Revolver - .22 or .22 Mag.?

N

NativeCraft

New member
I'm looking to get a nice revolver to carry with me when I hunt, trap, and generally hang out in the woods. To be used for dispatch of animals, snakes, protection, plinking, hunting, etc.. Considering something like this: Taurus 94 revolver but can't decide between .22 or .22 Mag. Anyone have any opinions or suggestions as to which caliber to go with?
 
I use a Ruger Single Six with the interchangable cylinders. I use the .22 Mag most of the time, especially when I am after big game (ground squirrels), because I am carrying my 77/22 mag. Only have to take one kind of ammo /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif. I need to have things simple /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif. The 22 mag provides more poop when you need it.
 
I have that gun in a 22 LR 9 shot stainless. It handles well, points well and shoots well. Over time I have become increasinly attached to the gun. The trigger pull is very heavy unless the hammer is cocked first. Replacing springs is not recomended in this gun. I also have a Ruger single six with interchangeable 22lr and 22 wmr cylinders. This gun was tested using a shooting chrony for velocity only in comparing the velocity of the WMR to the LR. There was very
little difference in velocity when comparing the CCI velocitor LR to the Winchester 40 grn JHP WMR. I dont believe that there is enough barrel length in a revolver to totaly utilize the potential of the WMR cartridge. The 22 lr also allows a variety of ammo to be used from the cheap plinking low noise aguila super colibri to the CCI velcitor hunting round. As stated earlier the the Ruger Single six comes with interchangeable cylinders, If on a budget the Heritage Rough Rider, although a little less refined should serve you well. Another gun you may want to consider would be the S&W model 63. The weight is close to the taurus 64 with a much better trigger. They are hard to come by but will give you more than your money back down the road, basically an investment that you can shoot. Hope this will help in your decision making,



Junkie
 
I think that everyone should own at least one .22LR pistola, either semi-auto or revolver. The ammunition is cheap and they are just plain fun to shoot. Some of my fondest memories of childhood are of my dad and I popping tin cans with his .22LR revolver.

I have nothing against the .22WM in a pistol, but I just don't shoot them much. The cartridge seems better utilized in a rifle to me. My father's Colt single action has two cylinders, one of each, but the .22WM has seen very little use.

I noticed that you added "protection" to your list of uses. I would not consider either cartridge a "protection" choice.

GrouseSetter
 
NativeCraft:
I, like greg223, have a Ruger Single Six convertible with both .22LR and .22 Mag cylinders. Yes, it is only a single action, but very reliable, very reasonably priced, and something that will last long enough to pass down several generations!

Just picked up one for my boss's wife as she is getting him one for Christmas, and it was $347.00, blued, 5 1/2" bbl.

Regards,
Tim
 
I have a ruger single six and love it, it is a 22LR, but I just absolutly love the revolver, when I am ready to go to .357 or .44 mag, I will be getting annother ruger, as I think they are some of the best revolvers for the money on the market,



Simon R.
 
Quote:
Junkie,
I have looked at the S&W 63, but feel that, in general, S&W has always been overpriced. And when I found this article http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm I became even more enlightened.

Isn't the Ruger Single Six single action only?



NativeCraft, I understand your position and am in some agreement. From the standpoint that it is an investment shooter with a darn good trigger it makes sense. But also keep in mind that there are multiple well founded opinions on the same subject matter. I too follow the writings of Chuck Hawks bearing in mind that this is one mans opinion. For example if you read his opinions of the WMR he refers to it as adequate medicine for coyotes up to 125 yds. The general consensus of this site as well as others is quite contrary. The same would go with his assault on the Tikka T3 line of rifles which again most are in dissagreement with. I dont discount his opinions but weigh it in with the status quo in order to make a formable opinion for myself. If you do a reasonable search you will find that the S&W 63 is a good investment shooter and the single six is a well built gun that owners are happy with providing it is what they were looking for in the first place. It your fortunate enough to get a single six before the warning label was stamped on it, it would be a good investment purchase as well.

Junkie
 
I'd stick with the .22 LR. I'm not a big fan of a .22 mag in pistols. It (the 22 mag) has about the same power in a pistol that a .22 LR has in a rifle. Basically means it's to underpowered for anything bigger than close range coon and fox. And a 22 LR pistol will work for close range coon and fox so why spend the extra $$ on ammo.

If you still want to spend $7/box for pistol ammo get a 38 special.

In short, I say get the 22 LR, everyone needs one. If you need more power, skip the 22 mag and get something with power enough for coyotes and such.

CB
 
Sometimes I wonder why we keep comparing the .22 mag from a handgun to a .22 lr from a rifle. Shouldn't we be comparing them both from handguns (since the discussion is usually which handgun to buy), in which the .22 mag has a distinct advantange in power over the long rifle.

I get 965 fps with a 37 gr. hollow point Super-X Long Rifle Hollow Points from my 6" pre model 35, for 76 foot pounds of energy. Using Super-X .22 40 grain hollow point magnums from my 648, I get 1375 fps for 168 foot pounds of energy - well over TWICE the power of the long rifle cartridge. I recently confirmed these figures on my patio with my chrono. This is a very significant difference.

And if cost of shooting is not an overwhelming factor, one can always use the .22 WRF 45 grain cartridges in the magnums. These beat the long rifles only by a little, and are much quieter and very accurate (at least in my revolver). Such flexibilty is great. I would rather (and do) have revolvers in both .22lr and in magnum, but this flexibility can make the magnum a great choice.

(As for comparing the .22 mag from a handgun to the long rifle from a rifle, the .22 mag from the handgun beats the published .22 long rifle high velocilty cartridges (from a rifle) by 17 to 22%, depending on whether one is using solids or hollow points. The Remington Yellow Jacket hollow points do almost equal the .22 mag from a handgun with 165 foot pounds.)
 
It's a real simple answer bhk. Most people know what critters the 22 lr is good for out of a rifle. Small game like rabbits and squirrels, that’s it. That’s why I/we compare the 22 mag in a pistol to the 22 lr in a rifle. Ballistically they are close enough for comparison and are only suitable for the EXACT same game. Even if we use your 22 mag ballistics it just confirms that the 22 mag isn't suitable for anything bigger a big rabbit. Why buy a gun and spend $6-$8/per 50 rounds to shoot rabbits and squirrels when the 22 LR will do it for 2-4 cents per round? Heck, why even bother with the addition cost of the 22 WRF if performance isn't any better than a 22 LR?

Nativecraft, do yourself a favor and if you’re still interested in the 22 mag get a convertible. The Ruger Single-Six is a great gun and if you want cheap the Heritage's aren't bad for the $$.

Maybe bhk or someone can enlighten me/us on how the 22 mag is better than the 38 spl when ammo is comparable in cost and I can take much larger game?

CB
 
Back
Top