Author Topic: .22 TCM  (Read 5341 times)

alfsauve

  • Semper Vigilantes
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6745
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 299
.22 TCM
« on: March 04, 2013, 08:15:55 PM »
No one's started a conversation on the 22TCM.

I was thinking. (Dangerous, I know.)

Comparing this with some other rounds.

Power Factor is basically a measure of momentum, just with small units of measure.  Mass * Velocity.  In our case
this is Grains times kilo-Feet/Second.  (not exactly Newtons, but if we compare all bullets the same its okay)

So this new round out of a pistol only has a PF of 80.  That's not much compared to say a 9mm 125gr bullet at 1,000fps which would have a PF of 125.  Or say a .44mag 240gr bullet traveling at 1,200fps which would have a PF of 288.

The Muzzle Energy brings it's status up a bit.

.22TCM  354 fr-lbf (ME)
9mm  277
44mag 766

(somebody check me on my examples.   I've been known to think I was wrong on occasion.)


BUT it belies all the "numbers" because of it's extreme velocity and what happens on the terminal end.  How it expands to tear up the inside of the target counts for a lot.    I'd love to see some of the penetration tests re-done with this cartridge to see how it would perform in a "house" type environment.  How many layers of sheet rock and plywood.  Also how it does through clothing into gel and through other mediums like glass and bone.

Very impressive little sucker.  
Will work for ammo
USAF MAC 437th MAW 1968-1972

brushmore

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 251
  • NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: .22 TCM
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2013, 03:42:52 PM »
I was thinking the same type of thing when I saw the episode on the Philippines.  Since there was little recoil I was thinking this could make a good defensive cartridges and wondering how this would stack up.

ellis4538

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3455
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: .22 TCM
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2013, 05:12:04 PM »
Might be a good dr outside but I would hate to have to use it in a car or in the house!  Veeeeeery loooooud!

Richard

PS:  I know, I have heard about auditory exclusion or whatever but I don't trust what's left of my hearing to chance.
Used to be "The only thing to FEAR was FEAR ITSELF", nowadays "The only thing to FEAR is GETTING CAUGHT!"

TAB

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9855
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 79
Re: .22 TCM
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2013, 12:14:46 AM »
we had a topic about this round in the handgun section not too long ago.   
I always break all the clay pigeons,  some times its even with lead.

alfsauve

  • Semper Vigilantes
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6745
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: .22 TCM
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2013, 04:12:51 PM »
Duh. I didn't remember it and when I did a search the other day on TCM it didn't bring up anything.  I must have mistyped something because a search today brings up all those old links.

As usual I'm a day late and a dollar short.

Will work for ammo
USAF MAC 437th MAW 1968-1972

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: .22 TCM
« Reply #5 on: Today at 08:06:37 PM »

Sean from Vt

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: .22 TCM
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2013, 03:12:46 PM »
Does anyone remember the 224 BOZ? It was a 10mm case necked down. The development platforms were a Colt 1911A1 and a Glock Model 20. I'm just wondering if Armscor's production capability is the only difference between the success of this round and the failure of the BOZ?

Strider

  • Very Active Forum Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: .22 TCM
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2013, 11:08:46 PM »
The roound sounds great for varmits and such. Great hydroststic shock but not enough penetration for my taste as a defensive weapon. I might look into getting one for fun.
Semper Fi

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk