Six types of sub-sonic ammunition compared.

[Sandgroper]

So- How about a .22 LR round shooting a 15/17 grain .17 round with a plastic sabot at around 2000fps for about 150ftlbs.

Not a hummer, but no variation needed, there are millions of .22lr shooters out there - surely a possibility?

Something similar has already been done in the form of the 17 Mach2 (17M2).



http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_22LR_17M2.htm

[1066]

So- How about a .22 LR round shooting a 15/17 grain .17 round with a plastic sabot at around 2000fps for about 150ftlbs.

Not a hummer, but no variation needed, there are millions of .22lr shooters out there - surely a possibility?

Something similar has already been done in the form of the 17 Mach2 (17M2).



http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_22LR_17M2.htm

Yes the ballistics aren't new, but what you need to do is to make a round that can be shot through a standard .22LR chamber - In effect turn every .22LR into a .17 M2 just by the choice of ammo.

You could still use a loopy subsonic 40gn HP if noise was important - or a flat shooting 2000fps 15gn with great BC out to 150 yds or so.

I think it could be done really easily - you would need to use the long case, as used in the crimped over shotshell case and the sabot round set down in the case like a full wadcutter pistol round.

I've almost got this made in my head - I think I'll go out to the garage for an hour or so :)

[dromia]

I have to say Allan I was most impressed with your rapid fire technique.

Interesting how the Tenex grouped best showing how expensive quality control is.

I sometimes wonder how much the lesser ammunition is by design rather than a function of the manufacturing process, what would be the financial impact on the manufacturers if all their ammunition was as consistent as Tenex?

I have an great fondness and respect for the humble .22" RF in all its guises.

The Mach2 was an attempt to develop the .22" RF albeit in .17" calibre, however it was overshadowed by the .17" HMR. Personally I prefer it, the little less oompff made it a more useable round and must get another rifle chambered for it.

The .17" HMR is a fine round but its cost has put many people off, I get a lot of HMR rifles in because of the cost of feeding them. Most of the bunny bashers that have truned their rifles in find that the vast majority of shooting is done at .22"RF ranges so the cost of running an HMR for the more occasional long shot isn't viable.

Also unfortunately the .17HMR and Mach 2 is over the top for most indoor small bore ranges Range Certificates which limits it to a hunting rather than a target round.

The humble .22RF is indeed a hard benchmark to better.

Saboted rounds? Has anyone tried paper patching for the .22" Hornet? sign01

[AHPP]

I'm all for innovation (.17 (or maybe even .14) in sabots sounds great - do sabots go through moderators alright?) but the .22 in its base form is just so ubiquitous I don't think it should be fvcked with much. It's just such a well known quantity.

Wouldn't need to change anything - the basic .22 lr would still be there in it's several forms, solid, HP, HV, subsonic, frangible etc.
Offering .22LR sabot round or a super accurate round (although more expensive) would just another choice to shoot through an existing rifle.

There are millions of .22's in every part of the world - They make .22 shot shells and .22 tracers so small production runs of a million or so shouldn't be a problem.

You're quite right. I'd just hate to see a newfangled "game changer" cause neglect of the reliable oldie (but yes, not likely to be a problem).

[1066]

Ok - so this is the type of thing I've been thinking about today. This is a mock up but gives you the idea.
The sabot is from a bit of 1980's airgun technology, the case could be full chamber length. This projectile weighs 13 grains.

The result - A .17 M2 equivalent that will fit any .22LR rifle - 150ftlbs with less than 1" drop from 25-125 yards. There's got to be a market out there for that hasn't there?

[ovenpaa]

1066 - I like the idea, any plans to take it a bit further now and test in the field? When you first mentioned this it immediately made me think about the prometheus pellets that used to be around many years ago. I could never get them to shoot however the principle of something similar as a sabot is appealing.

[kennyc]

Ok - so this is the type of thing I've been thinking about today. This is a mock up but gives you the idea.
The sabot is from a bit of 1980's airgun technology, the case could be full chamber length. This projectile weighs 13 grains.

The result - A .17 M2 equivalent that will fit any .22LR rifle - 150ftlbs with less than 1" drop from 25-125 yards. There's got to be a market out there for that hasn't there?

the only fly in your ointment might be that ,from memory, the Sussex Sabots had warnings on the box "not to use with Silencers" as the Sabot would open in the voids of the silencer, and throw the shot off (let alone what the next shot would think of the resultant blockage at rimfire speeds !) I really like the idea though and remember the Sussex Sabot as a very effective round in its day (although accuracy was not always that good, I never had a problem with it, many others did)

[Sandgroper]

the only fly in your ointment might be that ,from memory, the Sussex Sabots had warnings on the box "not to use with Silencers" as the Sabot would open in the voids of the silencer, and throw the shot off (let alone what the next shot would think of the resultant blockage at rimfire speeds !) I really like the idea though and remember the Sussex Sabot as a very effective round in its day (although accuracy was not always that good, I never had a problem with it, many others did)

That was my concern as well, as I think sabots and sound moderators together are not regarded as a good idea.

However, I think it's an interesting idea and if hunting accuracy was achieved/achievable, I'd give them a go.

Have you tested how the mock up feeds from a magazine yet?

[1066]

Thanks for the encouragement chaps. I only though of this idea yesterday so not had any time to try it out, however I think the idea is worth pursuing. I understand there are problems to solve - that's why the manufactures have R&D departments often with eye watering budgets and top notch facilities.

Much as it would be nice to cater for all situations, not being able to use them with a moderator might be a very minor problem for many cartridge manufacturers. I know moderators are commonly used in this country with .22's but I guess 99.5% of the .22 in circulation throughout the world don't use moderators.

Feeding from a magazine I wouldn't think would be an insurmountable problem. Full wad cutter ammunition is used all the time in semi-auto target pistols in .32 and .38 spec and feed reliably, also there's not much streamlined shape to a 12g shotshell and they can feed ok. Worst case would be the need to buy another magazine to feed the new round.

However, because of the nature of the rimfire round, home development in not easy - Which is where the whole idea started - We get what were given.

My next step is to locate a few .22 shotshell cases (anyone got a few empties spare?) - the ones with the crimped over ends, when these are shot they are full chamber length.

[1066]

Well I've progressed this idea a little and had a small field trial - The results were very encouraging. I used the long stinger case as the starting point and decided on the readily available 17 grain .17 bullets.



I have only hand made a few of these but initial figures show about 1900 fps (136ftlbs) using the standard stinger load, no idea what the powder is but looks like Bullseye.

Although not too worried about accuracy yet the best guess at the trajectory would be within 1/2 inch from 30 - 100yds with bang on at 50 and 75 yards.

In the mean time, getting quite excited, I emailed Remington, Hornady, Winchester, Eley and CCI explaining that I had an idea that they might be interested in - Result = not one of them even replied.

So, I thought I would do a bit of a Patent search: Bummer - some ones done it before.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20070234925

ho-hum! Back to the drawing board.