why is 22lr so dirty?

[edgecrusher]

of all the ammo i shoot .22 is by far the dirtiest little buggers out there.why is that?

[techmike]

The gritty feeling after 100 rounds or so is caused by the glass that is mixed with the primer material to act as an anvil. As for being so dirty, not all of the powder in any given .22 cartridge is burned. For a good in-depth article on .22 cartridges, go HERE.

TM

[imschur]

huh thats pretty interesting  :thumb:

[George Wood]

That is very interesting Techmike thanks for sharing. I had no idea of the complexity's of the 22 round.

[asmurff]

Good article!

[techmike]

Everybody shoots .22, but few know much about the cartridge. Most likely since it can't be reloaded.

[Kilibreaux]

The .22LR situation reminds me of how the auto industry works.

The auto makers introduce a new model.  The next year they introduce a more powerful engine....more "features" as well.  And so it goes during the entire product life-cycle of that particular model.  This is the incentive for people to trade up or "buy new."

The .22LR is in the same fix....does anyone REALLY believe the industry cannot figure out how to improve ignition reliability and cleanliness?  Of course they can, but why bother?  The consumer "expects" the round to be dirty and unreliable, so why would the maker worry about product improvement?

Also, what REAL validity exists as to the nature of current .22LR ammo reliability?  I see a lot of "comments" and "reviews," but at the same time I have my own assortment of firearms that seem completely unaffected by all the negatives posted by other "reviewers."

The real problem with the .22LR is that centerfire ammo exists and is perceived as the "serious business" ammo, while the .22LR is perceived as "play ammo."

Otherwise we'd have .22LR ammo AND guns that manage to go "bang" with the same reliability as do centerfire.

[Dutchdiamondback]

DDB is loaded...

That's a reminder that it is now 00:45 in my neck of the woods. I've a couple of brewski's and a few other adult baverouges etc...

But this gives a pretty good insight on the shortcomings of the .22 as in functionality.

And still one drags them away by the thousands from ones favorite retailers.

In short:

Some where down the line they must be doin' something right... :beer:

[techmike]

Looks like a party at DDB's place. :beer:

With regards to

The .22LR is in the same fix....does anyone REALLY believe the industry cannot figure out how to improve ignition reliability and cleanliness?  Of course they can, but why bother?  The consumer "expects" the round to be dirty and unreliable, so why would the maker worry about product improvement?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that ammunition manufacturers must adhere to SAMII standards. That is what really limits ammo, and the ever present threat of litigation. As an example, say some ammo company came up with a revolutionary primer material and powder combination that insured 100% ignition, increased velocity 40% and burned clean with no residue. It works great in modern firearms chambered in .22lr. So what happens when someone tries that ammo in a 90 year old rifle chambered in .22lr? It blows up, someone loses an eye,and the ammo company gets sued into oblivion.

Just my 2 pfennigs.. ;D

[Kilibreaux]

Techmike,

You are absolutely right!

Your example explains why domestic 9x19 is underloaded by U.S. factories as opposed to the original spec.  Thousands of guns brought back after WWI and WWII created a demand for the 9mm, yet, U.S. companies, not knowing how strong these guns were, set the "spec" low.  As a result, toggle-action Lugers circa 1918 cannot reliably function with "modern" domestic ammo quite because it is too WEAK to cycle the action.

Doesn't matter that the 9mm "Luger" has been in country for many decades now, the loads are and always will be WEAK from the major manufacturers.

An ORGINAL 1873 Colt cannot handle the added stress of "modern" loads and so ALL major manufacturer's loads are "SAAMI spec'd" so if one slides a modern, solid-head .45 colt round into an original BP frame 1873, the gun won't blow up.  Doesn't matter that "balloon head" cases haven't been in circulation for DECADES, nor that anyone with two brain cells firing already KNOWS the original guns and ammo wasn't up to modern standards, the ammo makers insist on producing low-power loads because it's SAFE and profitable.  Can an 1873 BP take more?  Hell YES it can, but how many people are going to "chance it" when the overwhelming bulk of information tells them the gun isn't up to the challenge.  Those SAME people will turn around, grab their .357 Magnum and stuff if full with cylinder-full after cylinder-full of high-powered loads without a thought that said loads are decreasing the gun's life span.

I have a couple of BP frame 1873's that handle top, smokeless powder handloads without a problem, because even those are quite anemic compared to the mighty blast a "modern" .45 Colt such as the Ruger Blackhawk can handle.

Anyway, not to digress too much on a rant, but you are right....why "cut the edge" so to speak when some duffus in bum-f$%^#$ Yodel-ville is likely to cram super-duper, hyper-velocity, warp-speed .22LR into the cheapest, crappiest, most rusted out piece of $h1t on planet Earth and WHEN it blows up, attempt to sue the manufacturer.  It doesn't matter that laws are in place to limit the liability of gun and ammo makers for how their products are used, some jerk-wad, small-town, wanna-be Jose Baez attorney can and WILL jump all over any case they think will result in "The Big Strike."

[techmike]

Yep. What he said. +1 :thumb:

[Frankie]

The gritty feeling after 100 rounds or so is caused by the glass that is mixed with the primer material to act as an anvil. As for being so dirty, not all of the powder in any given .22 cartridge is burned. For a good in-depth article on .22 cartridges, go HERE.

TM

Awesome link there Techmike, thanks for sharing!

-Frankie