Fast Twist- where are we?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It looks like we haven’t had a discussion on barrel twist lately? I’d figure that more than a few fast 1x9 barreled guns are out there and there has been enough time for a few long range matches so far this year. What are people seeing?

due to a lot of things I haven’t been able to get out to shoot yet this year with my guns. I have to 457‘s with LiLea one by nine barrels. I’ve shot one of them with an EC tuner for about 500 rounds but only at short range. The other gun doesn’t have a tuner but I only got it zeroed this weekend.

The barrel with the EC tuner is giving me a really nice 50 and 100 yard groups. I have a competition this weekend that I’m signed up for to stretch its legs. Unfortunately I don’t have dope for past 100 right now. Everything is learning experience.

 

[Lowlight]

You want Gain Twist not just a fast one

But people tried over twisting and it was fine in a short slow barrel, however, once you add too speed to a fast twist you start breaking bullets before they make it to the target.

The way to balance higher velocities with faster twists is to Gain it ... I have about 8 of them now, completely sold on the concept from start to finish. Reloading is easier, bullet weight in class is irrelevant, and accuracy is the same or better.

My take ...

 

[_Windrider_]

You want Gain Twist not just a fast one

But people tried over twisting and it was fine in a short slow barrel, however, once you add too speed to a fast twist you start breaking bullets before they make it to the target.

The way to balance higher velocities with faster twists is to Gain it ... I have about 8 of them now, completely sold on the concept from start to finish. Reloading is easier, bullet weight in class is irrelevant, and accuracy is the same or better.

My take ...

I too am a believer.

 

[6.5SH]

Anyone doing gain twist barrels for rimfire?

 

[littlepod]

I heard someone ordered a Bartlein 15-14 gain twist. Hasn't gotten it yet though.

 

[n2ishun]

What's old is new again.
Sharps was doing gain twist in the 1800's

 

[Bmwe36as]

You want Gain Twist not just a fast one

But people tried over twisting and it was fine in a short slow barrel, however, once you add too speed to a fast twist you start breaking bullets before they make it to the target.

The way to balance higher velocities with faster twists is to Gain it ... I have about 8 of them now, completely sold on the concept from start to finish. Reloading is easier, bullet weight in class is irrelevant, and accuracy is the same or better.

My take ...

What do you think is optimal gain for 22lr?


I personally have a 1:12gt and making groups like this.

 

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

What do you think is optimal gain for 22lr?


I personally have a 1:12gt and making groups like this.

View attachment 7891357

I too like the concept of gain twist, but wonder how it translates into subsonic lead bullets specifically? I guess it would be even more malleable and you could do even a larger transition???

On the group above, is that actual shot order- as during the string- or is that just the way the software notes them? I have a 3groove 1:16 on my 40X that for each string, starts out slow.

 

[Bmwe36as]

I too like the concept of gain twist, but wonder how it translates into subsonic lead bullets specifically? I guess it would be even more malleable and you could do even a larger transition???

On the group above, is that actual shot order- as during the string- or is that just the way the software notes them? I have a 3groove 1:16 on my 40X that for each string, starts out slow.

No no I have no idea which shot went where because I never recorded it. I just labeled it like so in the app

 

[obx22]

What's old is new again.
Sharps was doing gain twist in the 1800's

And folks were experimenting with gain twist, swaging bores, and fast twists in .22LR at least 18 years ago on RFC. I think gain twist only went to 12, swagers stepped the .22LR down to .20, .17, and possibly .14 (dunno if it actually happened). All of this was almost 2 decades too early, as now we have ELR capable scope adjustments in excess of 100MOA, tilt rails, and lens/mirrors/prisms that add higher amounts of MOA tilt. Fastest twist I remember was 9, but I’ve recently read of someone on the Hide with a 6.
I’m wondering how all the above as well as polygon bores will perform at distance (300+ yds).

 

[Lowlight]

I actually didn't realize this was in the rimfire section, but using the solids or the new crop of ELR-type bullets the Gain will certainly work better

 

[750k2]

Gain has been rehashed many times - It just wont die.
If they could get it to work it would've stood the test of time.
Knock yourself out.

 

[Lowlight]

Gains work, you;'re an idiot

I have 8...

 

[hlee]

Gain has been rehashed many times - It just wont die.
If they could get it to work (economically for the average shooter) it would've stood the test of time.
Knock yourself out.

Fixed. Manufacturers don't make things because they work. They make them because they sell. The difficulty with gain twist is that they can't be made as cheaply as standard barrels. And, the average consumer isn't willing to pay for something that they won't benefit from. I mean really, how many hunters and recreational shooters are shooting far enough to benefit from gain twist barrels?

 

[Lowlight]

You guys are not very smart and might want to watch my Bartlein video

Bartlein barrels has been doing Gain (Progressive) Twist barrels for a while, the only difficulty in making them is the fact I order them in a Left-Hand Twist so they have to change the Tool, that's it.

Bartlein uses a CNC Rifling Machine of their own design, not the old school geared machines or the Pratts, but a new CNC Design that means they don't have to do anything else but hit another button, their buttons go 4 decimal places too.

Your ignorance on the subject in modern times is deafening, tell me you never shot a Gain Twist without telling me by rehashing stuff from the 90s,

Gain Twist also reloads easier than standard twist barrels, they are not subject to bullet weight limitations either

In fact, my 260REM Gain Twist will zero with a handful of different bullets weights to the point you can't tell which weight is which until you get out to distance and BC kicks in...

So tell me again how they don't work, Service Rifles use them to cover all the weights in a 556, Benchrest is using them too as many are adopting the technology

 

[hlee]

You guys are not very smart and might want to watch my Bartlein video

Bartlein barrels has been doing Gain (Progressive) Twist barrels for a while, the only difficulty in making them is the fact I order them in a Left-Hand Twist so they have to change the Tool, that's it.

Bartlein uses a CNC Rifling Machine of their own design, not the old school geared machines or the Pratts, but a new CNC Design that means they don't have to do anything else but hit another button, their buttons go 4 decimal places too.

Your ignorance on the subject in modern times is deafening, tell me you never shot a Gain Twist without telling me by rehashing stuff from the 90s,

Gain Twist also reloads easier than standard twist barrels, they are not subject to bullet weight limitations either

In fact, my 260REM Gain Twist will zero with a handful of different bullets weights to the point you can't tell which weight is which until you get out to distance and BC kicks in...

So tell me again how they don't work, Service Rifles use them to cover all the weights in a 556, Benchrest is using them too as many are adopting the technology

If directed at me, I'm going to call this violent agreement. I am not trying to say that GT rifling is snake oil. My point is below...

Bartlein isn't targeting the big box outdoor store crowd. Their market segment sees the benefit of GT rifling. They have also invested in the computer controlled equipment necessary to do GT rifling. But, the average shooter is shooting at 100y or less, is buying store bought ammunition, and is happy with minute of pie-plate accuracy. The benefits of GT rifling to the average shooter is dubious at best.

(If a technology falls out of the market, it is not necessarily because it did not work. It is because it did not sell.) As the former CEO of the company I work for liked to say before we went IPO "Companies don't go out of business. They run out of money."

 

[Lowlight]

Oh, so not enough people are using it so in your mind that is a fail

To me, Bartlein advertises very little because they don't have to, they run 3 shifts.

Hornady has also tested this through Bartlein, so it's out there

Bartlein is a premium barrel, your Average Big BoX Shops are not selling anything but the lowest common denominator to people

How many custom Bartlein Barreled Rifles are going out the door at Cabelas in any form?

They sell Savage, Mossberg and usually, Button Cut or Hammer forged barrels like a Tikka vs Rifle Cut customs

See a lot of Kriegers at Sportsman's Warehouse or Scheels do we?

 

[hlee]

Oh, so not enough people are using it so in your mind that is a fail

To me, Bartlein advertises very little because they don't have to, they run 3 shifts.

Hornady has also tested this through Bartlein, so it's out there

Bartlein is a premium barrel, your Average Big BoX Shops are not selling anything but the lowest common denominator to people

How many custom Bartlein Barreled Rifles are going out the door at Cabelas in any form?

They sell Savage, Mossberg and usually, Button Cut or Hammer forged barrels like a Tikka vs Rifle Cut customs

See a lot of Kriegers at Sportsman's Warehouse or Scheels do we?

It sure is getting difficult to agree with people on the internet. It must be the heat. I really am on the same page with you here. I am not saying that GT rifling does not work, or that it is somehow a failure. I am merely addressing where the perception might arise that it is a failure. It is 750k2 that said GT rifling is a failure.

If one is looking across the entire firearms industry, one will see that the vast majority of rifles sold are sold with conventional rifling. Why? Because it is superior to GT rifling? No, because it doesn't require new capital investment, the cost of which has to be passed along to a cost-conscious customer base. This is my point. The majority of the market is in a race to the bottom, and any materials cost increase puts pressure on sales. It is not about "Does it work." It is all "Does it sell."

I don't know how many ways I can say "yes I agree," so I guess I'm out.

 

[littlesister]

Gains work, you;'re an idiot

I have 8.

An idiot is someone who try's to apply centerfire techniques to rimfire .There are remfire smiths who have spent their entire careers trying to build a remfire rifle that will put 25 shots in the same hole at 50 yds. Easily done with centerfire. What works with a jacketed aerodynamic bullet won't necessarily work with a soft lead bullet that can be deformed with your fingernail. I have no experience with GT remfire barrels but I have with FT barrels and see no advantage to using them over the proven 16T. At least out to 200yds. which is the limit of my remfire shooting. Actually FT were a disadvantage due to being extremely ammo sensitive. It's my opinion that FT remfire barrels are just a" flash in the pan". It's still all about the ammo!!!

 

[Lowlight]

Rimfire solids

Enough SAID

 

[blindspotter]

What I've been hearing is faster twist lessens vertical dispersion at 200 yards and beyond, while not grouping as tight as a 16 twist at closer distances. That's all secondhand info so take it for what it's worth.

 

[st1650]

You guys are not very smart and might want to watch my Bartlein video

Bartlein barrels has been doing Gain (Progressive) Twist barrels for a while, the only difficulty in making them is the fact I order them in a Left-Hand Twist so they have to change the Tool, that's it.

Bartlein uses a CNC Rifling Machine of their own design, not the old school geared machines or the Pratts, but a new CNC Design that means they don't have to do anything else but hit another button, their buttons go 4 decimal places too.

Your ignorance on the subject in modern times is deafening, tell me you never shot a Gain Twist without telling me by rehashing stuff from the 90s,

Gain Twist also reloads easier than standard twist barrels, they are not subject to bullet weight limitations either

In fact, my 260REM Gain Twist will zero with a handful of different bullets weights to the point you can't tell which weight is which until you get out to distance and BC kicks in...

So tell me again how they don't work, Service Rifles use them to cover all the weights in a 556, Benchrest is using them too as many are adopting the technology

Just for that I’d be interested in doing a gain twist for my next 6.5 creed because I shoot anywhere from Lapua 123s to Hornady 147s and would like them to have less poi drift.

 

[hlee]

Availability and institutional inertia.

 

[Lowlight]

Solids benefit from faster twists,

and because solids are not like lead you'd see a difference in performance

Show me the data, rimfire solids vs GT Barrels

 

[Lowlight]

if this is about competition, about pushing the envelope, why would you do what everyone else did before

This is how you reinvent the better mousetrap... experimentation

We know GT works, we know GT works better with Solids, A + B

 

[Lowlight]

Also,

I love the, "it won't work" people, Bill tried it and he didn't like it, saw no real benefit, there are always qualifiers, little to no... so some just not what they expected.

If this was always the case, I would have never gone forward with the 224V bolt gun, cause all the others who tried it in a gas gun didn't like it... sure my JP Gasser shot its lights out, but John, Steve, Bill, Ted, Alice, couldn't get it to work so just walk away

Meanwhile my A224V is doing this kind of accuracy

400 yards,

600

Why cause I went outside the box and use an LH GT Barrel Bartlein Barrel for the .22, centerfire.

 

[b6graham]

Again you're applying centerfire thinking to a round that been around since the 1870s. You don't think every twist rate has been tried since its inception? Rimfire is at the mercy of the ammo manufacturers and solid haven't taken off yet or proven to be any better. Better mouse trap? When was the last time rimfire had a leap in its development action or ammo wise. The hottest barrels in rfbr are muller or shilen and they're all pulled button barrels. Is it monkey see monkey do? I don't know but that's what wins thats for damn sure.. gt may have a place in centerfire but as far a rimfire goes they won't be at the top of the winners list anytime soon.

we're not talking rimfire benchrest here

we're talking 50gr copper solids at 1300fps and 1,000y

 

[Lowlight]

I don't get it ... noted,

 

[Lowlight]

If it's already been done, why the Vudoo,

Why the Rimfire Tactical Comps

Why the Rimfire ELR Stuff ...

All within the last 10 years, what did they miss 20 years ago ? Cause what was just written reads, Nothing, it was already done and figured out in 1870

 

[Tree]

What I've been hearing is faster twist lessens vertical dispersion at 200 yards and beyond, while not grouping as tight as a 16 twist at closer distances. That's all secondhand info so take it for what it's worth.

This is exactly my first hand experience in testing 1:9. Inside 200 no benefit. Getting out past 200 tighter groups. Last year at a Rimfire comp my 1:9 went 3/3 at 300, 3/3 at 400, 3/3 at 450 and 2/3 at 511. All on 12”x12” plates. When ran over the Applied ballistics mobile radar last year my 1:9 had better stability and better BC as well as SD for BC. (The 1:9 was shooting SK Std+ while my 1:16 was CenterX).

But these are just my findings.

Loading rimfire solids is a whole nother topic.

 

[justin amateur]

Interesting read...I can see the advantages of the gain twist,
understand the how and why....but there's still a hicough in the system.
Shooter's skill, setup and ammunition with ammunition being a problem
when the system includes rimfire. Even with a superbly talented shooter
with the best purpose built rifle, we are still limited to an 1800's technology
when using rimfire cartridges. Mass produced cartridges from a factory assembly line,
even with the best quality control available and there are still those annoying strays.
Whether due to mv differences shot to shot, or defects in the manufacture of components
and variations in tolerances over time, no rifle can fix ammunition problems.
Even the few that do handload their own rimfire cartridges report less than stellar results.
I'm thinking ammunition is the reason gain twist barrels didn't catch on when shooting rimfire.
No rifle can fix ammunition problems, and even the best rimfire cartridges on the market
produce too many strays when the entire box is sent at extended distances. Small defects
create small trajectory shifts, almost invisible at short range, but are amplified as range is increased.
Gain twist works with center fire handloads, but rimfire cancels out the improvement.

I think, probably.

 

[littlepod]

I made the mistake of getting a benchrest rimfire barrel before knowing more about the application. Benchrest rimfire is primarily 50y/50m. Shilen, Benchmark, Muller and their button rifled low groove barrels do well there. When pushing out past 300yards, cut rifling, higher groove have shown to better, and also faster twists have shown to have slightly better BC.

Now with PRS competitions, you shoot between 25 - 500y, so you want the best of both worlds. For now, I've been choosing 16T because generally competitions like to be cute and do things like 1/4" at 75y, or 1" at 125y, but they always make the 200y+ targets big. The targets at 200+ yards are never sized where you need a gain twist, or fast twist to hit them. At 350y, it always is like a full size IPSC, so I rather have the consistency to nail a 1/4" steel at 75y then worry about trying to do a 3" group at 300y.

I have a new Krieger cut rifled 6 groove 16T getting done for me now. I think 14 or 15 might be okay where the shorter distance groups are still fine, but I noticed my 12T to be meh sub 200.

 

[Matt_3479]

12 twists are super popular around my neck of the woods but similar results as posted. Sub 100/150 results are equal to or less then that of a 16 twist, but 150 and beyond results generally are better then that of a 16 twist. Now I shoot 2 series where it’s generally 100-350 so the 12 twist is getting together now, and 1 series that’s 25-100 so I’ll probably stick with a 16 twist

 

[Lowlight]

That is part of the trick with a GT, settling on the right amount of Gain for what we are shooting.

I use 3/4 in my set ups, but service rifles uses a lot more and BR is right around 1/2 or so.

Landing on the correct amount is key, maybe in Rimfire it’s 14-12, maybe it’s more, maybe it’s less I don’t know number ?

Could be 12-9 twist works best ?

Once it’s found though, oh the possibilities

 

[Emerson0311]

My 12T 22LR IBI barrel does great things for me at 300+. Those who I have personally talked to that have done the exhaustive comparisons vs 16T and 9T say 16T is better under 200 and 9T has massive spin drift and the bullet imperfections systemic with 22LR give wild flyers. It is working for me, but YMMV.

 

[RAVAGE88]

Also,

I love the, "it won't work" people, Bill tried it and he didn't like it, saw no real benefit, there are always qualifiers, little to no... so some just not what they expected.

If this was always the case, I would have never gone forward with the 224V bolt gun, cause all the others who tried it in a gas gun didn't like it... sure my JP Gasser shot its lights out, but John, Steve, Bill, Ted, Alice, couldn't get it to work so just walk away

Meanwhile my A224V is doing this kind of accuracy

View attachment 7892962
400 yards,

View attachment 7892963
600

Why cause I went outside the box and use an LH GT Barrel Bartlein Barrel for the .22, centerfire.

What @lowlight is saying here about the mindset is dead on. The fast twist testing that I've done over the course of four or so years tells a very detailed story. The most notable component within that story is a commitment to managing what it means to spin a 40 grain lead projectile, basically, twice as fast. The reason to do this is to tap into the available BC that a 16 twist will not allow. I also tested a 12 twist next to the nine and although there was an improvement in BC, it wasn't much better than the 16 twist. If one works the math backwards, you reach the actual published BC at the nine twist mark and the results agree with the math. What's done in RFBR is completely irrelevant to why one would spin a lead bullet faster than 16 twist.

Another way to illustrate my point; look at published BCs and then look at the actuals you guys have stored in your Kestrel. Tapping into the available BC coincides with exactly what @Tree said above about performance at the 200 yard mark and beyond; I have the data and Buford Boone witnessed it for himself. Bryan Litz and I have also discussed it and my findings coincide with his.

The greatest issue with the fast twist discussion, to the point I stopped talking about it, is an obtuse avoidance of what it takes to do things differently to accommodate spinning the bullet faster. To put it more bluntly, what John, Steve, Bill, Ted, Alice and Sam have to say about it means very little to nothing, but somehow, conclusions are still drawn that dilute the actual facts. Anymore, I just shoot the ones I built...and smile about the results....

Hope this helps,
MB

 

[grauhanen]

While the maximum distance in testing facilities is 100 meters, is there information published online or otherwise about fast twist performance with tested lots at that distance? That is to say, how do fast twist barrels perform under controlled conditions with their ammo of choice?

Outdoor shooting conditions are uncontrolled and rarely the same, especially as distance increases. With that in mind, not including anecdotal reports have there been published or online comparisons of results with standard and fast twist barrels using best ammo beyond 200 yards?

 

[RAVAGE88]

While the maximum distance in testing facilities is 100 meters, is there information published online or otherwise about fast twist performance with tested lots at that distance? That is to say, how do fast twist barrels perform under controlled conditions with their ammo of choice?

Outdoor shooting conditions are uncontrolled and rarely the same, especially as distance increases. With that in mind, not including anecdotal reports have there been published or online comparisons of results with standard and fast twist barrels using best ammo beyond 200 yards?

In short, no, there are no "official" published results. In addition, conditions, controlled or not, along with tested lots of ammo have zero impact on the reason for doing the testing. The conditions are the conditions and the ammo is the ammo. These variables are actually controlled as part of what the testing is and the results are clearly indicative of what is proper testing protocol.

Why would one want to test in conditions that will be different than what one would actually shoot in on a daily basis using ammo that one is likely to never get again? How would the results indicate anything reliable and/or, how would one apply factual results in an ongoing basis? This is the circular paralysis that continues to stifle progress.

Instead, the focus of the test is very intense as it relates to why one is doing the testing and what one is looking for. Then, the resulting answer(s) can be applied to any conditions and any ammo.

MB

 

[Milo 2.5]

In short, no, there are no "official" published results. In addition, conditions, controlled or not, along with tested lots of ammo have zero impact on the reason for doing the testing. The conditions are the conditions and the ammo is the ammo. These variables are actually controlled as part of what the testing is and the results are clearly indicative of what is proper testing protocol.

Why would one want to test in conditions that will be different than what one would actually shoot in on a daily basis using ammo that one is likely to never get again? How would the results indicate anything reliable and/or, how would one apply factual results in an ongoing basis? This is the circular paralysis that continues to stifle progress.

Instead, the focus of the test is very intense as it relates to why one is doing the testing and what one is looking for. Then, the resulting answer(s) can be applied to any conditions and any ammo.

MB

You and I have chatted, I am no skeptic here on faster tw, I will have one. It would still be nice to see a side by side comparison of a 16tw vs a fast tw at 5 & 600 yards, or beyond in the same conditions. Not sure what my problem is, I average 3 new centerfire barrels a yr, but I am acting like a flat earther here on a 22LR barrel swap.
I have been shooting 6-700 yards with a couple 16 tw rigs, 700 is a waste of ammo, but doing remarkably well at 600 in stellar conditions. Yet I get a few impacts where it is clear the bullet is tumbling. A wind over 6mph means no compete, lol, and a R-L wind is way harder than L-R.
I'm a candidate and most likely will be getting with you by summers end.

 

[RAVAGE88]

You and I have chatted, I am no skeptic here on faster tw, I will have one. It would still be nice to see a side by side comparison of a 16tw vs a fast tw at 5 & 600 yards, or beyond in the same conditions. Not sure what my problem is, I average 3 new centerfire barrels a yr, but I am acting like a flat earther here on a 22LR barrel swap.
I have been shooting 6-700 yards with a couple 16 tw rigs, 700 is a waste of ammo, but doing remarkably well at 600 in stellar conditions. Yet I get a few impacts where it is clear the bullet is tumbling. A wind over 6mph means no compete, lol, and a R-L wind is way harder than L-R.
I'm a candidate and most likely will be getting with you by summers end.

Yessir, we have and I've enjoyed the exchanges.

A side-by-side would be good for the masses, as the ones I've done over the years have all been during closed testing. I've thought about how to best upload the info and what I've decided is, it's likely best to pick a date, time and location and invite anyone with interest to show up and participate. I'm not currently interested in trying to convey the results via the internet (picture head slamming repeatedly into a brick wall).

Let's stay in touch and see what we can work out....

MB

 

[Milo 2.5]

Yessir, we have and I've enjoyed the exchanges.

A side-by-side would be good for the masses, as the ones I've done over the years have all been during closed testing. I've thought about how to best upload the info and what I've decided is, it's likely best to pick a date, time and location and invite anyone with interest to show up and participate. I'm not currently interested in trying to convey the results via the internet (picture head slamming repeatedly into a brick wall).

Let's stay in touch and see what we can work out....

MB

I totally get what you are saying, lol
A sidebar day get together would be cool. Right now I am drawing conclusions, and most likely it is subjective at best. A guy still has to follow what he is observing and make adj as you go.
I am not even sure why shooting a 22LR this far interests me, but I did have a guy at the range ask me what I was doing one day, told him and I got the smartass, WHY. When I asked if he could do it, I got a muffled pissy response, which I came back with, "that is why" and now it is totally justified.

 

[grauhanen]

Why would one want to test in conditions that will be different than what one would actually shoot in on a daily basis using ammo that one is likely to never get again? How would the results indicate anything reliable and/or, how would one apply factual results in an ongoing basis? This is the circular paralysis that continues to stifle progress.

Not only do shooters use test tunnels for testing ammo, but others, Cooper, for example, frequently test rifles/barrels in the controlled conditions of a testing tunnel.

With regard to testing standard v. fast twist in a tunnel, it was a matter of simple curiousity. Are they different? Knowing one way or the other isn't dangerous. As a wise fellow once noted, when a question has no answers there are no secrets.

 

[RAVAGE88]

Not only do shooters use test tunnels for testing ammo, but others, Cooper, for example, frequently test rifles/barrels in the controlled conditions of a testing tunnel.

With regard to testing standard v. fast twist in a tunnel, it was a matter of simple curiousity. Are they different? Knowing one way or the other isn't dangerous. As a wise fellow once noted, when a question has no answers there are no secrets.

Tunnels have their place, but more importantly, the test protocol is actually what determines a successful outcome.

I’ve been in Coopers tunnel, as well as Remington, Federal and a host of others and I’ve designed and made the barrels being tested. What works in a tunnel works in a tunnel and it goes back to protocol.

In this instance, it’s not a question of whether the question has an answer but instead, whether the answer is actually understood.

MB

 

[Emerson0311]

Those who chase small vertical spread from 22LR at 300yds are very few compared to the whole set of Rimfire shooters. The majority just don’t care what any 22LR barrel does that far out. In practice that means many 22 shooters scorn the idea that a faster twist rate helps, because it doesn’t help them with what THEY do with a 22. I’ve talked to people in Canada that have done 22LR twist rate testing, and they are convinced the 12T at least, lessens vertical spread at 300 any beyond. They also say many consumers constantly question the raw test data that they are rarely competent to interpret, and are always too cheap to do the proper testing on their own. Those customers buy 16T barrels. The few that have the capability and budget to do their own research do it, and mostly keep their raw data to themselves for the same reasons. I shoot a 12T because I trust the people I know that have tested it in the application I use it for.

 

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

We’ll, got my CZ457/LiljaX9/ETS tuner rifle out today for the CRC LR-22LR match.

Got spanked. Didn’t have dope for past 118 yards, so the warm-up/sighting in was… spicy. 10-20winds from the back and or west didn’t help with the ambiguity when you are having to hold 4 mils at distance. I don’t have much paper on it, just steel. It seems to want to shoot one-hole-ish at 100. Even with the wind, I felt at 200 that I was in control- which I didn’t feel when I shot my 40Xconv/Benchmark barrel. At 400 yards, it still seems like there is a demon flicking bullets off path- but we only had 2 shots per string at that range, so not enough shots to settle it down- plus that much wind is going to add some variation. At 300 in these wind conditions, I felt I had control

And this is with just mounting the barrel tuner and not optimizing it. It did pretty well from the initial position and I haven’t had the right conditions to work it out.

I have my son’s gun which is in a LSS versus my ACC chassis from MDT, and he doesn’t have a tuner yet. Need to get that out with mine and my 40x/Benchmark to really see the differences.

 

[justin amateur]

Vertical spread is a function of time of flight, isn't it?
Velocity differences in the projectiles cause differences
in the time it takes to travel from muzzle to impact.
That allows gravity to affect results, with slower bullets
dropping further than faster bullets.
I can see where twist rate can improve stability, but not mv spread.
Am I reading this wrong?

 

[Williwaw]

Those who chase small vertical spread from 22LR at 300yds are very few compared to the whole set of Rimfire shooters. The majority just don’t care what any 22LR barrel does that far out. In practice that means many 22 shooters scorn the idea that a faster twist rate helps, because it doesn’t help them with what THEY do with a 22. I’ve talked to people in Canada that have done 22LR twist rate testing, and they are convinced the 12T at least, lessens vertical spread at 300 any beyond. They also say many consumers constantly question the raw test data that they are rarely competent to interpret, and are always too cheap to do the proper testing on their own. Those customers buy 16T barrels. The few that have the capability and budget to do their own research do it, and mostly keep their raw data to themselves for the same reasons. I shoot a 12T because I trust the people I know that have tested it in the application I use it for.

Well said. I don't feel there is any onus on the people doing this research to answer or report to anyone but themselves. I am grateful to accept their advice when they are generous enough to share it. I don't shoot lot tested ammo in a tunnel so I am more interested in advances that are sufficiently robust to be applicable in my circumstances.

 

[Williwaw]

Vertical spread is a function of time of flight, isn't it?
Velocity differences in the projectiles cause differences
in the time it takes to travel from muzzle to impact.
That allows gravity to affect results, with slower bullets
dropping further than faster bullets.
I can see where twist rate can improve stability, but not mv spread.
Am I reading this wrong?

My thinking is that if bullets are unstable in various random ways then their drag will vary also, thus increasing vertical. Beware, these are not the thoughts of a ballistician.

 

[Williwaw]

A wind over 6mph means no compete, lol, and a R-L wind is way harder than L-R.

I'm keen to know how many others also believe that a R-L wind is harder to hold for than a L-R. This is consistent with my experience but I thought I just sucked. Don't spare my feelings ... I can take the truth.

 

[RAVAGE88]

Vertical spread is a function of time of flight, isn't it?
Velocity differences in the projectiles cause differences
in the time it takes to travel from muzzle to impact.
That allows gravity to affect results, with slower bullets
dropping further than faster bullets.
I can see where twist rate can improve stability, but not mv spread.
Am I reading this wrong?

No sir, you’re spot on (not surprisingly) and now we’re getting somewhere. Time-of-flight (TOF) is how BC is measured and one of the many reasons why ammo consistency is important. However, we don’t have to go around the block to get across the street….which is what happens with all the talk about lot testing and other such distractions just to have usable information. No joke, one can do the testing with a Bucket O’ Bullets with a well written test protocol and extract highly useful information. If we jump to the back of the book though, spinning the bullet faster increases stability, which raises BC and results in less vertical, or group dispersion in general.

Once we know (and I already do) what to look for in a fast twist setup, obviously using 16 twist ( or 12, or whatever) as a benchmark, we then dial down into the finer details of what ammo works best in a fast twist that has been set up properly. The “set up properly” coincides with what I stated above about a lack of commitment to doing whats necessary when spinning a bullet basically, twice as fast. One can’t and shouldn’t build the rifle the same as one would when using a slower twist barrel and expect stellar results.

Thanks Dude

MB