but do want to convert some .357 cases into Jet brass. I believe nickle plated cases are going to be out of the question and I suspect annealing might be required. I did buy a case of Jet brass a couple of years ago when I found it available.

I've also found in loading .357 ammunition that all brass is not created identically. There seem to be noteable differences between makers and I doubt all are suited to case reforming.

I suspect a couple of key points in loading Jet ammunition is keeping cases trimmed - they grow quickly with full loads. Also, the use of rifle primers will better allow access to the Jet's full potential.

I also have a concern is with bullets. I prefer the factory bullet to all else. The Hornady .222 bullet is next up to my thinking for several reasons. My last choices at this point are the .223 bullets intended for rifle velocities.

Then there is the matter of powder. I could go on here but I'll just say there is work to be done in this arena. I wonder about the potential of Little Gun and if anyone has tried it.

S/W - Lifer, Thanks for reminding me. I sent you an answer monday evening, but it came back. [email protected]. I don't know what was wrong.

Swissman

Lifer - Ipsnay on Lil Gun. No data, and my experience indicates that moderate speed powders insure better functioning. I have all but given up on slow powders, but one never says never...

I wonder about the Remington brand Jet bullets. Its an area I've never given a lot of thought to. I guess I could pull one and measure it, then compare it with the Hornady equivalent.

We have a poster here who in the past has said he got his best accuracy out of .224 bullets. I think I'm getting pressure signs, and I don't want to confuse that with accuracy... Has anyone ever tried to swage down a .223 or .224? First thing we probably need to do is measure more than one factory Jet bullet. If there is one thing I've got, its a bunch of loaded factory ammo.

Has anyone tested or do they have comments on the off-brand Jet ammo being loaded in Mexico (or where ever?) What bullet are they using?

Can you even move enough copper to make a .224 into a .223 or .222? Just asking. Anyone here smart?

__________________
Dick Burg

When it comes to handloading there is no shortage of inaccurate date or information regarding the .22 Jet cartridge. With that in mind, it is difficult to get factual, accurate data to work with.

Let's see if someone who has boxed Remington Jet bullets can measure a sample for us. I've read sources citing.222, .2225 and .223 as being the size of the factory bullet. Getting that confirmed would be a step in the right direction.

Yes, .224 bullets can be swaged to .223 using a die system. I believe this is easily done.

My greater concern lies with bullet jacket thickness and hardness, as well as the alloy of the bullet core. If a bullet is designed for varmint rifles we may not see adequate expansion in a revolver. .223 bullets intended for the .22 Hornet may be viable.

Having used it in the field to hunt varmints I have seen the utter destructiveness of the Jet bullet. I suspect, but cannot confirm, that the Remington Jet bullet core is, or nearly is, unalloyed lead. Also, the bullet jacket is minimal and intended to function with full effectiveness at revolver velocity.

I'm not sure how to go about it but what Jet shooters really need is have Remington make a run of bullets as loading components.

FWIW.

Just my two cents guys, but a revolver will almost always shoot its best when bullets are sized according to the throats, not the bore. Even in a high velocity round like the Jet. It doesn't operate at any higher pressure than rounds like the .454, .475 etc., and they work best in that regard, either with lead or jacketed. Jet bullets are almost pure lead cored which means they will swage down in the bore ok. It's far more critical to match throat dimention with bullet than bore.

answered this on another thread,but i have had the best luck with sierra .223 40 grain hornet bullets. they will expand at least at 100yds. 2400 is the powder i have had the best luck with both speed and accuracy. my normal load is 9.5 up to 11.5 but that is very hot and will require a dowel to push out the empties. i have been shooting these since 1969 and have owned more than 25 over the years and still have 6.

If you work with metal much, you know it is fairly easy to move small amounts of lead and copper around with steel. The issue is, what happens when you do it, thus your concern about pressure, and to a lesser degree, whether the bullet remains structurally sound.

(BTW - no claim to be "smart.")

All revolvers are individuals - in fact, almost like a family of individuals in one gun - since you have six chambers. My "thinking" is that I am not nearly as concerned with pressure as the bullet goes down the barrel as I am with it getting out of the cylinder. In both of my remaining Jets, a .224 diamter bullet will drop nicely through EVERY chamber, in both cylinders, with no discernible resistance.

I do not hotrod any gun. I am always more than willing to buy a bigger one, if needed, so I don't have any reason to crank one up to the red line. My typical Jet loads run in the 1500-1800 FPS range, and usually will shoot a pretty nice group. If you shoot five groups in a row, invariably, you will get one that will make you shake your head (among other things).

I do not suggest that anyone use .224 bullets, based on my experience. The Jet shooter needs to evaluate his gun carefully, and do some careful measuring before trying anything out of the ordinary. If he doesn't have tools to do this, he should buy some and practice using them before making any judgments, since precision measuring tools do take a little skill to use.

I have never had any Remington component bullets to reload. I do know factory loads shoot better than anything I can make, but that doesn't necessarily mean the bullets are the only thing making them work. I also know new or once-fired brass delivers substantially better accuracy than brass that has been loaded 5-6 times. But even with new brass, I don't seem to be able to duplicate Remington's results either for accuracy or velocity, using the bullets I have to work with.

I would sure love to have about 1000 Remington bullets to monkey with. It would be just what is needed to get me interested in breaking out the Jets again and doing some more R&D. As things stand, I am happy with the loads I have, and not concerned about the safety aspect, but they are not factory equivalent. I have seen more than one ruined Jet cylinder, but (knock on wood) so far, none of them have been mine.

I've seen a couple guns for sale just over the last few months, being marketed as 22 lr or K22s because they have the LR cylinder installed, with no idea where the Jet cylinder has gone. I wonder if they were blown up by one of your hot rod friends?

__________________
Dick Burg

As for powders, I like using Blue Dot in my 53 for the brilliant muzzle flash! I just have to remind myself to quit shooting it around dusk, as it nearly blinds me!!

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

for a little thought. original remington red box jet bullets are .222 diameter exact and length is .514. later green box bullets are same diameter but length is .494. sierra 40gr. hornet length is .496. this is what i was saying as regards to bearing surface affecting accuracy. measuring tool was starrett dial micometer.hope this helps in some way on this.

Yep, they're out there. That is why there is always interest in Jet cylinders. Never know when you might want one to rehab a gun.

A few months ago, a pretty nice, but wrecked, 4-screw gun showed up locally. The dealer wanted $459. At that time, I had no spare cylinders. I offered him $275. He laughed at me and declined. One of my stupider mistakes...

He sold the gun fairly quickly, before I could recover from my fumble. The cylinder was bulged so badly it would not easily rotate past the top strap. He said something about the new owner using it as a four-shooter.

You would not believe some of the handloaded Jet ammo I have bought at gun shows and spent an evening tearing down. Then again, maybe you would.

It would be interesting to do some further testing on them. One thing I would say for sure, without any further ado, is that the .222 diameter is NOT what makes them shoot well in my guns. I have cut a few cloverleaf groups with Hornady's .222 diameter bullets, but the other two rounds could easily be 2-3 inches away, at 25-yards. The Hornady bullet is a waste of money and good powder, as far as I can tell, but I have seen others here who claim to get good results with them.

I would like to be standing by to watch when the folks who have good luck with them fire five consecutive, five-round groups, from a Model 53, that amount to anything.

after shooting 25 or so jets over the years,i have never had a good 10 shot group of hornady jet bullets. i have shot some decent 5 round groups but nothing nearly as good as the remington bullets. someone who knows someone at remington should see if they would do a run of real jet bullets. i would buy 5000 myself.

I just confirmed this measurement and it doesn't surprise me since that's what the cartridge was designed to use. I have always gotten my best results from Hornady 40 grain .222 bullets. Using .223 and .224 have both resulted in unsatisfactory results which include high pressure signs and pro accuracy amd short case life.

On the forming of Rem Jet from .357 brass I have read an article on how to and now I cant find the thing, but I think the key is to anneal the new cases first. They said to get a pan and fill it to a depth of about 1/2 the length of the .357 case use a propane torch to heat, I think until it changes color and then push the hot case over into the water do all your case and then use the forming dies to finish I did 300 using new brass, not nickle plated and didnt have promblem crushing or collapse or telescope any I have loaded some but didnot shoot for a group, had to use .223 Hornet 40 gr. bullets and 2400 powder. When I got the 53 I bought Rem Jet unprimed brass and loaded some they were quite impressive with no kick. One other note if the brass flows to the neck after forming you may have to Forester outside neck turner to turn any excess off. The last time I checked Midway they listed no Remington Jet brass and only Hornady .222 dia. bullets at a rather high price per 100. The Jet is a lot easier to form than 219 Donaldson Wasp, they will all telescope if you dont anneal the brass if made from 30-30 cases. It is very nice to read about others experience with this pistol as no one I know has one to compare with.

At last, interest in the Jet. I've been chasing this dog since I was a youngster and I'm not done yet. I'm glad to see folks writing in.

What about someone in Forum management reaching out to Remington and trying to negotiate a run of factory bullets? It would only take a phone call and we might succeed in getting someone to listen. Things could be slow around Remington with the economy acting up and hunting season over with. I'd be happy with a bulk purchase of 5K and maybe more, depending on price.

I'm even starting to think about swaging my own. I've got to look into this.

Many thanks to all who are contributing, especially factual data.

S/W - Lifer

While I would love to have some of those bullets, I can't imagine we could get a big enough order together to tempt them. Remington is probably busy making big business deals with manufacturers in other countries to bring guns into the U.S., rather than making them themselves. Likely also fiddling around with military contracts for sniper rifles and who knows what else. Thank heavens they run a batch of brass every now and then!

Having perhaps more enthusiasm than money,here is how I feed my 6" M53. .222" bullets are preferred,but sometimes hard to find in my area,in which case I'll use light weight (40 gr) .223's. I'm trying to work up the courage to try the .224" Hornady 36 grain Vmax but will back off on the powder charge while checking to make sure the bullet actually exits the barrel. I anneal .357 magnum cases by standing them in a tuna fish can with water half way up the neck, and play a propane torch on the upper half until cherry red, then tip them over into the water. Interestingly enough, I have better success with nickeled cases than unplated ones. Yeah, I know, counter intuitive. Even then I get about twenty percent failures in case forming, because I don't use forming dies, just a .256 sizer followed by the Jet sizer. I told you I had more enthusiasm than money. But hey, it works. I won't list powder charges, other than to say they come straight out of the older loading manuals.

I'm wondering how many bullets Remington would need to produce to make it worth their while. I would guess they still have all the dies and forming equipment from the 1980s, but maybe not, too.

It might also be possible to induce Hornady to alter their bullet shape or materials to produce a better bullet. They (as I) might not even know folks here are unhappy with their current product. Because they probably have equipment which lends itself to smaller production runs, maybe they'd be more willing.

__________________
Dick Burg

Probably a million!

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

Well, since Remington just did another run of Factory "Jet" brass a year or so ago maybe they'd be willing to do a run of bullets.

Here is the URL for the new Remington Brass from Midway:

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...ber=1601156656

They are offering boxes of 100 for $38.49 to boxes of 2000 for $629.99.

Anbd here is the URL for the Hornady 40 grain .222 diameter bullets:

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct...tnumber=599887

They are currently shown as "Out of Stock, Backorder OK" with an expected delivery of 5/30/09.

Good point. Hornady has demonstarted an interest in acquiring a reputation for advancing the state of the art.

maybe sierra would consider something along these lines. they could use the 40 hornet bullet and make .222 instead of .223. would be nice to have a cannelure too.

Well, here is the Hornady website:

https://www.hornady.com/index.php

I suggested I'd like to see a Boattailed Spitzer bullet in the 40 to 50 grain bullet weight in .222 diameter. I'm not sure I'd have any use for the cannelure. But, suggest whatever trips your personal trigger.

original remington bullets had a cannelure for crimping and they work best if you use it.especially with 2400,296,and h-110.

The original Remington bullet should be duplicated, duplicated, duplicated... No funny stuff!

Hornady is a class operation, top-notch. They could probably pull off a duplication, or maybe even come up with something better. I sent them an email, just in case.

I'm just getting the Jet bug, so I also appreciate the information in this thread. I recently acquired a 6-inch five-screw model, and I'm looking forward to getting into loading my own.

By the way, I'm the one who picked up the loose Jet cylinder at auction. I don't need it right now, but it seemed like one of those things a serious Jet shooter ought to have around.

Actually, that raises a question that I didn't consider until this moment: did the handedness of the ejector rod thread change during the manufacturing history of this model? Assuming the cylinder is from later in the model run, will I need to find a separate ejector rod for the new cylinder?

David W.

__________________
David Wilson

On the Jet loading; in the Gun Digest of 1963 there is an article on reloading the 22 Jet by Kent Bella and that is where I got most of my info. He states "Factory bullets run about .2225 but I prefer .223". The rounds I have loaded in mine were .223. Also in this 63 G Digest is another Smith classic the S&W 38 Master or known now as a Model 52 this written by Gil Hebbard with another great reloading article for the 52 by Kent Bella both articles are worth the price you will have to pay for a used one on Yahoo.com, Just dont do like I did and get the 1962 G Digest with a picture of the new Model 53 Rem Jet, its only on the cover but it had a lot of interesting things.

No, the change in ejector rod thread "handedness" occured in 1960, whereas the Jet (model 53) was introduced in 1961. Also, there were no 5 screw Jets, only 3 & 4.

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

(Slapping forehead.) D'oh! Yes, of course: four-screw. I think I was still obsessing about another new gun, a 5-screw Pre-23, when I wrote that.

Thanks for clarifying the thread direction issue for me.

David W.

__________________
David Wilson

OK DCWilson, now we need pictures of that pre 23!

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

Ken, patience! That revolver just entered California's 10-day transfer purgatory, so I won't be able to post anything for a couple of weeks. But you all will be able to see it soon; it's a nice one.

David

__________________
David Wilson

Graf & Sons sent a flier out last month. They had .22 Jet brass made by Prvi Partizan for $21.99/100. I thought about trying some but I still have a box of 1,000 bulk Remingtons sitting around, plus a few 50 count boxes. Graf adds $6.95 to any order for shipping and handling. Good folks to trade with.

I haven't reloaded any Prvi Partizan brass but a few samples of rifle ammo made by them has shot well in a couple of my rifles.

I have only shot the Hornady Jet bullets, handloaded, in a M-53. I can't get anywhere near factory ammo results in my S&W guns with them. I have an old T/C barrel in this chambering and it shoots the 40 grain Hornet bullets from other makers fairly well.

The Lyman 45th Edition manual listed Remington's 40 gr. soft point (No. B22990) as the jacketed bullet they used, so Remington DID offer it as a component in the past.

The Lyman manual only listed 3 powders used with the jacketed bullet, 2400, IMR 4227 and SR4756. Which powder have you folks gotten the best results with? Has anyone tried W-296?

Yes, with no success. Just a ballistics-for-dummies type of thought (no evidence to base it on), but I imagine the very lightweight bullet of the Jet makes reliable ignition and efficient burning of that powder problematic - which accounts for the unsatisfactory results. Remember too that it is also difficult to work with 296/H-110 in the Jet because of the dreaded 3% rule-precaution.

As mentioned earlier, I have always had best results with medium speed powders, which was something the first Jet reloaders I bumped into told me to expect. Selection of powders was limited back then, but no one I knew used 2400 and 4227 and could produce results with it, in a Model 53.

Now, we have many more powders available, but apparently the interest is not there, thus we have no reliable data. We really do need someone the likes of Hornady and/or Hodgdon to take another thorough look at the Jet in the Model 53, addressing the most modern, yet commonly available, components. And we need a better bullet. Unfortunately, I doubt any of it will happen.

Here's a couple of more thoughts. As already noted, it's nearly 50 years since the Jet hit the market. There are new powders to work with. Maybe some focused effort using fresh brass and Remington 6 1/2 primers will be a place to start.

The Hornady idea is brilliant and I wish I had thought of it. Once again, any one person requesting a manufacturer for help with the Jet may be wasting their time. A Forum representive may meet with more success. If Remington won't make bullets maybe they would license Hornady to use their design.

I'm even thinking of sending sample bullets to Corbin, the swaging die makers, to see what they can come up with.

My vote for first choice is to contact Remington via the Forum. I'm delighted with the original bullet - anything else is making due.

I'm also wondering about accuracy in the 53 with reduced loads. I have seen in working with the .308 rifle that accuracy - with a particular load - increased with additional powder. Perhaps barrel twist rate will not support accuracy in reduced loads. Also, as previously pointed out, bearing surface of the bullet may impact this.

One lifetime may not be enough...

What's stopping you??? I've already contacted Hornady but haven't gotten any reply yet.

couple of years ago i started trying reduced loads. pb seemed to work the best. tried 700x, sr4756,sr7625,unique, and bullseye. can load the pb down to 22mag velocities with sierra 40gr .223 bullet and shoots as well as 22 mag. tried hornady jet bullet also,but not as accurate. this was with cases loaded at least 6-8 times and trimmed to proper length. tried wspm and wsp not much difference in accuracy.

KKG - What is stopping me is that I have no authority to speak on behalf of the Forum, formally or otherwise. What may - and only may - carry the day is someone who can legitimately speak and/or otherwise legimately represent the Forum to Remington. I'd like to step forward with institutional representation rather than an individual voice.

That gets me to thinking. Maybe a letter on Forum letterhead is the way to go. I surely don't mind getting into the fray on this thing, I just want to do it in a way that gives us a shot at success.

I was cheching through a 1974 Shooters Bible and on page 406 in the Lyman cast bullet section they list bullet # 225107 which is a 38 gr. with a lube groove and a cut for a gas check, I suppose they dont make this any more but it would sure be interesting to try some lead bullets with a reduced charge but that would defeat the purpose of the Jet in the first place. I dont suppose any body out there might have this mold or might have already tried this?

I did a hasty search and found that this bullet has been loaded to over 2000 fps in the Jet. Also checked Lyman and this does not appear to be a currently produced mold.

Nope, I don't have one. I'll bet it is a bear to cast.

Somewhere in the garage, I have a .22 caliber Lyman mould that throws a gas-checked, fairly flat-nosed bullet that weighs about 60 grains when cast from wheelweight metal. I used to load them in Jet cases over a pinch of Bullseye and they sounded about like a good pellet rifle when shot out of the 10 inch Contender barrel. They would usually penetrate a skunk's or big rabbit's head without exiting. I was assigned to an area of the county that still had lots of open, unbuilt areas, horse properties, some chicken and mink farms and lots of skunks. I would pack the Contender along on graveyard shift and shot probably more than 100 skunks with it over 6 or 7 years. If they weren't already about to spray when shot, but just sort of hunkered down hoping you hadn't seen them, a head shot just about never resulted in them stinking up the place. I had a rubber Pachmyer fore-end and pistol grip on it, so with the 3X scope mounted, I just rolled the window down to the appropriate level to give me the right elevation and rested the fore-end on the top edge of the window, and it shot like a good .22 rifle with much less noise than even .22 CB Caps gave me.

I never tried that bullet in a Model 53 because it would have been noisier than the T/C and I didn't want to ding up my nice 53's carting them around.

Maybe I ought to find the mould or some loaded ammo if I still have any and try it out in a revolver now.

I know that this doesn't further the body of knowledge this thread seeks to expand, but it is late, I'm not sleepy and I just felt like typing it. It is some good memories!

Given the Jet's age, our ages and the fact that this is more hobby than work, good memories are important. Fun is a factor.

Jrm52 - Joel Penney, out in California, used to cast several Jet bullets in linotype. I bought a couple boxes from him, and intended to try them in the 1500 FPS range. At that time, I was so frustrated with the Jet in general that I didn't want to make things worse, so I set them aside. They are probably still hiding in my basement somewhere. I do not know if Mr. Penney is still casting, or how to get a hold of him. If there is interest, I might be able to go through my old papers and see if I can find an address and phone number.

Damn, now you guys did it. You've got me wanting to pull out my old 4 screw 53 this week end.
Last time I had it out I worked up some loads with the Hornady Jet bullets but never got anywhere near a factory load dupication.
I did hit a possum broadside with a Remington factory load and was very impressed.
I think i'll give Perrazi's Sierra bullets a try.
I've spotted a huge Feral cat in back recently and would like to test it out on her.

Use what you've got. I wrote an email to Remington last night. I don't know if it will do any good but if nobody else does I'm SURE it won't. I don't suppose you wrote to Hornady either - so there is one less chance of anything happening there, too. All it takes is one vote to tip the scales in the right direction. I didn't make any promises, I just said I'd be interested in seeing them do another run of these bullets.

I've found another source of the Hornady bullets that are "In Stock" at what I consider a reasonable price so I might just add to my current Stocks. I've always had good luck with the Hornady bullets but I do think I'd like to see something besides the 'flat point' design become available.

BTW I'm sure Lee doesn't even have any "Forum Stationary" and the only person Lee speaks for is Lee and I'm sure that's the way he wants to keep it.

<span class="ev_code_RED">This applies to everyone here who is interested in seeing something happen!!! Nothing will happen if all we do is sit back and tell each other we'd like to see such and such happen.</span>

I think the NRA has proven that speaking with a unified voice is more effective than speaking individually. I have no doubt that a single motivated voice is better than silence, which is never heard.

It would seem that the Smith & Wesson Forum has the potential to speak with a measure of influence in matters related to Smith & Wesson firearms. Maybe not. Maybe this is just a place where folks come by to visit and chat a while.

But it is not for me to speak for the Forum. I don't own it, I don't manage it and I can't claim to speak on behalf of a person I've not met. And I don't know what the keep in their stationary cabinet.

I do know I'll keep working on my Jet project and see what positive things I can make happen, be it with new bullets or old.

And if there is no organizational voice for the Forum, it seems KKG has nailed it. We need to speak out individually to try and get the things we want. Better bullets would be a good place to start.

Hey Buff, thanks for posting your exploits with the .22 Jet in a Contender. That was a good read!

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959