View Full Version : 22 Mag shooters:

Paul Fielder
10-30-2008, 04:14 PM
I'm in the process of playing with my 1st rimfire Mag. It is built on a ruger bolt action w/ a shilen bbl. Not sure of the twist but will clean it and see if I can figure it out....I purchased this used & shot it for the 1st time yesterday.

I know our only options are in the ammo & I know a little bit about the standard .22 and am pretty sure I can pick some of my different Eley to find one a gun will shoot well with.

Not knowing squat about ammo options for the mag cal, would some of you mind givng me your top 3 you have had most success with on what has been most consistant gun to gun.

I just want to buy 3 or 4 boxes and don't want to get overwhelmed with varieties and try to make an informed decision for the next testing session.

Any extra info for cleaning a mag compared to standard would be helpful too.

Many thanks,


10-30-2008, 05:00 PM
No .22 mag. matches i know of....no .22 mag. match ammo i know of either. I bet you would also be a big hit at the matches where not everyone wears hearing protection..:D Your new rifle might make a great short/mid range light varmint shooter?

10-30-2008, 06:15 PM
My guess is that this one might get you some useful answers over at Rimfire central. There's a bunch of mag devotees over there.

Guy Pike
10-30-2008, 07:15 PM
RWS. It costs $30+ a box but it shoots the best in my Brno611 and my Marlin 25mn. I use it for testing rifles that won't shoot well. Usually, not always, but usually the owners are furious that their rifle will only shoot well with expensive ammo. C'est la vie!

Kent Owens
10-30-2008, 07:26 PM
I have a CZ American .22 Mag that shoots the Remington Premier with the 33 grain V-max bullet very well. In the .1 and .2 tenth range at 50 yards. I don't know if they still make it or not. That was about 3 or 4 years ago that I bought all my local gunshop had on hand after testing it in that rifle. I was really suprised it shot that well. You might want to try a box and see how it works for you. That's the only way to tell, unfortunately. Good luck.

Paul Fielder
10-30-2008, 09:06 PM
I bet you would also be a big hit at the matches where not everyone wears hearing protection..:D Your new rifle might make a great short/mid range light varmint shooter?

...nor will I be attending matches. it has one of those evil suppressors on it:-) It will just e a fun gun but I don't want misses to be a guess;-)

Thanks for the answers gang....looks like trial & error. Like everyone on this site...I just want the smallest groups possible & am ignorant on this caliber.


11-01-2008, 09:52 AM
I have a couple of .22 mags and I guess I've tried about all the ammo on the market. In my guns the best shooting for groups seems to still be the original .22 Winchester hollow point magnum. I don't have a clue why but it is the best for my 61 Winchester Mag and Savage-Anschultz (sp) 141. I just sold a Marlin 25M to my brother in law and it is a good shooting gun. It will not shoot the CCI very well and that is the same for my two magnums but it seems to do pretty good with the Rem accupoint.

As an aside I used to squirrel hunt with .22 WRF and it did fine to about 25 yards but was not too good at 50.

Paul Fielder
11-01-2008, 10:05 AM
...I'm going to try the RWS 1st and then some of the others.

It may be a passing fad but I wanted to play with it this hunting season for grins. I don't plan on shooting a lot of rounds through the gun so the high dollar RWS will be fine "if" it groups well. I'm assuming the mag is really a 50rd type rig and the distance I should site in and test??

Main purpose is for the closer yotes & bobcats that happen to walk by and not make 'too' much noise. I normally have my 54 sporter w/ the can but I would rather hit them a little harder.

Thanks gang.


Guy Pike
11-01-2008, 06:41 PM
I've found the 22Mag to be fine out to 100yds. In Maine it is a legal round for whitetails. I would want the utmost accuracy for that as shot placement would be critical, eh? Have fun, Guy

Paul Fielder
11-01-2008, 07:41 PM
can't use rimfires for whitetails here in TX....this is a fun critter getter....have a swift and .280AI for the deer.


11-06-2008, 02:01 AM
Have a Marlin 982 stainless 22" Barrel try some CCI Maxi mags HP or FMJ.

At 65yds 3rnds in Abe Lincolns head on a penny through duct tape. Now on my neck as a necklace. 100yds 8rnds in a pencil eraser size group. 200yds Breaks clay pigeons then able to shoot the pieces. 300yds with 3x9 MilDot Tasco World class scope able to hit targets on 55gallon drum easily when wind is stable. This is a gun show $99 truck gun shoots as good or better than some of my custom centerfires with handloads. Only modification is a Bic Pen spring trigger job. If an Anshutz or Cooper 40x etc can outshoot this gun I'll bet ya for pink slips group or score.

11-07-2008, 06:52 AM
Wish we could use .22 mags for deer here in NC. But we have a bunch of liberals down in Raleigh passing laws and regs that know nothing about guns.
I have recently used Hornady 30 gr. ballistic tip ammo, and found it is by far the most accurate I have tried in my Savage.

Paul Fielder
11-08-2008, 04:43 PM
....it drew blood two days ago. Shot about a 200lb pig at about 125yds in the ear and dropped in his tracks.

A little further than I would like cuz I'm still testing & all I had were the 33gr Remingtons but we have orders to shoot all pigs on site from our biologist and I wanted to try the suppressor and the .280AI would have been like cheating & that new toy leaning next to it was winking at me.

Dad tried to get some pics from his phone but it was dark when he picked me up....I'll see if I can get them up later.


blunt shooter
11-08-2008, 10:01 PM
But a true story nonetheless. In 1975 I lived in Darwin N.T. Aust. Some mates and I had lots of beer ( damaged stock, dumped after cyclone Tracy)
we had a b.b.q. and needed steak's. D--- had a .22 magnum r.f. We would go out at night , and with a spotlight , pick out a 1/2 to 3/4 grown water buffaloe and D--- would put one in behind the ear from 25 to 50 yards.
Down they would go, dead as a door knocker. Surprised me each time.
Projectiles were copper coloured solids, the old winchester stuf.
These days I use black box Winchester jacketed hollow point 34 grain which are the most accurate from my C.Z. I consider these suitable for only small game, pests, digoes are too big and so too are the buff's :eek:

11-10-2008, 02:23 AM
The nice thing about the 22 magnum is its ballistics and power. Hornady 17 rimfire magnums are 17 grain and 20 grain. The CCI Maxi Mags are 40gr HP or Truncated Cone 1875fps. A milk jug at 100yds filled with H2O the HPs mushroom nicely, The TC's slightly. At 200yds the Truncated Come perform better. 1875fps Muzzle ~ 1200fps at 100yds Hmm... 22lr velocity at 100yds.
22s used to slaughter cows and other large game at point blank. Mafia used to use 22 shorts in a handgun inside a rolled up newspaper in large cities for hits so as to not attract much attention. I've shot as far as 300yds with
22lr. A 22lr maximum point blank range for rabbits was 75yds. I've shot car doors for ballistic tests at 100yds 22lr will go through any car or truck mfg after 1972 earlier doors were thicker and protected occupants better. From My Browning Buckmark pistol 5" Barrel at 50yds 22lr penetrates completely through 2 2x4's. Out to 175yds 22 mag is very effective Similar to a 22lr at 75yds. Inside 100yds very accurate and effective on Coyotes and larger.
Ammunition is light and so are the guns. Good Walk about guns.

The 2200fps 30gr 22 magnum has alot more nock down than the 17 hrm at 2550fps. Rough Taylor Knock out Factor 5gr Powder x 30gr bullet x 2200fps/1000=330 vs 17hrm 5x17x2550/1000= 216.75

David Valdina
11-10-2008, 07:46 AM
Here is an easy to use site to calculate Taylor K.O. Factor.
By the way, using a 40 gr. bullet of .22 dia @ 2,000 fps yields 2.5 Taylor K.O.

11-11-2008, 02:48 AM
For the sake of simplicity I provided a brief example
using Force=massxvelocity and added gunpowder grains divided by 1000 to give a relative metric of a rounds powers similar to IPSC knockdown factor, Optimal Game Weight, or Taylor Knockout Factor.

PPV the 22 magnum is surprisingly powerful.

Wrote my own program for free use here are some formulas I had collected.

III.d. Optimal Game Weight (OGW) Formula

The OGW formula was published in the April 1992 issue of GUNS magazine.
It is purportedly the result of careful examination of the various contributions
of "kinetic energy, momentum, bullet sectional density, bullet diameter,
bullet nose configuration, impact velocity and a number of other criteria" (pg. 62)
to terminal effect. The author, without elaborating on his methodology,
settled on the following formula:

OGW (lbs) = Velocity (fps) 3 x Bullet Weight (grs.) 2 x 1.5 x 10-12

This is, of course, nothing more than kinetic energy multiplied by momentum, then multiplied
by some constant to arrive at the desired weight range. There is absolutely nothing magical
about the game weights derived by this calculation; they are entirely the result of a
subjective selection of the constant, although the choice of this constant may be based
upon sage judgement, drawing on years of field experience. The basic premise of the formula
is worthy of closer examination. The OGW formula attempts to combine in one measure the
separate contributions of kinetic energy and momentum, the two schools of thought:
fast and disruptive versus slow and deep. This is well intentioned; however, simply
multiplying the two values is an unacceptable method of deriving a composite effect.

For instance, a certain load may have a very high velocity and therefore a high kinetic energy,
yet have a very light bullet weight and a correspondingly low momentum. How will it perform?
The most useful description of its performance would be found by separating its component
functions, cavitation and penetration, and analyzing these in relation to the game in question.
From experience, we know that very lightweight, small-bore ultra-velocity loads are poor
performers against large game. Yet an 85 gr., .243 cal light game bullet traveling at 3500 fps
would have an OGW rating of 389 lbs at the muzzle! Compare this to a 575 gr. ball traveling
at 850 fps with an OGW rating of 305 lbs. The former load is appropriate only for coyotes,
jackrabbits and extremely light framed deer. The latter load is for a 16 bore howdah pistol
intended to stop charging tigers!

Important caveats are in order. The author included an exhaustive list of cartridges and loads,
but the distinctions are only applicable between bullet weights and velocities.
The model itself makes no consideration whatsoever of the effect of sectional density,
bullet diameter or nose configuration, although these were "considered" in its development.
Most glaringly, bullet construction is neglected. A 150 gr. bullet moving at 2800 fps is
identical in this analysis, no matter whether it be a .264 caliber RWS H-Mantel or
.358 caliber Remington Core-Lokt. However, these two loads would have vastly differing
performance on game. The model assumes you have selected a reasonable bullet weight and
construction for the application in mind (in fairness to the author, Matunas makes
this point clear, but it does beg the question of just what this model does tell you
if you must already know the answer before you begin).

What the OGW Table really amounts to is an estimate of the maximum "walloping" potential
for all-aspect body hits against game using modern high-powered cartridges
(not 19th century big-bore blackpowder weapons or even early 20th century weapons)
using appropriate bullets. It attempts to describe the approximate weight of animal that
could be reliably killed from any angle (again, assuming the bullet selected was reasonable).
Unfortunately, by making velocity a third order term it wildly exaggerates the effect of this
component in terminal behavior, which (as will be shown) has surprisingly little meaningful
effect for deforming bullets. Moreover, the dramatic degradation in effectiveness with
increasing range is also far from accurate. A typical high velocity bullet is shown to
lose half its effectiveness between the muzzle and 250 yards; in practice nothing is lost
and indeed some performance gain may be observed with many bullets of conventional construction!
Worse, it suggests that if one uses light for caliber bullets, then the most effective employment
of these projectiles is at close range and very high velocity - in direct opposition to all
conventional wisdom! Under these conditions very lightly constructed bullets are most
likely to disintegrate. The occasional spectacular kill does not outweigh the unreliability
that will be seen. Comparisons between different calibers and bullet weights in this analysis,
as suggested by the author, are an absurdity for reasons outlined previously.
They are simply not valid.

III.e. Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula

I almost hate to comment on this one because it happens to be a favorite of one of
my favorite gun writers, a man of outstanding skill and a reputable hunter whose guidance in
such matters should not be taken lightly (and I don't refer to Taylor!).
Taylor himself was also a man of unimpeachable experience and his views on rifles and calibers,
especially for dangerous game, is taken as gospel on the subject.

However, this formula has got to go.

I'm sympathetic to the motivations which brought about its creation.
The "smallbore cranks" were a cult phenomenon at the time, preaching vehemently about
high velocity and kinetic energy. A number of this following ventured to Africa,
and like their predecessors in the heyday of blackpowder "express" cartridges,
experienced miserable failures in the field, sometimes with fatal consequences to the
shooter or guides. Taylor was attempting to counter this "scientific" kind of argument
with a kind of scientific methodology. Applying his many years of experience to the
problem (and it must be confessed, his biases as well), he developed a formula which
favored the kind of bullets and cartridges he knew to work reliably:

TKO = Bullet Weight (lbs) x Impact Velocity (fps) x Bullet Diameter (in)

Regrettably, this formula is as misleading as any kinetic energy figures or OGW
or any other I've seen. For example, Taylor himself acknowledged that there wasn't
any appreciable difference in the killing performance of the various
.400s, .416s, .450s, .465s, .470s, .475s, and .500s on dangerous game when loaded
with reliable bullets of sound construction.
But his TKO formula (as often interpreted) exaggerates any difference that might exist
because it makes the bore diameter equally as important as the velocity;
thus a .488 caliber .475 Jeffery No. 2 is seen to be 7% more potent than
a .458 caliber .450 NE even though they both have the same ballistics.
The comparison becomes even more exaggerated between a .450/.400 NE and a .500 NE
in which the larger bore is calculated to be 55 % more potent, even though Taylor regards
them as being very similar in performance. In fairness to the author, the TKO value is generally
misinterpreted. Taylor himself said of it:

"I do not pretend that they [TKOs] represent "killing power"; but they do give an excellent basis
from which any two rifles may be compared from the point of view of the actual knock-down blow,
or punch, inflicted by the bullet on massive, heavy-boned animals such as elephant, rhino and
buffalo". (African Rifles and Cartridges, pg. xii)

"There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about this word "shock"; men seem to be under the
impression that it implies killing power. But that is erroneous." (African Rifles and Cartridges,
pg. 58)

Elaborating, the author indicates that this stunning effect truly applies for the most part to near misses of the brain on elephant, enabling a more leisurely dispatch with a follow-up shot (possibly of lesser caliber) or, especially, permitting the shooting of other nearby elephants, while the first is down. Such tactics are no longer permissible and were never ethical in my view (Taylor was a self-acknowledged poacher). But the point here is that Taylor never offered this formula as an indicator of killing or even "shocking" performance for body hits.

"Both barrels from a .600 in the belly will have little more apparent effect on [an elephant] than a single shot from a .275 in the same place." (African Rifles and Cartridges, pg. 59)

11-11-2008, 02:54 AM
In the TKO formula Weight of the bullet in pounds. 7700grains per pound.

Example: (40gr/7700)*1200fps@100yds*.224= 1.3978

David Valdina
11-11-2008, 06:27 AM
Everything I have read says there are 7,000 gr. per pound

11-12-2008, 01:51 AM
Late night typo thanks for catching that. You are correct 7000grains = 1lbs.

11-12-2008, 06:22 AM
Have fun:


Paul Fielder
11-17-2008, 06:42 PM
.....thanks!! Ragged hole @ 75yds:-)