Okay so I'm going to be picking up a used rimfire trainer and I found one with a reputable 24" barrel installed. I've heard most people prefer a sub 20" barrel for a rimfire and i'm curious. What will I be losing out on with the longer barrel? I know I wont really be gaining anything except maybe balance in the chassis. School me please so I make a wise choice ;-)
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support -
Not receiving emails?
We're currently aware of an issue with our email provider and working to fix it as quickly as we can! Appreciate your patience here!
View thread
What's wrong with a 24" rimfire barrel?
- Thread starter david8989
- Start date
On a center-fire I feel like the longer you go and the thinner the contour the more funky harmonics you have to deal with and the harder it is to tune the ammo to the rifle and squeeze out percision. Seems to me that stumpy barrels with a fat contour are way more forgiving while sacrificing some speed (good trade off for me).
On a rimfire I feel like you have alot more latitude to go longer and thinner without setting up a bunch of difficult to deal with whip. So IMHO you’re probably picking up some speed without sacrificing a lot of precision. This is especially true with thicker contours. I wouldn’t worry about 4” on a .22 at all.
On a rimfire I feel like you have alot more latitude to go longer and thinner without setting up a bunch of difficult to deal with whip. So IMHO you’re probably picking up some speed without sacrificing a lot of precision. This is especially true with thicker contours. I wouldn’t worry about 4” on a .22 at all.
Also wondering this same thing. Want to closely match my centerfire rig in balance and am ok with a few FPS loss.
Mainly, you'll be losing some velocity. That can be good or bad depending on the ammo's published velocity that you use. If you're shooting it with just iron sights, then the longer barrel tends to help with more consistent accuracy.
My understanding was that with so little powder in a rimfire cartridge you gain nothing with the extra barrel as the powder is burned early along the bullets travel.
My Winchester 75T and Springfield M2 both have long (for .22) barrels and shoot well enough.
My Winchester 75T and Springfield M2 both have long (for .22) barrels and shoot well enough.
So you think longer barrel=less velocity, and more precision? That the exact opposite of what I said...
This will mimic my 24" match rifle so having the most compact package possible isn't my main concern. I want something as close to my main rig as possible with sub MOA accuracy. Just wanting opinions on if the longer barrel will keep that accuracy from being attainable.
Not so much "more friction" as the powder has finished burning as opposed to something like a 16" barrel where it's not quite so and tends to produce more velocity that a 24" barrel (assuming we're talking about Long Rifle rimfires). And yes . . . with regards to the "longer sight radius".
For a trainer Id say go with what is closest to the rifle you are training for.
If you were competing with .22 than a shorter barrel is just more efficient use of materials.
The Springfield has a 24 inch barrel, a 30-06 '03 barrel bored for .22 caliber.
The Winchester 75 has a 27 or 28 inch barrel.
At the 50 yard ranges I typically shoot a good shooter (someone other than me) could likely be sub MOA.
Hmmmm??? When referring to your "24" match rifle", that's a rimfire as well?
You're choice of ammo will be a huge factor in whether it will give you that kind of accuracy. Sub MOA is certainly achievable with good rimfire ammo, even out to 100 yds, that you find that barrel likes.
Since a 24" barrel tends to produce lower velocity than 20", 18" and 16" barrels, one can look at ammo that has higher published velocities so that when the barrel slows them down some into the subsonic range, then there where one might find the advantage of the longer barrel. If the published velocity is at the low end of subsonic, then making it slower can be a detriment. But I'd say that a 24"er can handle most subsonic ammo just fine. Again, the trick will be finding the one that that particular barrel likes most.
Hard to argue with the track record the 40x has, and it's barrel length is typically 22 to 28 inches.
Watch the Vudoo videos on YT and it's stated that there is no true accuracy and velocity difference between a 16 and a 20.
Watch the Vudoo videos on YT and it's stated that there is no true accuracy and velocity difference between a 16 and a 20.
I remember hearing about barrel droop with 10/22’s and heavy barrels. Is this an issue at all with the newer .22s?
My match rifle is a 24" centerfire in an MPA BA chassis. I'm looking for a trainer rifle that I can practice wind calls and positional shooting with. The MPA22BA would be $1600 + tax & shipping but there is a used one with a 24" barrel in the used section for $1300. Trying to decide if it's worth it to save a few bucks or go with the 18" barreled new one I was looking at.
I have a 26” barre for my Sako quad and that thing hammers! I also have a 16” for it. It shoots almost as well.
I think that is a factor of the engineering/design specific in the 10/22
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 24” barrel on a rimfire. As long as it is a good barrel, it should perform well. I have a CZ 457 Pro Varmint with a 16.5” barrel and my buddy has a CZ 457 PVT with 24” barrel and they both shoot very well. I like the 16” barrel because I run a suppressor, but they both shoot equally well.
If the barrel has been taken care of and in good condition, I can't think of a good reason not to go with the 24"er to save a little.
And if you should happen to decide a shorter barrel would have been better . . . you can always cut 6" off.
No. . .
. . . not THAT 6"
Wise words good sir, lol!If the barrel has been taken care of and in good condition, I can't think of a good reason not to go with the 24"er to save a little.
And if you should happen to decide a shorter barrel would have been better . . . you can always cut 6" off.
Forget which one, but Vudoo has a video on YouTube that talks about this..
best accuracy and highest speed is between 16-22” in this range performance is pretty close.. above 22” speed starts to drop off.
He said most people get the 18-20” barrel for aesthetic reasons.
That said, I can’t imagine that going to 24” is gonna make a huge deal, if the balance feels closer to your centerfire.. another option might be a shorter heavier barrel, to maintain the balance your looking for while keeping the advantage of shorter length.
best accuracy and highest speed is between 16-22” in this range performance is pretty close.. above 22” speed starts to drop off.
He said most people get the 18-20” barrel for aesthetic reasons.
That said, I can’t imagine that going to 24” is gonna make a huge deal, if the balance feels closer to your centerfire.. another option might be a shorter heavier barrel, to maintain the balance your looking for while keeping the advantage of shorter length.
It is true that past a certain lenght in 22rf you start loosing velocity but with the longer barrels, 22 plus, they are less finicky with ammo and you will find they can shoot fairly decent with more than that one brand and lot. I have been testing this with barrels from 18 to 28. I did not get good results with 18,20 or 28. Much more forgiving with 22, 24 and 26. I have only tested 3 brands of barrels though.
I have settled on 24. It might be my particular combo.
I have settled on 24. It might be my particular combo.
There is the possibility of losing velocity past 22”. Each barrel/ammo combo will be different though. And the velocity drop from 22-24” may not be enough to matter.
Same thing would happen in a centerfire barrel. It would just take a much, much longer barrel due to the increased speed over a .22.
For this reason most shy away from barrels over .22 as there is the possibility of losing velocity.
Also, unless you get the exact same contour/weight barrel as your centerfire, it will never match the exact weight or balance point. So, don’t put too much effort into adding length Just for the sake of matching length. Focus on creating the same balance point as your centerfire rifle.
Same thing would happen in a centerfire barrel. It would just take a much, much longer barrel due to the increased speed over a .22.
For this reason most shy away from barrels over .22 as there is the possibility of losing velocity.
Also, unless you get the exact same contour/weight barrel as your centerfire, it will never match the exact weight or balance point. So, don’t put too much effort into adding length Just for the sake of matching length. Focus on creating the same balance point as your centerfire rifle.
I have 8 different 22lr's with 26-30" barrels on them, and have chrono'd dozens more. None exhibit slower velocity than any of my shorter barrel rifles.
I'm not sure where this little piece of internet knowledge of bullets slowing down before they come out the barrel came from... but I've never witnessed it, and I've never seen compelling data to support it.
I'm not sure where this little piece of internet knowledge of bullets slowing down before they come out the barrel came from... but I've never witnessed it, and I've never seen compelling data to support it.
Well I have a Hart 6 groove 14tw on order to be finished at 24" when I have it put together soon will report.
Fwiw my buddies 24" 457 is actually a bit faster than my 22.5" 452 when chronyed with standard/sub velocity...kinda goes against the grain.
Fwiw my buddies 24" 457 is actually a bit faster than my 22.5" 452 when chronyed with standard/sub velocity...kinda goes against the grain.
Looking at barrel length vs. speed, to get an accurate representation of what’s going on, I would think the experiment would have to be done with a single barrel.
ie. start with a 30” barrel, get a average speed, cut off an inch.. repeat, till the barrel is 16” and compare velocities..
If what I’ve read is true, and it’s not my research so I don’t really have a personal interest in this, the velocities increase to around 20-22” then taper off to 16”
Comparing two different guns with different barrel lengths won’t give you accurate data, there is too much influencing the results beside just length.
ie. start with a 30” barrel, get a average speed, cut off an inch.. repeat, till the barrel is 16” and compare velocities..
If what I’ve read is true, and it’s not my research so I don’t really have a personal interest in this, the velocities increase to around 20-22” then taper off to 16”
Comparing two different guns with different barrel lengths won’t give you accurate data, there is too much influencing the results beside just length.
Andrew Workman on barrel length
This is the youtube discussion, with Andrew Workman of Vudoo gunworks..
This is the youtube discussion, with Andrew Workman of Vudoo gunworks..
Two... sure... not much to be learned from two.
15 or so years of many dozens of rifles of varying barrel lengths, and the combined experience of a couple of several state champion benchrest shooters... well there's quite a lot of data available. The pursuit of ultra-precise rimfire isn't exactly a new thing. Good friend of mine has been doing it for 50 years or better.
Head to a smallbore benchrest event sometime... see how many of those barrels are under 24".
Well I ended up finding a good price on the same model rifle but with a 21" barrel. Which was the length that was reccomended but a few different YouTube tests of cutting barrels down, the boys at vudoo, and a two highly knowledgable locals with 22's. I believe that will give me a very happy medium between length, weight, and velocity concerns. Thank you all for all your great information.
@RAVAGE88 I believe has found velocity drops in *some* barrels past 22”.
Not necessarily all of them will exhibit it. IIRC the possibility for a barrel showing less velocity increases past 22” and is the reason they *prefer* not to go longer.
Did you start the barrels at 26-28 and then cut them? If not, the data isn’t perfect. One would need to start the barrel long, chrono several different types of ammo, then gradually cut it down and compare. If one wanted to be 100% on their data.
This is true and in more barrels than you might imagine. There's a huge difference between actual testing and being satisfied with just chronographing a few rifles....especially when the point is more about discussing what's relevant.
MB
Yessir, they definitely work....just discussing the merits of length vs velocity, not length vs accuracy, etc.
MB
Gotcha!
I will say that without a chronograph the only thing I can say about the longer barrel is it doesn’t seem to vary the poi/poa as much between subsonic and supersonic ammo.
I have seen a lot more difference switching ammo and the poi on my short barrels.
does it prove the point? Maybe but a sample of one and no chronograph mean all it is, is an interesting data point and anecdotal evidence
If accuracy and precision are the primary focus, then there is simply ONE (1) answer when it pertains to barrel length. It's not complicated. It's not "secret sauce." It's widely known and simple as hell.
You slug the barrel, and cut it at the point where the bore is the tightest. Each and every barrel, can be at a different place... unless its a taper bore which will almost always be smallest at the longest point. (Excluding the standard last inch or two of barrel which often bells from lapping.)
This is why tapered bores are desirable.
You don't have to worry about barrel length "slowing" your bullet in anything less than 30". It is a complete non-issue in a properly built rifle.
You slug the barrel, and cut it at the point where the bore is the tightest. Each and every barrel, can be at a different place... unless its a taper bore which will almost always be smallest at the longest point. (Excluding the standard last inch or two of barrel which often bells from lapping.)
This is why tapered bores are desirable.
You don't have to worry about barrel length "slowing" your bullet in anything less than 30". It is a complete non-issue in a properly built rifle.
I might be able to contribute to the barrel length vs velocity discussion. I, myself was curious awhile back about this and since i had the means I did my own test. All ammo used was from the same lot regardless of rifle it was shot from. Actually everything was the same conditions except the day. Obviously I couldn't do all this in one day.
Below are chrono recordings from the shortest barrel to the longest barrel. You can see for yourself the effect the barrel length has. Keep in mind, this is for my rifles only and your results may vary.
Below are chrono recordings from the shortest barrel to the longest barrel. You can see for yourself the effect the barrel length has. Keep in mind, this is for my rifles only and your results may vary.
To put it simply, slugging is a waste of time, mostly promoted by many that can't actually speak to why they do it or have it done. In addition, lapping a taper into a bore doesn't accomplish anything either. Kevin Nevius is as open about going against the grain on this as I am and you won't find a name much bigger than his in small bore. While we're at it, I guess we have the prime opportunity to go all the way and say there's also nothing purely magical about button barrels and rimfire accuracy....
Consistency is what promotes accuracy and the length of the barrel isn't necessarily important as long as you, your rifle and ammo, as a system, are consistent and you know everything about how it performs to be able to make it all work. Tight spot? Useless, but so what. Tapered bore? Waste of time but who cares. SAP or PAS? Again, who cares....There are ways to develop consistency through proper design and process but there's also a lot of conjecture to dig through to get to the things that really make a difference. To stick with "construed conventional wisdom" and not question why it's done, or worse, propagate it while having no idea what you're propagating gets no one further down the road.
MB
