Talk:.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Slow burning powder

Somewhere in this article a key difference with 22 LR ammo should be made. That is 22 LR ammo has a fast burning powder, the result is that handguns get about 90% of the performance of rifles.

For the 22 Mag, all current ammo uses a slow burn powder, it takes a 16" barrel to realize the full potential of slow burn powder. The result is that 22 Mag handguns have ballistic performance that is far below that of rifles. Somewhere around 50-75%, mostly depending on length of barrel.

Someday someone may produce 22 Mag ammo with fast burning powder, which would be ideal for handguns, but it isn't here now. 67.150.109.128 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)jimmyreno 14 Nov 2009[reply]

Citation

I'm removing the citation request; I've added a couple of magazine articles, but most stuff (including Sanow's numbers) are in the original Chuck Hawk's article. If there are specific statements in question, please point them out and I'll find sources. scot 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last statement in the Ammunition section had a citation needed tag on it, not sure if you looked at that one or not. Ryanminier 02:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the self defense statement; that looks like it came from the Chuck Hawk's article, and I've adjusted it to match (42%, not "greater than 45%"). That in turn is stated as having come from Marshall and Sanow's data, and I noted that--there's a significant amount of disagreement among the experts in the field as to whose methods are the best, and one group has accused Marshall and Sanow of using bad statistical methods to massage the data to fit their expectations. However it's not up to us to judge the data, just reference it... scot 13:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered that when I first looked at the 5.7x28mm stats, I thought "Hey, that's just a high velocity .22 Magnum", so I put that comparison in with the self defense section. The stats are taken from the 5.7 x 28 mm page. scot 14:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what made you think the citations provided are anywhere near enough or correctly placed. If you took this information verbatim from Chuck Hawk's article The entire verbatim information should be removed. I am re-requesting citations, please do not remove the request without a consensus that you have properly provided citations.--75.17.193.238 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WPMILHIST

The WPMILHIST tag has been remove due to this article not being military related.--Oldwildbill 13:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9mm info

I moved the following discussion from the article to this page where it belongs. Arthur 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Marshall - Sanow study has many gross discrepancies and should not be relied upon (and probably discarded all together) without further research of their methodology. http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

The comparison to a sub-sonic 9mm Luger round is odd at best. These are very different rounds and when you look at ballistics charts you will see that although the .22 WMR leaves the barrel much faster and produces comparable muzzle energy it does not take much distance for it to fall well short of the sub-sonic 9mm Luger's down-range energy potential. Keep in mind that just because an arrow might fly faster than a cannonball at its point of release does not mean that it is as powerful of a "round" down range. You can find a 9mm round that leaves the barrel with greater muzzle energy to a 45 Auto round (not by much and keep in mind we are comparing apples and oranges as far as bullet weights...but you CAN find particular loads for this comparison) but within a very short distance the 9mm's energy has dropped off considerably yet the .45 Auto keeps most of its energy. One more example might help clarify this point. A cheetah can accelerate faster than a car...but not for very long nor can it hold its speed for as long as the car.

==

When talking about this subject the key concept is "ballistic coefficient" as a general rule, the heavier a round is the better it retains velocity & energy at some distance from the muzzle.

The shape of the slug is somewhat less important than the weight.

67.150.109.128 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)jimmyreno[reply]

Ammunition rewrite?

The ammunition section of this article seems constipated and is rather hard to read in a coherent manner. I believe a re-write may be in order.

66.67.50.196 (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about article

Why does this article not list teh case capacity on the information table? It should be listed, as it is one thing about the round many people may want to know, including me. Avianmosquito. (I know I'm not signed in, you don't have to tell me.) 71.112.219.8 (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the only successful rimfire cartridge introduced in the 20th Century

 Year Cartridge    Case   Bullet  
 1887 Long Rifle   .595"  40 gr 
     
 1903 Win Auto     .665"  45 gr  
 1916 Rem Auto     .663"  45 gr 
 1959 WMR         1.052"  40 gr 
 1969 5mm Rem Mag 1.02"   38 gr 
 1975 CCI Stinger  .710"  32 gr

The .22 Winchester Automatic of 1903 and .22 Remington Automatic of 1916 were rendered obsolete as specialty rounds for autoloading rifles by the increasing manufacture of smokeless powder only loadings of the .22 Long Rifle introduced in 1887. By the time .22 WMR was introduced in 1959, .22 Win Auto and .22 Rem Auto were no longer in production by decades. Remington's answer to the .22 WMR was the 5mm Remington rimfire of 1969, which failed to catch on with the shooting public and was no longer in production by the end of the 20th century.

If one treats the CCI .22 Stinger as a .22 Long Rifle variant, the statement in the entry is true: the only successful rimfire cartridge introduced in the 20th Century. Although the 1975 Stinger case .71" resembles the 1880 Extra Long .75" more than it resembles the Long Rifle .595", most hunters and shooters regard the .22 Stinger as a high velocity .22 Long Rifle round. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: especially since the Stinger can be safely fired from any .22LR-chambered weapon (in fact I don't believe that a distinct Stinger chambering exists). I wouldn't consider the Stinger to be a 'new' rimfire cartridgeSolicitr (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recap: if we take .22 Stinger and .22 Aguila SSS off the table as .22 LR variants, that leaves .22 Win Auto, .22 Rem Auto and 5mm Rem Mag as rimfire cartridges that require unique chamberings. Those three ammos are not mass production (specialty batches are run off every now and then for owners of the guns), were proprietory cartridges and no new guns are made in those chamberings. The .22 WMR has been in continuous produuction by several major producers with new model guns on the market. Confirming the only successful rimfire cartridge introduced in the 2oth Century. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Win Mod 61 correction

Revised this, since the Model 61 had been around (in .22 S, L, LR and WRF) since the Thirties) Solicitr (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(with hearing protection)??

I've cleaned this up a bit. It shouldn't be the articles intention to remind people to wear hearing protection. Moreover it reads poorly and gives the impression that it is quiet round when wearing hearing protection (which it is) but so is a 30-06.Jumbalella (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/rimfire/magnum_rimfire.asp
- In .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire on 2011-05-20 21:36:09, 404 Not Found
- In .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire on 2011-05-31 04:46:47, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.highstandard.com/amt_automag.html
- In .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire on 2011-05-20 21:36:09, 404 Component not found
- In .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire on 2011-05-31 04:47:18, 404 Component not found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.hornady.com/shop/?page=shop%2Fbrowse&category_id=9b26ee2729baf268e4ae1c61acde17cc
- In .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire on 2011-05-20 21:36:11, 404 Not Found
- In .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire on 2011-05-31 04:47:22, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22wmr

can the 22wmr round be fired in a 22mag rifle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.182.93 (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22 Magnum is not suitable for coyotes

This is opinion not fact. Coyote hunters use more powerful cartridges such as the 223 because the 22 Magnum is considered underpowered and therefore cruel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.81.125 (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure claims

The article claims the WMR operates at higher pressures. A citation is needed. SAAMI specs put it at the same pressure as the LR. It may be that factory LR pressures are well below industry allowances; the .45-70 is one cartridge routinely down loaded. karlwk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.17.30 (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAFETY NOTES

Please consider using bold red font colors when imparting safety information such as the Dimensions and loading details:

Dimensions and loading The .22 WMR uses a larger case than the more popular .22 Long Rifle (LR) both in diameter and length. The .22 WMR case is a lengthened version of the older .22 WRF. In the most common modern .22 WMR loadings using a 40-grain (2.6 g) bullet, the combination of more powder and higher sustained pressures gives velocities of 1,875 feet per second (572 m/s) from a rifle and 1,500 feet per second (460 m/s) from a handgun. Because of its larger size, a .22 WMR round will not fit into the chamber of a .22 LR firearm.

Although the bullet diameters are the same, the larger .22 WMR chamber does not support the smaller .22 LR cartridge. Firing the smaller .22 LR round in a .22 WMR chamber results in swollen or split cartridge cases, high pressure gas leakage from the rear of the chamber, and bullets striking the chamber throat out of alignment, which can result in injury to the shooter or bystander and which does result in poor ammunition performance.

Woodduck18 (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under .22 WMR Revolver manufacturers you should include Dan Wesson Firearms which made a version of their mid-frame (.357 Magnum) in .22 WMR With interchangeable barrel assemblies in both standard and full underlug (bull Barrel) in 2", 4", 6", 8", 10", 12", and 15" lengths, which gave the user 14 configuration options. 98.212.16.186 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]