Firing high velocity ammunition in a .22/32 HFT revolver without recessed cylinders
- Thread starter mrcvs
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
My first thought is: Has anyone, ever, seen or even heard of a S&W revolver cylinder being split, blown up, or even damaged by using ANY kind of 22LR ammo?
Seems to me that even the most massively overloaded 22LR cartridge isn't going to have enough powder to split a cylinder or do any other kind of significant damage. There just isn't enough powder capacity in the brass, and since 99.9999% of the 22LR ammo is going to be factory manufactured rounds (not reloads), it seems to me that the potential for a round to be overloaded and over pressure enough to actually damage a quality revolver (like a S&W 22/32) is so unlikely that it isn't even a realistic possibility.
If anyone has any kind of evidence of such a thing actually happening please post it. It would be really fascinating to read all about it.
JMO, FWIW...
Seems to me that even the most massively overloaded 22LR cartridge isn't going to have enough powder to split a cylinder or do any other kind of significant damage. There just isn't enough powder capacity in the brass, and since 99.9999% of the 22LR ammo is going to be factory manufactured rounds (not reloads), it seems to me that the potential for a round to be overloaded and over pressure enough to actually damage a quality revolver (like a S&W 22/32) is so unlikely that it isn't even a realistic possibility.
If anyone has any kind of evidence of such a thing actually happening please post it. It would be really fascinating to read all about it.
JMO, FWIW...
Last edited:
The high velocity 22 ammo has smoked many a M frame 22 HE forcing cone, but I have yet to hear of a cylinder failure. And that cylinder is much smaller than the 22 hft
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760
I voted "other" in the poll. My thoughts are that I would only use high quality .22 LR ammo-no bulk .22s, especially Remington.
50 years ago, I used Remington ammo when I was shooting with the Navy/Marine ROTC rifle team at Auburn University. The quality was very erratic. Some rounds sounded normal, some were barely audible and others were definitely hotter than normal.
I don't think the quality has gotten much better over the years.
50 years ago, I used Remington ammo when I was shooting with the Navy/Marine ROTC rifle team at Auburn University. The quality was very erratic. Some rounds sounded normal, some were barely audible and others were definitely hotter than normal.
I don't think the quality has gotten much better over the years.
It is very difficult to find a consensus of opinions on pressures of 22LR Hi-Velocity ammo. I have read 30,000psi to 40,000psi and velocities as high as 1320fps. I believe that such a round would not harm the revolver, but I would be afraid of base failure spitting brass out the sides of the cylinder/recoil shield gap???
This reminds me of shooting magnum ammo out of K frame 38 Special revolvers. You can bore out the cylinder and shoot semi-wadcutter 357 Magnum ammo, or worse yet, shooting 44 Magnum ammo out of a 44 Special revolver. It can be done, but the question is why would one do it?
This reminds me of shooting magnum ammo out of K frame 38 Special revolvers. You can bore out the cylinder and shoot semi-wadcutter 357 Magnum ammo, or worse yet, shooting 44 Magnum ammo out of a 44 Special revolver. It can be done, but the question is why would one do it?
I'm in the "other" camp as well. Essentially, my question would be why shoot high velocity .22 LR in such a relic? To save a little money? Really? Even if not outright contraindicated, at any sort of risk to the integrity of a valuable, collectible gun, that's a false economy. The high velocity stuff isn't going to be more accurate. The experience won't be any more fun. In fact, with mine, I'm much more inclined to go in the other direction and run CB Long ammo through it.
I believe recessed .22 cylinders were done to support the case heads to preclude a case head rupture. They were not worried about a cylinder rupture.
The reason for the question is that while I am well stocked up on standard velocity ammunition, I also have high velocity ammunition, simply because the latter is more available, obtained retail at WalMart. I have limited use (but not no use) for it, and it would be advantageous to be able to utilize it in a 1920s .22/32 HFT, if possible. A knowledgeable forum member suggested it would be okay.
But the majority vote in my poll suggests otherwise. Best to just reserve the high velocity ammunition for my Marlin Golden 39 A rifle instead.
I’ve recently seen two 22 mags and a 22lr with ruptured case heads in revolvers without recessed charge holes, Taurus and Colt King Cobra. One resulted in a chain fire, with the other two incidents resulting in the crushing of the unfired cartridges in the neighboring chambers. There’s good reason why rimfire chambers should be recessed.
Last edited:
If there is any chance of breaking the forcing cone, as noted above, don't even think about it.
Mike Priwer
Mike Priwer
The service chamber pressure (SAAMI) for both HV and STdVel .22LD ammo is exactly the same,,,24K PSI.
As it was explained to me as I wondered why and am not a scientist...
It is not the chamber pressure of the .22LR that ruins older firearms that were built before the inception of the HV .22LR round.
It is the simple physics of the equal forces in opposite directions thing.
The bullet traveling at a higher speed down the bbl creates the same force in the opposite direction against the breech/lockup of the firearms mechanism.
Most earlier firearms were not engineered/built to take the extra force. The HS RF vel figures were not even in consideration at the time
So I have to accept that as an explanation till something else comes along and gives a better reasoning.
As such, the 2 rounds with the same working chamber pressures at 24K psi only have the bullet velocitys to differ.
..Is that explanation wrong? I personally don't know.
If it is, please correct it and set me straight as the issue has made me wonder about this for a long time and few have offered an answer except for this.
When looking at the SAAMI spec chart(s), it seems to not matter about the RF bullet weight either.
The Hyper speed stuff w/their lighter bullets and higher vel are loaded to the same FPS muzzle vel.
Even the Match ammo as StdVel ammo is loaded to the 24K level average chamber pressure.
The 22Long has the same chamber pressure listed.
(The .22CB Long is likely less).
.22rf Short is around 21K psi for both the HS and the StdVel rounds.
FWIW even the .22WMRF is loaded to 24K psi chamber pressure
Another thing to consider is in the days before HS .22rf ammo, what were the ammo companys loading the cartridges to as far as average chamber pressures?
It easy to look at the SAAMI charts of today and see that 24K figure.
But what was the accepted figure in the turn of the Century era, post WW1, and the time just before the intro of the HS 22 cartridge in the mid 1930's.
The info is probably around somewhere in the cart collecting world, but again that's not my world.
Maybe an across the board boost in the accepted chamber pressure was done when HS was intro'd to the public and it made for the changes in heat treat, action designs in some instances and the warnings about not using HS in (some) of the older firearms.
As it was explained to me as I wondered why and am not a scientist...
It is not the chamber pressure of the .22LR that ruins older firearms that were built before the inception of the HV .22LR round.
It is the simple physics of the equal forces in opposite directions thing.
The bullet traveling at a higher speed down the bbl creates the same force in the opposite direction against the breech/lockup of the firearms mechanism.
Most earlier firearms were not engineered/built to take the extra force. The HS RF vel figures were not even in consideration at the time
So I have to accept that as an explanation till something else comes along and gives a better reasoning.
As such, the 2 rounds with the same working chamber pressures at 24K psi only have the bullet velocitys to differ.
..Is that explanation wrong? I personally don't know.
If it is, please correct it and set me straight as the issue has made me wonder about this for a long time and few have offered an answer except for this.
When looking at the SAAMI spec chart(s), it seems to not matter about the RF bullet weight either.
The Hyper speed stuff w/their lighter bullets and higher vel are loaded to the same FPS muzzle vel.
Even the Match ammo as StdVel ammo is loaded to the 24K level average chamber pressure.
The 22Long has the same chamber pressure listed.
(The .22CB Long is likely less).
.22rf Short is around 21K psi for both the HS and the StdVel rounds.
FWIW even the .22WMRF is loaded to 24K psi chamber pressure
Another thing to consider is in the days before HS .22rf ammo, what were the ammo companys loading the cartridges to as far as average chamber pressures?
It easy to look at the SAAMI charts of today and see that 24K figure.
But what was the accepted figure in the turn of the Century era, post WW1, and the time just before the intro of the HS 22 cartridge in the mid 1930's.
The info is probably around somewhere in the cart collecting world, but again that's not my world.
Maybe an across the board boost in the accepted chamber pressure was done when HS was intro'd to the public and it made for the changes in heat treat, action designs in some instances and the warnings about not using HS in (some) of the older firearms.
Jim Watson
Member
Not exactly. The SAAMI Maximum Average Chamber Pressure is 24000 psi for all .22 LR variants. That doesn't mean they are all loaded to the maximum. Why would they?
I once read that the first run of WW Super Speed/Super X was loaded to what the Model 61 and 63 would handle. They then backed off a bit to what would not beat up lesser guns. Sorry, I no longer have a literature cite for that.
I once read that the first run of WW Super Speed/Super X was loaded to what the Model 61 and 63 would handle. They then backed off a bit to what would not beat up lesser guns. Sorry, I no longer have a literature cite for that.
The cylinders and barrel shanks on I frame 22 and 32 longs are the same OD. The cylinder walls of a I frame are way thinner as is the amount of material between the forcing cone and OD of barrel shank. I have never heard of a split barrel or a ruptured I frame 32 long cylinder. As far as the frame goes a 90 gr SWC at 765 ft/s is going to be as hard on a frame than any 40 gr lead bullet at 1,200 ft/s
If I had ruptured case heads with modern 22 ammo, I would take a hard look at my headspace and end shake.
I find it hard to believe 22lr firing high velocity and standard velocity 22lr using the same weight bullet have the same pressure especially in a revolver. 150fps or so difference at the same pressure???? I can't see how that can happen. I get it in the 22 mag because of increased case volume.
Guy Neill
CCI-Speer Technical Services
"Current standards (SAAMI) show the pressures in PSI. For the 22 Long Rifle and Magnum (and the 17's), the allowable pressure is 24,000 PSI."
As kids me and my brothers tried dropping rocks on 22 shells. Worst thing that happened was a shard of brass in a foot though a cheap canvas tenny runner. Standing beside any revolve when it is fired isn't to bright. As my hands and fingers are down and away from the top chamber and a split would release pressure side ways and any down angle would strike the cylinder first I wouldn't worry about a split case causing much of an injury.
But my, My I frame 22 has a recessed cylinder.
Then there is this. They now make J frame 357 magnum cylinders. They are the same diameter as the old I frame cylinders. I do not care what you add to steel or how you heat treat it I fail to believe it got improved that much. What did improve was the understanding of what the steel was really capable of withstanding. Even if the early guns used mild steel, which they did not, the very best you can do over mild steel is approximately double its tensile and yield strength. Yield strength would be the most critical factor in guns.
4140 Tensile Strength, Ultimate, 1020 MPa, 148000 psi ; Tensile Strength, Yield, 655 MPa, 95000
Mild steel. Tensile Strength, Ultimate 420 MPa 60900 psi Tensile Strength, Yield 350 MPa 50800 psi
If I had ruptured case heads with modern 22 ammo, I would take a hard look at my headspace and end shake.
I find it hard to believe 22lr firing high velocity and standard velocity 22lr using the same weight bullet have the same pressure especially in a revolver. 150fps or so difference at the same pressure???? I can't see how that can happen. I get it in the 22 mag because of increased case volume.
Guy Neill
CCI-Speer Technical Services
"Current standards (SAAMI) show the pressures in PSI. For the 22 Long Rifle and Magnum (and the 17's), the allowable pressure is 24,000 PSI."
As kids me and my brothers tried dropping rocks on 22 shells. Worst thing that happened was a shard of brass in a foot though a cheap canvas tenny runner. Standing beside any revolve when it is fired isn't to bright. As my hands and fingers are down and away from the top chamber and a split would release pressure side ways and any down angle would strike the cylinder first I wouldn't worry about a split case causing much of an injury.
But my, My I frame 22 has a recessed cylinder.
Then there is this. They now make J frame 357 magnum cylinders. They are the same diameter as the old I frame cylinders. I do not care what you add to steel or how you heat treat it I fail to believe it got improved that much. What did improve was the understanding of what the steel was really capable of withstanding. Even if the early guns used mild steel, which they did not, the very best you can do over mild steel is approximately double its tensile and yield strength. Yield strength would be the most critical factor in guns.
4140 Tensile Strength, Ultimate, 1020 MPa, 148000 psi ; Tensile Strength, Yield, 655 MPa, 95000
Mild steel. Tensile Strength, Ultimate 420 MPa 60900 psi Tensile Strength, Yield 350 MPa 50800 psi
Last edited:
Speaking of steel stuff, which I don't necessarily understand; but I'm betting "steelslaver" does, here's some rather interesting comments from D.B. Wesson in a 1934 letter to a customer inquiring about the heat treating of the cylinder on the .22 Outdoorsman he's ordered.
"The steel that is used in the cylinder of the K-.22 is identical in formula with that used in the larger calibers, but it is not heat-treated after machining as the great thickness of the cylinder walls do not demand any further strengthening. (This next bit is rather enlightening.) As a matter of fact, even in our larger calibers the steel as it comes from the mill shows a tensile strength in the neighborhood of 80,000 lbs., which does not make the additional strength gained by treating a necessity, but we do very much prefer the greatly increased factor of safety that is obtained with the 130,000 lbs. elastic limit that the treating gives."
I wondered about the difference between "tensile strength" and "elastic limit" the first time around, so I looked it up. All I can tell you today without looking it up again is there's a difference.
As an aside, this fellow asking the questions has also ordered a big Outdoorsman (.38/44)---and also knew about Sharpe's ongoing development of what was to become the 357 Magnum cartridge---and was using a big Outdoorsman as his test bed. Maybe he wanted to know about how far he could push his new .38/44 Outdoorsman. All I know is he could push it a whole lot further than what came to be the regular 357 Magnum cartridge. As I recall Wesson's comments in his Scrapbook, some of Sharpe's development loads scared the pants right off of him!
Ralph Tremaine
"The steel that is used in the cylinder of the K-.22 is identical in formula with that used in the larger calibers, but it is not heat-treated after machining as the great thickness of the cylinder walls do not demand any further strengthening. (This next bit is rather enlightening.) As a matter of fact, even in our larger calibers the steel as it comes from the mill shows a tensile strength in the neighborhood of 80,000 lbs., which does not make the additional strength gained by treating a necessity, but we do very much prefer the greatly increased factor of safety that is obtained with the 130,000 lbs. elastic limit that the treating gives."
I wondered about the difference between "tensile strength" and "elastic limit" the first time around, so I looked it up. All I can tell you today without looking it up again is there's a difference.
As an aside, this fellow asking the questions has also ordered a big Outdoorsman (.38/44)---and also knew about Sharpe's ongoing development of what was to become the 357 Magnum cartridge---and was using a big Outdoorsman as his test bed. Maybe he wanted to know about how far he could push his new .38/44 Outdoorsman. All I know is he could push it a whole lot further than what came to be the regular 357 Magnum cartridge. As I recall Wesson's comments in his Scrapbook, some of Sharpe's development loads scared the pants right off of him!
Ralph Tremaine
Last edited:
Can't really compare centerfire and Rimfires. Centerfire cases are solid head but rimfires have a balloon head. There is a lot less case material to hold the pressure. I want my rimfire cylinders recessed.
Personally I have never had a rimfire case rim rupture and have fired 10s of thousands.
The elastic limit is the maximum stress that a material can withstand without undergoing permanent deformation. Once the stress exceeds the elastic limit, the material will not return to its original shape and size when the stress is removed.
IE a cylinder would bulge
The tensile strength, on the other hand, is the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being stretched or pulled before it breaks. It is a measure of the material's ability to resist breaking under tension.
IE cylinder comes apart
I do not believe you could wreck a I frame cylinder of any vintage with factory ammo of any kind.
I firmly believe a gun with excess headspace or endshake wold be far more apt to rupture a rim fire case head. Excess headspace would allow the head to expand rearward stretching and thinning it.
A rifle with excess headspace will suffer case head separations right in front of the very thick case head, allow gasses to escape and blow back into the shooters face although many rifles are made to vent most of the gasses to the side.
Pierced primers can vent back also
The elastic limit is the maximum stress that a material can withstand without undergoing permanent deformation. Once the stress exceeds the elastic limit, the material will not return to its original shape and size when the stress is removed.
IE a cylinder would bulge
The tensile strength, on the other hand, is the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being stretched or pulled before it breaks. It is a measure of the material's ability to resist breaking under tension.
IE cylinder comes apart
I do not believe you could wreck a I frame cylinder of any vintage with factory ammo of any kind.
I firmly believe a gun with excess headspace or endshake wold be far more apt to rupture a rim fire case head. Excess headspace would allow the head to expand rearward stretching and thinning it.
A rifle with excess headspace will suffer case head separations right in front of the very thick case head, allow gasses to escape and blow back into the shooters face although many rifles are made to vent most of the gasses to the side.
Pierced primers can vent back also
Last edited:
IIRC, in simple terms, tensile strength is a measure of how much stress the material can withstand before fracturing (a.k.a. a KABOOM in revolvers).
The elastic limit is a measure of how much stress the material can withstand and still "spring back" to it's original form.
Comparing them is kinda' like the difference between something bending (and bouncing back) vs, breaking.
But it has been a long time (30 years) since I took a materials sciences class...
ol777gunnerz
Member
Info
I have owned several S&W single shot pistols & 22/32 revolvers. I preferred CCI Quiet ammo, very accurate & less noise, these were shot up to 50ft.
I have owned several S&W single shot pistols & 22/32 revolvers. I preferred CCI Quiet ammo, very accurate & less noise, these were shot up to 50ft.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,660
- Reaction score
- 21,275
I have never had or seen a .22 LR case head separation in almost 50 years of shooting, but cannot recall if I ever shot one in a gun without a fully enclosed breech or recessed cylinder.
So, I see this as an ammunition quality control more than a design issue. I would see no problem with using high quality .22 ammunition of any kind.
So, I see this as an ammunition quality control more than a design issue. I would see no problem with using high quality .22 ammunition of any kind.
Model19man
Member
I find it pretty easy to find - https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/ANSI-SAAMI-Z299.1-Rimfire-2018-Approved-2018-06-13.pdf
Similar threads
