AStone
Member
Max vel, false muzzles
Now this thread is getting interesting.
Please pass the chocolate...
Now this thread is getting interesting.
Please pass the chocolate...
Ideal barrel length for a 22LR
- Thread starter Frohickey
- Start date
- Status
JustsayMo
Member
MP510;
Where did you get your data that a 16" barrel maximizes velocity?
In chronograph tests with my own rifles* and handguns the longer barrel (up to 24")has always produced the highest average velocity in almost every ammo I've tried. Aguila Subsonic being the exception in the Marlin leverguns.
*Marlin 39's in 16", 20" & 24"
Bolt rimfires; CZ 452 in 20" & Remington 511P in 24"
Ruger Single Sixes in 4-5/8 & 5.5"
Auto's: Marlin Papoose 16" vs 18" 10/22
While not a perfectly controled study, it did convince me that there is more myth than fact in the 16" barrel is the ideal.
Where did you get your data that a 16" barrel maximizes velocity?
In chronograph tests with my own rifles* and handguns the longer barrel (up to 24")has always produced the highest average velocity in almost every ammo I've tried. Aguila Subsonic being the exception in the Marlin leverguns.
*Marlin 39's in 16", 20" & 24"
Bolt rimfires; CZ 452 in 20" & Remington 511P in 24"
Ruger Single Sixes in 4-5/8 & 5.5"
Auto's: Marlin Papoose 16" vs 18" 10/22
While not a perfectly controled study, it did convince me that there is more myth than fact in the 16" barrel is the ideal.
I wholeheartedly agree.
That's what I recalled hearing after those expensive German made target rifles going to 16 or a little and using attachments for sighting radius. The claim at the time was that the long barrel were generally for sighting radius. Guess it was, as some poster said more myth than fact.
Carl N. Brown
Member
What I have always heard is that Remington gave the
Nylon 66 a 19.5" barrel because that gives the maximum
velocity with Remington .22 lr ammo.
That said, tests by NRA showed that of .22 ammunition
only the CCI Stinger gave significant increase in velocity
from 20" to 26". Most .22 started losing velocity after
20" (not much, but it could be measured).
.22 lr must perform in both handguns and rifles, so the
typical powder load is a compromise.
As for balance, I have shot my cousin's 39A (24")
and my 39 Mountie (20") in the past two months.
The 39A seemed to hang well for offhand shooting.
Personally, I would like to see a M39 .22 balanced to
match the M336C centerfire rifle. Talk about thread drift.
-----------------
16" or 19.5" velocities are close, but a 16" bull barrel
is usually more accurate than a thinner 20" barrel
with the same overall weight.
Nylon 66 a 19.5" barrel because that gives the maximum
velocity with Remington .22 lr ammo.
That said, tests by NRA showed that of .22 ammunition
only the CCI Stinger gave significant increase in velocity
from 20" to 26". Most .22 started losing velocity after
20" (not much, but it could be measured).
.22 lr must perform in both handguns and rifles, so the
typical powder load is a compromise.
As for balance, I have shot my cousin's 39A (24")
and my 39 Mountie (20") in the past two months.
The 39A seemed to hang well for offhand shooting.
Personally, I would like to see a M39 .22 balanced to
match the M336C centerfire rifle. Talk about thread drift.
-----------------
16" or 19.5" velocities are close, but a 16" bull barrel
is usually more accurate than a thinner 20" barrel
with the same overall weight.
Last edited:
Ooh, ooh, Mr. Cotter! I just had an idea! If Nematocyst-870 does go ahead with his barrel cutting project, he can chrono the 39A before and after using the same batch of a standard velocity ammo. If there is any truth to the shorter=faster conjecture, he will be able to tell. If the bullet velocity goes down (as I fully expect it to), then we can call it a myth. That is unless someone here thinks a miracle is going to happen and the bullet would speed up to a velocity greater than in the first test if an additional 2 to 4 inches was cut off the barrel over the 4 to 6 he plans to cut off.
AStone
Member
Very interesting and informative thread.
Glad I'm here.
In fact, if the original poster and mods don't mind, I'd very much like to hear some opinions about this concept "balance". (If either or both of you prefer not, I'd be happy to take this part of the discussion to a new thread.
It may deserve one anyway.)
"Balance" strikes me as one of those words that everybody uses, but not necessarily in the same way (or in some cases, not in a way that can even be described adequately with words in a rational way since it is mostly felt or intuitive, like riding a bike). Mea culpa.
I did some reading last night about "balance". In fact, I googled "rifle balance". Found a few pages, mostly related to formal target shooting techniques but some addressing carry issues (how it balances in the hand when carrying without a sling). They all used the word "balance", but none of them really explained explicitly what they meant by it.
So, for example, when shooting a rifle, when one says it's "balanced", does that mean that the rifle balances on the fore end hand (for me, that's left) without a tendency to tip forward or backwards? Or does it relate to some less tangible quality, like the distribution of the weight of the gun with relation to one's shoulder?
For me, "balance" has had more to do with the latter than the former. I like the barrel to be the "light end" of the gun, with more weight distributed towards the action and stock. My 870P is like that. The "balance point"(when carrying it in hand) is immediately in front of the trigger guard. When I shoulder it, my right arm is doing most of the weight bearing function, with my left hand mostly just steadying the barrel and pumping.
With my 39A, the balance point (now) is 2" in front of the trigger guard, under the rear sight. My left arm does more of the weight bearing function. That results in a different dynamic for me than if the balance was further back (as if the barrel was shorter). I'm not saying it's a worse dynamic; too early to say yet for me. I'm just saying it's different, and not something I'm used to yet.
Of course, with the lever gun, having more weight on the fore end hand may free up the rear hand for lever duty (the reverse situation from my pump shotgun).
I'm expecting my 336A any day now. (Hoping the gun shop will call today or tomorrow <no excitement to be read into that statement
> ). I'll be really curious to compare it's "balance" (whatever that means) to the 39A.
Nem
Glad I'm here.
Oooh, I'd drift with that tangent in a heartbeat.
In fact, if the original poster and mods don't mind, I'd very much like to hear some opinions about this concept "balance". (If either or both of you prefer not, I'd be happy to take this part of the discussion to a new thread.
It may deserve one anyway.)
"Balance" strikes me as one of those words that everybody uses, but not necessarily in the same way (or in some cases, not in a way that can even be described adequately with words in a rational way since it is mostly felt or intuitive, like riding a bike). Mea culpa.
I did some reading last night about "balance". In fact, I googled "rifle balance". Found a few pages, mostly related to formal target shooting techniques but some addressing carry issues (how it balances in the hand when carrying without a sling). They all used the word "balance", but none of them really explained explicitly what they meant by it.
So, for example, when shooting a rifle, when one says it's "balanced", does that mean that the rifle balances on the fore end hand (for me, that's left) without a tendency to tip forward or backwards? Or does it relate to some less tangible quality, like the distribution of the weight of the gun with relation to one's shoulder?
For me, "balance" has had more to do with the latter than the former. I like the barrel to be the "light end" of the gun, with more weight distributed towards the action and stock. My 870P is like that. The "balance point"(when carrying it in hand) is immediately in front of the trigger guard. When I shoulder it, my right arm is doing most of the weight bearing function, with my left hand mostly just steadying the barrel and pumping.
With my 39A, the balance point (now) is 2" in front of the trigger guard, under the rear sight. My left arm does more of the weight bearing function. That results in a different dynamic for me than if the balance was further back (as if the barrel was shorter). I'm not saying it's a worse dynamic; too early to say yet for me. I'm just saying it's different, and not something I'm used to yet.
Of course, with the lever gun, having more weight on the fore end hand may free up the rear hand for lever duty (the reverse situation from my pump shotgun).
I'm expecting my 336A any day now. (Hoping the gun shop will call today or tomorrow <no excitement to be read into that statement
> ). I'll be really curious to compare it's "balance" (whatever that means) to the 39A.Nem
AStone
Member
You know, that's a great idea. I'd totally be down with doing it
(IF you guys don't talk me out of a barrel cut ...
).Just in case, I'll start looking around for some one here with a chronograph.
I'll bet the folks over at the gun shop or at one of the local ranges can put me in touch with one ...
JustsayMo
Member
GREAT idea Mal!
I'd almost be willing to drive my Chronograph down to Nema just to find out. Nema, do you ever get to the Seattle area? I range master at our club and can open it up for important scientific studies pert near any time there's daylight. Might even have to bring a milk carton or ten...
If so bring that 39 (and the 336A). We can test a bunch of varieties of ammo and see what it'll do. Science can be fun! 
I'd almost be willing to drive my Chronograph down to Nema just to find out. Nema, do you ever get to the Seattle area? I range master at our club and can open it up for important scientific studies pert near any time there's daylight. Might even have to bring a milk carton or ten...
If so bring that 39 (and the 336A). We can test a bunch of varieties of ammo and see what it'll do. Science can be fun!
rangerruck
Member
depending on the quality of ammo, the bbl, lapping , molyfusion, temps, altitude, hi velocity or hyper, it is going to be between 16 to 18 inches. you cannot say just one measurement. you cannot use just a chronograph, you have to use a computer program to input certain data strings, to find out where the velocity has it's 'smoothest' velocity gain point. And there are a few other factors, such as gas espansion ratio's, velocity blips, barrel balistics, etc. But those are more cumulative, and minor taken on singular points .
That being said, on average , with most 22lr ammo, it will be between 16 to 18 inches. 17m2, is 20 to 22 inches, as with a 22 mag, and a 17hmr i would do 22 to 24 inches.
That being said, on average , with most 22lr ammo, it will be between 16 to 18 inches. 17m2, is 20 to 22 inches, as with a 22 mag, and a 17hmr i would do 22 to 24 inches.
Run a t-test and see...
This thread makes me wonder why T/C came out with a 28" .22LR barrel for the Pro Hunter if what has been alleged is accurate.
For my part, I seriously doubt that the added length would "significantly" decrease velocity. In fact, inasmuch as the barrel remains under preassure, I suspect that the velocity does not decrease between 16" and 28" (or other length).
The test is simple. Take a rifle with a 16" barrel, and a rifle with a 28" barrel (or other length). Clean both rifles. Buy 1 box of X-brand ammo. Fire 25 rounds from the box though each rifle through a chronograph. Put the data into ( Excel / SPSS / Minitab / http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/t-test.html ). Note, use the link for "Are two sets of data really different?" Do NOT use the paired data option. That statistic is a for a test | re-test to see if the score-change is significant.
I suggest use Minitab or SPSS and run a 2-tailed, t-test checking to see if there is a statistically significant difference of mean group scores. (NOTE: verify appropriate critical-t per 1-tailed or 2-tailed t-test). Null-hypothesis: There is not a statistically significant difference of group means velocities for .22LRs fired through a 16" barrel versus those fired through a 28" barrel (or other length). Edit to add, these rifles should be the same make, and action-type. Do not use a microgroove Marlin and a deep-cut-rifled X rifle. Also, do not use one bolt-action and the other semi-automatic. We want to keep the only change (variable) being the barrels' length. To that same end, I strongly suggest using a professional, match-grade ammunition. (Of course we have the limitation that we cannot randomly sample 30 rifles of each length).
Someone with a chrono do the shots and send me the #s. I'll run the t-test for you all.
Doc2005
This thread makes me wonder why T/C came out with a 28" .22LR barrel for the Pro Hunter if what has been alleged is accurate.
For my part, I seriously doubt that the added length would "significantly" decrease velocity. In fact, inasmuch as the barrel remains under preassure, I suspect that the velocity does not decrease between 16" and 28" (or other length).
The test is simple. Take a rifle with a 16" barrel, and a rifle with a 28" barrel (or other length). Clean both rifles. Buy 1 box of X-brand ammo. Fire 25 rounds from the box though each rifle through a chronograph. Put the data into ( Excel / SPSS / Minitab / http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/t-test.html ). Note, use the link for "Are two sets of data really different?" Do NOT use the paired data option. That statistic is a for a test | re-test to see if the score-change is significant.
I suggest use Minitab or SPSS and run a 2-tailed, t-test checking to see if there is a statistically significant difference of mean group scores. (NOTE: verify appropriate critical-t per 1-tailed or 2-tailed t-test). Null-hypothesis: There is not a statistically significant difference of group means velocities for .22LRs fired through a 16" barrel versus those fired through a 28" barrel (or other length). Edit to add, these rifles should be the same make, and action-type. Do not use a microgroove Marlin and a deep-cut-rifled X rifle. Also, do not use one bolt-action and the other semi-automatic. We want to keep the only change (variable) being the barrels' length. To that same end, I strongly suggest using a professional, match-grade ammunition. (Of course we have the limitation that we cannot randomly sample 30 rifles of each length).
Someone with a chrono do the shots and send me the #s. I'll run the t-test for you all.
Doc2005
AStone
Member
J'Mo,
Thanks for the offer of help with chrono research. Unfortunately, I don't ever make it up to Seattle any more. I'm too poor right now in time and money; my business is eating my time, my diesel truck drinks fuel as fast some people drink beer , and I'm spending all my discretionary funds (that includes travel) on new rifles.
I'm going to explore finding a chrono here, though.
I also owe you a PM after this busy week is finished.
(Neat pack arrangement you mentioned...)
Nem
Thanks for the offer of help with chrono research. Unfortunately, I don't ever make it up to Seattle any more. I'm too poor right now in time and money; my business is eating my time, my diesel truck drinks fuel as fast some people drink beer
, and I'm spending all my discretionary funds (that includes travel) on new rifles. I'm going to explore finding a chrono here, though.
I also owe you a PM after this busy week is finished.
(Neat pack arrangement you mentioned...)
Nem
rangerruck
Member
actually, speed starts to drop off fast, once 24 inches has been reached. the reasons for shooting 22's with longer bbls, are primarily, longer bbls are easier to stabilize, with a longer sighting radius for more accurate shooting. secondly and maybe more important, the longer bbl helps keep the extreme fps velocity spread down to a minimum, since there is better control over expansion of the gas, inside the bbl, for a round that may be loaded a teeny bit more or less powder grains.
Hi there, I'm new to the forum but would like to throw in my two bits, the RUGER 10/22 is a semi-automatic rifle, part of the energy from combustion is used to propel the bullet, and part for cycling the breech block and carrier to load the next round into the chamber and cock the firing pin.
Changing the amount of powder will change the rate of cycling, reducing the powder will slow cycling, even prevent it from completing.
Any problems with jamming?
Approaching closely the amount of energy to overcome inertia of the block will sometimes cause increased back pressure, if it doesn't cycle some of this gas will be pushed back intot he chamber and increase bullet velocity, accompanied by a "jam"
or a soft cycle will just do it a bit.
Changing the amount of powder will change the rate of cycling, reducing the powder will slow cycling, even prevent it from completing.
Any problems with jamming?
Approaching closely the amount of energy to overcome inertia of the block will sometimes cause increased back pressure, if it doesn't cycle some of this gas will be pushed back intot he chamber and increase bullet velocity, accompanied by a "jam"
or a soft cycle will just do it a bit.
With low powder loads and quick burns propellants are exhausted before the bullet reaches the end of the barrel, so longer barrels will cause loss of velocity due to friction after the propellant is used up.
Using a bigger load of powder or slower burning powder (larger granules) will make a longer burn which will continue to burn as the bullet travels down the barrel, longer barrels will contain this expanding gas for longer and cause increased efficiency and increased velocity of the bullet.
Optimal barrel length is determined by multiple factors, including the powder load, specifically burn time and expansion rate (powder composition, granule size, absolute size, bore diameter), cooling rate of gases (bore diameter, barrel thickness, ambient temperature, coefficient of heat exchange of barrel material), time of projectile in the barrel (mass, length of barrel, friction (bore size))
There are so many variables that I can't list them all here, and the permutations of each of thise is extraordinary, but suffice to say, it is different for each ammunition and for each caliber.
Another factor is the need for spin to stabilize the bullt, in low velocity small powder charges a short barrel may be preferred, but is limited by the need for time to impart energy to the bulet and make it spin... can be overcome by choking down the barrel, increasing friction
Using a bigger load of powder or slower burning powder (larger granules) will make a longer burn which will continue to burn as the bullet travels down the barrel, longer barrels will contain this expanding gas for longer and cause increased efficiency and increased velocity of the bullet.
Optimal barrel length is determined by multiple factors, including the powder load, specifically burn time and expansion rate (powder composition, granule size, absolute size, bore diameter), cooling rate of gases (bore diameter, barrel thickness, ambient temperature, coefficient of heat exchange of barrel material), time of projectile in the barrel (mass, length of barrel, friction (bore size))
There are so many variables that I can't list them all here, and the permutations of each of thise is extraordinary, but suffice to say, it is different for each ammunition and for each caliber.
Another factor is the need for spin to stabilize the bullt, in low velocity small powder charges a short barrel may be preferred, but is limited by the need for time to impart energy to the bulet and make it spin... can be overcome by choking down the barrel, increasing friction
- Status
