At the speeds a .22 long rifle operates at, bullet shape doesn't matter much. Spitzer/sharply pointed projectiles really help on rounds that shoot way over the speed of sound and stay there, but I've read dozens of ballistics tests over the years, and the conclusion was always the same, the plain old round nose works best at less than about 1,800 fps.
Yes i answered the question myself, flatter nose helps with transonic barrier but also inhibits velocity and longer rang shooting as the bullet begins to tumble a low speeds while a sharp nose does well at long rang it's not a target shooter.So in essence a round nose is the perfect mediator between the two.
Among the many .22LR ammos I've experimented with are the CCI MiniMags which seem to be very consistent for the price.
The MiniMags are sold as either "round nose" or "hollow point" (just a dimple) bullets and (I think) that is the only difference between the two.
For me, the MM "hollow points" always seem to out-shoot the "round nose" by a clear margin whenever I compare the two.
Of course, your mileage may vary but I'm thinking that a worthy experiment might be to drill-out a bit of the tip of a sample of one's favorite .22LR to see if there is any improvement.
In many cases in pistol rounds, which approximate the velocity of .22 rounds. The hollowpoint is more accurate. This is apparently due to the profile of the hollowpoint engaging the rifling in a more appropriate-to-accuracy manner.
Drilling a hole in a solid wouldn't equate to this, but could definitely be an interesting project. Be careful to center the hole, and drill to the same exact depth, or the bullets could be all over the place.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.