22 shorts

[rebel]

I did a little target practice today with .22 shorts and LR. At 55 yards the shorts were 2-3 inches lower than the LR and the grouping was loose (about 3 inches). The weather was clear, no wind, and 20 F. What I liked about the shorts was the noise (hardly any).

Questions: 1. Why was there such a large grouping?
2. What do you think would be the effective range of a .22 short?

I'm going to mount a 3-9 scope and the goal is for 200 yard shots w/ shorts.

[SARKY]

200 yard shot with .22 shorts is not going to happen. I would be suprised if you had enough elevation on your scope to be able to hit a barn door with 22 shorts at that range.
The shorts lose velocity fast, well they are starting out pretty slow to begin with. As they slow down even more they lose stability and start to wander (kind of like a lead round ball comming out of a smooth bore rifle. Hope that helped.
I would say that effective range is 50 yards.

[rebel]

200 yard shot with .22 shorts is not going to happen. I would be suprised if you had enough elevation on your scope to be able to hit a barn door with 22 shorts at that range.
The shorts lose velocity fast, well they are starting out pretty slow to begin with. As they slow down even more they lose stability and start to wander (kind of like a lead round ball comming out of a smooth bore rifle. Hope that helped.

Yep. Thanks Sarky.

[Ken]

What I liked about the shorts was the noise (hardly any).

Rebel, if you like quiet try out some CCI CB Sub Sonic .22 cal. shorts.


Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

[rebel]

Rebel, if you like quiet try out some CCI CB Sub Sonic .22 cal. shorts.


Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

That's exactly what I'm using. It's a hoot!

[Ken]

That's exactly what I'm using. It's a hoot!

Don't you go getting any ideas now..........

[rebel]

Don't you go getting any ideas now..........

You should have told that to the squirrels.

[klkak]

I use Remington "Subsonic" .22 long rifle. 38gr. bullet at about 700fps out of my Browning BL-22.

[rebel]

The .22 single shot with the skinny 4x was pretty accurate. It was a freebie from a relative so, I splurged on a new (and cheap) 3-9x. WOW! It's slow going but, the center ring is disappearing.

[Mischief]

All versions of the.22 are under-ratted
With my CZ & Ruger single six, I am good to go ,in my area.
Just can't part with all the others,for some reason
Mischief

[canid]

i agree, the .22 rimfire cartridges are often undervalued, and i own .22s in two chamberings, and .22 short has it's place, but on a rifle intended for ranges of over 50 yards and expected to so much as knock a can over isn't it.

[2dumb2kwit]

I picked up a box of Rem. subsonics. I want to try them in my 10-22. I have done them yet, but I doubt they will cycle a 10-22.

If that is the case, that will give me an excuse to use my other halfs Marlin model 39A.

[Camp10]

I did a little target practice today with .22 shorts and LR. At 55 yards the shorts were 2-3 inches lower than the LR and the grouping was loose (about 3 inches). The weather was clear, no wind, and 20 F. What I liked about the shorts was the noise (hardly any).

Questions: 1. Why was there such a large grouping?
2. What do you think would be the effective range of a .22 short?

I'm going to mount a 3-9 scope and the goal is for 200 yard shots w/ shorts.

You didnt give any info on the gun you were using to fire the shorts. I will take a guess at why the shorts werent as acurate. I cant find the info I am looking for so I will have to go from memory...dont quote me on the lengths. The idea barrel length for a .22lr is about 20 inches. More than that will actually decrease it's performance and a .22 short would be better in a shorter barrel still. There was an article in American Hunter Mag years ago where they tested this (a .22lr) with a 26" barrel blank and a chop saw. When they got to around 20" (I cant remember if they were just slightly more or less) it gave it's best group. My guess is that a .22 short would be much shorter and the sub-sonics might need less.

[Camp10]

As for question 2..effective range, I once tried to kill a porcupine that was about 20 feet up a tree. I fired from close to the base of the tree and it took 4 rounds to kill it. I would say that unless you hunt dump rats, stick to the .22 lr

[SARKY]

You might want to try the Aguilla SSS (sub sonic sniper) rounds.

[SARKY]

I picked up a box of Rem. subsonics. I want to try them in my 10-22. I have done them yet, but I doubt they will cycle a 10-22.

If that is the case, that will give me an excuse to use my other halfs Marlin model 39A.

They probably won't cycle, but you never know. Volquartsen does make a .22 short conversion kit for the 10-22 and with the lighter bolt from that kit those subsonics might cycle. \Just a thought.

[rebel]

Here's a pic of a similar model 120: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=150332319

It has a 23 + 3/4" barrel and a real crappy trigger. So far, it has been a challenge and not a frustration.

[rebel]

It'll never be this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHI4C...eature=related

[Batch]

In the comments of the video Rebel posted someone says this:

hifly, i dont know if you've had the same experience as me, but i found that match or subsonic is better for long ranges due to the fact that supersonic 22lr destabalizes when it drops subsonic. I have gotten twice as good accuracy from subsonics. farthest ive shot was 330 meters.

That doesn't make any sense to me???

[SARKY]

That is because it is nonsense. basic law of physics, in order to keep momentum, for the same velocity, you need mass. In other words if i were shooting a 45-70 w/ a 405grain bullet it would retain it's speed due to the mass of the bullet, granted the trajectory would look more like that of a mortar than a rifle. where as the .22 doesn't have enough mass to maintain it's velocity and would fall to the ground much sooner.
There really are too many wannabees out there who really don't know jack!
Will a .22short go 330meters (more than 3 football fields)? maybe, but it would have little to no energy left and I doubt it would be flying true. Never mind wind drift at that distance.