Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Rimfire vs centerfire ammo: Ultimate beginner’s guide

Published

on

Rimfire vs centerfire ammo Ultimate beginners guide

Modern ammunition comes in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, but generally exists in one of two forms: rimfire and centerfire. In this guide, we’ll explain the differences between rimfire vs centerfireammo, while explaining the pros and cons of each option.

So what’s the difference?

Rimfire vs Centerfire

The answer has to do with the location of the ignition primer on the head of each round. Both rimfire and centerfire cartridges consist of the same four parts: a primer, a propellant (e.g. gunpowder), a bullet, and a case to hold them all together. Every cartridge also works in fundamentally the same way: the gun’s firing pin strikes the primer and creates a small explosion, which ignites the gunpowder and propels the bullet out the barrel.

Note: It is common to hear people refer to a round or cartridge as a “bullet,” but a bullet is technically just the projectile component of a cartridge.

The difference between a rimfire cartridge and a centerfire cartridge is the location of the primer on the head of the cartridge. Rimfire cartridges have the primer spun into the rim of the cartridge head, while centerfire cartridges have the primer in a metal cup located in—you guessed it—the center. By extension, firearms that use centerfire ammunition strike the cartridge in the center, while firearms that use rimfire ammunition strike the cartridge somewhere along the rim.

Rimfire vs Centerfire Primers

The vast majority of modern ammunition is centerfire. Any common ammo larger than .22 caliber is more or less guaranteed to be a centerfire design. This includes ammunition for handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

But rimfire ammunition is still quite common, particularly for use in .22 caliber firearms. In fact, the .22 LR cartridge is by far the most popular ammunition in the world today in terms of the number of units sold.

Now that you know the technical differences between rimfire and centerfire ammunition, we can give you some more information about each ammo type, including their pros and cons.

Basics of Rimfire Ammunition

First up is rimfire ammunition, which was created in 1845 by a French inventor named Louis Nicolas Auguste Flobert. Flobert’s original design was intended for use in indoor shooting ranges and consisted of a percussion cap directly attached to a bullet, with no other propellant in between. Today’s .22 BB and .22 CB ammunition still use this same design, but in 1857, some manufacturers began using black powder to facilitate greater bullet velocities.

Early rimfire ammunition was available in a variety of calibers, from .22 and smaller all the way up to 0.58. However, today it is rare to see rimfire cartridges larger than a .22. This shift occurred primarily because of the introduction of smokeless powder in the late 19th century.

Smokeless powder generates much higher pressures than black powder does, which presents problems for the rimfire design. Rimfire rounds are made of thin brass to ensure that the firing pin can crush and ignite the primer spun within the case. Large-caliber rounds required too much powder for rimfire cases to be able to handle without blowing apart, so smaller rounds became the norm for this design.

Rimfire Ammunition Pros and Cons

By now you’ve probably figured out one of the biggest downsides to rimfire ammunition is that it only comes in calibers of .22 and below. If you’re interested in larger calibers, centerfire ammunition will be your only option.

An additional downside of rimfire cartridges is that they cannot be reloaded and reused. Rimfire ammo’s characteristic thin brass casing makes the cartridges quite fragile, which is why rimfire cartridges become permanently warped after being fired.

Yet another shortcoming of rimfire ammunition—as anyone who’s spent much time shooting a .22 will certainly be familiar with—is that the cartridges are known to have reliability issues. This characteristic makes rimfire ammunition less appealing if you are looking for a firearm for self-defense purposes, as reliability is paramount in a self-defense situation. With that said, .22 calibers are generally not even thought to be sufficient for self-defense, except potentially as an option for those with disabilities who are incapable of handling the recoil of larger calibers.

But rimfire rounds are not all bad! There’s a reason why .22s are as popular as they are: rimfire ammunition is cheap and produces very low recoil, making it easy to shoot. If you’re looking for a firearm to use for plinking or varmint hunting—or if you’re looking for an introductory gun that won’t cost you an arm and a leg—then a firearm chambered in .22 LR is well worth your consideration.

If you’re looking for more than that, however, then you’ll want to learn about centerfire ammunition.

Check out the best 22 Rifles and best 22 Handguns.

Basics of Centerfire Ammunition

Centerfire ammunition is characterized by a metal cup containing a primary explosive that is placed into a cavity in the head of each cartridge. With centerfire ammunition, a firearm’s firing pin strikes the metal cup, which crushes the primary explosive between the cup and an anvil within the cartridge. The crushed explosive then ignites the powder and propels the bullet.

The earliest true centerfire ammunition was created in 1829 by a French inventor named Clement Pottet. Centerfire rounds were refined over the following decades by a number of inventors around the world, most notably by Hiram Berdan and Edward Mounier Boxer, whose centerfire designs are still in use today.

The difference between Berdan and Boxer centerfire rounds has to do with the placement of the anvil within the cartridge. You don’t need to worry too much about the two models, however, because firearms intended to shoot centerfire ammo will generally have no problem shooting either one. The primary thing to keep in mind is that Boxer-primed rounds are significantly easier to reload, so if you wish to reuse casings, we recommend going with Boxer.

As stated above, centerfire rounds became the new ammunition standard because they could be built with durable enough materials to handle the increased pressure created by smokeless powder, even for very large caliber rounds. The stronger materials, along with the somewhat more complicated design, mean that centerfire ammo is significantly more expensive to manufacture. But the upsides of the centerfire design are worth the increased cost, which is why centerfire rounds are now the standard for military and self-defense purposes.

Centerfire Pros and Cons

The pros and cons of centerfire ammunition are simply the reverse of the pros and cons for rimfire ammunition.

Centerfire ammunition is available in larger calibers, which makes it more suitable for self-defense and most hunting purposes. It is also reloadable, meaning you can reuse your old cartridges rather than having to buy new ones, if handloading is your thing.

Another important advantage is that centerfire ammunition is reliable, meaning it is far less likely to fail than rimfire ammunition. This characteristic makes centerfire ammo particularly valuable for self-defense, because a failed round could potentially be the difference between life and death—which isn’t something you want to risk.

The only downside of centerfire ammunition is that it is significantly more expensive than rimfire ammunition is. However, most gun enthusiasts would agree that the advantages provided by centerfire rounds are more than enough to offset the increased costs.

The original article can be accessed at GunPros.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

Why isn’t gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist?

Published

on

By

Why isnt gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist

Liberty [Gun] Control is rooted in racism. It also adversely affects women. Why isn’t it considered to be racist and sexist?

A recent video from One America News Network entitled: ‘Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights’ made this very important point on the topic of Liberty Control. The basic facts of science have one sex at a disadvantage to the other, with guns being the great equalizer.

Why doesn’t the Left have to answer for the sexism and racism of Liberty control?

These days, the national socialist Left wields pejoratives Racism and Sexism like an assault weapon. So why aren’t these labels applied to them for their incessant attacks against freedom? Firearms are the great equalizers, with the Left’s gun confiscation agenda having a disproportionate effect on women and minorities.  Somehow the Left escapes these facts being applied to them, while they exploit those words with abandon.

We’ve already detailed the racism aspect of this issue here, and case for Liberty control being sexist made in this video.

Why the gun is civilization..

We will wrap this up with a column written in 2007 by Marko Kloos on a WordPress blogging site the Munchkin wrangler. It encapsulates the issue of firearms down to one proposition on how human being deal with each other.

MARCH 23, 2007 by MARKO KLOOS
Why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[Emphasis added]

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

If you support the President, help him see gun control won’t work

Published

on

If you support the President help him see gun control wont work

Some say the President and GOP will lose the 2020 election if they don’t do something to slow down gun violence. Others say the President and GOP will lose if the embrace gun control. To some extent, both are right, but for very different reasons.

If they do nothing that reduces gun violence, they’ll lose. But here’s the thing. Universal background checks, red flag gun laws, and “assault weapons” bans will not reduce gun violence. We can see this demonstrated with absolute clarity by examining where gun violence happens the most. Guess what… and this may shock you if you haven’t been paying attention… but gun violence is most prevalent where gun control is most obtuse. If gun control worked, Chicago would be at the bottom of the list for gun crimes because their gun control laws are extreme.

If red flag gun laws worked, Baltimore would have seen a dramatic reduction in gun violence following one of the loosest versions of the law passing in 2018. Instead, they’ve seen an INCREASE in firearm homicides despite 788 Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) applied for since the laws passage.

Baltimore’s homicides by firearm RISE 13% since red flag gun law went into effect

Baltimore is pacing for a 13% increase in gun-related homicides since the red flag gun law went into effect.

Following the mass shootings two weeks ago in El Paso and Dayton, emotions have been high. Even many 2nd-Amendment-defending Republican lawmakers are starting to bend in favor of embracing red flag gun laws. They’re an ideal choice for trying to look like they’re fixing the mass shooting problem, but despite 17 states enacting the law since 2012, there have been zero examples of a potential mass shooter who was stopped.

Here’s how the 2020 narrative regarding gun control will play out. If the GOP and the President back any of these gun control measures and they fail to make a dent in gun violence, Democrats will say they’re doing too little and actually use these efforts to condemn the President. And as people see the GOP’s gun control didn’t work, they’ll start to believe maybe the Democrats have the right answers. If, on the other hand, we stay focused on mental illness, getting more guns in the hands of good guys, and healing the fractured spirit of the nation, we can see a reduction in gun violence. There are ways to address gun violence without gun control.

Now, let’s say the President listens to his progressive advisers and enacts gun control measures. There’s little chance his supporters will vote Democrat; we don’t cut off our noses to spite our faces. But the passion, fundraising, and intangible support will diminish. Right now, the President needs his base to remain as passionate as possible if we’re going to overcome the tremendous bias in mainstream media. The way to win in 2020 is to galvanize the conservative base to draw in moderates and Independents behind a movement of pro-America and pro-American policies.

Gun control is neither pro-America nor pro-American. It’s a lukewarm appeasement to the left that won’t vote for him no matter what he does with guns. His progressive advisers who are pushing him towards gun control are flat-out wrong.

Supporting the President does not mean echoing bad advice by progressive members of his team. He will listen to voters and stop this gun control madness before it begins if we let him know we support the 2nd Amendment.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Dan Bongino calls out Antifa for what they really are

Published

on

Dan Bongino calls out Antifa for what they really are

There’s a strange series of contradictions within the Antifa movement. They claim to be anti-fascist, yet their actions can only be categorized as fascist suppression techniques. They claim to be against racism and misogyny, yet they intimidate any minority or woman who doesn’t agree with them. They pretend to be brave, yet they hide behind masks.

Conservative pundit Dan Bongino knows a thing or two about fighting fascism, stopping bigotry, and being brave. As an outspoken commentator and former Secret Service agent, Bongino has done more to defend this country and promote the proper ideologies we need in order to prevent fascism from ever rearing its ugly head here. He’s also no fan of Antifa.

As he notes, the real agenda of Antifa isn’t anti-fascism. Their name really implies they’re anti-FA – First Amendment. Even as they fight “hate speech,” they do so in ways that are designed to suppress our freedoms to speak. They’re quickly becoming a parody of the old progressive movements, albeit more dangerous today.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending