Bartein or Lilja for fast twist bolt gun barrel?

[DavidBoren]

Looking for some advice of barrels and bullets and chambers. Rifle is a 22lr Marlin 880 SS... click pen trigger spring, DIP 25moa scope rail, SWFA 10x mil/mil when I can find one... looking to hit 300m with the setup, eventually.

You need not worry yourselves about the specifics of the actual barrel change process. But, let's talk about barrels...

It looks like Bartein's standard 22rf offering is a 16tw with 4, 5, or 6 grooves... 222 in the groove, and a 217 bore. If I am reading their website correctly, non-standard twist rates, such as 1:10", costs an extra $20. Not sure if the 5R rifling is available for rimfires, but it looks like that costs $100, if it is available in this bore/groove combination.

Lilja, on the other hand, offers a 1:9" twist "tight" barrel with 3 grooves... 220 in the groove, and a 215 bore.

Both the Bartein and Lilja start at about $370 for a stainless steel blank, and the extra options costs on the Bartein are not in any way a deal breaker.

The Bartein 10tw would be finished at 16.5", allowing for one and a half complete revolutions of rifling ahead of the chamber. This is about the minimum amount of twists I prefer, and also the shortest barrel that is legal without a stamp. The shorter barrel may not be best for my 300m goals, but keeps the rifle maneuverable. It will mainly be a target rifle, though, so maneuverability isn't a huge concern.

The 9tw Lilja would be finished at 19.5", allowing for two complete revolutions of rifling ahead of the chamber. The faster twist rate keeps the overall length under 20", and two or more complete turns of rifling is where I like to be. This length is closer to what the rifle came with, and may (or may not) offer more potential for reaching 300m.

Is there honestly going to be much of a difference between these two choices? Will the extra 3" and half a revolution of rifling give the Lilja a real advantage? I doubt there is any real difference between the 9tw and 10tw rifling, but does the number of grooves matter?

I plan on mainly shooting the 60gr subsonic loads, but ~40gr high velocity is definitely not out of the question. What chamber should I use? Bolt gun repeater, and I would like to not have to worry about extracting live rounds. Still want a match chamber, that doesn't jam the bullets into the rifling...

From what I have seen, there is the Bentz semi auto chamber, the EPS chamber, and a PTG LR Match chamber... these are "match" chambers that supposedly allow one to extract live rounds without too much trouble. Which, if any, will work best with the 60gr subsonic loads?

 

[JohnTheFisherman]

I have both on different rifles and I would say go with the lilja. Only reason I say that is because I received a brand new bartlein and there were machine marks and scratches on the lands. Looks like it was half-assed lapped. Maybe they were trying to keep up with demand and cut some corners. Not really sure what the reason is and I’m sure it’s not a big issue with them as they have a hell of a reputation but apparently some slip through the cracks.

 

[Merlin O]

Not what you asked but buy a CZ MTR (or something CZ) and shoot good 40 gr subsonic and do better and cheaper also.

 

[DavidBoren]

A vote for Lilja. I was leaning that way, anyways. Two full twists of rifling definitely appeals to me...

Why the hell would I shoot 40gr subsonic ammo? If I am going to shoot 40gr ammo, I might as well shoot full velocity. The entire point of shooting the 60gr subsonic is to be shooting that 60gr projectile... it just happens to be subsonic. If I am shooting 40gr subsonic ammo, it means they were out of literally everything else. It could be the most accurate ammo out of my rifle and I will never know unless it's the absolute last box on the shelf.

I already have the Marlin... if I don't do something with it, it will be lost and forgotten forever. That seems like a waste of a fine firearm. And, this Marlin is my first gun. Won it when I was 11yo... keeping it running means more to me than achieving "better" results, even if they are cheaper.

If I wanted a CZ, I would have bought one by now... doesn't fucking anyone fix old shit anymore? Buy this. Just get one of these. Fuck. How about fix what you already fucking have? What a novel concept. The actual process of upgrading something makes me happy in the pants. It's not about the money spent, it's completely about turning something old into something new. Built, not bought...

A or B?

Oh I know. Me. Pick me...

Yes?

C!!! The answer is C!!!

#facepalm

Thanks for the help...

 

[b6graham]

40gr subsonic is known as match ammo

whatever 60gr subsonic or 40gr high velocity you shoot is likely gonna be trash

but you're here for confirmation bias. again.

the chambers you mention dont even scratch the fucking surface. but yeah theyre meant for MATCH ammo. im sure there's a chamber meant for your 60gr shit somewhere out there.

your whole 'dont want the bullet in the rifling' is comical too

 

[skl1]

I have had good luck with Lilja in centerfire. I think any perceived advantage of cut-rifling over button rifling is completely moot with a rimfire. No flies on Bartlein either, but for a .22 I'd pick Lilja.

I'd use a Bentz chamber. I've had match chambered rifles that wouldn't feed 40 grain ammo reliably, and it wasn't worth the potential accuracy advantage I might have enjoyed. Might be different now with extreme long distance RF shooting. But I think the Bentz chamber well cut is really accurate.

 

[DavidBoren]

Thank you skl1.

And wow, confirmation bias sure pops up a lot around here.

I cannot stress this enough; I am not looking to twist information given to me to fit my own twisted views...

I am simply asking for opinions between two given choices. And only the choices given. Goddamn, how hard it that?

It is literally not helpful, in any way shape or form, to volunteer a third option when I asked about a particular two options. It would be easier for all of us for you to literally not reply, at all. The time you waste typing a response just leads to time I waste reading it.

Either answer the simple A or B question, or don't... it's your choice... just know, that option C wasn't asked for, nor is it helpful to me.

 

[Merlin O]

Sorry David. Between the two - Just pick one as it won't make a noticeable difference in your application.

 

[b6graham]

well neither of the options, nor reamers, are gonna make a lick of difference at 300m when you're shooting aguila 60gr sss super sniper or whatever trash

 

[b6graham]

you're looking at ~200fps extreme spreads from various tests that can be found on the hide

reports of 50% keyhole with 16 twists
reports of better results with 9 twists

either way. you're talking bottom of the barrel ammo. and no barrel is gonna fix that

im damn glad you dont want to buy '40gr subsonic'. one less dude buying match ammo that will actually shoot to 300 or 400y

 

[grauhanen]

Why would anyone wish to use 60 grain ammo (Aguila Sniper Subsonic 60 gr.) when they can be using match ammo that is so much better in several important ways?

First, and perhaps most important for long distance shooting, and shorter distances too, is that regardless of the barrel twist rate the Aguila ammo is very unlikely to be more accurate than .22LR match ammo.

The 60 grain ammo can be expected a much wider ES than .22LR match ammo to have -- easily twice as much. For each 10 fps difference in MV, the 60gr round will drop about 0.4" at 100 yards, 1.6" at 200, and 3.9" at 300. Meanwhile, each 10 fps difference between Lapua Center X rounds (or SK Standard Plus) will drop about .25" at 100, 1.0" at 200, and 2.25" at 300. Additionally and more problematic for long distance shooting is that the heavier round will have a lot more drop than match ammo as distance increases, making a wider ES all the more difficult.

What's more, the 60 grain .22 ammo will drift more in the wind than 40 gr .22LR match ammo.

Where's the advantage to using 60 grain .22LR ammo over match ammo?

 

[jbell]

well neither of the options, nor reamers, are gonna make a lick of difference at 300m when you're shooting aguila 60gr sss super sniper or whatever trash

Truth

 

[jbell]

I have both on different rifles and I would say go with the lilja. Only reason I say that is because I received a brand new bartlein and there were machine marks and scratches on the lands. Looks like it was half-assed lapped. Maybe they were trying to keep up with demand and cut some corners. Not really sure what the reason is and I’m sure it’s not a big issue with them as they have a hell of a reputation but apparently some slip through the cracks.

Not to speak for Frank Green & the crew @ Bartlein but not all barrel manufacturers lap the internal finish to a high polish like Lilja does. How did that particular barrel shoot?

Personally I would never spend money on a Lilja barrel rimfire or centerfire, I have seen too many that would not shoot. Barts on the other hand hammer, as do Benchmark, Shilen Ratchet, Muller Works, & Krieger. Those are my usual go to barrels, well unless it is a Vudoo then I really have had good luck with their Ace barrels.

 

[DavidBoren]

If they don't perform then I will move on to something else. It is all a learning experience. Maybe someday I will even learn to take the advice given to me without getting defensive.

Thank you for the more informative response, b6graham.

I don't know dick about 22rf chamber reamers, but I do know I want to be able to extract live ammo without worry or issue. I figured I would mention them in this thread just to test the waters, see where the conversation may go. The reamers I mentioned were simply the ones I read about that had the fewest issues with extracting live ammo, but were still considered "match".

The 60gr is something I have wanted to play with. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Oh no, I bought 100 rounds of rimfire ammo that didn't live up to my expectations. So what? It's happened before, and I am sure it will happen again. In the past I have thrown more than 100 rounds of rimfire ammo in the trash just to clean out my pockets. Sure, it's more expensive now, but let's not pretend it's the end of the world if these 60gr subsonics don't shoot well for me. You all can say you told me so. Not a big deal. Everyone is jumping on my ammo choice like saving me from wasting $30 on two boxes of ammo is going to earn you a spot in heaven.

Ever just want to try something for the fuck of it? Because it exists? Because it appeals to some long lost part of your personality that still gets giddy excited like a child?

 

[b6graham]

i think if i were to go with the 9 twist with hopes of 60gr working

this is what my backup would be

CuRx 42gr 22LR Bundle - 200ct

NEW 200ct Introducing the Cutting Edge Bullets CuRx™ monolithic, lathe turned 22lr bullets. Your cure for Projectile Dysfunction! These 42gr lathe-turned, solid copper bullets are designed for use in faster twist rate (1:10") 22lr barrels. Comes with 200 42gr bullets and 200 pieces of primed...

cuttingedgebullets.com

or a 7 twist

CuRx 50gr 22LR Bundle - 200ct

NEW 200ct Introducing the Cutting Edge Bullets CuRx™ monolithic, lathe turned 22lr bullets. Your cure for Projectile Dysfunction! These 50gr lathe-turned, solid copper bullets are designed for use in barrels with a 1:7" twist. Comes with 200 50gr bullets and 200 pieces of primed, spun brass...

cuttingedgebullets.com

with those 42s you'll get high velocity and energy and it'll be flat.
you'll be looking at 600m soon enough

 

[JohnTheFisherman]

Not to speak for Frank Green & the crew @ Bartlein but not all barrel manufacturers lap the internal finish to a high polish like Lilja does. How did that particular barrel shoot?

I put about 500 rounds through it and never got an moa group. It’s been sent back and hopefully replaced.
Lilja is known for their lapping and I know not every barrel manufacturer goes to those lengths but Achebe the same results. I don’t think, however, that machining marks on the lands is acceptable for a barrel of that price point. It’s indicative of poor QC and Delors the leave you feeling confident about the purchase.

 

[b6graham]

I put about 500 rounds through it and never got an moa group. It’s been sent back and hopefully replaced.
Lilja is known for their lapping and I know not every barrel manufacturer goes to those lengths but Achebe the same results. I don’t think, however, that machining marks on the lands is acceptable for a barrel of that price point. It’s indicative of poor QC and Delors the leave you feeling confident about the purchase.

very far from what's common out of bartlein and im sure itll be made right

 

[DavidBoren]

Those Cutting Edge bullets, though. Damn. And neat. Very neat. I wasn't even aware that reloading rimfires was a thing. The fact they come in a perscription bottle that says "for best results, send it" makes me smile.

I've never really heard anything bad about Lilja's rimfire barrels.

Having lived in Paradise, MT (6mi away from Plains, where Lilja is, or was)... when I offered to have a 338rum put together for my dad, he chose Lilja for the barrel. Support local business or whatever. At the time, Lilja was recommending Dennis Olson to install their barrels. Dennis Olson was my dad's and grandpa's long time gunsmith.

Everything Dennis the Menace touches turns to shit.

My dad's 338rum has never shot well. Granted, my dad didn't follow any of my advice, cut corners even though I was paying for it with my 1st deployment moneys, and so I cannot say if it is the Lilja barrel or Dennis the Menace or some fucked up combination of the two.

All I know is that if I was going to rebuild that particular rifle, I probably wouldn't use another Lilja for it... and I sure as shit wouldn't use Dennis the Menace.

Bartlein is who I am going to use for my Rem700LA 284win rifle. They are at the top of my list for barrels I trust based on what I have read. For centerfire rifles, Bartlein will be my first and only choice until I am proven wrong by my own experience. I feel Barlein's reputation speaks for itself.

And, Lilja has a similar reputation in the rimfire world. That is why I have two choices listed. Lilja also offers what I looking for as a standard option, whereas it would require a special order to get what I want from Bartlein. Not that a special order is too terribly unreasonable, because it's not.

 

[jbell]

I put about 500 rounds through it and never got an moa group. It’s been sent back and hopefully replaced.
Lilja is known for their lapping and I know not every barrel manufacturer goes to those lengths but Achebe the same results. I don’t think, however, that machining marks on the lands is acceptable for a barrel of that price point. It’s indicative of poor QC and Delors the leave you feeling confident about the purchase.

Im sure Bartlein will take care of you. I know this doesn’t pertain to rimfire but on the internal finish I had a conversation with krieger years ago about internal finish of lapping and they prefer not to lap to a high polish. They said that they feel a highly polished bore has an affinity to copper up. After owning a lot of barrels over the years I have learned to stop looking too close at them and just pay attention to what the target tells me.
There was a time when I was of the opinion that a button rifled rimfire barrel was the way to go, but now that I have owned several cut barrels I realize that there are several ways to skin this rimfire accuracy cat.

 

[BikePilot]

Bartlein is as good as it gets imo. Nothing against Lija, but the Bart gets my vote.

 

[KnowNothing256]

OP, you mention a 16.5” barrel potentially hampering your 300m objective; what’s your thinking on this?

Also, on the 60gr thing, you’re coming in a bit sassy, sorry my friend. You opened with “Why the hell would I shoot 40gr subsonic ammo?” and were very clear that 40gr was the ammo of last resort and to be scorned. Then when folks pointed out well-known reasons to stick with 40gr subsonic match ammo, then it became “Everyone is jumping on my ammo choice like saving me from wasting $30 on two boxes of ammo is going to earn you a spot in heaven.” No, man, you made it quite clear that 60gr was your only plan, and the Hide was trying to save you and try to actually help you get to 300m.

Chill the hell out when you’re asking people to help you.

 

[RTH1800]

I have had two Lilja barrels and both were horrible. Would not shoot under 1” at 50 yards with any lot of Tenex. NEVER AGAIN.

 

[jbell]

I have had two Lilja barrels and both were horrible. Would not shoot under 1” at 50 yards with any lot of Tenex. NEVER AGAIN.

I have read that book...

 

[kvpm]

Based on the shooting frequency in your other post...

800 rounds x 52 weeks x 10 years = 416,000 rounds.

I would say bartlein’s new 400MODBB steel would be a great option for your build. They claim at least 50% more barrel life. And with 60gr subs, you could see barrel life well beyond that.

 

[nockhunter]

I would get the Lilja barrel, at least 22" with the Bentz chamber. Fast twists like longer barrels ( typically ), that's probably the best you're gonna get out of that ammo. (I think those 60g will chamber in the Bentz)

Mike

 

[DavidBoren]

Based on the shooting frequency in your other post...

800 rounds x 52 weeks x 10 years = 416,000 rounds.

I would say bartlein’s new 400MODBB steel would be a great option for your build. They claim at least 50% more barrel life. And with 60gr subs, you could see barrel life well beyond that.

I don't shoot that much anymore... 400rnds used to be $6.99, and I used to go to my grandpa's every weekend as a kid. My brother and I would each buy a brick, and spend the weekend shooting my Marlin... walking the train tracks, shooting off the bench, hiking up the mountain... shooting everything we saw like a bunch of dickhead kids that hadn't quite learned to fully respect nature.

The 4x Simmons scope was put on my Marlin after my brother's 597 shit the bed. Even the magnesium magazines couldn't keep that thing functioning worth a shit. And my Marlin was shooting lights out at the time, so we just used it.

One of those new formula Bartlein barrels could very well be a one and done at this point in my life. The rifle might see a 100rnds a month, if I am lucky. However, if I do get a Bartlein barrel, it will probably be in the new steel... I like what they have done, and I am willing to pay the premium if for no other reason than to support advances in this industry.

 

[skl1]

I'd be surprised if you could wear out any .22 barrel.

 

[b6graham]

I'd be surprised if you could wear out any .22 barrel.

It happens

 

[jbell]

I'd be surprised if you could wear out any .22 barrel.

It happens very often, but not in the same way as centerfire. It's not fire cracking and throat erosion but rather bore damage from the fouling created mainly by the priming compound. It's inescapable and accuracy will degrade at some point.

 

[grauhanen]

It happens very often, but not in the same way as centerfire. It's not fire cracking and throat erosion but rather bore damage from the fouling created mainly by the priming compound. It's inescapable and accuracy will degrade at some point.

The suggestion that .22LR barrels wear out "very often" may be surprising to some readers. It raises a couple of questions.

Disregarding improper cleaning techniques, what in the barrel wears out -- the rifling?

How can a worn out barrel be identified? Is a gradual decline in accuracy the best measure?

With enough shots, accuracy will inevitably decrease and it will vary from one make of barrel to another. Match ammo producers wish to have consistent accuracy from their test barrels and replace them periodically to maintain precision. Depending on the manufacturer, the interval ranges from 50,000 to over 150,000.

Competitive shooters can recognize when accuracy is no longer up to their needs. Casual shooters and those who never lot test may be less able to recognize when accuracy begins to diminish. They may have to rely on the idea that if a barrel has "X" number of rounds, it must be worn out.

 

[jbell]

Rimfire barrels will pit in the bottom of the bore. It looks dark, some call it frosting. It takes a LOT of rounds for it to become a problem and depending on your discipline the level of accuracy loss will vary in how you determine if a barrel needs to be replaced. A benchrest rifle needs a much higher level of accuracy than a 50m prone rifle.

I guess my point is rimfire barrels do not have an infinite life.

 

[jbell]

I guess for more context the barrels I have "worn out" were still very accurate by most accounts. They were still completely capable of winning any NRL22 stage or match. They just were not as accurate as they had been. I have really no clue how many rounds it took, but it was several years of razors edge accuracy. And you probably would have not know they were suffering if you didn't know how they "used to shoot" or wasn't using the very best tested ammo.

 

[flatland1]

If nothing else, this thread made me wonder about whether Bartlein's gain-twist rifling would be the way to go for any supposed improvement for ELR shooting with a 22RF. I'd talk to Frank Green at Bartlein before ordering a T-twist blank - if it's already been tried, he'd know about it. My thinking would be to go with a blank long enough to finish at 25" for a more gradual gain rate, and start at the breech with 1-16 or 1-16.5, then finish with maybe 1-9.5 at the muzzle - but you can bet your bippy I'd discuss this with Frank before placing the order. I'd venture to guess that Mike Bush has already had this discussion with Frank, since he was experimenting with straight 1-9tw bbls for ELR several months ago. Since Mike hasn't published any info on this subject, it means that either he wasn't interested in gain-twist 22RF bbls, or Frank advised against it, or he was just too darned busy working out all the details of the V-22S & V-22T (Three-60) actions & builds to screw with it. Be fun to talk with both Frank & Mike about that, but then again, if it was a good idea, with no accuracy penalty, wouldn't the RFBR guys already be using gain-twist bbls?

 

[flatland1]

I guess for more context the barrels I have "worn out" were still very accurate by most accounts. They were still completely capable of winning any NRL22 stage or match. They just were not as accurate as they had been. I have really no clue how many rounds it took, but it was several years of razors edge accuracy. And you probably would have not know they were suffering if you didn't know how they "used to shoot" or wasn't using the very best tested ammo.

Jesse, I recently bought a well-used CMP M52D in a nice Doan Trevor prone stock that was done on a nice Claro walnut blank. Someone had done the Kenyon-style trigger mod on it, which I was pleased to find when it arrived, especially since that wasn't mentioned in the listing for the rifle. I robbed the Ken Vianni scope base off my older CMP 52D, and used it to mount a Sightron SIII 45x45 scope on the 'new' 52D so I could find out how it shoots. First ammo I tried was a combination of proven good lots of SK Rifle Match, and some Lapua Center-X that was purchased after my oldest Krieger-bbl'd V-22 was tested at Mesa a couple of years ago. None of it shot very well at 50yds, with a lot of vertical that I'd never seen out of any of this ammo in Bartlein, Benchmark, Krieger, Lilja, or Shilen barrels with EPS or Nevius chambers. I borescoped it after giving it a thorough cleaning; the chamber wasn't visibly damaged, but there's a lot of reamer chatter on the tops of the lands from Winchester reaming the gun-drilled bore before rifling it. Only the lands in the bottom of the bore didn't have the reamer chattering, and only because those lands had been worn smooth by the abrasion of many thousands of soft lead std vel bullets picking up primer residue and carrying it through the length of the barrel. I didn't have a lot of hope for 'great' accuracy after seeing that, but went ahead and took it out again to test several left-over lots of Eley Match that I'd tested in an Anschutz 2011 a few years ago. Again at 50yds, the rifle shot quite a bit better with the Eley - maybe good enough to use in 50-100yd smallbore matches, but even then, only if I were inclined to lot test with both Match & Tenex, and was able to find ammo that was perhaps a little better than what I just happened to have on hand.

According to the info I obtained on this rifle, the previous owner had cleaned the Dewar at Perry with it, and it'd also been used to win the 'Made in America' team match, I guess during the same year. So it at least shot pretty darned well at some point before it was sold. My first inclination was to order in a Benchmark 3-groove or Shilen ratchet blank for it, or maybe even try a Krieger cut-rifled blank on it. But before doing anything radical, I believe I'll try to find some test lots of Eley and give it another chance. I'm not going to try to shoot RFBR with it, but would like to use it in some club smallbore any sight matches - and for that purpose, the original bbl might very well have enough life left in it to get me by...

 

[jbell]

Jesse, I recently bought a well-used CMP M52D in a nice Doan Trevor prone stock that was done on a nice Claro walnut blank. Someone had done the Kenyon-style trigger mod on it, which I was pleased to find when it arrived, especially since that wasn't mentioned in the listing for the rifle. I robbed the Ken Vianni scope base off my older CMP 52D, and used it to mount a Sightron SIII 45x45 scope on the 'new' 52D so I could find out how it shoots. First ammo I tried was a combination of proven good lots of SK Rifle Match, and some Lapua Center-X that was purchased after my oldest Krieger-bbl'd V-22 was tested at Mesa a couple of years ago. None of it shot very well at 50yds, with a lot of vertical that I'd never seen out of any of this ammo in Bartlein, Benchmark, Krieger, Lilja, or Shilen barrels with EPS or Nevius chambers. I borescoped it after giving it a thorough cleaning; the chamber wasn't visibly damaged, but there's a lot of reamer chatter on the tops of the lands from Winchester reaming the gun-drilled bore before rifling it. Only the lands in the bottom of the bore didn't have the reamer chattering, and only because those lands had been worn smooth by the abrasion of many thousands of soft lead std vel bullets picking up primer residue and carrying it through the length of the barrel. I didn't have a lot of hope for 'great' accuracy after seeing that, but went ahead and took it out again to test several left-over lots of Eley Match that I'd tested in an Anschutz 2011 a few years ago. Again at 50yds, the rifle shot quite a bit better with the Eley - maybe good enough to use in 50-100yd smallbore matches, but even then, only if I were inclined to lot test with both Match & Tenex, and was able to find ammo that was perhaps a little better than what I just happened to have on hand.

According to the info I obtained on this rifle, the previous owner had cleaned the Dewar at Perry with it, and it'd also been used to win the 'Made in America' team match, I guess during the same year. So it at least shot pretty darned well at some point before it was sold. My first inclination was to order in a Benchmark 3-groove or Shilen ratchet blank for it, or maybe even try a Krieger cut-rifled blank on it. But before doing anything radical, I believe I'll try to find some test lots of Eley and give it another chance. I'm not going to try to shoot RFBR with it, but would like to use it in some club smallbore any sight matches - and for that purpose, the original bbl might very well have enough life left in it to get me by...

Yep, I have been there. I have also found that with barrels in this condition they really need plenty of rounds after cleaning to get to whatever their potential is.

 

[grauhanen]

if it was a good idea, with no accuracy penalty, wouldn't the RFBR guys already be using gain-twist bbls?

A good observation. If progressive rifling (gain twist) provided better accuracy for BR shooters, they would be using it.

In order to get the best accuracy possible for long distance shooting, accuracy must be best at shorter distances as well. Whatever improves accuracy at 50 and 100, will improve it at longer distances.

To put it another way, when results are less accurate at 50 yards or 100 with a particular barrel, no matter what rifling it has, that barrel cannot cause the results to improve as distance increases. Accuracy with .22LR is not linear. That means it gets worse with distance.

 

[DavidBoren]

Generally, the difference start to finish in gain twist is less than an inch of twist... I think I read somewhere that around .75" is advised.

So if you want, say, a 1:10 average... you'd start slow at 1:10.375 and end up with 1:9.625 at the muzzle... which very well may be what I do. Probably finish it at ~21.5"...

 

[Rimdenter]

Let's talk physics here first off were not talking apples to oranges were talking apples to oak trees. Frank Green prefers about a 1/4 gain so he said, the last time I spoke with him. Knowing that 22lr round is more simular to a artillary round , where as modern center fires are liken to a rocket. We all understand that gravity is a constant no matter what. People who do not shoot past 300 yards for precision with a 22lr. Wouldnt see the adverse effects of constant forward motion. Theres a reason my every week target is 330 yds. When I shoot a 600 yard zero the peak of the arch is 338 yds. So what happens the projectile slowly climbs to this point , gravity is the same my GS is bleeding off then all then sudden I go from a controlled stable flight to a 35 % increase of additional surface deflection. Why ? The lateral axis of the projectile rotated ,the linear hasnt changed , but its stabilty is deteriorating now it has 35% and increasing forward surface pressure on it . See link for in depth study https://maritime.org/doc/firecontrol/partc.htm it's the closest to the flight path of a 22lr. My gyroscopic stability has bleed from 2.9 to a whopping .5 at 338 yards and I just started pushing my bullet forward at a 27-32 deg. angle nose down ? Hello yaw and my intended POI is but a hope now. Hence the equal in a CF would be a .308 at 2400 yds. How do I fight this linear rotation faster twist, and yes the gun should , better shoot good at 50 and 100 and 200. The last 100 yds of a 600 yd zero the bullet drops right at 12" every 5 yards. Your rifle has to be better then good. A 5 yard interval at 250 - 255 yds while ascending is slightly over 3" . That's 3.3339 times less deviation then your descent, what gives ? veloicty decrease and surface resistance increases gravity is the same. 2 of greatest accuracy robbing things alive the projectile starts yawing and deflecting off of your POI. A 16T barrel ain't the CATS ASS! for 600 yd repeatable accuracy, all the barrels I have will shoot , better then I do but some arent good for nothing but jack handles at 600 yds. Pic one shows peak pic 2 shows total drop in inches this is my dead on dope for my RIMX.

 

[DavidBoren]

Rimdenter, I am going to have to dive deeper into what you have presented. Thank you for the link and attachments to get me started.

 

[nockhunter]

Basically what you're saying is just because it's accurate at 50y doesn't mean it will be at 300y+ with a 1:16 twist. Hmmmm,,,,imagine that.









Mike

 

[Gleedus]

I'll have to echo what Rimdenter says. 50-100 yard groups have NO connection to 2-500 yard groups. Ok ok of you have a 5 inch group at 50 its going to be no good but a 0.4 at 50 vs a 0.7 tells you nothing even if the velocity ES, SD are the same.

 

[grauhanen]

It's not possible to verify the claim that a smaller group at a shorter distance cannot provide a basis for predicting ammo performance at longer distances.

An inescapable difficulty when discussing ammo performance at longer ranges is that it is next to impossible to measure and ascertain accuracy at distances much beyond 100 to 200 yards. There's too much that can influence results at longer ranges that throws group measurements into doubt.

It's possible to make good assessments about the performance of a particular ammo in a rifle up to 100 yards or meters because it's possible to test in a tunnel at places such as the Lapua testing facilities The rifle and stock can be put in a vise or the barreled action clamped in an immovable fixture, removing the human element from the equation. Different varieties and lots of ammo can be tested and reasonably accurate conclusions can be drawn based on the results produced by the electronic target sensors.

There are no tunnel facilities to test at further distances. None. The only way to test and compare CRPS Shooter's 0.4" group at 50 vs a 0.7" group at 50 (the latter already 1.75 times larger), and how they translate to results at distances beyond 100 or 200 yards, is to test it in outdoor conditions. The problem is that outdoor conditions are unreliable. Here the slightest wind changes, some not or only barely noticeable to the shooter can affect results all the more as distance increases. To illustrate, a mere one mph crosswind, which is hard to notice or feel on the face, can move a standard velocity .22LR round by about three inches at 300 yards. In short it's very difficult to shoot consistent results with .22LR at long distances.

Furthermore, it's typically not possible for most shooters to use a vise or fixture to clamp a rifle or barreled action. The human element is a very real part of the results equation. The result is that every shot in every group for which results are supposed to be assessed are not necessarily perfectly executed. Some or many of them might well be perfectly executed. But no one can know with certainty which ones were executed perfectly and which were not. The human element in shooting is unavoidable in shooting at long distances.

As a result of having to shoot outdoors and without eliminating the human element, it would be a mark of hubris to maintain that results achieved at long distances are sufficiently reliable to draw firm conclusions. Results at 50 or even 100 can be more reliably determined than those at 200 or 300 yards.

 

[grauhanen]

It would be instructive to have an explanation why an ammo that consistently produced poorer results than another at 50 or 100 (the 0.4" group at 50 vs the 0.7" group at 50, for example) would go on to produce better results at 200 or further. What force(s) would cause one ammo to consistently experience accuracy degradation at a faster rate than another, and, conversely, what would cause another ammo to retain accuracy longer than another.

To put it another way, if an ammo is better to 50 or 100 what would make it "give up" after a certain distance and loose it's performance level faster than another, hitherto more poorly performing, ammo as it continued downrange, both oblivious of the final distance or destination?

 

[jbell]

It is a peculiar thing with rimfire how performance at X range doesn’t always correlate to similar performance at Y range. You can see this when lot testing at 50 yards vs 100 yards sometimes. I have no idea why that is either, out side of a SWAG.

 

[Gleedus]

Lol @grauhanen I expected a reply along those lines. I am very curious how much long range 22lr group shooting experience you have? I have done a fair bit and I have repeatable results multiple days and rifles.
The explanation I think is quite simple. Barrel harmonics. The ammo that shoots best at 50-100 yards is tuned perfectly for this distance. The ammo that is doing best at 200 yards the tune is closer to 200 yards. Now when I say tune I am not running a tuner but as I watch my groups grow at 100 yards with the good long range ammo my slow velocity shots are hitting at or above center unless drastically lower then average.
If you throw a tuner into the mix you can exaggerate this even more with some barrels to the point your 100 yard groups at bigger on MOA then your 150 yard groups. E.g 1.5" group at 100 yards and 1.5" group at 150 yards.
I'm still doing more work on this but it would seem that there is a optimal velocity for my bare barrel "200 yard tune" in my case right around 1100 fps if the bullet "seating depth" is 0.78". There is a range that is good but shorter bullets need more velocity before they group well at distance. But those same shorter slower bullets grouped better at 50 until the velocity increased to the point they group well at 200. Now they group very simular to the ammo that grouped well at 200 all along.

 

[Rimdenter]

I'm claiming it's all derived by the MAGNUS FORCE ! checkmate CRPS! lol!

 

[grauhanen]

The explanation I think is quite simple. Barrel harmonics. The ammo that shoots best at 50-100 yards is tuned perfectly for this distance. The ammo that is doing best at 200 yards the tune is closer to 200 yards. Now when I say tune I am not running a tuner but as I watch my groups grow at 100 yards with the good long range ammo my slow velocity shots are hitting at or above center unless drastically lower then average.

Perhaps it is as simple as you suggest. This would seem to mean that some ammo is good for 50 yards but not for further distances. Similarly some other ammo would be good for 100 yards but less so for closer or further distances. And some ammo would be good for 300 yards but less so for other distances.

It's certainly a more convenient and palatable way to explain why an ammo of yours that performs better at 50 or 100 yards doesn't perform well at 200 or 300 yards. It also allows a shooter to disregard the difficulty of distinguishing between ammo performance at 200 and 300 yards on the one hand and the effects of shooting outdoors and imperfect shot-to-shot execution (not to mention ammo MV variation) on the other.

In any case, while you're curious about how much long range shooting I've done, I'm equally curious about your experience in assessing ammo performance at closer distances because you dismiss out of hand shorter range ammo performance as a basis for predicting longer range performance.

Many longer distance shooters eschew shooting at closer distances, often the reasons for that have little to do with evaluating ammo performance. A result of this is that many long distance shooters have an incomplete view of assessing ammo performance at shorter distances.

The two examples of 50 yard groups were given above -- .4" and .7" -- don't appear to have been the result of hyperbole. The fact is that neither group is the product of ammo that is consistent at 50 yards. As such, all bets should be off regarding their performance at further distances. Both should be disqualified from testing at further distances for lack of performance at 50.

Consider the following questions and how you might answer them. I don't want you to answer them here, but they are crucial when it comes to assessing ammo performance.

How do you determine how consistent ammo performance actually is at, say, 50 yards? What are your expectations for ammo that really shoots well in your rifle?

If someone shoots ten groups and the groups sizes vary between .25" and .5" (or more) is this good ammo at 50 yards?

How consistent must individual group sizes be among the total of ten or more groups in order for an ammo to be called capable of producing consistent results?

Without very good consistency at 50, results at further distances will suffer. Poorer performance at 50 should never be the goal of ammo selection for longer distance shooting.

 

[Gleedus]

@Rimdenter I really dont know about this magnus FORCE . I mean sure we have spin drift but....
I do think positive compensation plays a part to this how much I dont know and the less we need the better for precision at all distances. I watch the groups form at distance in relation to velocity looking for a pattern. Maybe maybe not... The tuner stuff at this point I have deliberately set aside. Barrel length and velocity spreads first. Then twist then tuner.

The problem with trying to come up with the why this or that happened is we can only see the result not what actually happened so really I dont know what is going on. I just have repeatable results. But I'm going through another round of testing maybe it will all be different this time.

At this point 400 yards and in is my main goal in a properly balanced rifle for PRS so testing will be with in those design restraints. 22lr ELR is just starting in canada that will have to be another project. I really enjoy reading what others discover with actual personal testing.

 

[Gleedus]

@grauhanen you didnt answer my question . I only started this rimfire um... obsession? 2 years ago. I have no experience with bench shooting so in that respect at 50 yards I have no experience. My last lot of center X I typically shot 5 10 shot groups in the 0.4s occasionally I got a 0.3s and suffered the occasional 0.5. That same lot of ammo was 8" 20 shot groups at 200 yards with good SD. Eley Tenex was 0.5s, 0.6s at 50 yards and 6" at 200. I say was as I shot all of that ammo and did not restock. SK Long range, Eley Contact, Eley Force all run 0.6, 0.7 at 50 and 4" at 200.

Many guys up here do not have access to longer ranges around here for ammo testing etc. So I have been gathering data on groups to see if there is a metric we can use at 100 yards to predict long range results. Nothing final at this point.

Now I should also say that even with CF I dont reload for the best precision but the best consistency as day after day performance in more important for what I do then just one day. With BR this is of course different. Well maybe not but you can load based on specific weather easier.

If everytime I go out Center X shoots 0.4-0.5 group at 50 yards and a 7-8" at 200 and my Eley contact is 0.7 at 50 and 3-4" at 200 is that not consistent results? Maybe with a bench gun it would be CX 0.2-0.3 and 5-6" vs EC 0.4 and 3"?

 

[DavidBoren]

CRPS shooter, those are interesting results with one ammo's group growing with disrance, and another ammo's group shrinking with distance. Same barrel's harmonics affect each ammo diffetently... or each ammo creates a different set of harmonics within the same barrel... either way, do you think a barrel tuning device could reverse/correct the trend shown?

Could such a device shrink your 200m Center X groups to be more consistent with the level of precision seen at 50m?

Would it possibly make the Eley 50m precision match its 200m accuracy?