LOL, I'm no dream crusher, I'm only relaying what I see. It seems like the vertical dispersion is far greater, along with wild fliers off to either side. I have my theories, and it all comes back to needing a more stable bullet.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Fast Twist- where are we?
- Thread starter FromMyColdDeadHand
- Start date
MB I’m a Vudoo fan and started shooting a Vudoo because I thought they were cool even before I discovered PRS. I since have really went down the rabbit hole with this stuff and now own multiple Vudoo’s with different barrels. While I do enjoy reading your posts and even have listened to some of the podcasts I can’t help but wonder why so vague?? It seems that you want everyone to think you have the answers so share with us your findings. That last sentence was worded wrong…. I am sure of it that you know the answers to these questions. Please share what you have found. You lead us to believe faster twists are better at distance but hold back in saying that it has to be done a certain way. To my knowledge (I have called and asked) VGW has no intentions of marketing fast twist barrels. So why the secrets??
Tell us what you have found!! You usually don’t give 2 shats what anyone else thinks so why now??
I would love to hear what you have found! Thanks
Tell us what you have found!! You usually don’t give 2 shats what anyone else thinks so why now??
I would love to hear what you have found! Thanks
I really appreciate your response here and you're correct to call out that I'm being vague. There's so much more to share about the capabilities of a fast twist 22LR, and, for a long time, I've been known to be very open about sharing details. Over the course of more than four years of working on fast twist barrels, I worked hard to do just that. However, if one were to read my last few posts carefully, the answers are already there.
So, what has changed for me? Why am I not being open about this? The answer is very simple and I've continued to use the word "commitment." If I take the use of the word "commitment" a little further, it means to me that the community, as a whole, isn't really ready for it. Manufacturers can't, and in some cases, don't want to wrap their heads around it and ultimately, end up contributing to the "authoritative" narrative that "fast twist barrels just don't work." And for many, that's where the discussion ends, except for on the internet where all kinds of ego-based conjecture thrives.
So, instead of talking, I'm waiting....I don't have to share anything right now. I'll continue quietly and stand by the sentence you referenced above, which is worded perfectly; "One can’t and shouldn’t build the rifle the same as one would when using a slower twist barrel and expect stellar results." The comments on this forum over a period of time have proven that sentence to be true.
Lastly, I appreciate you. I appreciate that you entered into the discussion the way you did and I appreciate that you've voted with your feet. Reach out anytime if you need anything or have questions, etc.
MB
I appreciate the response sir! I do understand some of your let’s say “Vagueness” lol. The internet has created many evils… most of those are people that would get punched in the mouth for things typed from the basement! It’s also created loads of useful information available to all. Thanks again for your wealth of knowledge! Eager to learn more each and every day…
I'm curious as to why people are not trying 15 or 14 twist. Maybe they are and aren't talking?
I've played with stability calculators and the typical 16 twist is provides a stability factor in the 1.3 - 1.4 range where the accepted minimum stability factor is 1.5. Just going to a 15 twist bumps the stability factor over 1.5. Given that rimfire bullets are not as perfectly made as centerfire bullets, it baffles me why one would want to jump all the way to 12 twist, much less 9 (almost double the rpm).
I've played with stability calculators and the typical 16 twist is provides a stability factor in the 1.3 - 1.4 range where the accepted minimum stability factor is 1.5. Just going to a 15 twist bumps the stability factor over 1.5. Given that rimfire bullets are not as perfectly made as centerfire bullets, it baffles me why one would want to jump all the way to 12 twist, much less 9 (almost double the rpm).
I see it almost like a feedback loop. The better (faster?) the spin, the less wobble and greater the stability- which leads to less speed loss due to yaw induced drag, which leads to greater velocity retention, which leads to less wobble, which leads to….
And if drop is related to time to target, which is from speed over distance- the more consistent the speed (since we can’t ‘warp’ out way out of it like a 22Nosler) the more consistent the drop. That’s the model I’m using in my head. Spin affects BC, which affects velocity loss and more importantly its variation.
RF isn’t CF. But the CF models say that a 40gr/22 cal bullet at subsonic speeds needs more than a 1:16 twist to ‘stabilize.
For a lead 22 cal bullet of 40gr, shot at 1050 or so, what is the twist that would compromise the integrity of the bullet? I’ve seen number for high-speed jacketed bullets, but not for small caliber, un-jacketed, subsonic.
From what I read last night, you look for the least amount of twist needed
in order to stabilize the projectile for the distance it's likely to be sent.
For most of us, with access to ranges with distances less than 200 yards,
the 1:16 industry standard provides more than enough spin to provide the needed stability.
Cartridge and rifle quality will be more of a problem than twist rate.
It's when you push the envelope, to the outer limits, that's where the gain twist is most effective.
As a small game hunter and hobbyist, I won't be able to make use of the improvement
as I don't spend any time at the far edge of rimfire use.
For me, cartridge quality is the limiting factor.
The improved barrel can't fix the rimfire ammo I'm able to find and purchase.
If I shoot center-fire, my handloads are capable of better results than my physical limitations allow.
Thanks for the information gents.
in order to stabilize the projectile for the distance it's likely to be sent.
For most of us, with access to ranges with distances less than 200 yards,
the 1:16 industry standard provides more than enough spin to provide the needed stability.
Cartridge and rifle quality will be more of a problem than twist rate.
It's when you push the envelope, to the outer limits, that's where the gain twist is most effective.
As a small game hunter and hobbyist, I won't be able to make use of the improvement
as I don't spend any time at the far edge of rimfire use.
For me, cartridge quality is the limiting factor.
The improved barrel can't fix the rimfire ammo I'm able to find and purchase.
If I shoot center-fire, my handloads are capable of better results than my physical limitations allow.
Thanks for the information gents.
Spitballin here, I saw Bugholes had 15tw barrels, novel idea, I will rebarrel to one when the time comes.
In centerfire, mass produced tw rates are dictated by new bullet designs, how long did we shoot 9tw 7mm barrels, I do believe it was close with 6.5 too. with 8.5 to 8tw. Better bullets sped the process up.
In Rimfire, there has been no real advancements in bullet designs, if you wanted to shoot long, faster tw barrels just made sense. I'm glad someone thought of it, I wouldn't have. Plus, as much money as I piss away on gun stuff, what's the cost of a barrel to try?
Weight doesn't determine twist it's length.
Lead isn't copper.
CF isn't RF
Over 100yrs of people trying gain - comes and goes.
If it was the thing it would have stayed.
The 1-12 idea has possibilities - It's all good til you jump the rifling.
Be interesting to try 1-12,13 & 14's
Temps play a big part in RF also.
But I'm an idiot and not interested in hitting a dumpster at 300+
Lead isn't copper.
CF isn't RF
Over 100yrs of people trying gain - comes and goes.
If it was the thing it would have stayed.
The 1-12 idea has possibilities - It's all good til you jump the rifling.
Be interesting to try 1-12,13 & 14's
Temps play a big part in RF also.
But I'm an idiot and not interested in hitting a dumpster at 300+
My experience tells me people with 12T 22LR barrels like them for the long distance performance gains, and those with only 16T either don’t care, or say the 12T is shitty. If you are too cheap to try it, your opinion is, well, as useful as your opinion of anything else you don’t try. Just like hunters who only know thick bush hunts when they scorn rangefinders and tripods, while themselves practice their shooting from a range bench? Conformity is cancer.
Oh yeah and one more thing - I did not even mention the word FAILURE.
I said been tried many times and goes away and then someone thinks they
found the holy grail and takes another run.
When I see the GT ruling the line I might give it a try.
Until then any quality rifled bbl LAPPED correctly with a really nice chamber
and a pilot that can fly the wind will win.
I said been tried many times and goes away and then someone thinks they
found the holy grail and takes another run.
When I see the GT ruling the line I might give it a try.
Until then any quality rifled bbl LAPPED correctly with a really nice chamber
and a pilot that can fly the wind will win.
I have been watching these fast twist 22lr discussions with great interest, & have had a brief PM conversation with Mike about what is basically boils down the desire to build a better mouse trap.
(Probably should have kept my mouth shut as it has been harder to read between the lines of what has been posted since)
Chose the post above to quote as it alludes to what has been MANY MANY hours of time for MB to be confident in what he has said & done.
Still thinking about the how, what where & why of "what it takes to do things differently to accommodate spinning the bullet faster" entails, but it is clearly a lot more involved than just putting any fast twist barrel on any old action.
I have been waiting patiently & saving money for the time when the Mikes Fast twist Vudoo will be available.
Looking forward to that day & thanks again for coming back on here @RAVAGE88
I just wish he would share what he has found so we could help test it. At least tell us what doesn’t work and that could save some time and money. I have shot a 1 in 15 barrel with a known and well plotted lot of Eley I had and my finding was it picked up BC even though the barrel shot the same lot 15-20fps slower. The slower part I know was partly due to the fact that the barrel was 4” longer than the previous barrel.
What discipline are you referring to? Unless you’re referring to long range 22 we can all wait until hell freezes over as the BR crowd shows disdain towards any thing that is not winning right now.
What amount of pressure have you seen behind a lead projectile that will lead to "jumping the rifling?" When this has happened, might you know what the Brinell hardness was?
MB
Exactly - no one knows the alloy #'s of what they use.
I don't mess with the fast twist idea as in 9" but it would have more upset for sure
This is where the gain theory comes in - you start slow and speed the projectile up
reducing the rotational force compared to a straight 9 twist.
These bullets are swaged and we have no way of knowing what the base looks like.
As they exit they will be fighting to stabilize or go to sleep in the first critical feet of
flight - reason for a bloop on the end of tuners - in theory to keep the wind at the muzzle
from contacting the bullet as it yaws and fights to find it's rotational center.
If I wanted to reduce vertical - personally I would look into a reverse taper longer bbl
with a tuner and tune at distance with known fast vs slow lots.
Tune to get time in bbl to match up to the slow lot leaving at it's highest point vs the fast
exiting near the bottom at the vibration wave.
Short fat bbl's vibrate at a very tight frequency - In my school of thought you want bbl vibration.
All I originally stated was that gain has been chased for well over 100 yrs but some really smart
people and we see where it is today - sure people will make one for you - why not your buying.
I only shoot to 200yds - all I have at hand - But I have chosen to go down this rabbit hole.
The science of this approach makes more sense to me and in the words of Yukon Cornellious
You eat what you like I'll eat what I like.
I see where gain could work where you have more control of what you send down the pipe but
the variations in RF will not shine imop.
If I can get my rig to shoot from a stable bench there is no reason it shouldn't running around
playing army.
But then again I'm just an idiot so who knows
I don't mess with the fast twist idea as in 9" but it would have more upset for sure
This is where the gain theory comes in - you start slow and speed the projectile up
reducing the rotational force compared to a straight 9 twist.
These bullets are swaged and we have no way of knowing what the base looks like.
As they exit they will be fighting to stabilize or go to sleep in the first critical feet of
flight - reason for a bloop on the end of tuners - in theory to keep the wind at the muzzle
from contacting the bullet as it yaws and fights to find it's rotational center.
If I wanted to reduce vertical - personally I would look into a reverse taper longer bbl
with a tuner and tune at distance with known fast vs slow lots.
Tune to get time in bbl to match up to the slow lot leaving at it's highest point vs the fast
exiting near the bottom at the vibration wave.
Short fat bbl's vibrate at a very tight frequency - In my school of thought you want bbl vibration.
All I originally stated was that gain has been chased for well over 100 yrs but some really smart
people and we see where it is today - sure people will make one for you - why not your buying.
I only shoot to 200yds - all I have at hand - But I have chosen to go down this rabbit hole.
The science of this approach makes more sense to me and in the words of Yukon Cornellious
You eat what you like I'll eat what I like.
I see where gain could work where you have more control of what you send down the pipe but
the variations in RF will not shine imop.
If I can get my rig to shoot from a stable bench there is no reason it shouldn't running around
playing army.
But then again I'm just an idiot so who knows
I have been super interested in the faster twist barrels for a while. I have been waiting and picking my spot to jump in, What got me into this was when i got out of the group think on ammo speeds. I was told by many shooters to not use any super/hyper sonic ammo if I was looking for accuracy. My ammo choices were slim, if I wanted to lot test last year. RWS was the only place that promised me ammo if I tested their RWS100..Sponsered shoots even told me no, do not do it because of speed. I did it anyway, it has been far an away the most accurate ammo I have ever had in that gun..I was pushing 1235 this weekend..and still shooting lazers. It shot lazers at 1150 at 35 degrees. Unfortunately it hits where I aim that isn't always good for my scores..So now I know it's not the speed per say, its the quality. I do wonder if a faster bullet spins faster out of a 1/16'' than a slower bullet does? I guess to phrase the question right, is it's rotations at 200 yards more than a sub? or is the rotations the same but it just gets there faster? Like a car tire, a mile is a mile and it will rotate the same amount of times no matter how fast you drive the mile. Anyway, this ammo has made me open to not just blindly trusting the group think, and I am super excited to try this faster twist..I am sure there is a sweet spot some where..I have enjoyed reading this thread.
I have sequential serial numbered .217 bore, 22lr Bartleins on the shelf for this test in the fall. One is 1-16 and the other is 1-6
Interesting enough, I’ve seen that faster twist barrels tighten speeds, much the same as longer barrels do
For your shooting with RWS100 are there particular distances you shoot at? I noticed yesterday, shooting at sea level, I had ammo that was shooting at 1115, and it had kind of crappy groups at 50y, but really tight groups at 100y, and makes me think that there's some sort of transonic wobble early on that stabilized out further.
I do all my lot testing mainly at sea level.., I will say not all performed well at 50, and did better, closer to average of the other lots at 100 and 200 (200 is still kind of a crap shoot i think but you know when you laid down good shots and can except what the target told ya). I thought about it crossing back to sub, and that was what was causing that but not all lots did it. This is way above my knowledge level..I guess the other lots could have been going sub a different yardage. I picked the lot that did well at 50 and 100 and the best at 200 and so far from the beach to the mountains and in all those temps here in VA and NC is has done well..I will say my wind holds are bigger than my buddy who shoots SKRM other than that, I have seen no issues with it and love the stuff..other than the price..
You haven't done much with lead before - it is not the same a jacketed - whole nother ballgame.
RF is way closer to shooting cast than loading CF.
All bullets wobble as they exit some less some more as they fight to find the center of rotation.
Think if one side of a bullet is heavier than the other or even a small spot of hvy/lt alloy because
when the binary/trinary alloy cooled it formed. How many rotations/sec is it turning - Bang a
2oz weight on your front tire rim and you'll feel what I mean.
Until the bullet starts to find its rotational center it will yaw back and forth and then stabilize.
At the point it stabilizes it when it goes to sleep - boy I'm feeling old all of a sudden.
You sure picked the Vudoo part right because messin deep in rimfire and to a lesser extant
cast there is vudoo involved. The less you mash that lead glob around the better.
The base of the bullet has more effect than the nose - hence the rise of nose pour moulds.
In the words of Forest ("I'm kinda tired I think I'll go home now")
RF is way closer to shooting cast than loading CF.
All bullets wobble as they exit some less some more as they fight to find the center of rotation.
Think if one side of a bullet is heavier than the other or even a small spot of hvy/lt alloy because
when the binary/trinary alloy cooled it formed. How many rotations/sec is it turning - Bang a
2oz weight on your front tire rim and you'll feel what I mean.
Until the bullet starts to find its rotational center it will yaw back and forth and then stabilize.
At the point it stabilizes it when it goes to sleep - boy I'm feeling old all of a sudden.
You sure picked the Vudoo part right because messin deep in rimfire and to a lesser extant
cast there is vudoo involved. The less you mash that lead glob around the better.
The base of the bullet has more effect than the nose - hence the rise of nose pour moulds.
In the words of Forest ("I'm kinda tired I think I'll go home now")
So are you saying it’s rotational force that causes a bullet to yaw?You haven't done much with lead before - it is not the same a jacketed - whole nother ballgame.
RF is way closer to shooting cast than loading CF.
All bullets wobble as they exit some less some more as they fight to find the center of rotation.
Think if one side of a bullet is heavier than the other or even a small spot of hvy/lt alloy because
when the binary/trinary alloy cooled it formed. How many rotations/sec is it turning - Bang a
2oz weight on your front tire rim and you'll feel what I mean.
Until the bullet starts to find its rotational center it will yaw back and forth and then stabilize.
At the point it stabilizes it when it goes to sleep - boy I'm feeling old all of a sudden.
You sure picked the Vudoo part right because messin deep in rimfire and to a lesser extant
cast there is vudoo involved. The less you mash that lead glob around the better.
The base of the bullet has more effect than the nose - hence the rise of nose pour moulds.
In the words of Forest ("I'm kinda tired I think I'll go home now")
And now we know….You haven't done much with lead before - it is not the same a jacketed - whole nother ballgame.
RF is way closer to shooting cast than loading CF.
All bullets wobble as they exit some less some more as they fight to find the center of rotation.
Think if one side of a bullet is heavier than the other or even a small spot of hvy/lt alloy because
when the binary/trinary alloy cooled it formed. How many rotations/sec is it turning - Bang a
2oz weight on your front tire rim and you'll feel what I mean.
Until the bullet starts to find its rotational center it will yaw back and forth and then stabilize.
At the point it stabilizes it when it goes to sleep - boy I'm feeling old all of a sudden.
You sure picked the Vudoo part right because messin deep in rimfire and to a lesser extant
cast there is vudoo involved. The less you mash that lead glob around the better.
The base of the bullet has more effect than the nose - hence the rise of nose pour moulds.
In the words of Forest ("I'm kinda tired I think I'll go home now")
Thank you, Sir.
MB
I just want a (expletives ommited) rifle that groups at any distance I shoot at, with what ever type of ammo I can acquire in quantity (so I’m not constantly sighting in/testing)!
Where the hell did polygon bores go?
In fast twist, is lands/grooves count any more or less impactful in groups size IN WIND?
So many questions…..
Where the hell did polygon bores go?
In fast twist, is lands/grooves count any more or less impactful in groups size IN WIND?
So many questions…..
It's possible it's unlikely there can be definitive, quantifiable data about how well fast twist barrels perform at long distances compared to standard twist.
Why? Long distance shooting is invariably outdoors where wind or air movement is always a potential problem than can make results inconclusive. Add the potential for shooter error -- which is by its very nature unpredictable and often unrecognized -- and the results become potentially more inconclusive.
There are too many variables to have a reliable side-by-side comparison of fast and standard twist at long distance.
Nevertheless, it may be possible to compare non-on target data. For example, faster twist barrels produce better BC values so that should lend that quality to target performance -- at least in theory if not in practice.
What is known in practice is that not all ammos increase in group size as distance increases. It's been shown by a comparison of results of E targets at Lapua testing facilities that on average ten-shot groups increase in size by a factor of about 2.8 between 50 and 100 meters. Of course, some lots will be better or worse than others. And of course some rifles/lots will perform better or worse than others.
The reasons for the differences in dispersion ratees are understood and suffice it to say that different lots/rounds have bullets with different centers of gravity. Soft lead bullets are exceedingly difficult to manufacture with no Cg offset whatsoever. They are unlike jacketed centerfire bullets, more like lead pellets or cast bullets.
Center of gravity differences, along with how bores contribute to the obturation of the soft lead bullets, determine why groups from some lots expand more or less with distance than others.
Will ammo that increases in group size at a smaller rate between 50 and 100 meters continue to expand at lesser rates at distances further out?
That remains unconfirmed because of an absence of data. Unless there is some other force acting on the rounds as they fly downrange, however, it may not be unreasonable to think that the pattern established between 50 and 100 may continue.
As a result, perhaps these ammos, the lots that show the smallest increase in dispersion between 50 and 100, are the best ones to use at further distances.
Why? Long distance shooting is invariably outdoors where wind or air movement is always a potential problem than can make results inconclusive. Add the potential for shooter error -- which is by its very nature unpredictable and often unrecognized -- and the results become potentially more inconclusive.
There are too many variables to have a reliable side-by-side comparison of fast and standard twist at long distance.
Nevertheless, it may be possible to compare non-on target data. For example, faster twist barrels produce better BC values so that should lend that quality to target performance -- at least in theory if not in practice.
What is known in practice is that not all ammos increase in group size as distance increases. It's been shown by a comparison of results of E targets at Lapua testing facilities that on average ten-shot groups increase in size by a factor of about 2.8 between 50 and 100 meters. Of course, some lots will be better or worse than others. And of course some rifles/lots will perform better or worse than others.
The reasons for the differences in dispersion ratees are understood and suffice it to say that different lots/rounds have bullets with different centers of gravity. Soft lead bullets are exceedingly difficult to manufacture with no Cg offset whatsoever. They are unlike jacketed centerfire bullets, more like lead pellets or cast bullets.
Center of gravity differences, along with how bores contribute to the obturation of the soft lead bullets, determine why groups from some lots expand more or less with distance than others.
Will ammo that increases in group size at a smaller rate between 50 and 100 meters continue to expand at lesser rates at distances further out?
That remains unconfirmed because of an absence of data. Unless there is some other force acting on the rounds as they fly downrange, however, it may not be unreasonable to think that the pattern established between 50 and 100 may continue.
As a result, perhaps these ammos, the lots that show the smallest increase in dispersion between 50 and 100, are the best ones to use at further distances.
Well, you might need to start thinking centerfire or at least limit your RF shooting to under 100yds. The 22RF round was never intended to be accurate or even shot at ranges much past 50yds! Even 100yds is pushing its accuracy capability. I know it's fun to hit or at least try to hit targets with a RF at centerfire ranges but it doesn't change the facts. Ther's no such thing as consistent accuracy or grouping at long range with a 22lr. No one is going to reinvent the wheel on this one. It's the ammo people!!!
Easiest way to put all this to bed is a 400yard building and a fixture to mount guns in like at Lapua and Eley. Take the wind and human error out of this and let’s see for ourselves what the results are. On the other hand you have people that know the answer to these questions and are not forthcoming with the info we all want. I myself want to believe the hype because I want a better performing rifle at distance. But, I have asked too many people to know a definite answer including the ones I would trust with no cut and dry proof.
The answers are here if you can read between the lines. But should we have to??
Like I said above this seems like a big stick carrying contest at this point. Who has the biggest stick?
The answers are here if you can read between the lines. But should we have to??
Like I said above this seems like a big stick carrying contest at this point. Who has the biggest stick?
Hypothetical scenario… Let’s say that you send 10 rifles to Lapua for testing. 5 are standard 1-16 twist barrels. 5 are gain twist barrels (or faster than 1-16 twist, doesn’t really matter).
Across all lots tested each of the 1-16 twist rifles shows one stellar lot of ammunition that produces 0.5 moa groups. Each rifle performs best with a different lot of ammunition. Further, the worst groups are greater than 1 moa, and there is seemingly no correlation between lot number and rifle regarding observed accuracy.
The fast/gain twist barrels perform differently. None of the barrels achieve the 0.5 moa groups, though none of the rifles suffer the greater than 1 moa groups either. In fact, all rifles perform equally well across all lots of ammunition tested, within a very narrow band centered at 0.75 moa.
Is this proof of success or failure of the fast/gain twist rifling concept as applied to rimfire rifles?
Across all lots tested each of the 1-16 twist rifles shows one stellar lot of ammunition that produces 0.5 moa groups. Each rifle performs best with a different lot of ammunition. Further, the worst groups are greater than 1 moa, and there is seemingly no correlation between lot number and rifle regarding observed accuracy.
The fast/gain twist barrels perform differently. None of the barrels achieve the 0.5 moa groups, though none of the rifles suffer the greater than 1 moa groups either. In fact, all rifles perform equally well across all lots of ammunition tested, within a very narrow band centered at 0.75 moa.
Is this proof of success or failure of the fast/gain twist rifling concept as applied to rimfire rifles?
For yrs most of the innovation in bullets and cases were coming from the BR community, it was individuals pioneering the way. Geno C said it best in another thread, figure some of this crap out on your own, be happier.
I don't know why we could not model this after the centerfire ELR gang, learning as they go, yet we demand proof, for what, to spend 6-700 bucks. Pretty sure some guys spent money on 338 lapua magnums to shoot elr and had to step back and say, not my wisest choice.
I use JBMs BC calculator and a Labradar to get rough BC numbers for both 22lr and for my 535gr 45-70. What I've noticed is that the BC found applies to the first 200yds with the 22lr and a little further with the big bullets.
I've seen the Applied Ballistics diagrams showing how the BC changes going thru the transonic zone and subsonic.
How does the twice as fast twist make bullets react thru going thru the transonic and into subsonic zones? I'm sure you've tested it with the high powered Doppler radar.
I will go out on a limb here and say no matter what data/info is provided by those who have done the testing the vast majority of the internet will argue. @RAVAGE88 has provided info, provided experience previously but because it’s different people will say it’s snake oil Vudoo shit.
Here are the actual numbers done over the applied ballistics mobile lab last year under identical conditions on the same day. Which I am sure @RAVAGE88 has also done based on my conversations with him.
Gun 1 - Vudoo V22 1:16 22” ACE Kukri shooting CenterX
Gun 2 - Vudoo V22 1:9 23” ACR Kukri shooting SK Std+
First I think we all can agree that CenterX is a “superior” ammo.
Gun 1 - CenterX
Average MV - 1079
MV SD - 7
MV ES - 22
Average G7 BC - .061
G7 BC ES - .006
G7 BC SD - .00187
BC variation % - 3.1
Stability Factor - 1.37 (below recommended stability number)
Gun 2 - SK Std+
Average MV - 1044
MV SD - 7
MV ES - 21
Average G7 BC - .058
G7 BC ES - .006
G7 BC SD - .00176
BC variation % - 3.0
Stability Factor - 4.21
Now with Lapua Xact I personally was able to impact 14/15 times on a 10”x10” plate at 400 yards with the 1:9. Yet when I sent that rifle into the Lapua test center they suggested I send it back to Vudoo to be checked out because at 50 and 100 meters it was just under 1 MOA and they had not seen a Vudoo group “so bad”.
This really comes down to what your intention is and what you want out of your Rimfire.
Here are the actual numbers done over the applied ballistics mobile lab last year under identical conditions on the same day. Which I am sure @RAVAGE88 has also done based on my conversations with him.
Gun 1 - Vudoo V22 1:16 22” ACE Kukri shooting CenterX
Gun 2 - Vudoo V22 1:9 23” ACR Kukri shooting SK Std+
First I think we all can agree that CenterX is a “superior” ammo.
Gun 1 - CenterX
Average MV - 1079
MV SD - 7
MV ES - 22
Average G7 BC - .061
G7 BC ES - .006
G7 BC SD - .00187
BC variation % - 3.1
Stability Factor - 1.37 (below recommended stability number)
Gun 2 - SK Std+
Average MV - 1044
MV SD - 7
MV ES - 21
Average G7 BC - .058
G7 BC ES - .006
G7 BC SD - .00176
BC variation % - 3.0
Stability Factor - 4.21
Now with Lapua Xact I personally was able to impact 14/15 times on a 10”x10” plate at 400 yards with the 1:9. Yet when I sent that rifle into the Lapua test center they suggested I send it back to Vudoo to be checked out because at 50 and 100 meters it was just under 1 MOA and they had not seen a Vudoo group “so bad”.
This really comes down to what your intention is and what you want out of your Rimfire.
I believe the biggest problem with us here on the hide is that we’re actually two groups but wanting the same results. The PRS22/NRL22 group like me and the ELR group. The fast twist barrels seem to do better at let’s say 250 yards and beyond. The PRS22/NRL22 guys are hoping for the same results at under 250 yards and actually some matches don’t shoot beyond 150 yards and maybe the fast twist barrels really don’t shine at these shorter distances. Maybe for these type of matches is were a gain twist barrel might fit in. I could be totally off here on this subject but I’ve got a few guys I know that are running 1-9 for our 22 matches and really don’t see a benefit with the faster twist barrels but when they shoot 300 yards and beyond they and I see reduced group sizes with the fast twist barrels.
Last edited:
If I am understanding this correctly. We know a bullet can't get more accurate as it goes down range..doesn't matter the twist. It appears the the 1:9 is less accurate at 50 and 100..but its more accurate than the 1:16 down range..So this makes sense, the stability of the 1:9 is loosing the accuracy it has at a slower rate..So even though it starts out worse, the bullets path deteriorates less. The 1:16 is loosing it accuracy at a faster rate due to it's lesser stability even though it's starts out more accurate to it's intended path.
Funny you mention that. This thread really makes me think the same thing.
There are people that test. There are people that don’t. The ones that don’t want tests run their way to hopefully prove what they are thinking and when someone posts results of a test that’s similar enough to draw a conclusion from, but it’s not the conclusion they want, they complain. The amount of testing I’ve done with 22 is pretty expansive and a lot of it is way out of the casual gun owners wheel house.
I’ve been around here long enough that I will state my results and discuss them. I won’t however try and change anyone’s mind. People believe what they want. I’ll just continue doing things my way and listen to those willing to share real experiences.
LOL, I don't get some of the bickering, I know it gets costly, but having a couple different rifles never hurts. I'm sitting on a Vudoo, and a Rim X and just put in the order for a fast tw Vudoo.
I have a centerfire I never shoot inside of 1K. If the new Vudoo isn't used inside of 250, who cares.
I am going to take the little woman out here in a bit, shoot 10-22 and a Anshutz sporter, some days you just need to have fun, mini ipsc's.
Last edited:
That was the same thing lapua told me when I sent my 1:9 in. My 1:16 always outshot my 1:9 at every distance and I eventually gave up on it.
I've mentioned before - although I don't see it here on this thread - that I ordered in a Bartlein 1-9tw blank, with the intentions to use it on a new Three-60 action when it showed up. Well, the action arrived a month or two ahead of the Bartlein blank, and patience not being one of my strong suits, I got tired of waiting on the 1-9 blank and put a Krieger sendero 1-16 on the Three-60. For whatever reason, I decided to finish this Krieger at 23" instead of the usual 22", but other than that, the work I did on fitting & chambering it was practically persactly the same as I've done on my other two V-22 repeaters. Even used the same PTG EPS reamer that I've used on most of my other custom barreled repeaters. Whatever - this particular rifle is capable of shooting some pretty nice groups, most of them slightly smaller and more round in shape than any of my other repeaters. So I've left the Bartlein 1-9 sendero in its box, in the pile of other new blanks.
I'm not sure I want to dedicate a proven accurate rifle to shooting LR RF, for one thing. Living in western Kansas, we just don't see a lot of days with really good LR shooting conditions, especially when it comes to 22RF ELR. Not that I claim we typically use a heavy log chain for a wind flag out here, like some guys I know in Wyoming do - but it's often tough enough to get a day with decent condidtions for getting meaningful results when shooting at 100-200, much less 300-400.
Then there's the question of which chamber reamer to use - is there one that has advantages for use in a faster twist bbl? As long as it took to get this Bartlein, I don't want to jump into setting it up until I've found a few answers to some of the questions like these.
I'm not sure I want to dedicate a proven accurate rifle to shooting LR RF, for one thing. Living in western Kansas, we just don't see a lot of days with really good LR shooting conditions, especially when it comes to 22RF ELR. Not that I claim we typically use a heavy log chain for a wind flag out here, like some guys I know in Wyoming do - but it's often tough enough to get a day with decent condidtions for getting meaningful results when shooting at 100-200, much less 300-400.
Then there's the question of which chamber reamer to use - is there one that has advantages for use in a faster twist bbl? As long as it took to get this Bartlein, I don't want to jump into setting it up until I've found a few answers to some of the questions like these.
Last edited:
Sorry men! I've been out of pocket awhile did get the Bartlien trans in. Got it spun up to a heavy Palma length dialed in at 26.375 precision machined the chamber to a 52d super match short finished with a diamond form lap. Zeroed and shot yesterday at 200 yards the great grand sons were down. Out of 50 rounds at 200 yards the 6 year old went 15 for 15 on a 6x6 steel the 11 year old went 11 for 15. PaPa shot the swinging crow with 20 under 2" 11 were just over 1". When the wind settles and the temps drop I'll be running it at 400 in a 5x6 Ithink I'm gonna be I'm pressed !
Don't really understand your last statement. A swinging crow is a large target. What was your hold point? Are you saying you shot a 20 shot group under 2 inches at 200yds? Also what ammo were you shooting?
Last edited:
I thought I had pics of my crow couldnt find it. I zeroed this barrel at 200 yds I just mounted it last week havnt really worked it that much. Ammo was SK yellow box and yes 20 rounds at 2" maybe 2.125 I built this barrel off a barrel that shot killer last year it was a Bartlien 11-10.5 at 25" with a standard 11° crown. This barrel came in at a 11.25 to 10.875 twist with a duplicate Kimber step crown length is 26.375 Inches. The chamber is a Mod 52 d with conical lead .0003 tighter and short the bullet is engraved within .050 of the case lip. The crow target is life size all my metal is cut out on laser. I attached a pic of last years barrel at 200yds the 11-10.5 with 4 rounds just outside a 2" diamond out of 30 rounds 20 of them running around 1.8" this was with SKLR the ammo lot I built the new barrel for I'll start shooting it soon
Attachments
I personally am waiting to buy a Vudoo. I want a 1:9 polygon rifled 18" barrel option. I've been waiting on it ever since you started the discussion on it.
I have read and payed attention to your fast twist testing that you have talked about and I'm excited for what it could bring.
I do think the true polygon rifling is the cure for "slipping" the rifling.
Don't let the market tell you what to make. Make it and push the market. You have a reputation of solid shooting guns. If it works people will buy it from you. Unless just having the option isn't feasible, I don't see any reason not to offer it.
Exactly the market sells whats viable accurate to a degree? Reliable, low manufacturing cost better broad based sales with increased profits. The round was never designed to be pushed to the envelope that it is today. It was designed for small game, plinking and a transitional trainer. I look back over the 55 years I've shot firearms and I'm still amazed of the rounds potential , being that your bound to the ammo manufactures quality standards.
Similar threads
