North American Arms has said that in
the face of a violent confrontation, any gun is better than no gun. In a
similar vein, the NRA’s American Rifleman has stated that the mere presence of
a firearm can often prevent a crime without a shot even being fired. As with
any firearm, if you’re going to carry a mini-revolver for CCW or backup
purposes, ammo selection is critical—arguably even more so, given the
comparatively low power of these weapons. Below are the results of a detailed
chronograph test conducted with the selection of .22 Magnum Loads outlined earlier. The results were
eye-opening, and there are definitely some clear choices to be made if you are
carrying a .22 Magnum as either a backup or primary concealed carry weapon, for
any sort of defensive purpose. Every foot-pound of energy can make the precious
difference with numbers this low, so I hope you will find this article helpful
in your own ammo selection process.
Test
procedure:
For testing these rounds, I used the
North American Arms Pug. At just 1” in length, the Pug’s barrel is the shortest
of the North American Arms .22 WMR mini-revolvers. The Pug is a popular
CCW/backup gun choice for many reasons, including its extremely compact size,
comfortable grip, robust design and usable night sights. With all the other .22
Magnum NAA minis having barrels at least 1/8” longer, we can also safely assume
that one should achieve equal, if not higher velocities with any of the other
models (under the same test conditions), thus making the Pug a logical choice
to test for baseline average velocities.
All data collected was based upon a
total of (at least) ten shots per load. With the chronograph placed 8’ from the
muzzle to ensure a clean reading (closer placement proved inconsistent due to
muzzle blast), all shots were fired from the same fixed position. The revolver
was cleaned after each string of ten shots and allowed to cool between reloads.
Yes, these little things do get warm!
Test results table:
Discussion:
Please note that the
following discussion is based on the calculated energy for these rounds, and
energy is logged here in ft/lbs. All things being equal, the same weight bullet
driven at higher velocity produces more energy, and vice-versa. Bullet design
is a key factor in any defensive round selection, but for academic purposes,
calculating the ft/lbs. of energy at least gives us a basic idea of what is
going on, ballistically speaking. We’ll explore penetration and expansion in a
future article. In the table above, the highest values are highlighted in
green; the lowest in red. Now, let’s get to the results.
CCI
Maxi-Mag
The
ever popular and readily available Max-Mags turned out to be a good all-around,
budget-friendly choice. Nothing especially remarkable in the test data, but
nothing especially negative, either.
 |
| 40 grain JHP @ 1875 fps (rifle) -- 835.6 fps (tested) |
|
|
|
|
Verdict:
Ranked fourth out of seven for energy,
Maxi-Mags make a decent middle-of-the-road choice if you can’t find the winner
(see below) available for immediate purchase. They’re affordably priced, too. While
I found the dedicated self-defense rounds to perform very well overall, CCI’s
Maxi-Mags did just barely inch out Winchester’s PDX1 Defender load by just shy
of one foot-pound (overall average). Their standard deviation and extreme
spread were wildly higher, however—pretty much double that of PDX1. So, these
are definitely not as consistent, at worst producing less energy that PDX1, but
at best doing a slightly better. Bullet design is something else to keep in
mind, however, and I’ll explore that further with some tests in ballistic
gelatin in the future. So overall, they’re
not the most consistent, but you can find them just about anywhere in a pinch.
ft/lbs. rank: 4th
Federal
Premium
Does a light, high-velocity round work
well in a short barrel? Federal Premium
did deliver the highest average velocity of all the rounds tested. But does
that little bit of extra speed make up for the lighter bullet?
 |
| 30 grain JHP @ 2200 fps (rifle) -- 904.9 fps (tested) |
|
|
Verdict:
At least for a short-barreled
mini-revolver, the possible advantages of a higher-velocity, lighter-weight round
just don’t work out mathematically. These might be a fine choice for practice
or plinking, but speaking strictly in terms of energy delivered, these come up
short. Very short. With every bit of power being critical to the performance of
a mini-revolver used for self-defense purposes, you’re probably better off
going with a heavier round. Specialty varmint rounds that fragment more
effectively at higher speeds may be an option to explore, but one has to keep
in mind that in a barrel this short, there isn’t much time to build up that
velocity. At the expense of 10 grains of bullet weight, the Federal Premium
load only gained 22 feet per second over the next closest load, yet came up
short by 16 ft/lbs of energy. There just isn’t enough barrel length to gain the
speed necessary to make these worthwhile. With a slightly higher average
velocity than all the other rounds tested, so much energy was lost due to the
lighter bullet that these came in dead last for energy.
ft/lbs. rank: 7th
Federal
Game-Shok
I figured the heaviest round would
likely produce the slowest velocity, which was the case after testing Federal
Game-Shok and its 50 grain bullet. Unfortunately, these rounds produced an
average of just 761 fps. So does that extra weight make up for the lack of
speed?
 |
| 50 grain JHP @ 1530 fps (rifle) -- 761.37 fps (tested) |
Verdict:
In similarity to the 30 grain Federal
Premium load, for a short-barreled mini-revolver, the advantages of a
lower-velocity, heavier-weight round just don’t work out mathematically,
either. Out of a longer barrel, there might be an advantage, but out of a
mini-revolver as short as the Pug, the velocity is so low that these rounds
netted the second lowest overall energy, just about 4 ft/lbs better than the
Federal Premium round which also did poorly overall. Consistency was good, but
there’s no advantage to being consistently underpowered.
ft/lbs. rank: 6th
Winchester
Super-X
Winchester Super-X is another widely
available option, and the most affordably priced load of all those tested here.
It’s done well for several other folks that have conducted tests similar to
mine. Just how good is it?
 |
| 40 grain JHP @ 1910 fps (rifle) -- 929.59 fps (tested) |
Verdict:
Super-X matched the results of other
tests I’ve seen online, and it did well. In fact, it delivered the 3rd
highest average energy, even edging out Winchester’s own self-defense load,
PDX1 Defender, in
both average velocity and ft/lbs. Bullet design is definitely a factor to be
tested, however, and these rounds also produced the greatest extreme spread. I
also experienced two failures to fire, though the same rounds did fire on a
second strike. One round was also so badly bent out of shape due to the cheap
packaging that it would not fit in the cylinder at all. The good news is, even
the lowest velocity recorded in a 10 round string was comparatively high. I’ll
have to test them in gelatin to see how the compare to the dedicated defense
rounds, but Super-X is low-priced, readily available, and a good performer
(when it works). These are hard to beat for non-critical, non-defense
applications. They make a great choice for practice, plinking, varmint
eradication, etc. I would hesitate to use these for defensive purposes due to
the aforementioned issues, but they otherwise performed well.
ft/lbs. rank: 3rd
Hornady
Critical Defense
The first of three
purpose-built, dedicated self-defense rounds, Hornady’s Critical Defense ammo
promised to deliver a heavier 45 grain, specially designed bullet at higher
velocity from a short barrel—with performance to match .380 ACP. Did it
deliver?
 |
| 45 grain FTX @ 1000 fps (handgun) -- 896.88 fps (tested) |
Short of testing in ballistic gelatin (i.e. purely on paper), yes—the hype appears to be substantiated. Hornady’s Critical Defense load pushed its heavier 45 grain bullet at a respectable overall average velocity. It did this consistently as well, and unlike the 50 grain Federal Game-Shok round and its anemic velocity, Critical Defense was able to make up for the extra weight. It produced the second highest overall energy of all the rounds tested. It will be interesting to see how it performs in clothed ballistic gelatin, especially with its unique polymer tip. Suffice it to say that on paper, these rounds appear to be a solid choice for self-defense purposes.
ft/lbs. rank: 2nd
Speer
Gold Dot Short Barrel Personal Protection
It’s one of the most well-known and
highly regarded lines of self-defense ammunition in standard centerfire rounds.
So how did Speer’s new rimfire version of the famous Gold Dot hollow point
perform?
Verdict:
Best in show! The load with the long
name was long on performance, too. Speer advertises their Gold Dot .22 Magnum
load to be expressly designed for use with short barreled pistols and
revolvers, and the results supported the claims. Not only did Gold Dot deliver
the second highest average velocity (short only of the lightweight and underpowered
Federal Premium rounds), they also netted the highest minimum velocity, the lowest
standard deviation, the smallest extreme spread, and the highest energy. The
average speed came in about 100 fps slower than advertised, but that was out of
a barrel almost 1” shorter than the one used in Speer’s tests. This was the
closest that any of the rounds tested here came to meeting its own claims. Gold
Dot was the most rock-solid for consistency, and the numbers were best overall
in multiple categories. Just edging out Hornady’s Critical Defense load by a
smidge over 2 ft/lbs., Speer’s Gold Dot load is the leader of the pack. It’s no
wonder that so many law enforcement agencies choose Gold Dot loads for their
centerfire weapons, and thankfully that performance has carried over to this
new rimfire offering.
ft/lbs. rank: 1st
Winchester
PDX1 Defender
Rounding out my tests was the new PDX1
Defender load, the third and final dedicated self-defense round available in
this caliber at the time of testing. How did it compare to the two other
defensive loads tested?
Verdict:
Hmm… perhaps most surprising of all
was that PDX1 delivered a lower average velocity than Winchester’s own
budget-priced Super-X load. How and why this could be the case when both Speer
and Hornady were able to deliver higher average and minimum velocities was a
bit of a disconcerting shock for this dedicated self-defense load—especially
coming from the same manufacturer that produces Super-X, which was faster
overall—and with the same bullet weight. To its credit, PDX1 was much more
consistent than Super-X and fired 100% of the time, but it was two steps behind
Super-X for power. It may be the case that PDX1 is optimized for a longer
barrel, but Winchester did not state a specific length in the product specs. Coming
in at just fifth for average energy of the seven rounds tested, PDX1 was also
the most expensive of all three self-defense rounds tested, so that was a bit
disappointing in and of itself. I will test this round along with the other
leaders of this test in a future ballistic gelatin experiment, just in case the
bullet design provides a distinct advantage. For the time being and strictly
going by the chrono, Speer and Hornady’s offerings were both markedly more
consistent and powerful in this series of tests. Maybe it was just a case of a
bad lot, but even if that were true, poor quality control would be another
strike against this round. High-priced, under-performing, and inconsistent by a
factor twice that of the other two self-defense loads tested, I would not
choose this round for CCW/backup gun duty without further testing.
ft/lbs. rank: 5th
Conclusion:
All velocities ultimately fell short
of the advertised claims, which was no surprise considering that each
manufacturer used at least a 1.9” barrel for testing. That being said, if
there’s a clear winner in this roundup, based on the statistical data alone,
Speer’s Gold Dot appears to be a solid choice for defensive ammunition,
followed very closely by Hornady’s Critical Defense. Speer’s Gold Dot also came
the closest to its own advertised performance, even from a barrel almost a full
inch shorter than its test basis. In future testing, I’ll put both the Speer
and Hornady loads in head-to-head tests with ballistic gelatin, as well as give
some of the runner-ups a chance to see if they can make up for their lower
numbers.
A great bonus to these self-defense
loads is that unlike premium centerfire loadings, you’ll get a full 50 rounds
per box. This can come in especially handy if you’d like to test the
reliability in a semiauto pistol like the Keltec PMR-30, and it won’t break the
bank, either. At a price just about a couple of dollars more than regular .22
Magnum ammunition, there’s really no reason not to be using one of the
dedicated self-defense rounds if you are employing your own .22 Magnum firearm
for self-defense purposes.
Please
keep in mind that all of these results were based on the performance through a
1” barrel. The preceding is just a guide of what you might be able to expect
from a similar weapon fired under similar conditions. Your own results may vary
and I would encourage you to complete similar testing with your personal
firearm to decide what is best for you, your equipment and your needs. I hope
you have found this information helpful, and please feel free to send me your
comments and questions. Enter your e-mail address at the FOLLOW THIS BLOG box
above for automatic notifications of new postings, and stay tuned for updates
and new articles. Thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment