10/22 "Barrel Droop"

[Aries64]

Fellow Hiders’,

In this post I will discuss 10/22 “barrel droop” and its negative effects as well as methods of enhancing 10/22 accuracy, consistency, repeatability, and reliability through established, proven machining procedures common on firearms such as threading the barrel into the receiver. I want to make it abundantly clear that this post is not meant to insult, incite, or otherwise offend anyone here or anywhere else who may or may not agree with or understand me, or agree with or understand these procedures. By the same token for those who understand exactly what I am saying I’m not trying to beat you over the head with it – its’ just that I have found that some individuals refuse to acknowledge basic, technical, proven procedures in favor or “shade-tree” mechanics.

Rather, it is meant to dispel some myths and misconceptions about 10/22 barrel droop and to put forth the best way to eliminate it, and in the process to help 10/22 owners obtain a higher degree of accuracy, reliability, and consistency of results when shooting their rifles. If you can open your mind to this please read on. If not, have a nice day.

The above “disclaimer” is put forth because I know of two individuals held in high esteem over at RFC (Rimfire Central) that unequivocally deny the benefits of threading a 10/22 barrel into the receiver – one of these individuals just happens to market an adjustable V-Block to help compensate for barrel droop, which is inherent in the Ruger 10/22 design. This individual also makes very nice Picatinny rails for the Sako Quad, Anschutz, and CZ rifles. No doubt about the quality of those products or his machining skills, but denying the benefits of a threaded barrel/receiver combination while selling an inexpensive, kluge “fix” for barrel droop is an entirely different matter. Another individual does barrel work but does no receiver work for people - he is not an FFL holder. He also denies that threading a barrel and receiver serve any purpose, stating that the best fix for barrel droop is an adjustable V-Block. WTF? I see a conflict-of-interest here too.

And, for “simplicity” in this discussion, lets’ just say 1 MOA = 1.000” at 100 yards, rather than 1.047” at 100 yards. OK, lets’ move along…


<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">The Ruger 10/22</span></span> has been around since the 1960s’ and its’ low price, simplicity of design, ruggedness, and modularity combined with lightweight have ensured the 10/22s’ longevity and popularity. Many find the out-of-the-box accuracy acceptable, and for those who do not a plethora of aftermarket performance parts that rivals that of the ubiquitous Remington Model 700 can certainly address any accuracy concerns. Some also praise the 10/22’s design for its ease of barrel changes.

For as long as I can remember (<span style="font-style: italic">I’m 45, and have been shooting since about the age of 8 so thats a quite a long time</span>), there have been discussions about <span style="font-style: italic">"10/22 "barrel droop"</span> – what it is, whether or not someone’s 10/22 has it, how much barrel droop is acceptable, whether or not it is a problem, and ways to eliminate it or compensate for it, ect.


<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">10/22 Barrel Droop – “What is it?"</span></span></span>
“Barrel droop” refers to a downward angling of the barrel in relation to the receiver, and is an inherent result of the Ruger 10/22’s barrel attachment system, known as the “V-Block”. If you look at the V-Block it is not difficult to understand why the design results in drooping barrels. The V-Block has a single point of contact (the rearmost cut in the barrel notch) to secure the barrel to the Barrel Block on the action lug. The rest of the notch is un-loaded. As the two (2) V-Block screws are tightened into the action lug the barrel is pulled downward, inducing barrel droop. That’s’ it. Basta. Fine’. Game over.

Barrel droop should not be mistaken for “action tipping”, where the barreled action tips forward under the weight of the barrel. Action tipping usually results from an attempt to free-float the barrel without securing the receiver at the rear. Without a rearward lug or hold-down (which, BTW almost all 10/22 and 10/22 clones lack), the (single) action lug located at the front of the 10/22’s receiver acts as a fulcrum point (as in a see-saw or teeter/totter) with gravity pulling the barrel down into the barrel channel.


<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Barrel Droop –“Does my 10/22 have it?"</span></span></span>
Like it or not, barrel droop is an inherent result of the 10/22’s V-Block barrel attachment system so yeah, your 10/22 has it. Theres’ just no getting around physics nor is there any point in denying the inevitable. None. However, due to variances in manufacturing tolerances (which seem to be loose on the 10/22) the amount of barrel droop seems to vary widely from gun to gun. Some guns exhibit only minor barrel droop while others droop considerably.

That said I have never been able to fathom what blinds people to the fact that barrel droop is an inevitable and inherent byproduct of the Ruger 10/22 design. Is this blindness born out of sentiment and devotion to a gun that they learned to shoot with as a child, “a family heirloom”, the fact that their gun is “a tack driver”, that they “have never had any problems with their gun”. WTH?

Well, yesterday I had an epiphany regarding people’s perceptions about barrel droop – maybe they have never noticed it because they shoot at close distances. I came to this realization as my brother and I were talking about the <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">“25 Yard Quarter Inch Club”</span></span> discussed at the beginning of <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">ChargerTom’s</span></span> <span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="font-style: italic">“So You Think Your Rifle Is An Ultimate? Prove It!"</span></span> thread over on RFC. During this discussion I realized that many people on RFC shoot well within the distances that my friends and I typically shoot .22s’ at (50-200 yards or more). I like to shoot small groups too, but I like to shoot farther out.

The thing is, unless someone routinely shoots their 10/22 at 100 yards and farther and/or has run out of elevation he or she may not have encountered/discovered/realize the existence of barrel droop, thinking “I would notice it - I mean, I’m not stupid”, or “I’ve never run out of sight or scope adjustment so how can I have barrel droop?” I’d like to believe that most people understand that even if you don’t run out of adjustment that doesn’t mean that your barrel doesn’t droop or that barrel droop isn’t a “problem”, or that except for the high-end stuff, scopes adjust, track more accurately, and are more repeatable (meaning that you can dial adjustments up, down, up, and back down to where you started and the adjustment(s) will still be dead-on) within the middle range of their adjustments. For low to mid-range scopes ($40-$600+) that are more accurate in the middle of their adjustment range its best to keep the adjustments “in the middle”. Barrel droop can be a barrier in this endeavor.


<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">“How much barrel droop is acceptable?"</span></span></span>
That depends on what you do with your gun, but food-for-thought is that 60 MOA = 1 degree. That means that even if your barrel only droops 1 degree you need 60 MOA "Up" just to "level" the barrel. For someone with minor barrel droop and/or someone who shoots at 100 yards or less and can dial their Elevation and Windage adjustments to point of aim, barrel droop may not be considered to be a “problem”. So, <span style="font-style: italic">for that shooter</span>, if they can hit what they’re aiming at it doesn’t matter.

For others such as myself who demand greater precision and/or just don’t like barrel droop no amount of barrel droop is acceptable.


<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">“Barrel Droop – is it a problem?"</span></span></span>
Barrel droop is not a problem in and of itself. Rather, it is the resulting effect of barrel droop (a downward-angled barrel) where the problem lies. But <span style="font-style: italic">technically speaking </span>– yes, barrel droop is a problem. Barrel droop affects the gun in a negative manner because the muzzle of the rifle is angled downward instead of being parallel to the LOS (Line-of-Sight) of the scope [Although open sights have both front and rear sights located on the barrel a downward sloping barrel is still a not optimal] <span style="font-style: italic">- I've never spoken to or heard of a reputable gunsmith who thinks that a downward-pointed barrel is a good thing.</span>

A downward-angled barrel may require significant Elevation turret adjustment in order to zero, and more elevation adjustment to be dialed-in to get on-target at any given range than a non-drooping barrel. Using too much adjustment to zero may hinder a shooter’s ability to dial “Up” or make adequate Windage adjustments at longer range because extreme Elevation adjustments reduce the available Windage travel, and vice-versa. This is because the scope tube is round and there is a finite amount of space inside the tube for the scope’s Erector (the assembly that moves the reticle around inside the scope tube) to move around in. Forcing the Erector can damage the scope.

<span style="font-style: italic">Practically speaking</span> – barrel droop may or may not be a problem. This goes back to the question of what the shooter or shooters intend to do with the gun. Again, for someone with minor barrel droop and/or someone who shoots at 100 yards or less and can dial their Elevation and Windage adjustments to point of aim, barrel droop may not be considered to be a problem to that shooter. Whether or not the scope(s) may be at or near the limit of their adjustments, (and if the shooter understands, realizes, or cares about this is another matter entirely).


<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">“Barrel Droop” – Elimination versus Compensation</span></span></span>
The amount of barrel droop varies from gun to gun, but food-for-thought is that 60 MOA = 1 degree. That means that even if your barrel only droops 1 degree you need 60 MOA/16.666 MILS of "Up" just to "level" the barrel. While the scopes I use for long range shooting typically (Schmidt & Bender and U.S. Optics) have lots of travel built into them I try to zero using a few adjustments to the scope as possible, preserving as much of the scope’s internal travel as I can. That way, when I get way out there I have a choice between dialing my adjustments or using reticle holds.

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Elimination of barrel droop</span></span> –
IMO, elimination is better than compensation, and the best way to eliminate barrel droop is to thread the receiver. Not only will you use less elevation to zero, but you will have more “travel on tap” for distance shooting. In combination with a 15 or 20 MOA base and a scope with lots of travel and/or a tactical reticle you'll be able to reach out to 300 yards or so. As far as groups go you are at the mercy of the wind. As I alluded to above in “How much barrel droop is acceptable”? this may or may not interest people. However, the potential is largely there - it is up to the shooter to make the most of that potential.

Without the use of a <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">MOA 17-4 SS Receiver</span></span>, a <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">L.H. Precision, LLC</span></span>, the upcoming Kidd Receiver, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">pinning the receiver through the sides of the stock</span></span> you should use a pressure pad or bed the barrel for support so you don't have to worry about warping the receiver under the weight of a heavy barrel.

Aside from the elimination of barrel droop, another key advantage of a threaded-in barrel is consistency. A rigidly-attached, threaded barrel will always remain in alignment with the receiver from shot-to-shot. The barrel-to-receiver alignment will not change, providing consistency. Consistency contributes to repeatability. Repeatability translates into accuracy. And isn't that what we are striving for?

Lets' face it - threading the receiver is the only way to ensure the barrel-to-receiver relationship remains static from shot-to-shot. Some people talk about how tight their barrel tenon-to-receiver fit is - how they had to heat the receiver and zap the barrel with 300 Below and then hammer the barrel into the receiver. Or how they shimmed the barrel and/or the v-block. Great. Whatever floats your boat. Theres’ a lot of power released and a ton of vibration going-on when a .22 is fired. .22 Shorts are used to drive anchors into concrete. I'm not a physicist, but I'd say that the detonation of a .22 Short probably has enough shock power to momentarily knock/vibrate/force a non-threaded, non-pinned barrel out of "the sweet spot". This includes the hex screw of some modified/adjustable v-blocks. And that’s’ to say nothing about the pounding the breech takes as the bolt slams home, or the lighter, but still present jolt to the receiver's bolt stop (or bolt buffer if your rifle is so equipped) from the bolt.

Some people have compensated for barrel droop by shimming the rear of their scope base. This is also an inconsistent band aid rather than a consistent, permanent cure for barrel droop. Stacking a base or mount on top of a shim invites inconsistecies from movement of the shim or what is sitting on it, and some bases are made of rather soft material and is subject to bending under mounting stress. It also does nothing to address the movement when the gun is fired.

This takes us back to consistency, and why threading the barrel to eliminate barrel droop is the best method to eliminate barrel droop.

For some people, threading a barrel is unacceptable because they will lose the ability to quickly change barrels and/or convert to the 17 Mach 2 by also swapping the bolt. Personally, if I wanted to shoot a different caliber I would rather use a gun chambered specifically for that cartridge.


<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Compensating for barrel droop</span></span></span> –
Having discussed what barrel droop is, whether or not your 10/22 has it, how much barrel droop is acceptable, and whether or not it is a problem above I’m sure that some will agree that elimination of barrel droop is superior to compensating for barrel droop. I’m equally sure that there are people who agree with me but will not take the steps to eliminate the droop for financial reasons as well as those who disagree with me about how to go about eliminating barrel droop. I simply say this – physics are absolute.

For the sake of those who prefer to try compensating for barrel droop, some barrel droop can be addressed through the use of an adjustable V-Block such as the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Rimfire Technologies V-Block Stabilizer</span></span>, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">"Gunsmither" Elevation Compensating Barrel Block for the 10/22</span></span>, or shimming of the barrel tenon. However, these are band aids. These products have been used with mixed results ranging from “it works great” to “don’t bother it’s a waste of money.” One thing is certain - they are never as accurate, reliable, or consistent as threading is when it comes to maintaining surface relationships.

Also, don’t forget that your scope’s LOS (line-of-sight) is 1.5” or more above the bore at the receiver, so even without barrel droop you're going to burn up some elevation to sight-in. I said “at the receiver” because the sight offset will vary from the chamber and muzzle ends due to barrel droop.

You can gain back some of your “lost” elevation by using a <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Tactical Solutions 15 MOA Picatinny Rail</span></span>, or an <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">EGW 20 MOA 10/22 Extended Picatinny Rail</span></span>. While compensation for barrel droop is not what these rails were designed for, if they help someone compensate for their 10/22’s barrel droop who cares?

I hope that this post has cleared up some things about barrel droop, the benefits of threading a barrel and receiver, how important proper machining is to accuracy, consistency, and repeatability, and how all apply when trying to build as accurate a 10/22 as possible. I posted a very similar post, titled <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">"Understanding "Barrel Droop" "</span></span> over at RFC for the benefit of the members there, but know that this post can also help Hiders’ who may own or may be contemplating buying or building a 10/22.

Hopefully, speaking the truth and posting accurate data gets people thinking about the actual mechanics of the 10/22 and it’s shortcomings so that they may be in a better position to improve their rifles.

Keith

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: 10/22 "Barrel Droop"

This squares completely with my intuitive views on the 10/22.

I recently ran out of elevation adjustability at 150yd with my 10/22. This was moderately surprising/annoying, since the scope in question provides something slightly in excess of 75MOA of elevation adjustment. Rather than pull my hair and wring my hands; I spent ten quality innovative minutes and inserted either .030" or .040" (I forget which) of aluminam soda can shim stock beneath the rear of my factory scope base, remounted the scope, and fired a few shots with the elevation adjustment run all the way down to bottom at 50yd. The rounds impacted 4" low, and I consider the modification to have corrected the issue in a nearly ideal manner.

My primary concern about the factory barrel mounting method is that removing and replacing the barrel may produce a different 'droop' angle each time it's done, changing the basic angular relationship between receiver and barrel, and consequently the basic relationship between POI and POA, since the scope is normally mounted to the receiver.

Since I refuse to either clean from the muzzle, or drill my receiver to provide a rod guide port, my cleaning method involves removing the barrel to clean from the chamber end. I have a homemade rod guide that slips snugly over the rear end of the barrel, so potential cleaning rod wear issues are dealt with in advance. It is very similar in design to the M14 muzzle-end rod guide I made from a 12ga shotgun shell.

So droop angle variances could have some increased bearing on my shooting. This could be an issue except that I generally also need to foul/season my bore anyway following a cleaning (I only do it when cycling and/or accuracy become significantly degraded), so rezeroing is both expected and nominally a non-issue.

So barrel droop-wise, it's only a problem if it's hard to fix; and it isn't.

Greg

 

[Aries64]

Re: 10/22 "Barrel Droop"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This squares completely with my intuitive views on the 10/22.</div></div>
Ah Greg, you are ever a <span style="font-style: italic">"thinking man"</span>. From reading your posts I know that you and I do not always agree on things, but its' refreshing to see someone post out of experience and thought process rather than parroting denial of barrel droop, how an adjustable V-Block is superior to a threaded barrel, or how even with a threaded barrel "barrel droop" is inevitable with a bull barrel, ect.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I recently ran out of elevation adjustability at 150yd with my 10/22. This was moderately surprising/annoying, since the scope in question provides something slightly in excess of 75MOA of elevation adjustment. Rather than pull my hair and wring my hands; I spent ten quality innovative minutes and inserted either .030" or .040" (I forget which) of aluminam soda can shim stock beneath the rear of my factory scope base, remounted the scope, and fired a few shots with the elevation adjustment run all the way down to bottom at 50yd. The rounds impacted 4" low, and I consider the modification to have corrected the issue in a nearly ideal manner.</div></div>
I commend you on you're resourcefulness (fast, quick, zero-cost droop compensation) but the shims are still a band aid. Shimming mounts and bases is never ideal, as it increases the possibility of base warpage and slippage. Not probable using thin shims on an aluminum receiver and with screws torqued to 15 inch pounds, but possible.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My primary concern about the factory barrel mounting method is that removing and replacing the barrel may produce a different 'droop' angle each time it's done, changing the basic angular relationship between receiver and barrel, and consequently the basic relationship between POI and POA, since the scope is normally mounted to the receiver.</div></div>
Yep, no doubt about it. The factory (V-Block) barrel attachment system cannot guarantee the same barrel angle when removing and replacing the barrel, thus introducing potential POI shift; it cannot guarantee that the bolt face will be square to the breech face, or that the extractor slot will be in the "sweet spot" for reliable extraction. Consistency in the relationships between these parts is critical for best repeatability, accuracy, and reliability.

When all machining procedures are correctly executed a receiver and barrel threaded together are a rigid unit that will maintain precise receiver-to-barrel alignment (and thus bolt face-to-breech face and extractor-to-extractor slot relationship) while at the same time totally eliminating barrel droop.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since I refuse to either clean from the muzzle, or drill my receiver to provide a rod guide port, my cleaning method involves removing the barrel to clean from the chamber end. I have a homemade rod guide that slips snugly over the rear end of the barrel, so potential cleaning rod wear issues are dealt with in advance. It is very similar in design to the M14 muzzle-end rod guide I made from a 12ga shotgun shell.</div></div>
What about an <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">OTIS Kit</span></span>? The <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Small Caliber Kit</span></span> will clean .17-.25 caliber. Much better than a bore snake since you can wipe the cable clean after each pass, and you don't have to remove the action from the stock or even remove the bolt unless you want to clean the inside of the receiver.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So droop angle variances could have some increased bearing on my shooting. This could be an issue except that I generally also need to foul/season my bore anyway following a cleaning (I only do it when cycling and/or accuracy become significantly degraded), so rezeroing is both expected and nominally a non-issue.</div></div>
I brought the 10/22 barrel droop issue up so that 10/22 owners who may not be aware of it, or who are aware of it and would like to deal with it can make better, informed decisions about how they proceed, as well as a way to help 10/22 owners who want to squeeze the most accuracy out of their gun(s) as they can.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So barrel droop-wise, it's only a problem if it's hard to fix; and it isn't.

Greg </div></div>
Nope, it isn't.

Keith

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: 10/22 "Barrel Droop"

I agree, shims are little more than a temporary bandaid fix. It's done more to find a proper shim value and use it for awhile to verify its degree of success, than as any kind of a long-term solution. Such measures on my part just about inevitibly lead to a base bedding job, and I'm sure this one will too.

When one considers how infrequently my 10/22 gets strip cleaned, removing the barrel is not significant enough an invonvenience that I need to be avoiding it with serious concern. I've never used an Otis system, so I can't responsibly comment on them. I did employ the pull-through string trimmer approach with some success, but I just feel more comfortable with rods, etc., in my old age.

I agree with your no nonsense, fix it once and right approach. I just can't currently accumulate any significant buckage these days for investment in such improvements. Besides, since the rifle performs as nicely as it does, there's really little motivation to seek a solution when the issue is so easily dealt with as is.

And thank you for your kind observations.

Greg

 

[Wareagle]

Re: 10/22 "Barrel Droop"

WOW.........That's about 12 beers worth of reading right there. Excellent information gentlemen.

 

[saburai]

Re: 10/22 "Barrel Droop"

Long time lurker coming out of the shadows digging up a great old thread!

First, thanks for the enormous wealth of info here on the Hide!

In regards to 10/22barrel droop problem, what are your thoughts on the Volquartsen barrel mounted rail?
https://www.volquartsen.com/products/160-barrel-mounted-scope-mount-for-10-22

Many Thanks...

 

[Captain Kirk]

Re: 10/22 "Barrel Droop"

This is a very interesting topic Keith, and a great post. I have done a fair amount of experimentation in regards to accurizing the 10/22 platform, and since this is a discussion about barrel droop I will share a practice that I have found to be very successful. My approach is focused on the stock and bedding area and not on the receiver/barrel treading which I agree is the best solution, but I believe this to be a inexpensive and adequate solution. By removing the factory "cup" style mounting screw insert and installing a full length pillar, followed by bedding around the V block and a few inches of the barrel, you give additional barrel support with heavier barrels. What you are effectively doing is removing the tension on the V block and applying the barrel pressure on the bedding area and bedding pillar. Below is a pic to provide a example.

 

[saburai]

Re: 10/22 "Barrel Droop"

Thanks for the input Kirk! Any thoughts on the cantilever scope base?

 

[Captain Kirk]

Re: 10/22 "Barrel Droop"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: saburai</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the input Kirk! Any thoughts on the cantilever scope base? </div></div>

I have played around with the Volquartsen barrel and cantilever scope bases. If you are running heavy optics on the 10/22 platform it puts a fair ammount of stress on the receiver and bedding area, using the cantilever mount and heavier optics with the bedding mentioned above, you are centering the weight directly on the barrel where it is bedded in the stock so the action is free floating to some extent. Honestly, I only noticed any issues with standard receiver optics mounting when running full size optics that are in the 30oz + range.

Kirk R

 

[saburai]

Re: 10/22 "Barrel Droop"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Captain Kirk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: saburai</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the input Kirk! Any thoughts on the cantilever scope base? </div></div>

I have played around with the Volquartsen barrel and cantilever scope bases. If you are running heavy optics on the 10/22 platform it puts a fair ammount of stress on the receiver and bedding area, using the cantilever mount and heavier optics with the bedding mentioned above, you are centering the weight directly on the barrel where it is bedded in the stock so the action is free floating to some extent. Honestly, I only noticed any issues with standard receiver optics mounting when running full size optics that are in the 30oz + range.

Kirk R </div></div>

Thanks Kirk!
How do you feel about the cantilever scope base w/ a 30oz + optic and a more standard bedding technique? Do you feel that the cant. base flexes?
Many thanks...