Optimal 22LR Barrel Length
- Thread starter orkan
- Start date
Long barrels for long sight radius, which isn't needed in a scope.
Is the low SD for cheaper ammo - the barrel helps to reduce the SD.
On the FPS, what DA are you shooting at? Less dense air would need a lower speed to keep it out of the transonic area?
What about barrel/land-groove configuation for short versus long? Chamber between those two rifles?
The longer the barrel, the longer the bullet is in the barrel, and if you are not in a stable position, you are going to add variablility.
Sorry, quick thoughts, got some grillin to do. Thanks for adding to the conversation.
Is the low SD for cheaper ammo - the barrel helps to reduce the SD.
On the FPS, what DA are you shooting at? Less dense air would need a lower speed to keep it out of the transonic area?
What about barrel/land-groove configuation for short versus long? Chamber between those two rifles?
The longer the barrel, the longer the bullet is in the barrel, and if you are not in a stable position, you are going to add variablility.
Sorry, quick thoughts, got some grillin to do. Thanks for adding to the conversation.
I agree 100% about longer barrels (24” or more) for rimfire accuracy. I am of the same opinion that the shorter barrels keep the bullets too close to the transonic speed (which as I understand it changes with the atmospheric conditions). I also feel the longer time in the bore helps dissipate the harmonics in the barrel that is generated from the firing of the round (less muzzle whip when the bullet exits the muzzle). True there is more time for shooter induced error, but that can be corrected where a calm stable muzzle has to be tuned with either a tuner or as in my opinion longer time in the bore.
After watching the video I have two questions:
1. If the proposition that 980 FPS is the ideal projectile speed, wouldn't that make ammunition like Lapua and SK pistol ammunition (e.g., Lapua Pistol King) the preferred ammo choice? Or is it that the tighter tolerances baked into RWS50, TENEX, or MIDAS+ trumps the slower speed "advantage" of the less expensive pistol ammo?
2. Does barrel contour (stiffness) have a beneficial effect on accuracy or is it just length (perhaps moderating projectile speed via friction) that seems to matter?
Thank you for starting this kind of discussion, I am really looking forward to seeing where it takes us.
1. If the proposition that 980 FPS is the ideal projectile speed, wouldn't that make ammunition like Lapua and SK pistol ammunition (e.g., Lapua Pistol King) the preferred ammo choice? Or is it that the tighter tolerances baked into RWS50, TENEX, or MIDAS+ trumps the slower speed "advantage" of the less expensive pistol ammo?
2. Does barrel contour (stiffness) have a beneficial effect on accuracy or is it just length (perhaps moderating projectile speed via friction) that seems to matter?
Thank you for starting this kind of discussion, I am really looking forward to seeing where it takes us.
Agree with the balance, but doesn't mean you need to run a 26" rimfire barrel to get that balance. I'd be curious how many people we'll see in NRL22/NRL22X running a 26" barrel. Having a 26" barrel is a pain to get in and out of barricades / ladders / portholes.
24 inch barrel with subs is like a poor man's suppressor...
I’m running a 26” barrel for NRL22. I wanted my Rimfire to match my centerfire PRS/NRL Rifle. My centerfire is 27” and I’m used to that Length and weight so the rimfire does not make it any harder. I’m also running a Shilen #7 which is similar to a Heavy varmint contour. I also use the same chassis for both and the only difference is bolt travel and recoil. You just need to get used to it and train with it like anything else.
Take this with a grain of salt, my knowledge is very limited..
Transonic speed is within 80% of sound of speed.
There is no good way around it for 22LR.
1. Bullet exits the muzzle in the transonic, seemingly making it unstable for long period, thus adding to the effect of 3x spread across 2x distance.
2. Bullet exits barely over supersonic, making the bullet exit out of the barrel easier but it faces transonic just few meters ahead and suffers the sonic boom catching it from behind in flight. Even worse.
Regular centerfire, supersonic bullets have self-stabilized long before hitting the transonic.
I am investigating this with a skilled ballistician how the bullet drag behaves and what part of the bullet is most actively interfering with the air flow. We wandered into the topic when searching about the best twist rate for 22LR after Mike announced he uses single digit twist.
According to analysis the longer barrel reduces muzzle blast/back pressure for the bullet when it is starts its flight and this results in better precision. So not only does longer barrel reduce MV to a slower level (less transonic is still better, it does matter how much it is over the transonic speed) but also makes the bullet stabilize much faster.
We are also going to test if affecting the bullet's exit out of the barrel always in a similar way is going to make improvement so that the bullet is always deflected to the same direction at the muzzle. This should "override" other imperfection-caused effects.
It is quite funny how a lousy shot as I am is searching for pin-point precision for 22LR.
Transonic speed is within 80% of sound of speed.
There is no good way around it for 22LR.
1. Bullet exits the muzzle in the transonic, seemingly making it unstable for long period, thus adding to the effect of 3x spread across 2x distance.
2. Bullet exits barely over supersonic, making the bullet exit out of the barrel easier but it faces transonic just few meters ahead and suffers the sonic boom catching it from behind in flight. Even worse.
Regular centerfire, supersonic bullets have self-stabilized long before hitting the transonic.
I am investigating this with a skilled ballistician how the bullet drag behaves and what part of the bullet is most actively interfering with the air flow. We wandered into the topic when searching about the best twist rate for 22LR after Mike announced he uses single digit twist.
According to analysis the longer barrel reduces muzzle blast/back pressure for the bullet when it is starts its flight and this results in better precision. So not only does longer barrel reduce MV to a slower level (less transonic is still better, it does matter how much it is over the transonic speed) but also makes the bullet stabilize much faster.
We are also going to test if affecting the bullet's exit out of the barrel always in a similar way is going to make improvement so that the bullet is always deflected to the same direction at the muzzle. This should "override" other imperfection-caused effects.
It is quite funny how a lousy shot as I am is searching for pin-point precision for 22LR.
I ran a 22" barrel with 4" of suppressor added to the end, Yes it was a huge pain.
I much prefer my current 16" barrel with the suppressor.
As it is for me, Id much rather the shorter overall length than a potential accuracy increase, shooting suppressed may not be necessary for everyone but I much prefer it for where I shoot.
Interesting ideas and interesting that the ammo had a different SD between rifes.
Would like to see an accuracy test done with a barrel at 26" then cut down to 18" and see what if anything changes.
I’ve tested dozens of rifles. Shorter barrel almost always has higher ES.
Winchester 52's Remington 37's had 28" barrels for 101 years in the case of the '52 and for over 75 for the Rem 37. This was not all for the longer sight radius using irons. Many matches were shot using scopes. This is really old news.
I find my shorter barrels tend to have a finer node and can be more picky in regards to what Rimfire ammo they like. My 26” RimX and my 28” Remington 40x seem to shoot most decent ammo ($5-$8 sK stuff) good and really shine with the ($10-$17 high end ammo). Once you find what they want you to feed them they all shoot tiny bugholes. Aside from the long vs short barrel, just purchase whatever fits your needs. I like mine to match my centerfire rifles in weight and length for training purposes. If I just wanna go out and mess around offhand or to teach someone I bring out the shorter barreled rifle.
Here’s some preliminary groups out of my 26” RimX Chambered with win 52D Reamer with mid grade ammo shot with rear bag and bipod and a slight breeze. Still waiting on some midas and RWS ammo. Groups are 5 shots per group at 55 yards.
Here’s some preliminary groups out of my 26” RimX Chambered with win 52D Reamer with mid grade ammo shot with rear bag and bipod and a slight breeze. Still waiting on some midas and RWS ammo. Groups are 5 shots per group at 55 yards.
This is what I have found as well. Lower SD's, broader range of ammo shoots good or great. Only downside to 26-28" barrels is the handling, if you don't like longer barrels. I like them so no issue.
Transonic shift affects accuracy with the 22lr?
Really?
Says who?
The guys who point to a study done on the Sierra Match King boat tail hollow point?
Funny that.
The same ballistics lab (Aberdeen) that did the study on the smkbthp, a long slender tail heavy projectile
came to a different conclusion regarding the stubby round nosed 22lr.
What? It's Friday. Slow afternoon at the office.
Really?
Says who?
The guys who point to a study done on the Sierra Match King boat tail hollow point?
Funny that.
The same ballistics lab (Aberdeen) that did the study on the smkbthp, a long slender tail heavy projectile
came to a different conclusion regarding the stubby round nosed 22lr.
What? It's Friday. Slow afternoon at the office.
6DOF analysis. I am quite not in the knowledge about this myself. But it seems even very small variations in the projectile skin/ weight distribution (dings, nicks) can make quite much matter when the bullet exits the barrel and starts to stabilize.Transonic shift affects accuracy with the 22lr?
Really?
Says who?
The guys who point to a study done on the Sierra Match King boat tail hollow point?
Funny that.
The same ballistics lab (Aberdeen) that did the study on the smkbthp, a long slender tail heavy projectile
came to a different conclusion regarding the stubby round nosed 22lr.
What? It's Friday. Slow afternoon at the office.
For what I have understood, the flight in the transonic region is not in itself a very bad thing but muzzle exit in this range can cause other issues to multiply. One cannot deny that it has its own drag charasteristics.
It is not like I have come to a conclusion yet, but I cannot ignore the transonic either, it is just a fact that it is the worst speed for a projectile and has to be taken into consideration.
With supersonic bullets I mean match/quality loads that run near mach 1 and sometimes one leaves fast enough to make a short sonic boom.
Eg. Tenex and some SK ammo.
I used to think transonic shift was the cause of lack of accuracy with hi-v 22lr.
Then I ran into some results that didn't fit the theory.
A subsonic 22lr and a supersonic 22lr that produced similar results at 200 yards.
Same brand, bullet weight and type produced almost identical results.
Should not have happened if the transonic shift was true.
That's when I began to question the cause of hi-v 22lr inaccuracy.
There is a very obvious explanation for poor results with hi-v 22lr.
It's all bulk ammo. Why blame the transition for trajectory spread
when the cartidges themselves look like cr*p?
Then I ran into some results that didn't fit the theory.
A subsonic 22lr and a supersonic 22lr that produced similar results at 200 yards.
Same brand, bullet weight and type produced almost identical results.
Should not have happened if the transonic shift was true.
That's when I began to question the cause of hi-v 22lr inaccuracy.
There is a very obvious explanation for poor results with hi-v 22lr.
It's all bulk ammo. Why blame the transition for trajectory spread
when the cartidges themselves look like cr*p?
The below video is a SCATT trace that precisely shows the aiming point before during and after a shot. Note the different colors represent: before the shot= Green trace, 1 second prior to = Yellow and after the shot =Red.). While this is a world class shooter shooting an air rifle off hand, the jump you see after the shot is typical and even more pronounced with a .22 in the prone position. Note how much the muzzle moves after the shot (red) and this is with a recoil less air rifle. With really good shooters the direction and distance of the point of aim is repeatable. With lesser shooters like me, not so much. The velocity of 10 meter air rifles is about 550 fps and while the barrel looks to be long, it's actually counter bored (in my Fienwerkbau air rife about 10") to reduce the time the pellet can be affected by the barrel from this after shot movement. My small Bore 3P rifle has a nearly 28" barrel and a 9" bloop tube. The challenge with all of these rifles in not holding the X ring, it's managing the recoil after-shot movement to be consistent and to fall back into place confirming the natural point of aim is good. We also haven't talked about moment of inertia which is a big advantage to longer heavy weight barrels. Things really get ugly if the shooter flinches!
I found this out a few weeks back and have been trying to find out if I was insane or not, or just had a bad setup / my data was not collected properly / whatever. This confirms what I found, I sort of know why now.
@orkan:
For supported shooting your videos make the point. However what about 3P shooting? What is the dwell time for a 26" barrel versus a 20" barrel? Qualitatively, if not quantitatively, is not longer dwell time exactly the same as longer lock time?
As you state, a whole lot of factors change when change barrel length.
For supported shooting your videos make the point. However what about 3P shooting? What is the dwell time for a 26" barrel versus a 20" barrel? Qualitatively, if not quantitatively, is not longer dwell time exactly the same as longer lock time?
As you state, a whole lot of factors change when change barrel length.
Lock time is usually referred to how long it takes for the firing control system to finish its motion. Dwell time being how long the bullet remains in the barrel. Similar discussions though, to be sure.
I don't have enough experience with 3p to comment on barrel length. I never got into the whole goofy jacket and sling thing.
Obviously the rifles that do well there seem to have something figured out. Bleiker, Walther, Anschutz, etc. Having said that, there are a lot of guys that shoot 3P and prone disciplines with remington 40x's and winchester 52's that all sport 28" barrels. I can't speak to how competitive they are, but I know they can win some local and regional events.
Just calculated the "Dwell Time" difference between a 20" and 26" barrel. At 1080fps the additional time the bullet spends in the barrel is .46ms (milliseconds) That's .00046 seconds! In my job I do a lot of latency testing on electronics that we develop and design. From a human user POV, .46ms is insignificant in this application.
If you are shooting from stable positions (ie, bench, prone, etc.) I agree with your theory 100%.
The "balance on a Gamechanger bag" argument also has some merit....BUT can be easily overcome by weights and/or a heavier bbl.
Obviously, open sights need the longest sight radius you can have, and I believe that was the basis for all the older target guns to have the long barrels.....BUT now that we know better, with modern guns bloop tubes have been invented to have both short barrel dwell time AND and long sight radius on open sight guns.
If you are shooting from an unstable position, .5ms is a long time and can mean the difference in a hit or miss....AND it is EVERY single time (100%) you pull the trigger on a long barrel gun.
The very slight gain you may (or may not) gain by a slightly better SD is variable....MAYBE 15-20% of shots fired, AND will not show up until further distances.
For a bench/prone gun, a 24-28" bbl may have it's place, but for unstable positions, the shorter barrel will win, over the long run, every time, and modern .22LR rifles have evolved to prove that theory. Look at current high end Biathlon rifle bbl lengths (19-22") vs. Prone and Benchrest rifles (24-26").
SO, what are you gonna use your rifle for??? That will answer the bbl. length question.
The "balance on a Gamechanger bag" argument also has some merit....BUT can be easily overcome by weights and/or a heavier bbl.
Obviously, open sights need the longest sight radius you can have, and I believe that was the basis for all the older target guns to have the long barrels.....BUT now that we know better, with modern guns bloop tubes have been invented to have both short barrel dwell time AND and long sight radius on open sight guns.
If you are shooting from an unstable position, .5ms is a long time and can mean the difference in a hit or miss....AND it is EVERY single time (100%) you pull the trigger on a long barrel gun.
The very slight gain you may (or may not) gain by a slightly better SD is variable....MAYBE 15-20% of shots fired, AND will not show up until further distances.
For a bench/prone gun, a 24-28" bbl may have it's place, but for unstable positions, the shorter barrel will win, over the long run, every time, and modern .22LR rifles have evolved to prove that theory. Look at current high end Biathlon rifle bbl lengths (19-22") vs. Prone and Benchrest rifles (24-26").
SO, what are you gonna use your rifle for??? That will answer the bbl. length question.
In one of the above videos, it gives us a time stamp of 2 seconds in yellow, for the line trace.
1 frame (of video) is 40ms long. So 1/10th of a frame is 4ms, and 1/100th of a frame is 0.4ms.
If someone had some half decent video editing skills, they could dissect one frame from the video, work out what 1/100th of the movement is. The target and resulting impact have a known diameter, it's also a known distance.
Anyone up for a challenge on a rainy Sunday Arvo ?
1 frame (of video) is 40ms long. So 1/10th of a frame is 4ms, and 1/100th of a frame is 0.4ms.
If someone had some half decent video editing skills, they could dissect one frame from the video, work out what 1/100th of the movement is. The target and resulting impact have a known diameter, it's also a known distance.
Anyone up for a challenge on a rainy Sunday Arvo ?
It's worth remembering that the average MV published for SK pistol ammo is determined with a short pistol-length barrel. In a longer barrel such pistol ammo would have a higher average MV.
The slimmer the barrel the more responsive it is to vibrations caused by the ammo fired through it.
I ran S&K Pistol Match, Long Range, Rifle Match and Standard over my Chronograph yesterday. Results below are 10 shot averages from a 20" barrel.
Pistol Match= 986fps
Long Range= 1056fps
Rifle Match=1025fps
Standard= 1016fps
Pistol Match= 986fps
Long Range= 1056fps
Rifle Match=1025fps
Standard= 1016fps
Lower MV causes the velocity spread of ammo to rise in proportion and gives groups more vertical spread.
1010 to 1040 FPS (30 FPS ES and 2.97% error)
950 to 980 FPS (30 FPS ES and 3.16% error)
Provided that you shoot regular 5 shot groups with ammo that holds SD around 10-11, which is quite good for rimfire, you will have an average ES of around 25 FPS within that 5 shot group... Making the low velocity ammo grow your group size in vertical from 0.43" to 0.59" at 109 yds.
This is only average, in reality it can change to double or half of that depending on how the dice rolls. Some of this can also be eliminated by barrel/action tuning.
Good luck to that 6x5 list with low velocity ammo.
My current lot of SK Pistol Match ammo runs around 1060 in room temperature. When lot testing I do not care about average MV, just as long the SD is fine and it groups well.
Benchresters have shown that transonic ammo can be precise. They use same ammo as we do. We just have to find proper solutions to make it work in our rifles.
That said, I am having my next barrel in 25" and see what magic it has.
1010 to 1040 FPS (30 FPS ES and 2.97% error)
950 to 980 FPS (30 FPS ES and 3.16% error)
Provided that you shoot regular 5 shot groups with ammo that holds SD around 10-11, which is quite good for rimfire, you will have an average ES of around 25 FPS within that 5 shot group... Making the low velocity ammo grow your group size in vertical from 0.43" to 0.59" at 109 yds.
This is only average, in reality it can change to double or half of that depending on how the dice rolls. Some of this can also be eliminated by barrel/action tuning.
Good luck to that 6x5 list with low velocity ammo.
My current lot of SK Pistol Match ammo runs around 1060 in room temperature. When lot testing I do not care about average MV, just as long the SD is fine and it groups well.
Benchresters have shown that transonic ammo can be precise. They use same ammo as we do. We just have to find proper solutions to make it work in our rifles.
That said, I am having my next barrel in 25" and see what magic it has.
I would recommend a S&W Victory or a MK 4 Ruger. I had both at the same time and sold the Victory. Not because of anything bad, but because the Mk 4 22/45 is more like my 1911’s in grip feel. I’m a 1911 guy.
The below video is a SCATT trace that precisely shows the aiming point before during and after a shot. Note the different colors represent: before the shot= Green trace, 1 second prior to = Yellow and after the shot =Red.). While this is a world class shooter shooting an air rifle off hand, the jump you see after the shot is typical and even more pronounced with a .22 in the prone position. Note how much the muzzle moves after the shot (red) and this is with a recoil less air rifle. With really good shooters the direction and distance of the point of aim is repeatable. With lesser shooters like me, not so much. The velocity of 10 meter air rifles is about 550 fps and while the barrel looks to be long, it's actually counter bored (in my Fienwerkbau air rife about 10") to reduce the time the pellet can be affected by the barrel from this after shot movement. My small Bore 3P rifle has a nearly 28" barrel and a 9" bloop tube. The challenge with all of these rifles in not holding the X ring, it's managing the recoil after-shot movement to be consistent and to fall back into place confirming the natural point of aim is good. We also haven't talked about moment of inertia which is a big advantage to longer heavy weight barrels. Things really get ugly if the shooter flinches!
For starters I tend to agree with Orkan. Longer barrel less ES. I hav noticed that longer barrels, for me, I am more consistent with as I back up. Now wether its weight or less ES I can't say. What I can say is there is always an exception. For example. The 64mpr shoots super well and has a 26.5 barrel. The kidd shoots prettt good and it has a 16.5. Back up to 75 or 100, the kids falls apart and the anschutz does not. The recoil is so much easier to manage on a longer barreled gun for me. My bullet goes where my cross hair stops. If my tracking and bag set up are correct, technique are correct it will show. Like wise if it's not it will also show.
Looking at another case. At 50yds and I say 50 bc that's what I typically shoot. In the last year inhave probably had 10 cz 457s. Why?? Bc I love them. All but one mtr barrels at 20 in have not shot too good. They are alright but no better than a varmint barrel. I have had 3 varmint barrels at 16in. And they shoot super well. Not needing a rebarrel.
Another case. My 2 Vudoos. I have a 22in in an mdt chassis that is a boat anchor. It still moves more than the anschutz. But as with all Vudoos is very consistent. My other vudoo wears a 16in spiral fluted barrel in a grayboe. I wouldn't take 20,000 for that gun. I know exactly what it is going to do every time it goes out. It is the most accurate rifle I have ever owned bar none. So yes I think length plays a big part in ES. But I think more important is the barrel how its finished, how its chambered, how its fitted, bore, ammo, and set up.
Excellent thread Orkin
Long barrel vs short barrel.
If a scoped rifle, shouldn't be any difference in accuracy.
I can't see barrel length affecting mv spread.
Coefficient of friction applies the same in both cases.
Longer barrel should produce lower mv's.
MV spread is cartridge caused, not barrel length.
The longer the time of flight, the more vertical spread produced.
ES vs SD...SD let's you know what 2 out of three shots will do, on average.
That third shot is going to be outside the average.
ES is what loses competitions.
In a match, tight ES is needed to win.
That one stray can turn a 250-10X into a 240-9X, you lose.
If a scoped rifle, shouldn't be any difference in accuracy.
I can't see barrel length affecting mv spread.
Coefficient of friction applies the same in both cases.
Longer barrel should produce lower mv's.
MV spread is cartridge caused, not barrel length.
The longer the time of flight, the more vertical spread produced.
ES vs SD...SD let's you know what 2 out of three shots will do, on average.
That third shot is going to be outside the average.
ES is what loses competitions.
In a match, tight ES is needed to win.
That one stray can turn a 250-10X into a 240-9X, you lose.
Last edited:
Can't say y'er wrong orkan, but I can still disagree with you.
It'd be interesting to take a heavy match barrel with tuner, probably have to use centerfire to test with,
as rimfire has too many problems with cartridge variations due to method of manufacture.
Start with a 28 inch barrel, then cut off an inch at a time and check mv's and accuracy for each length.
I'd guess it'd need at least 100 shots for each length to provide useful results, not including the shots fired to retune the barrel.
Never seen that done. All that's out there that I can find are different barrels in different rifles with different lengths
using different boxes of rimfire cartridges and then claiming that the results from a few 10 shot groups defines the rules.
That's just too many variables interacting to provide worthwhile conclusions.
If you can link me to a published study correlating barrel length to accuracy and mv spread, it'd be much appreciated.
I'm more than willing to spend the time working my way through the research. I dislike being ignorant.
It'd be interesting to take a heavy match barrel with tuner, probably have to use centerfire to test with,
as rimfire has too many problems with cartridge variations due to method of manufacture.
Start with a 28 inch barrel, then cut off an inch at a time and check mv's and accuracy for each length.
I'd guess it'd need at least 100 shots for each length to provide useful results, not including the shots fired to retune the barrel.
Never seen that done. All that's out there that I can find are different barrels in different rifles with different lengths
using different boxes of rimfire cartridges and then claiming that the results from a few 10 shot groups defines the rules.
That's just too many variables interacting to provide worthwhile conclusions.
If you can link me to a published study correlating barrel length to accuracy and mv spread, it'd be much appreciated.
I'm more than willing to spend the time working my way through the research. I dislike being ignorant.
Last edited:
Let's talk numbers. SD is statistically just a branch of ES.
You can fire 10 shots to get somewhat reliable SD.
For ES you must shoot 30 shots to get a hold of.
But statistically ES figures are roughly 6 times the SD. Meaning they correlate strongly but still are not the same.
With that laid out, how would you describe this MV improvement by numbers @orkan ?
How much SD/ES is bound to improve in numbers from say, 16" to 26" barrel? Talking about data of approximately 30 to 50 shots or more.
And also, what do both of you keep the average SD/ES of 22LR ammo? And the best SD/ES that you have measured?
And maybe the SD/ES of your current lot?
You can fire 10 shots to get somewhat reliable SD.
For ES you must shoot 30 shots to get a hold of.
But statistically ES figures are roughly 6 times the SD. Meaning they correlate strongly but still are not the same.
With that laid out, how would you describe this MV improvement by numbers @orkan ?
How much SD/ES is bound to improve in numbers from say, 16" to 26" barrel? Talking about data of approximately 30 to 50 shots or more.
And also, what do both of you keep the average SD/ES of 22LR ammo? And the best SD/ES that you have measured?
And maybe the SD/ES of your current lot?
I dont test over chrono I just watch my groups. I shoot a lot at night so I get rid of most of the thermals. And at my place I sit with a hill blocking my back. Sometimes like last night I have almost 0 wind. I shoot enough to make a call if it was wind. Me or ammo. I will see ammo is like everything else in this market. Get what you pay for. I have never had a bad lot of center x. I have had good and bad lots if other stuff. Typically i find one if my rifles shoots it pretty well. But center x is just about all I order now. Testing other stuff is a gamble. Yes might be cheaper but it might be garbage.
Can't say y'er wrong orkan, but I can still disagree with you.
I dislike being ignorant.
Then on what are you basing your disagreement? I've proven my statements with dozens (many dozens) of other rifles, using same lot numbers of ammo. This is including several rifles I've cut down to 16" which started out with 28" barrels. Long barrels tend to have reduced ES. It's a fact, and one that's been confirmed for me over 20+ years of pursuing precision rimfire.
I'd need to put some work into cataloging rifles comparatively in order to produce that data. I've only ever been really concerned with each rifle on its own, which is why I don't have a big chart showing the dozens of rifles I've tested and their respective velocity data. On rifles I've cut from 28" to 16" (only about 3-4) I've seen between 8% and nearly 40% increase in ES with the respective lot number I was shooting in those rifles at the time. A lot of this was early on, and I hadn't drawn the correlation between barrel length and ES yet. It was during work with those rifles that I began to notice it. I just kind of arbitrarily assigned a "25% worse" ES at 16" than 28" value in my head to simplify things for me.
Another point of note, is in those rifles I cut down to 16"... they shot worse at 16" than they did at full length. All of them. Some to a much higher degree than others.
Fellas, I didn't intend to conquer the argument with a couple of sub-10min videos. However, this concept is all settled for me. I understand some of you want more "proof," and my suggestion is to get to work. Bust out those chronographs and chop saws if you want. I have a lot of other things that I'm testing which I don't already know the answer to which are more important for me to work on right now. That may seem harsh, but I have limited time and I can't spent it going over things I already know in order to "prove" something to the internet. Even if I did, many will want to just argue about it anyway... since unreasonable people and trolls are basically the majority now. I never know who is genuine and who is a waste of time. So that's why I've shifted to simply providing short videos that mildly demonstrate the concept, rather than trying to go all-in on convincing people of the truth. No one seems to care, and point in fact... the more resolute my position and persuasive my arguments, the more people resist the truth. So frankly, I've stopped trying to convince people, and instead have taken the approach of "here it is, be ignorant if you want."
It's about time first hand experience makes a come-back. So don't listen to me either. I'd prefer people to do the work themselves so they can actually KNOW something instead of just regurgitate what they see/hear and pass it off as their own.
Well why would I ruin a barrel by cutting it? I am sane, after all.
The fact you have cut already few barrels and witnessed it is enough for me to count in your experience based data.
But for practical purposes this only offers 1 truth - longer is better, which I already agree with.
What I would like to know is at what point is it not helping anymore and how much is enough.
In other words, should I go 24" or 28"? 22 or 25?
I think you have some opinion on proper length? I do think you have 35" barrels, so you must think some point is a good place to stop.
The fact you have cut already few barrels and witnessed it is enough for me to count in your experience based data.
But for practical purposes this only offers 1 truth - longer is better, which I already agree with.
What I would like to know is at what point is it not helping anymore and how much is enough.
In other words, should I go 24" or 28"? 22 or 25?
I think you have some opinion on proper length? I do think you have 35" barrels, so you must think some point is a good place to stop.
I have not gone longer than 28”. That being said, my best shooters have been 28”. They shoot the slowest, lowest ES, best groups and seem to handle a broad range of ammo well.
Longer is better in 22lr for SOME applications. Definitely not others. A 26" barrel with a suppressor gets a bit long for most peoples taste.
I have run 44" barrels in 375 cheytac... and despite the claims of "the internet," I'd have gone longer if I could have found someone to make one.
Regarding 22LR... 26" barrels are readily available. If finite accuracy and precision are the goal, then the longer the better. If you plan to run suppressed, or if handling is a factor... then go as short as necessary in order to achieve the handling the situation requires. So, in other words, the "proper length" is determined by a lot of factors which are weighed against each other to provide the best combination for that specific intended application.
For instance, I have a 16" sako quad that gets beat around in my pickup and side by sides. I have other 16" carbon/lightweight builds which are used for similar situations where I'd rather not be porting around a 19lb rifle that's almost as long as I am tall.
Waiting in the wings is verification of Mike Bush's barrel length versus fast twist for optimal 22LR accuracy at long range without loss of accuracy at short range. As @orkan stated proper barrel length, or as I would say optimal barrel length, "is determined by a lot of factors."
I'd prefer people to do the work themselves so they can actually KNOW something
instead of just regurgitate what they see/hear and pass it off as their own.
I hear ya' O.
That's probably why folk's find me to be an annoying old coot.
I question everything until I find a ballistics study to review, or try it for myself.
Way too many internet fables being passed off as "truths" that don't hold up under scrutiny.
Near Miss....you've seen my chronograph results at 200 yards over the past 2 years.
The best box of 50 I've ever chronied had an ES of 27 fps, Midas+.
I don't purchase by lot testing. Random orders from internet retailers.
instead of just regurgitate what they see/hear and pass it off as their own.
I hear ya' O.
That's probably why folk's find me to be an annoying old coot.
I question everything until I find a ballistics study to review, or try it for myself.
Way too many internet fables being passed off as "truths" that don't hold up under scrutiny.
Near Miss....you've seen my chronograph results at 200 yards over the past 2 years.
The best box of 50 I've ever chronied had an ES of 27 fps, Midas+.
I don't purchase by lot testing. Random orders from internet retailers.
