CCI Stingers

So .22anon, how long should the barrel be at minimum? I have a Rohm Model 66 my grandfather gifted to me (along with a flashier holster than I'd have liked, but I certainly won't turn it down), and despite a little rust and wear, it holds up well and shoots decently, and unlike my heritage rough rider, the actions, from rotating the cylinder to pulling back the hammer, are a lot smoother in operation (I suspect it's simply broken in from a life of usage). It has a 4 inch barrel. Would this be sufficient with my supply of Stingers?

I'd also like to know how Velocitors hold up in comparison, user

Go with velocitors, 45gr and has the most ftlbs of the 22s. Kind of a poor cartridge choice but In a pinch it might do

You really just want penetration fuck the ft/lbs, it's negligible anyway. You just wanna poke holes into the CNS or skull, that's my opinion, if you're carrying a .22

Thanks for the help. I've also been searching for a carry gun for my mother, but she can't even handle the recoil of the Shield .380 EZ. She's more likely to use a gun on snakes than a person, but it helps to be prepared in case the worst happens. I was debating if she should use a five seven, because she can handle .22 magnum, and I'd imagine the recoil is similar. I think for her, a Ruger Mark or something would be best, with the velocitors of course.
If she just needs more training, let me know. I want to explore all possibilities here.

is she opposed to using a carbine instead of a handgun? A PCC has very little recoil with less muzzle blast and report compared to an AR. There are also a plethora of reliable .22lr semi-auto's that can milk more power out of a .22lr cartridge. If you are dead set on a rimfire then make sure you're using CCI ammo, its been the most reliable rimfire I've ever encountered.

Other options you might want to consider are double action revolvers with 3"-4" barrels in .22mag .32 H&R(or .327 fed), or .38Spl. A real strong option for the recoil sensitive is a 3-4" barreled .357mag revolver loaded with mild .38spl. JUST STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM SNUB NOSE REVOLVERS.

if you have an auto bolt release, the bolt can lock back. other than that, they're basically the perfect round

I've considered a PCC for her, but it would have to be a sideline. I want her to have something small and concealable in the event a need arises.
How is .38? How does it compare to .380 in terms of recoil? It's less?

They'd recoil about the same, assuming gun weights are similar.

38 special out of a full size stainless 357 feels like someone flicked the tip of the barrel upwards

You don't say? I might need to try a rental at the range for this next time I go, if they would allow me to rent a box of .38 when shooting a .357 (who knows what they think?)
What's the reason for this, by the way? Larger pressure specs for a lower pressure round?

Imagine quoting fudd harrel

It depends on the loading and the gun. .38spl tends to us a heavier bullet at slower speeds, .380acp uses lighter at higher speeds. Semi-automaic actions absorb some of the felt recoil. If recoil is a big concern than use a heavier pistol/revolver shooting a smaller cartridge. A revolver chambered in .357magnum is going to be built heavier than one designed for only .38spl, that extra weight makes shooting pleasant when using .38spl in a .357mag revolver (usually). Assuming similar sized handguns .380 and .38spl will be about the same, the .38spl may feel less "snappy" but might have more muzzle climb. Revolvers and Semi-autos just feel recoil differently too. Revolvers will roll in the hand and have more muzzle climb while semi-autos will shove more straight back into the web of the hand.

I prefer velocitors for the higher bullet weight to guarantee adequate penetration

Velocitors are 40 grains retard

I honestly don't see the point of .22LR unless you're solely hunting tiny game. Why not just get a decent PCC in something actually useful? Shit 9mm would be the way to go if you're after capacity/power.

This is making me consider getting a 10/22 as my home defense gun.

Where are you located? I don't think the range will give a damn if you try running .38spl out of a .357. The .357 is a much higher pressure round than the .38spl, it is driving a bullet much faster. If you are doing range rentals try these to categories: Medium-Large frame .357 revolver loaded with .38spl ammo; large/heavy .380acp pistols (Beretta 84, Browning BDA 380, Bersa Thunder 380 [normal or Plus, not Concealed Carry], Walther PPK, or even a fucking Hi-point CF-380).

AL my dude
I'm sure it's ok, my LGS/Pawn + range is usually pretty based, but for some reason I fear having to try explaining this to someone in the hopes that I can shoot .38 from a .357.
I chalk it up to my paranoia, that's probably all it is.

Some people live in countries in which they can't access to regular 9mm, or can't access ranges that accept anything else than precision air rifles or .22lr.

I would rather use round nose minimags. You'll get more penetration out of these, a light weight HP will loose all of its energy pretty quickly. Also stingers won't be reliably feed in every .22lr gun since their brass is slightly longer than regular .22lr.

Attached: minimag-fmj-z.jpg (946x1080, 49K)

probably because the round bouncwd around inside the can, turning the do food into liqued which followed the round out of the can when the vaccum created by the round leaving the can ensued.

Paul Harrell is not a fudd, and the fact that you either don't understand the meaning of that word, or don't care about the accuracy of what you're saying, tells me all I need to know about the value of your advice.

I agree. I looked at a gel test of the stringers. When they don't expand they get 13"+ but with expansion it's 9"
youtube.com/watch?v=gbVY4gT5P20

Also, beware .38 out of small J-frame Smith's and Ruger LCRs. My LCR kicks harder with .38 than my medium framed .357

Seconding that recoil from a revolver feels different, not just more or less. And that may be better or worse, depending on what it is about .380 recoil that she can't handle. If it primarily makes her hands hurt, the more rolling recoil of a .38 special may be better for her. If it primarily makes her wrists hurt, probably not.

I'd also suggest looking into one or both of "cowboy" ammunition (usually loaded a bit milder, especially in .38 special) and/or lead wadcutters (LWC) — the latter generally have very mild recoil, are excellent target ammo (good for practicing), and are relatively effective on humans *for their level recoil*, for the same reason they make good target ammo: Instead of pushing tissue or paper out of the way, inflicting some tears in the process but also leaving a lot intact, they cut a neat, full-diameter circular hole. A hollow-point that expands is still generally going to be better, but a hollow-point that doesn't expand is going to be worse. And hollow-points that reliably expand are generally going to be loaded a good deal hotter than wadcutters.

Note: LWC are not the same as lead _semi_wadcutters (LSWC). If you want mild-recoiling ammo that is relatively effective, you want the former, not the latter. LWC have a flat front, or one with slight dimple; LSWC have sizeable cones flattened tips and a narrow flat won't around the base.

Also, the big thing you want to take recoil is not barrel length as such, but weight. Barrel length adds to weight, all else being equal, but an aluminum-frame gun with a long barrel may still be lighter than a steel-frame gun with a shorter barrel.

Final note: Grips affect perceived recoil a lot. Material, texturing, and shape. Smooth wood and smooth (soft) rubber are your friends for aching hands; texturing and finger grooves help to control muzzle flip. A plow-handle (or possibly birdshead) grip accentuates revolvers' tendency to roll instead of push; this may be good or bad (I like it).

They are noticeably more powerful than standard minimag rounds in a 10/22 and have functioned flawlessly for me.

True I own a Ruger Charger with some extra goodies on it and some 25 and 50 round extended magazines, with a compensator added there is NO muzzle flip and no recoil meaning I’m very good at accurately performing a mag dump in seconds combined with stingers or a 40gr solid hyper round makes me seriously consider the effective use of such a firearm if one had to use it in a home defense situation.

The cartridge design of .357 is literally ".38 special, but we made it longer to prevent people from chambering .357 rounds in .38 special revolvers and blowing their guns up, while still allowing people to chamber .38 special in .357 revolvers." (.38 special and .357, like virtually all revolver cartridges, headspace on the rim, so the length has an upper limit but not a lower one.) The only downside to shooting .38 special in a .357 is that if you do it a lot, without shooting any .357 in between, it makes cleaning the chambers sightly more of a pain.

Any range owner who won't let you shoot .38 special out of a .357 revolver (or a .357 lever-gun that will chamber it from the magazine; some early designs may have trouble with the lifter) is either alarmingly ignorant or trying to make you pay more for more expensive ammo, at the cost of your comfort and satisfaction. Either way, I would find another place to shoot. (Especially if it's an indoor range, which require competent and costly ventilation work to not give you lead poisoning.)

Incidentally, what's true of .38 special/.357 is also true of .44 special/.44 magnum and .45 Schofield (mostly; see below)/.45 Colt/.454 Casull/.460 S&W.

A note on .45 Schofield: This was actually developed just after .45 Colt, by a rival, and isn't *exactly* a shortened version: The case diameter is slightly narrower (.477 vs .480, not a problem) as that of .45 Colt/.454 Casull/.460 S&W, but the rim is slightly larger (.522 vs .512). Even with the original Colt Single Action Armies (which were designed for a version of .45 Colt that has an even smaller rim than the modern version), this didn't prevent them from chambering (and didn't make shooting then unsafe or otherwise harmful), but it did mean you couldn't chamber two .45 Schofield cartridges side-by-side, so you could only load 3 cartridges in a 6-cylinder revolver. Today, most .45 Colt firearms will take .45 Schofield in every cylinder without any problems. But there might still be the occasional exception.

Link to the (not so) Long Rifle Ranger?

This is true, but just to clarify: .38 special will always* have less recoil than .357 magnum when fired from the same gun. However, some guns are chambered for .38 special (only) because they are not strong enough for .357 magnum, and some of those guns are light enough that shooting .38 special out of them generates more felt recoil than shooting .357 out of (heavier) guns that you *can* shoot .357 magnum out of.

*Autist mode: Technically, since magnum loads tend to use slower-burning powders than non-magnum loads, (some) .357 magnum could in theory generate less recoil — but more muzzle blast — than (some) .38 special out of a short enough barrel. In practice, the "less recoil" part of that rarely if ever happens, while the "more muzzle blast" part absolutely does.

Also, if you're handloading, you can certainly download .357 to .38 special velocities or even lower (given a suitable powder), and some people do, particularly for target shooting with .357 lever-guns that are finicky about chambering .38 special cartridges. But that's a weird edge case, and not something you'll see with commercial ammunition.

One thing I just realized may not be obvious: .38 special has a caliber (bullet diameter) of .357 inches, the same as .357 magnum. (Similarly, .380 ACP bullets are actually .355 inches in diameter.)

The reason it's called ".38 special" is that the *case* diameter is .38 inches (technically .379, according to SAAMI), and it's descended from the .38 Short Colt, which originally used a heeled bullet (similar to what a .22 LR uses), where the forward portion of the bullet was the same diameter as the case.

A similar history is also why .44 Special (and Russian, and Magnum) is called ".44," despite having an actual bullet diameter of .429 inches. Same for .44-40, at .427 inches.

.45 Colt and .45 ACP really are .45 inches (more precisely, .451 to .454) though.

Dumb question cause I'm new to shooting
If my handgun and rifle are made for 22LR will the reliably cycle all the rounds mentioned ITT?
>inB4 not the other calibers

What kind of .38 are you shooting? The federal 158 LRN is pretty smooth for target and the Hornady 110+p are pretty easy going for carry. The Remington 125+p HP are ridiculously hot through snubbies for target, I'd avoid those. That's my personal experience. The Federal 130 HST are also pretty smooth for carry as well

Probably. If they're modern guns of decent quality, almost certainly. I've heard Stingers are really only meant for longer barreled firearms and not worth it out of a pistol, though. Modern .22s will usually cycle just about anything other than specialty rounds like colibri.

I'm not sure if you're considering a pistol or rifle, but either way Stingers are a poor choice. Out of pistols, they have one of the highest velocities available; unfortunately, this is enough to expand, so they only penetrate 8.4".
Out of rifles, they expand and fragment, and penetrate 8.6".
Excellent choice for woodchucks, not good for people.
>3.5" barrel: brassfetcher.com/Handguns/22LR/22LR Handgun Terminal Ballistics.html
>18" barrel: brassfetcher.com/Handguns/22LR/22LR Rifle Terminal Ballistics.html

Velocitors pack a little more mass at a little less speed, which does some better. Out of a 3.5" barrel, velocity is just low enough to get little or no expansion, so you get adequate penetration. Out of a rifle, though, they expand beautifully (no fragmentation) and get marginal to adequate penetratation.
Clearballistics, it sucks, but youtube loves it...
>3.5" barrel: youtube.com/watch?v=PgaTaVrjuDQ
>16" barrel: youtube.com/watch?v=kaON43n1Yww (also other lengths, pic related)
SIM-TEST diluted to standard density...
>18.5" barrel: youtube.com/watch?v=N7plzIVmLlU

I'd suggest Aguila Interceptors instead of Velocitors, though -- available in both hollow point and solid-nose (with a small meplat, basically a clone of CCI's Small Game Bullet, but faster); they're both loaded hotter than Velocitors, and the hollow point does quite well, performing to FBI spec through handguns with no expansion and through rifles with decent, if irregular, expansion.
>3.42" and 16" barrel: youtube.com/watch?v=BZjCsYTBbf0
Personally, I think I'd prefer the flat-nose; there's probably an intermediate velocity (rifle shot at range, or a long barreled pistol) where the hollow-points do open up, but no longer have enough oomph and so underpenetrate; a solid will not have these issues. But I haven't seen any testing on that version.

Attached: Velocitors in various barrel lengths.png (1594x815, 793K)

What video is that picture from user?

" barrel: youtube.com/watch?v=kaON43n1Yww (also other lengths, pic related)

I miss his channel. Watched all his NAA and 9mm testing

Thank you for the response.
I have made it my lifes work to make sure the women in my family carry something for protection and most of them are up there in years so the 22LR platforms seem the most logical for staying on target.
I guess I need to get them to the range with their guns and find out for sure,

Also great thread in general. Nice to see we can have a decent thread now a days on Jow Forums, seems to happen less and less.

Attached: 14-89.png (379x599, 490K)

SW used to make this gun called an Escort in .22, for women...get it... Escort...anyway it had ALOT of issues. Too bad they never worked all the kinks out. It's the gun used in taxi Driver

Yeah, and the nazis could hear an enfield go *ping* in france all the way from berlin

Thanks for all the replies good to hear everyone’s opinion on the subject and not just simply disregard the round and the platforms used to fire it

You ever watched forensic files? .22s are used pretty regularly to kill humans. In fact I believe statistically speaking it's one of the most used cartridges because of prevalence in homes

What about the Mossberg Blaze?

He has tons of fudd beliefs like using a revolver for home defense or daily carry, revolvers today are only appropriate as a back up gun

Revolvers can be used for defense and carry though. And even then the idea that revolvers kill people isn't fudd. What would be fudd is if someone said semi autos are unnecessary and civilians only ever need a revolver. And if you can't tell the difference between those two ideas then you are a supreme brainlet. Paul owns and regularly uses guns a fudd would disapprove of

Maybe you should actually watch his videos all the way through

Is pronounced .22 STANGER you faggot nigger

Attached: 87099B93-0969-49A4-99FC-0932E412B975.jpg (900x900, 132K)

I'm not the user in question but rhom revolvers are dangerously badly made,get a lightbox for it. Your grandfather would rather you have fingers I'm sure

CCI stingers won't function in some autoloaders due to the case being longer than "standard" 22lr.
CCI mini-mags are the best choice for autoloaders and stingers are great for manual action or revolvers.

Paul wouldn’t fit my definition of a fudd he’s far to intelligent

Interceptors are hot garbage for SD, to unreliable. Out of a 50rnd box I've gotten up to 10 duds that wouldn't fire in any firearm. I'm sure someone will shoot me down but I've never had a dud with CCI

if its not going to be carried (and maybe even if it is) the compact-yet-heavy sp101 is the literal perfect choice for women and novice shooters

>Out of a 50rnd box I've gotten up to 10 duds
Wow, that is impressively bad.
My own experience with Aguila .22LR is limited to a brick of Aguila SSS I'm currently using for pest control. I'm a couple boxes in with no misfires yet; I wouldn't expect the priming is any different -- I just got a brick from a good lot, and you got one from a bad lot.
This kind of difference is why the common advice to fire 100 rounds or more of a given production lot before you carry it is so important.

>I've never had a dud with CCI
Me either. Definitely a cut above Remington, etc.

same

See: "Fudd" does not mean "gun-owner who likes outdated firearms," or even "gun-owner who holds demonstrably incorrect beliefs about the relative capabilities of outdated and modern firearms." It means "hunter who believes the second amendment should protect the sort of guns that he uses to hunt and no others." You only, the type of person that anti-gunners routinely trot out to talk about how "I'm not anti-gun; in fact, I've been hunter for over 40 years. But i understand the difference between my hunting rifles and high-power assault rifles whose only purpose is to kill as many human beings as possible as quickly as possible?"

Joe Biden is a Fudd. Bill Nelson is a Fudd. Paul Harrell is not a Fudd.

*You _know_, the type . . .

>9mm has been shown time and time again in real life situations to be the absolute minimum effective round against a human
Bullshit. Have you not seen the recent study showing rounds from .380 to .44 Mag have very similar effects on humans?

If it's not going to be carried, I'd lean toward something larger, personally, but I think an SP101 with a 4.2 inch barrel is a fine starting point. Any shorter than that, and the sight radius is shorter than I'd recommend for a beginning shooter.

That study is actually a testament to what people carry in .44 mag, considering it's the minimum caliber capable of doing permanent damage with temporary cavitation, people who commonly carry .44 mag probably don't load high-velocity-low-weight ammo that would produce rifle-like wounds and instead carry something stupid like hunting ammo or bear loads which are designed for clean passthrough rather than raw damage and fragmentation.

Kinda curious here Jow Forumsommandos, but one of my favorite plinkers is a .22 mag. How much better is it to the standard .22 in your opinion?

Attached: 1555492982787.jpg (640x621, 75K)

If you’re shooting from a rifle barrel stingers are about 200 FPS less then the 22 mag although the 22 mag has better bullet construction

Did you do something that made him angry at you?

CCI Stingers, or anything else for that matter, might be very dangerous to fire out of a Rohm

>minimum caliber capable of doing permanent damage with temporary cavitation,
With last century's bullets, maybe.

Attached: 9mm-luger+p-65-grain-xtreme-defender.jpg (801x602, 35K)

Out of a 4 inch or less barrel? Not much, however .22 mag ammo seems to be manufactured at a much better qc standard than most .22lr. Out of a 4 inch or longer barrel .22 mag starts to shine, the more barrel you add. Its a lot like 357, good out of short barrels, but fucking fantastic in rifles.

Hilarious you say that, my late father in law loaded what the family called "nuclear denis loads" for his .44 mag. 185 grain hollow point, stuffed with as much H110 powder as he could cram in there then shot out of his super blackhawk at ridiculous speeds.

This is, down to the powder and bullet grainage, my carry ammo in .454 Casull. I've chrono'd 2100 FPS.

I want to see what those will do at 1800+ fps and/or a wider bullet. 10mm edition when?

>1800+ fps
for that you'll need a L O N G B O I

Attached: 10mm edition now.png (808x388, 149K)

I saw a BBC documentary on Chicago street crime, and I shit you not, some of the little nigglets were carrying GSG-522-SDs. I'd be very curious to know what ammunition they're using.

Looks like a job for Glockzilla

Attached: 20151022_184317.jpg (1024x576, 97K)

All I ever use is cci stinger for my defensive firearms, which are a beretta bobcat and naa .22lr, stingers are great.

gel test results are decent but most of the handguns available are revolvers and I'm not interested in them. If there was a .22WMR pocket auto I'd be down.

Is QC on .22WMR good enough to make a semi-auto sufficiently reliable? Because I know that with .22LR, I'd rather have a carry gun where a failure to fire can be dealt with by simply pulling the trigger again than one where I would have to manually rack the slide.

Not sure. The PMR has been hit or miss but that's also KelTec for ya

CCI stingers are getting lethal penetration as well as far more expansion then velocitors (hp), win super X,CCI minimags

Attached: 017EED63-B241-491C-ABB5-6A9020D5B908.jpg (2048x1536, 964K)

Attached: E7B0703F-08C0-418A-BA97-E093FF2C41ED.jpg (1537x2050, 822K)

Thank you. This will help inform my varmint gun ammo selection.

Wrong. The majority of calibers are practically the same when it comes to stopping a target, from .38 special to 380 to 9mm.

From a rifle barrel it would seem the stinger hollow points outperform the velocitors in terms of wound channel and sheer damage and energy

I just bought some Stingers as well for my NAA .22. Previously I had Mini Mag 36 gr in it

Look at the diff profiles of damage the stinger did in comparison you can really see the expansion and energy it dumped into the target where as the Winchester super X seemed to keep its momentum and made a clean pass through

Attached: 2C46D7DC-EBB1-4219-950F-D0DF092939A7.png (640x1136, 1.51M)