The Impossible .22 Rimfire

ruger22 · Post by **ruger22** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:56 pm

I ran across this article a good while ago, and I don't think I ever posted it here. Reading it gives you a lot more respect for the little bullet, and you really wonder that it's not more expensive.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/article ... 2-rimfire/

Georgezilla · Post by **Georgezilla** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:11 pm

Thanks for sharing! A lot of engineering went into this little round.

Ever since I started getting involved in shooting sports I have really enjoyed the .22LR round. With it's lower cost, it is somewhat of a "guilt free" way to practice. Not that I am very skilled, but I do attribute most of my current shooting skill level to putting a lot of .22LR down range.

It's hard to believe 4 years ago when I started getting involved in this stuff a 50 round box of .22LR blazer or similar brand cost about $0.50 retail. Nowadays, the same stuff is $2.00 retail.

greener · Post by **greener** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:58 pm

Sounds like the .22 is the bumble bee of ammunition. Aerodynamically the bumble bee can't fly and mechanically the .22 can't fire.

I don't think shooting would be as much fun if I didn't have a wad of .22's to shoot.

Georgezilla · Post by **Georgezilla** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:40 pm

greener wrote:Sounds like the .22 is the bumble bee of ammunition. Aerodynamically the bumble bee can't fly and mechanically the .22 can't fire.

The engineering student in me must defend the poor bumble bee even though it is unrelated to firearms

Back when this misnomer came about, the physics weren't there to support the bumble bees' ability to generate the force required to lift their mass. However, more "recently" the bumble bee was studied using methods in fluid dynamics, like testing airplanes, cars, ect. It was determined that bumble bees CAN fly because they contour their tiny wings in a manner that enables them to generate lift on the down AND up stroke, as opposed to just the down stroke which was the previous mainstream thought.

greener · Post by **greener** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:57 am

I refuse to be deterred by any facts about bumbly bees.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:22 am

Didn't have to waste all that time and money to prove that bumble bees can fly, I've seen them more than once and that is good enough for me. Seeing id believing you know, eh/

ruger22 · Post by **ruger22** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:28 am

I noticed the mention of ground glass being a friction agent in the primer, and it not being very "bore friendly". I guess it is like the striker on a book of matches.

This ground glass should be incentive for all the shooters who "never" or "seldom" clean their rimfire guns. Do they want ground glass in their bores, or actions?

Georgezilla · Post by **Georgezilla** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:58 pm

ruger22 wrote:
This ground glass should be incentive for all the shooters who "never" or "seldom" clean their rimfire guns. Do they want ground glass in their bores, or actions?

I think most people who rarely clean their .22s do so based on empirical knowledge. That being said, the .22LR round has been the same for a long time, the ignition system is not "new", so I don't think the article will change many minds.