-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
22lr twist rate advantages
- Thread starter Goofster
- Start date
Whole thread I’m not finished reading yet on here:
www.snipershide.com
22LR twist rate
Hey Guys , I need the help of the 22LR specialists. I am building a custom setup specially for long range 22LR 350 M+ and some NRL22. What twist should I use? Ive read a lot and from what I understand, all was created over short distance application so twist have never been geared to longer...
www.snipershide.com
Now we're cooking, these guys spend their lives gathering this knowledge, we are fortunate that they share it.
I have been into rimfire rifles for many years, mostly for hunting and mainly 22lr, my friends and I were always in search of a "Quail Head Shooter" but the recent technology is amazing. In the relatively short time I have been into the precision rifle thing, I see technology changing almost as fast as electronic tech does. What was taken as "Gospel" just a couple of years ago is now a waste of time.
I have been into rimfire rifles for many years, mostly for hunting and mainly 22lr, my friends and I were always in search of a "Quail Head Shooter" but the recent technology is amazing. In the relatively short time I have been into the precision rifle thing, I see technology changing almost as fast as electronic tech does. What was taken as "Gospel" just a couple of years ago is now a waste of time.
I don't have a horse in this race.
What's needed is more data than what's been available to show how the non-standard twist rates perform. More information is always better. Anecdotal reports of a few results here and a few more there are insufficient to reliably demonstrate how they shoot. The standards -- barrel quality, ammo, conditions, especially wind -- need to be as consistent as possible.
It's necessary to show the results at a variety of distances using the best .22LR ammo available. In addition to chronograph data, target results produced at 50, 100, 150, and 200, while increasingly challenging as distance increases, can be particularly useful in evaluating performance. Consistent performance at these distances is indicative of good results and a positive sign for fast twist performance.
Of course, it's necessary to compare results of faster twist barrels to the performance of standard twist rifles shooting under the same standards -- barrel quality, ammo, and conditions, especially wind -- to see how they might differ.
It's important to note that a small number of target results is always inadequate. As large a number of results as possible is required to sustain any tentative conclusions. This is especially important as the distance increases since ammo variation and the effect of even a slight change in air movement can affect results.
What's needed is more data than what's been available to show how the non-standard twist rates perform. More information is always better. Anecdotal reports of a few results here and a few more there are insufficient to reliably demonstrate how they shoot. The standards -- barrel quality, ammo, conditions, especially wind -- need to be as consistent as possible.
It's necessary to show the results at a variety of distances using the best .22LR ammo available. In addition to chronograph data, target results produced at 50, 100, 150, and 200, while increasingly challenging as distance increases, can be particularly useful in evaluating performance. Consistent performance at these distances is indicative of good results and a positive sign for fast twist performance.
Of course, it's necessary to compare results of faster twist barrels to the performance of standard twist rifles shooting under the same standards -- barrel quality, ammo, and conditions, especially wind -- to see how they might differ.
It's important to note that a small number of target results is always inadequate. As large a number of results as possible is required to sustain any tentative conclusions. This is especially important as the distance increases since ammo variation and the effect of even a slight change in air movement can affect results.
I like faster twist rates simply because it allows more revolutions of rifling inside the barrel... the bullet gets all that spin imparted upon it whilst still being positively guided by the barrel.
So instead of the spin being imparted on the bullet and then the bullet being immediately set free... like flicking a quarter to make it spin... you actually have barrel there for more than one revolution of rifling. Like guiding the stem of a top between your finger and thumb, to get the top to spin perfectly stable.
Whether or not there is any actual science between that, I am not sure. But I always prefer to have at least 1.5 revolutions of rifling between the chamber and muzzle... rather have a full two twists minimum, if possible.
So instead of the spin being imparted on the bullet and then the bullet being immediately set free... like flicking a quarter to make it spin... you actually have barrel there for more than one revolution of rifling. Like guiding the stem of a top between your finger and thumb, to get the top to spin perfectly stable.
Whether or not there is any actual science between that, I am not sure. But I always prefer to have at least 1.5 revolutions of rifling between the chamber and muzzle... rather have a full two twists minimum, if possible.
I was fortunate to attend a very interesting presentation by the inventor of a very popular PRS 22. He tested barrels to a 9" twist. Without going in to the weeds the standard .22 twist does not reflect published BC from Lapua if you put it in your calculator. The 9" twist does provide that actual BC performance and increases accuracy. I hope I said that in a way which makes sense. I don't know how the other twists compared. My take away from the presentation was that the 9" twist performed the best.
One thing to remember is that:
higher rotational velocity causes greater friction with the atmosphere and therefore greater drag on the projectile. Forward velocity of the projectile will decrease at a greater rate than with proven standard rifling for the chambering in question.
Winchester offered Model 70 target rifles chambered to .30-06 with optional 1-14” twist barrels, so that shooters using 150 grain flat-base bullets would get the best performance out of their ammunition when shooting at 500 to 1,000 yards (300 yards is equivalent to a 25 yard sight-in for those people).
higher rotational velocity causes greater friction with the atmosphere and therefore greater drag on the projectile. Forward velocity of the projectile will decrease at a greater rate than with proven standard rifling for the chambering in question.
Winchester offered Model 70 target rifles chambered to .30-06 with optional 1-14” twist barrels, so that shooters using 150 grain flat-base bullets would get the best performance out of their ammunition when shooting at 500 to 1,000 yards (300 yards is equivalent to a 25 yard sight-in for those people).
I would recommend that you people actually read through the thread that I posted. As a teaser, here's Mike Bush of Vudoo Gun Works on fast twist and barrel length (Post #27):
"It wasn't long ago that no one really cared about the BC of the 40 grain projectile used by Lapua, Eley, etc., but now, Lapua publishes their BC (not sure if Eley does). This is because the community started stretching the legs of the 22LR and Lapua was the first to respond by teaming up with us prior to intro'ing the V-22 to market. They developed two custom drag curves and made it available in the Lapua and Applied Ballistics apps so we could calculate firing solutions the same way we do for centerfire. Looking at the BC and doing the math to determine how much of it we're using by way of the twist rate, it became clear that out of the available .172, only .120-ish was being used with a 16 twist barrel. Working the math backwards, the solution for using all the available BC in the 40 grain bullet was considerably faster, I was astounded and questioned whether I did it correctly....so, I did it again and came up with the same answer. So, we made a few barrels. Two barrels were fit to two different actions but not at the same time. The first barrel was 18" and ultimately, it shot like crap, which was discouraging. Digging a little deeper and creating a few models to look at angular velocity vs muzzle velocity, etc., the conclusion was the barrel needed to be longer at this particular twist rate. I chambered up a barrel finished at 22" and tested initially at 50 yards. The improvement over the 18" barrel was vast....I remember looking at the first five shot group and saying out loud, "son-of-a-bitch!" After a few more groups, I handed the rifle off to Bob (whom is a sponsored shooter and does the testing based on our specific protocol) to shoot the strings of 500 round tests. The first 500 rounds is broken down into 100, five shot groups at 50 yards. Just over 90% of the groups were beautifully round and measured just over the diameter of the bullet. Amazing....but it got better. The groups at 100 were easily half the size of average groups from a 16 twist barrel (16 twist barrel was 18"). I continued to shoot this rifle for over a year and performed a silent test in September at the NRA World Championships (teamed with Lapua for the third consecutive year). We had numerous targets, all steel plates at varying distances. I took numerous prototype rifles for the masses to shoot so I could observe third party testing without the shooters knowing what was new/different and I called wind on every target for three days in a row. The groups from the fast twist barrel at distance were amazingly small and I had to call wind differently compared to the slower twist barrels. A week later, I handed the rifle off to Daniel Horner for a longer term test, but I had enough data to make more barrels ranging from my single digit favorite up to 15 twist. Bottom line is, the fast twist barrel is an absolute superstar at 22"."
"It wasn't long ago that no one really cared about the BC of the 40 grain projectile used by Lapua, Eley, etc., but now, Lapua publishes their BC (not sure if Eley does). This is because the community started stretching the legs of the 22LR and Lapua was the first to respond by teaming up with us prior to intro'ing the V-22 to market. They developed two custom drag curves and made it available in the Lapua and Applied Ballistics apps so we could calculate firing solutions the same way we do for centerfire. Looking at the BC and doing the math to determine how much of it we're using by way of the twist rate, it became clear that out of the available .172, only .120-ish was being used with a 16 twist barrel. Working the math backwards, the solution for using all the available BC in the 40 grain bullet was considerably faster, I was astounded and questioned whether I did it correctly....so, I did it again and came up with the same answer. So, we made a few barrels. Two barrels were fit to two different actions but not at the same time. The first barrel was 18" and ultimately, it shot like crap, which was discouraging. Digging a little deeper and creating a few models to look at angular velocity vs muzzle velocity, etc., the conclusion was the barrel needed to be longer at this particular twist rate. I chambered up a barrel finished at 22" and tested initially at 50 yards. The improvement over the 18" barrel was vast....I remember looking at the first five shot group and saying out loud, "son-of-a-bitch!" After a few more groups, I handed the rifle off to Bob (whom is a sponsored shooter and does the testing based on our specific protocol) to shoot the strings of 500 round tests. The first 500 rounds is broken down into 100, five shot groups at 50 yards. Just over 90% of the groups were beautifully round and measured just over the diameter of the bullet. Amazing....but it got better. The groups at 100 were easily half the size of average groups from a 16 twist barrel (16 twist barrel was 18"). I continued to shoot this rifle for over a year and performed a silent test in September at the NRA World Championships (teamed with Lapua for the third consecutive year). We had numerous targets, all steel plates at varying distances. I took numerous prototype rifles for the masses to shoot so I could observe third party testing without the shooters knowing what was new/different and I called wind on every target for three days in a row. The groups from the fast twist barrel at distance were amazingly small and I had to call wind differently compared to the slower twist barrels. A week later, I handed the rifle off to Daniel Horner for a longer term test, but I had enough data to make more barrels ranging from my single digit favorite up to 15 twist. Bottom line is, the fast twist barrel is an absolute superstar at 22"."
Have a 26” 10 twist on the way. Another member has a 26” 15 twist on the way.
We have casually talked about shooting them side by side out to distance to see if there is any obvious differences with a very small sample size of 2 guns.
I’ll post up some data if it happens.
We have casually talked about shooting them side by side out to distance to see if there is any obvious differences with a very small sample size of 2 guns.
I’ll post up some data if it happens.
I guess it kinda comes down to what you consider adequate evidence, then. I don’t disagree that a full explanation from VGW would be extremely interesting, but I’ll also state that I’d buy a 1:9” 22” gun from them if they told me it was that much better. I think they’ve earned their reputation for cutting-edge 22LR accuracy at this point.
It's important not to confuse anecdotal reports with actual evidence or data. Oral and written reports about facts are not the same as the facts themselves. They are interpretations of the evidence and data.
To be more clear, it would be useful to see target data in as full a way as possible.
The more than a year-old anecdotal description quoted above in post #10 presents a very enthusiastic endorsement of the performance of of the 1:9" 22" barreled rifles. The following questions are not intended to impugn anyone or anything.
If 1:9" 22" barreled rifles were indeed as characterized does this mean that standard twist barreled rifles, at least for long distance shooting, will be obsolete, a thing of the past? Are the faster twist barrels now recommended at VGW? Should readers expect 1:9" 22" barrels to become the standard offering, at least for ELR rifles, at VGW?
If the answer is "no" or "not yet" to any of the above questions, perhaps more evidence is needed.
Ultimately, we’re in the same boat, waiting for some actionable info. Based on some of VGW’s comments, the twist rate is very specific, and I’d like to hear an explanation of why 22” works and 18” doesn’t. I don’t consider the info in that thread complete enough to warrant buying a barrel, but I’m extremely interested to see the info when it’s packaged for general consumption.
People seem resistant to change. Sure, money doesn't grow on trees, and so I can see why some people would be hesitant to try a radical new twist rate when they go to buy a new barrel.
But, honestly, the 1:9tw ~22" barrel COULD be the next big thing and nobody will ever know unless they try it. Everyone sitting around waiting for evidence, instead of going out and producing results to share with the world. Make the evidence. Be the evidence. Take the initiative.
When I buy a barrel for my 22lr, it's either going to be a 1:9 or 1:10, or possibly a gain twist combining the two. Fuck the traditional everything.
And it will really suck if it doesn't shoot... it will take me years to replace that mistake (if it indeed turns out to be a mistake)... not because it takes me years to save $600 for a barrel, but because it would take me a long time to make that failure a priority over other projects that could use a new $600 barrel.
All the innovation in the industry dies in the cradle if people are too afraid to adopt change...
But, honestly, the 1:9tw ~22" barrel COULD be the next big thing and nobody will ever know unless they try it. Everyone sitting around waiting for evidence, instead of going out and producing results to share with the world. Make the evidence. Be the evidence. Take the initiative.
When I buy a barrel for my 22lr, it's either going to be a 1:9 or 1:10, or possibly a gain twist combining the two. Fuck the traditional everything.
And it will really suck if it doesn't shoot... it will take me years to replace that mistake (if it indeed turns out to be a mistake)... not because it takes me years to save $600 for a barrel, but because it would take me a long time to make that failure a priority over other projects that could use a new $600 barrel.
All the innovation in the industry dies in the cradle if people are too afraid to adopt change...
Exactly...
If it doesn’t works out, oh well. I’ve spent $600 on much worse.
Pretty low risk to find out for sure rather than scouring the internet for hours or days and never getting a solid answer.
I recently put in an order for a Vudoo V22 360 with the usual 1:16 twist, 20" length. After reading various articles, posts I've thought hard about going with a 1:9 twist, 22" length. I talked to Vudoo, they stated (I'm paraphrasing) it is still in the testing stage and not consistent enough for them to recommend at this point. Currently a 50/50 success rate, but more work must be done before anything is conclusive.
I'm personally not at a point to try it, but I do look forward to seeing the data at some point in the future.
I'm personally not at a point to try it, but I do look forward to seeing the data at some point in the future.
.jpg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds)
Well I just got my gun zeroed and my final load worked up for this evenings pig hunt.The 9 twist didnt do to bad here ,but it's a over bore barrel Black Hole .224 3 groove. I did get a couple .500 groups with SKLR while getting the scope on. I used pulled RSW50 brass for the my reloads the bullets are heel turned 40gr ballistic tips. My last group was 4 shots that left me with 2 rounds for tonight and I have to load them single shot! I'm carrying a pistol with me! 3 rounds went .060 then I slipped one right to open it to .390 I believe it will get me a pig at 50 yds.
Last edited:
A couple weeks left for the 10tw here. Cannot wait.
I’ll post up the results good, bad, or ugly.
I hit me a pig with my 9Screw this evening theyll be bacon grease on the ground. From the almost doubled angular friction I'll impart on his HEAD!
It’s not going to be a prefit.
Vudoo will do a 9 twist straight from their shop.
Other than they you buy a barrel from one of the manufacturers, might have to do a custom twist depending on what you want.
Then send it and the action out to a smith.
If for some reason you're dubious and laughing aloud about what's in snippet of the article, which refers to "a century of trusted experience," you may be crestfallen silently when you remember that in fact it's been over a century with 1:16 barrels. While .22LR ammo didn't have non-corrosive priming until about 93 - 94 years ago, standard twist barrels for serious target shooting with .22LR has been around since at least the twenties -- the 1920s -- a century ago.
It’s a fake article dated 4-1-21, Poking fun at 1:9, and members testing it.
Not going to take it seriously.
No kidding, Sherlock. But the point is that the 1:16 twist barrel is with a century of experience.
What's been the most fun about my rimfire journey has been hearing lots of people say, especially early on, "that'll never work." And then I heard all the reasons why it would never work and it was mostly the, "well, for the last hundred years, blah, blah, blah." Clearly, they were wrong and it's been amusing.
The fast twist debate has been no different and I truly don't care, I have nothing to prove and can continue to sit on the data....I have more than enough to do. If one wants to rant about data and the last 100 or so years....so what, doesn't motivate me in the least. The ones that motivate me are the ones excited enough to jump right in and live beyond the last 100 or so years. They're the ones that give me reason to share....
MB
The fast twist debate has been no different and I truly don't care, I have nothing to prove and can continue to sit on the data....I have more than enough to do. If one wants to rant about data and the last 100 or so years....so what, doesn't motivate me in the least. The ones that motivate me are the ones excited enough to jump right in and live beyond the last 100 or so years. They're the ones that give me reason to share....
MB
Truly appreciate the cutting-edge exploration you guys do. There are some of us that would love to jump in, but it sounds like VGW isn’t quite ready to release this one into the wild? What’s it looking like for you guys to be able to get fast twist to the next step?
I won't say that VGW isn't ready because there's more to it than what we build daily. However, I can easily say that 100% of the nine twist guns I've built in the lab have been super performers and exceed what I've done with 16 twist guns. When I originally laid the process into the production environment in St George, it was and remains incredibly specific. So, all things being relevant, this isn't, by any means, a detraction of the fast twist capabilities.
MB
So, maybe lemme ask differently: can we order a super performer 9tw 22” (or whatever length VGW recommends) Three 60 now? Pleeeeeeease?
Yes, you can order one, many have been ordered. But, you'll hear a disclaimer that "we have seen mixed results." "We" isn't and has never been "me" and I don't support the disclaimer.
MB
If these comments are related to anything posted earlier in this thread, it's a bit surprising. It's worth noting that there haven't been any "rants" about data and the last 100 years -- unless there's a new definition of rant that applies to the observations that as of yet there's been no data published about faster twist .22LR barrels and that standard twist barrels have been in use for over 100 years. It seems rather curious to note the sensitivity on these issues despite the absence of comments that might impugn anyone or anything.
On the other hand, perhaps these comments in this thread are in response to posts elsewhere, in which case the above remarks can be disregarded.
Last edited:
Let me translate all of this had it not been for a man by the name Whitworth ,stepping out of the norm his gun he designed would not still be rated in the top 20 longest kill shots what did he do let's look back 155 or so years. Whitworth's bullets were more stable at longer ranges than the shorter and larger diameter bullets found in other rifles of the time. Whitworth also engineered the barrel with a 1-in-20-inch (510 mm) twist, quite a bit tighter than the 1-in-78-inch (2,000 mm) of the 1853 Enfield, or the later 1856/1858 variants with five-groove barrels and a 1-in-48-inch (1,200 mm) twist. The extra spin the tighter twist imparted to the projectile further stabilized the bullet in flight. ' OH I see he more then doubled the twist rate Wow and this gun grouped 9 feet at 1400 yds from a fixed rest wonder what those 48 and 78 bangers were doing 30 foot ?
Thanks for that interesting bit of history,
My knowledge of Whitworth was for a standardisation of threads, I had no idea of anything firearm related.
Similar threads
- Poll
