.22 Hornet suppressed vs. .223 Suppressed?

[libertyman777]

Well Chondro, if all it takes is FPE I guess I should take the 147gr Ranger out of my 9mm and use 115gr FMJ? No thanks, I'll use the one that will destroy more tissue not the one that ranks higher on the FPE scale.

It's energy transferred, not muzzle energy that is important. I'd love to be using the 75 grain vmax bullets subsonic. I assume they'll expand somewhat. If they don't expand at all, then yes they're doing the same damage as a .22 at 40 grains but they have much more wasted muzzle energy.

For rifle, I have a Ruger Model 3.

How 'bout a nice soft cast bullet with a gaping hollowpoint?

[Lindenwood]

JohnInNH, I didn't know we were talking about custom barrels and guns with unlimited resources . If so, then yeah you are right. If he just wants to go buy a rifle and start loading subsonic rounds, then it would be MUCH easier and cheaper to do with the .223. And that is especially so if he already has a .223 rifle to start with.





Though, I do agree unless you need the penetration (I can't imagine where it would be justified unless you were trying to use subsonic .223 against deer or something), a round-nose .22lr will do the same damage at subsonic velocities and still give adequate penetration for anything up varmints.


I also agree that "energy" is completely over-rated and misunderstood.

[JohnInNH]

"If I was going to build a dedicated 22 cal subsonic rifle it would be a hornet."

But I would not.. I would build a .30. But if a person wanted a .22 for more than a .22 LR can do the Hornet is the best case to use IMHO.

For a person who casts there own lead, already reloads etc. .. Adding another caliber is just more tooling for your bench.

What can a 70-80 gr .224 do that a .40 gr .22 LR can't? A few things. For me I find a .22 LR adequate.

But a .224 Hornet gives you:

1) jacketed bullets and no lead build up to struggle to clean out.
2) better long distance energy retention
3) more useful on intermediate size pests
4) better terminal performance due to tumbling.

Not the best hammer on the rack. But if .224 subsonic is your "thing" a fast twist 22 hornet would fit the bill.

You could say the same with the .30. What can a 220 gr do that a 170 gr bullet can't ? A 170 gr will do plenty of damage. So why the need for a 220 gr Whisper?

I believe it is DISTANCE and retained energy at distance. very long bullets tumble and a 1" long bullet is going to mess up more tissue than one 1/4 the length.

So any argument for a heavy whisper in .30 is the same argument of why a subsonic dedicated "hornet" is better than a .22 LR

For me the only thing I dislike about the .22 LR is the freaking MESS and PITA getting the lead out of my Prodigy causes me.

Still.... I shoot a lot more .22 LR than I do any other caliber subsonic.

I DO shoot a lot of 9mm. 147 gr ammo.

"K" --- I shoot 147 gr Ranger HP as well for carry ammo Impresses the hell out of me.... and the Winchester 9mm Super Unleaded Encapsulated for plinking and practice.

I also agree Ft lbs of energy is vastly misunderstood and some how mixed up in terminal ballistics in handguns... Probably due to the hemispherical shock energies in some highpower rifles where high energies alone can shut down the nervous system but this really has no place in hand gun terminal ballistics.

Tissue damage and penetration.

The real only advantage of a subsonic 70 gr over a 40 is the length of the projectile if it tumbles causing more tissue damage.

For little critters a .22 LR does the job well.

Granted they "jack" moose with a .22 LR. Not pretty but it works. When the moose puts it's head under water to feed... They pop a round into the lungs. Another nibble another shot. Moose thinks it's a bee of some other snag.. will continue to feed. Finally bleeding out. (I HIGHLY condemn this activity) I just state this to validate a .22 LR is a killer.

In a situation where you might need to shoot a larger animal than a "rodent" AND at longer ranges a .22 hornet is a bigger hammer.

But Why? When you can shoot a .30 subsonic. Your trusty 30-30 with a 1:10 will shoot 170 gr subsonics all day and more easily than a 308.

To make a 308 work better with subsonics you need heavy bullets and that needs a faster twist. (see my Blackout rifle posts)

The fast twist 1:7 ar's are better at shooting subsonics than I think a 1:12 308. But you CAN shoot 150 gr bullets subsonic in even a 1:12 if you use round point flat base bullets. But you have consistency problems.

Then the argument is BC ... and tumbling heavy bullets.. It can go on and on and on.

I do see a reason to have a center fire rifle in a subsonic role. For me a .30 is plenty.

Do I have a platform that is set up for that? ... not really. I have a 24" 1:11.2 and it will shoot 170's OK but getting a consistent load is not easy. To get better loads I need to shoot heavier bullets.. I am twist limited.

I will be building a .30 subsonic. The AAC Remington "blackout" will not work for me since they are going 1:10. (huge mistake IMHO) also for me 20" is to long. Even for dual purpose. (see Tac Ops now is being contracted for 18" instead of the previous order for 20" M700s by LE in CA)

If the "blackout" was 1:9 and 18" I would scarf one up in a heartbeat and use it as my all around 308 dual purpose rifle.

But since they won't and it seems they are just making another 20" 1:10 308 (Oh how "yesterday" yawn LOL) I may re-barrel one of my rifles for a .30 1:9 at 17"-18" depending on which case I base it on. I am waffling still.

[-k-]

If the 80gr bullet tumbles early it will do more damage, if it tumbles after 6" it does nothing for what I would shoot it at.

The question I asked was if anyone had any done or seen any testing to prove the idea of the 80gr being twice as good.

[Chondro]

The reason I like .223 is because of the range..I used some bait and lured the rats away from my shed to my favorite plinking rock...(Little basterds chew up everything)

Honestly though since I got my rimfire can I haven't shot anything else since..

Not a good idea to use poisons around here because of the other animals..You hit them in the ass and there dead..Well it basically cuts them down..Kind of looks like those taliban fighters getting bounced off the side of a mountain with a .50..
Here some playing around I did a few weeks ago..You may have seen it..Just pissed off the guys that like the aguilla 60 grain..

These were shot into newspaper..You can always score the bullet jacket or use hollowpoints..

[libertyman777]

Why not cast a soft lead bullet with a gaping hollowpoint?

I base my experience on the Paco Kelly's Nastinose Tool. I have one of the earlier versions and have used it to great effect. I had some pics that I'm still looking for but I would resize and use the hollow pointer tool. It would size the diameter to .223 and open up the hollowpoint. The resulting subsonic rounds would open up to a minimum of .325 and some near .4". Very impressive results.

The reason I think it's worth pursuing is if I can cast the right bullet, with the right hollowpoint and will have the ability to clean the rimfire can, then a 80 grain projectile pushing 195 fpe at the muzzle with then have the ability to transfer the bulk of the retained energy to the target, correct?

http://gunblast.com/Paco.htm

http://www.leverguns.com/store/acurzr.html

[Chondro]

I like the design of those..Yeah you could form some really great hollowpoints that way..Hey thanks for the link by the way..Looks like a great idea to reduce the size of those groups for punching paper as well..
I'm stuck with an AR..And the only thing I'm set up to cast for is .45's..Hey don't get me wrong I like the hornet..But I love the .22 Remington Jet...Sound wise..complete opposite of a surpressed pistol..LOL
You know the screwed up thing around here is I found its actually cheaper to buy bullets already cast than to purchase lead..Then melt those down to cast..and no mixing will all the extra stuff..

[JohnInNH]

I like the design of those..Yeah you could form some really great hollowpoints that way..Hey thanks for the link by the way..Looks like a great idea to reduce the size of those groups for punching paper as well..
I'm stuck with an AR..And the only thing I'm set up to cast for is .45's..Hey don't get me wrong I like the hornet..But I love the .22 Remington Jet...Sound wise..complete opposite of a surpressed pistol..LOL
You know the screwed up thing around here is I found its actually cheaper to buy bullets already cast than to purchase lead..Then melt those down to cast..and no mixing will all the extra stuff..

I quit casting as well. The cost of precast due to CAS has made the risks and PITA not worth it. I buy them now like you.

I have a LOT of lead, lynotype and 50/50 Tin + PB wave solder bars

I used to cast 1000's of 45's and my 45-70 bullets. Even some 168 .30 Gas checked .30 cal and box after box of 38 158 SWC Gas check. (Thompson Bullet) with the 2 crimp grooves so you can load HOT seated farther out in 38 brass for shooting in 357 pistols Or seat it out farther in 357 Mag brass for your TC for a few extra FPS or less cylinder to forcing cone in your revolvers. Fantastic bullet.

Some place sells a hollow point cutter for lead bullets. They even have a 2 part cast bullet. you cast the base in hard alloy and the nose in pure lead. Then glue them together.

Having a real 7-4 job gave me tons of time. 5 days only a week and 3 weeks off a year. Now I work 6.5 days a week and lucky to take a week off and no benefits.. Working for yourself has it;s down sides.

But I don't have the time now.

[libertyman777]

My dabbling in airguns has lead me to believe that there is a solution here for expanding bullets at subsonic velocities. A buddy of mine has a big bore air rifle in .45 and had a special mold made by Lyman.









I don't see why something similar can be accomplished in .224 in the 70-80 grain weight. I would even consider something in larger caliber if the can could be broken down and cleaned because of the lead, lube, etc., but right now, I'm limited to .22. If I could find a suitable mold, would a gas check be needed?

Paul