22lr vs magnum reliability

[shanep0017]

Hey everyone!
Been a while since I've been here but I would like to get some opinions. I used to have a 22lr mini but sold it off, as much as I loved the little revolver I had rounds that I was carrying fail to fire and it turned me off of using a rimfire for defense purposes. In your experience is 22 magnum more reliable than 22lr?
I wasn't using cheap bulk ammo, these were Federal Punch and CCI Mini Mag and the rounds were only carried for maybe 3 months. I'm considering getting back into the mini game but I'm still hesitant after my last experience. I know any rimfire is not going to be as reliable as a centerfire but I'm wondering what you guys think about lr vs magnum in the reliability department?
Also, for those of you who have 32 or 380 guardians or any of the small 380 lcp sized pocket guns, has there ever been a situation where a 380 pocket pistol couldn't be carried but you were able to pack a mini revolver?
I really wish NAA would make a mini revolver in 25 acp or 32 acp...I would give up a round or 2 in exchange for having a more reliable centerfire caliber in a mini revolver. A 25 should be doable in either 4 or 5 shot and maybe a 3 shot 32. 🤔
If I do get back into the mini game I'm thinking either a Black Widow or possibly the Wasp. The BW might be too big since I'm going for smaller than a LCP but the 22 mag Wasp with the longer barrel and some boot grips might be the ticket. Either the BW or Wasp with boot grips would resemble a mini python and I've been thinking about doing that for a while anyway.

[bearcatter]

...........I'm wondering what you guys think about lr vs magnum in the reliability department?
Also, for those of you who have 32 or 380 guardians or any of the small 380 lcp sized pocket guns, has there ever been a situation where a 380 pocket pistol couldn't be carried but you were able to pack a mini revolver?

To me, rimfire is rimfire, regardless of the caliber. Rimfire has iffy ignition. Others may have a different opinion. There are no new .25s, and .25 ammo is too hard to find. So I went up a notch to .32. Works for me.

I don't see any reason a Guardian 32 couldn't be carried. It will even fit in a shirt pocket. I can't speak for the larger 380. If you don't have a pocket, or too much love handle, a clip-on IWB works even without a belt. Nothing works if you're naked ..  ... I always have a pocket.

[camo]

I can't complain about either .22 LR OR .22 mag. Not counting my deer Rifle and shotguns,That's pretty much all I've shot thru the years. I've had very few fail to fire LF and I can't recall ever having a .22 mag fail to fire. But I haven't shot near the number of .22 mags as I have .22 LR either. Probably not much help, just my experience.

[Canoeal]

More likely is that the 22 you had might have had a weakened spring. Early on one of my 22 mags failed to fire and was getting light strke marks. I sent it in for repair and in the last 1000 rounds or so, I might have had 5 misfires. I use Gold Dot for carry and some of my practice but I have used Hornady CD and CCI for target too.

[heyjoe]

testing has showed that 22 magnum is more reliable than 22 lr.

as to your other question when i am at the beach wearing a speedo, there isnt enough room for a guardian, but i can carry a mini in an empty soda cup, with a cover and straw, no one the wiser.

[dinooch]

My 22LR mini revolver to me is like the old Jello motto "There's always room for Jello". My wearing light shorts at home gotta run to the store etc. gun. Mine has not misfired and I've shot it a bunch. It's way better than nothing and perfect for dog walking.

[shanep0017]

Thanks for the replies everyone!!! I might just be getting another mini after all. Not sure which one yet but the option is starting to sound better and better. I was already thinking about it but after today I think I'm going back to the mini. I went to the range this morning and put some rounds through my DB380, got home and cleaned it and part of the trigger bar is bent forward somehow. It was a great little pocket pistol at first but after this situation I'll probably never trust it again. Wether they fix it or I do it's probably getting sold.

[heyjoe]

Thanks for the replies everyone!!! I might just be getting another mini after all. Not sure which one yet but the option is starting to sound better and better. I was already thinking about it but after today I think I'm going back to the mini. I went to the range this morning and put some rounds through my DB380, got home and cleaned it and part of the trigger bar is bent forward somehow. It was a great little pocket pistol at first but after this situation I'll probably never trust it again. Wether they fix it or I do it's probably getting sold.

i would recommend the 1 1/8" mini revolver convertible which includes both cylinders LR and Magnum. the best of both worlds. cheaper practice ammo and carry magnum

[Rick_Jorgenson]

The 1 1/8"  Magnum or Wasp with the small rubber grips is probably the smallest "footprint" with minimal "bulk" (vs. the PUG) you can get in the "Magnum Frame" size NAA.

And I agree, get both cylinders. The cost is minimal up front and it does help resale value later. Another advantage that was mentioned before, you can use Long Rifle ammo for practice.

Good luck in your hunt for a new NAA! And... don't forget to post a photo!

[TruthTellers]

I have not found .22 Magnum to be more reliable than .22 LR, but for years all I have heard is people say it is. Maybe it's a relative statement, maybe people were thinking .22 Mag is more reliable than cheap bulk packed .22 LR and there may be something to that, but I doubt anyone seriously considering carrying .22 LR are using ammo from bulk bricks for defense, instead they'd be using premium .22 LR like Velocitor or Federal Punch. Comparing .22 Mag to something like Flinchtester Plight Box or Phlegmington Blunderduds isn't an apples to apples comparison, what would be is compare the cheapest non CCI .22 Mag you can find and you'll get duds.

CCI's quality is far and away better than anyone else's when it comes to priming rimfire cases so I would be hesitant to trust other brands for defensive use and they're kind enough to answer any questions about their products in a timely manner. A couple months ago I got sick of all the speculation by people about how .22 Mag is more reliable simply because it costs more and the theory that it's primed on some uber reliable and accurate machines with top notch QC, so I contacted CCI and asked them if there's any difference in the way that they prime .22 Mag compared to .22 LR.

They replied the next day and told me that the only difference in the priming method is they use a slightly different compound and more of said compound to improve ignition with the larger powder charge, so basically they use a magnum priming compound for .22 Magnum.

Perhaps the .22 Mag has a larger opening in the rim that allows the priming compound to flow into it better than LR, IDK, the bottom line is that the ammo companies don't have special machines or special people making .22 Magnum, the same people and machines who make .22 LR are the same ones making .22 Mag and the frequency and volume of testing is also equal. The reason .22 Mag costs more is it uses a more expensive bullet and uses more brass and powder than .22 LR does, but also it doesn't sell in the volume that .22 LR does, so much like with 9mm being cheaper than .25 ACP even tho it uses more raw materials that's due to the benefit of mass production.

[heyjoe]

I have not found .22 Magnum to be more reliable than .22 LR, but for years all I have heard is people say it is. Maybe it's a relative statement, maybe people were thinking .22 Mag is more reliable than cheap bulk packed .22 LR and there may be something to that, but I doubt anyone seriously considering carrying .22 LR are using ammo from bulk bricks for defense, instead they'd be using premium .22 LR like Velocitor or Federal Punch. Comparing .22 Mag to something like Flinchtester Plight Box or Phlegmington Blunderduds isn't an apples to apples comparison, what would be is compare the cheapest non CCI .22 Mag you can find and you'll get duds.

CCI's quality is far and away better than anyone else's when it comes to priming rimfire cases so I would be hesitant to trust other brands for defensive use and they're kind enough to answer any questions about their products in a timely manner. A couple months ago I got sick of all the speculation by people about how .22 Mag is more reliable simply because it costs more and the theory that it's primed on some uber reliable and accurate machines with top notch QC, so I contacted CCI and asked them if there's any difference in the way that they prime .22 Mag compared to .22 LR.

They replied the next day and told me that the only difference in the priming method is they use a slightly different compound and more of said compound to improve ignition with the larger powder charge, so basically they use a magnum priming compound for .22 Magnum.

Perhaps the .22 Mag has a larger opening in the rim that allows the priming compound to flow into it better than LR, IDK, the bottom line is that the ammo companies don't have special machines or special people making .22 Magnum, the same people and machines who make .22 LR are the same ones making .22 Mag and the frequency and volume of testing is also equal. The reason .22 Mag costs more is it uses a more expensive bullet and uses more brass and powder than .22 LR does, but also it doesn't sell in the volume that .22 LR does, so much like with 9mm being cheaper than .25 ACP even tho it uses more raw materials that's due to the benefit of mass production.

your theory does not match my experiences with 22 magnum and 22 lr. i have found 22 magnum to be almost as reliable as centerfire rounds, and have had failures to fire across a spectrum of brands of 22 long rifle, as well as bullets being lose in the case . i see a definite quality difference between magnum and long rifle.

[bleak_window]

.22 Mag ammo can handle moisture a lot better than .22LR ammo.

[TruthTellers]

I have not found .22 Magnum to be more reliable than .22 LR, but for years all I have heard is people say it is. Maybe it's a relative statement, maybe people were thinking .22 Mag is more reliable than cheap bulk packed .22 LR and there may be something to that, but I doubt anyone seriously considering carrying .22 LR are using ammo from bulk bricks for defense, instead they'd be using premium .22 LR like Velocitor or Federal Punch. Comparing .22 Mag to something like Flinchtester Plight Box or Phlegmington Blunderduds isn't an apples to apples comparison, what would be is compare the cheapest non CCI .22 Mag you can find and you'll get duds.

CCI's quality is far and away better than anyone else's when it comes to priming rimfire cases so I would be hesitant to trust other brands for defensive use and they're kind enough to answer any questions about their products in a timely manner. A couple months ago I got sick of all the speculation by people about how .22 Mag is more reliable simply because it costs more and the theory that it's primed on some uber reliable and accurate machines with top notch QC, so I contacted CCI and asked them if there's any difference in the way that they prime .22 Mag compared to .22 LR.

They replied the next day and told me that the only difference in the priming method is they use a slightly different compound and more of said compound to improve ignition with the larger powder charge, so basically they use a magnum priming compound for .22 Magnum.

Perhaps the .22 Mag has a larger opening in the rim that allows the priming compound to flow into it better than LR, IDK, the bottom line is that the ammo companies don't have special machines or special people making .22 Magnum, the same people and machines who make .22 LR are the same ones making .22 Mag and the frequency and volume of testing is also equal. The reason .22 Mag costs more is it uses a more expensive bullet and uses more brass and powder than .22 LR does, but also it doesn't sell in the volume that .22 LR does, so much like with 9mm being cheaper than .25 ACP even tho it uses more raw materials that's due to the benefit of mass production.

your theory does not match my experiences with 22 magnum and 22 lr. i have found 22 magnum to be almost as reliable as centerfire rounds, and have had failures to fire across a spectrum of brands of 22 long rifle, as well as bullets being lose in the case . i see a definite quality difference between magnum and long rifle.

You're factoring into account some of the lowest quality .22 LR ammo and making it out to be indicative of the caliber as a whole. If we forget about all rimfire except CCI, the .22 LR and .22 Mag has the same failure rate, in my experience. Another factor is the total amount of each that people shoot and I know of no one who has shot as much .22 Mag as they have .22 LR; when you shoot more of one thing vs another you will notice more failures with the one you shoot more of, it's simple statistics.

And to bring this into the fold of NAA revolvers, I've had probably as many duds in .22 Mag in my NAA's than I have CCI .22 LR ammo. Gonna tell me there's something wrong with my NAA's? I have the same issue in other revolvers.

When across multiple revolvers I have issues with the same ammo, it's more likely the ammo is the problem than the guns.

[heyjoe]

I have not found .22 Magnum to be more reliable than .22 LR, but for years all I have heard is people say it is. Maybe it's a relative statement, maybe people were thinking .22 Mag is more reliable than cheap bulk packed .22 LR and there may be something to that, but I doubt anyone seriously considering carrying .22 LR are using ammo from bulk bricks for defense, instead they'd be using premium .22 LR like Velocitor or Federal Punch. Comparing .22 Mag to something like Flinchtester Plight Box or Phlegmington Blunderduds isn't an apples to apples comparison, what would be is compare the cheapest non CCI .22 Mag you can find and you'll get duds.

CCI's quality is far and away better than anyone else's when it comes to priming rimfire cases so I would be hesitant to trust other brands for defensive use and they're kind enough to answer any questions about their products in a timely manner. A couple months ago I got sick of all the speculation by people about how .22 Mag is more reliable simply because it costs more and the theory that it's primed on some uber reliable and accurate machines with top notch QC, so I contacted CCI and asked them if there's any difference in the way that they prime .22 Mag compared to .22 LR.

They replied the next day and told me that the only difference in the priming method is they use a slightly different compound and more of said compound to improve ignition with the larger powder charge, so basically they use a magnum priming compound for .22 Magnum.

Perhaps the .22 Mag has a larger opening in the rim that allows the priming compound to flow into it better than LR, IDK, the bottom line is that the ammo companies don't have special machines or special people making .22 Magnum, the same people and machines who make .22 LR are the same ones making .22 Mag and the frequency and volume of testing is also equal. The reason .22 Mag costs more is it uses a more expensive bullet and uses more brass and powder than .22 LR does, but also it doesn't sell in the volume that .22 LR does, so much like with 9mm being cheaper than .25 ACP even tho it uses more raw materials that's due to the benefit of mass production.

your theory does not match my experiences with 22 magnum and 22 lr. i have found 22 magnum to be almost as reliable as centerfire rounds, and have had failures to fire across a spectrum of brands of 22 long rifle, as well as bullets being lose in the case . i see a definite quality difference between magnum and long rifle.

You're factoring into account some of the lowest quality .22 LR ammo and making it out to be indicative of the caliber as a whole. If we forget about all rimfire except CCI, the .22 LR and .22 Mag has the same failure rate, in my experience. Another factor is the total amount of each that people shoot and I know of no one who has shot as much .22 Mag as they have .22 LR; when you shoot more of one thing vs another you will notice more failures with the one you shoot more of, it's simple statistics.

And to bring this into the fold of NAA revolvers, I've had probably as many duds in .22 Mag in my NAA's than I have CCI .22 LR ammo. Gonna tell me there's something wrong with my NAA's? I have the same issue in other revolvers.

When across multiple revolvers I have issues with the same ammo, it's more likely the ammo is the problem than the guns.

you assume a lot with no evidence.

1, i have fired more 22 magnum in my minis than 22lr or 22 short

2. i have used quality 22 lr, such as cci

3. i have had only a scant few failures to fire with 22 magnum, in the 20 years i have had minis, and many more even with quality 22 lr

[Canoeal]

You certainly did not factor in my experience with 22 mag only. I cannot speak to 22 lr, because I won't waste my time, but 5 misfires in 1000 rounds using quality 22 mags (Gold dot, Hornady and CCI) is about as good as it gets. I suspect centerfire rounds would not fare much better. My BW has by target count about 1500 rounds, my Wasp about 900 and my Charter Arms about 2000 rounds. The misfires since have my BW spring replaced for all guns total has been 5 rounds.
Oh, and at one point I did have the Wasp repaired too, with a solid hammer. Mine cracked and I think the solid hammer fires better. JMO

[TruthTellers]

I have not found .22 Magnum to be more reliable than .22 LR, but for years all I have heard is people say it is. Maybe it's a relative statement, maybe people were thinking .22 Mag is more reliable than cheap bulk packed .22 LR and there may be something to that, but I doubt anyone seriously considering carrying .22 LR are using ammo from bulk bricks for defense, instead they'd be using premium .22 LR like Velocitor or Federal Punch. Comparing .22 Mag to something like Flinchtester Plight Box or Phlegmington Blunderduds isn't an apples to apples comparison, what would be is compare the cheapest non CCI .22 Mag you can find and you'll get duds.

CCI's quality is far and away better than anyone else's when it comes to priming rimfire cases so I would be hesitant to trust other brands for defensive use and they're kind enough to answer any questions about their products in a timely manner. A couple months ago I got sick of all the speculation by people about how .22 Mag is more reliable simply because it costs more and the theory that it's primed on some uber reliable and accurate machines with top notch QC, so I contacted CCI and asked them if there's any difference in the way that they prime .22 Mag compared to .22 LR.

They replied the next day and told me that the only difference in the priming method is they use a slightly different compound and more of said compound to improve ignition with the larger powder charge, so basically they use a magnum priming compound for .22 Magnum.

Perhaps the .22 Mag has a larger opening in the rim that allows the priming compound to flow into it better than LR, IDK, the bottom line is that the ammo companies don't have special machines or special people making .22 Magnum, the same people and machines who make .22 LR are the same ones making .22 Mag and the frequency and volume of testing is also equal. The reason .22 Mag costs more is it uses a more expensive bullet and uses more brass and powder than .22 LR does, but also it doesn't sell in the volume that .22 LR does, so much like with 9mm being cheaper than .25 ACP even tho it uses more raw materials that's due to the benefit of mass production.

your theory does not match my experiences with 22 magnum and 22 lr. i have found 22 magnum to be almost as reliable as centerfire rounds, and have had failures to fire across a spectrum of brands of 22 long rifle, as well as bullets being lose in the case . i see a definite quality difference between magnum and long rifle.

You're factoring into account some of the lowest quality .22 LR ammo and making it out to be indicative of the caliber as a whole. If we forget about all rimfire except CCI, the .22 LR and .22 Mag has the same failure rate, in my experience. Another factor is the total amount of each that people shoot and I know of no one who has shot as much .22 Mag as they have .22 LR; when you shoot more of one thing vs another you will notice more failures with the one you shoot more of, it's simple statistics.

And to bring this into the fold of NAA revolvers, I've had probably as many duds in .22 Mag in my NAA's than I have CCI .22 LR ammo. Gonna tell me there's something wrong with my NAA's? I have the same issue in other revolvers.

When across multiple revolvers I have issues with the same ammo, it's more likely the ammo is the problem than the guns.

you assume a lot with no evidence.

1, i have fired more 22 magnum in my minis than 22lr or 22 short

2. i have used quality 22 lr, such as cci

3. i have had only a scant few failures to fire with 22 magnum, in the 20 years i have had minis, and many more even with quality 22 lr

Would you let us know what .22 Mag ammo you're shooting? You've obviously found a good load that I should take a look at as I've had far more failures than you with .22 Mag in less total rounds fired.

[PocketMagnum]

I purchased my first NAA revolver about a month ago, the Wasp in .22 LR and .22 Magnum. With 500 rounds of .22 LR, I had seven failure to fires using Remington Golden Bullets. I have fired 100 rounds of Winchester Super X .22 Magnum and have had zero failure to fires.