tikka t1x 16 vs 20 inch barrel?

[RabidM4U5]

im simple, the 20" looks better than the 16.

Agreed.

Length has no bearing on accuracy, but it does affect vibrations/harmonics. The shorter barrel of equal diameter will be stiffer, and as a result may be less picky about what ammo it will shoot well. Either barrel loaded with ammo that suits it will shoot equally well, the shorter barrel might do well with a wider selection of ammo compared to the longer barrel is all.

.22 LR rifles are weapon systems now? For squirrel warfare? Have they started shooting back? What a world we live in.

Technically, pedantically, yes the .22LR is a weapon system.

Definition of 'weapon system'
weapon system
in British English
noun
military
a weapon and the components necessary to its proper function, such as targeting and guidance devices

 

[RangerPark]

Technically, pedantically, yes the .22LR is a weapon system.

I find this meatloaf rather shallow and pedantic.

 

[hoytcanon]

I find the whole "trainer" business rather comical. If you want to learn a rifle, shoot the rifle, not something "like" the rifle. As for barrel length on your rimfire rifle, let balance be your guide... heft both and see what feels best to you. In general you gain little by going longer, but gain "wieldiness" by going shorter... if were an "off-the-bench" rifle primarily, I would lean toward the 20" barrel, but for general shooting, hunting or plinking etc... I would opt for the 16" barrel.

 

[hoytcanon]

I find this meatloaf rather shallow and pedantic.

Do what most of us have already done... "ignore" meatloaf.

 

[kamlooky]

I find the whole "trainer" business rather comical. If you want to learn a rifle, shoot the rifle, not something "like" the rifle. As for barrel length on your rimfire rifle, let balance be your guide... heft both and see what feels best to you. In general you gain little by going longer, but gain "wieldiness" by going shorter... if were an "off-the-bench" rifle primarily, I would lean toward the 20" barrel, but for general shooting, hunting or plinking etc... I would opt for the 16" barrel.

I think Rickee pretty much nailed it.
I'd get the shorter bawrill for being less cumbersome.
After all, tizz only a pew pew.

 

[grauhanen]

A "weapon system" is not the same as a sporting rifle. The term in general refers to a weapon and the components necessary to its proper function, such as targeting and guidance devices. The US DoD uses the term with regard to smart weapons, aircraft systems, and naval systems, among others.

Here are some examples of weapon systems:

A Russian anti-aircraft weapon system



An autonomous shipboard weapon system



A Netherlands Army ground-based autonomous weapons system



A ground-based Indian Army weapon system



These are complex systems often using computerized command and control systems.

To be sure, not all are nearly as sophisticated. During World War II the Germans had the formidable ANSCHULTZ system, possibly named after the designer's twin sister, Anne (not to be confused with the target rifle with a nearly similar name).

 

[RangerPark]

I find the whole "trainer" business rather comical. If you want to learn a rifle, shoot the rifle, not something "like" the rifle.

I disagree. I shoot about 3000 rounds of .22 LR per year from various shooting positions. Standing, kneeling, sitting, prone or whatever awkward shooting position I want to work on. I'm not going to put 3000 rounds through my 7mm Remington Mag to learn the rifle, I already know how to shoot it. And I'm not going to shoot reloads through my .308 to practice shooting kneeling supported from a tree. It would be a ridiculous waste of premium ammo.

 

[RabidM4U5]

Well looky there, I've been out pedanted

 

[Slipery]

I disagree. I shoot about 3000 rounds of .22 LR per year from various shooting positions. Standing, kneeling, sitting, prone or whatever awkward shooting position I want to work on. I'm not going to put 3000 rounds through my 7mm Remington Mag to learn the rifle, I already know how to shoot it. And I'm not going to shoot reloads through my .308 to practice shooting kneeling supported from a tree. It would be a ridiculous waste of premium ammo.

Bingo, life is expensive. 22lr it’s a great option for shooting cheap and going through the same motions you would with a centre fire. I shoot long range and a 300 yard 22lr shot is near identical click value as a 1000 yard 308 shot. Teaches reading wind and plethora of other fundamentals that you mentioned. Call it a trainer call it a regular old .22 doesn’t bother me but it’s still training

 

[RabidM4U5]

Pay no mind to the crotchety curmudgeons, boys. They remind me of a certain aphorism, something to do with geriatric canines and their abating capacity to expand their repertoires

Train on!

 

[jjohnwm]

Well, shooting anything is going to do more for your skill level than sitting around typing on your laptop or phone. I shoot a large amount of .22rimfire and one of its biggest advantages is the fact that I can shoot right off the back deck. If I want to use centerfires then I need to schlep them all the the way to my little range set-up in the back fourty...the muzzle blast bothers my wife and dog in the house if I shoot right at the back door.

Semantics/pedantics aside...can someone please explain why a longer barrel, on a .22 or anything else, would have an effect on accuracy? Velocity, sure, for better or worse...but why accuracy? I've read many times over the years that, if everything else is equal (which of course it never is...) a shorter barrel will be more rigid and accurate than a longer one, even if only at a minute level. I've never seen or experienced anything to the contrary.

But...the longer barrel will be quieter, will look better (to my eye), and will make it easier to stand the rifle up in many racks than the stubby version.

 

[Chilly807]

can someone please explain why a longer barrel, on a .22 or anything else, would have an effect on accuracy? Velocity, sure, for better or worse...but why accuracy?

The longer, heavier barrel has more inertia, therefore it moves less for any given impulse that would tend to move it.

The penalty for the longer barrel is that the bullet stays in it longer, thus giving more time for that same impulse to move the barrel before the bullet exits.

Harmonics play a role too, any rifle barrel "whips" as the bullet travels along it's length. Barrel tuners work for that reason.

 

[kamlooky]

Well looky there, I've been out pedanted

……………....……..

 

[jjohnwm]

The longer, heavier barrel has more inertia, therefore it moves less for any given impulse that would tend to move it.

The penalty for the longer barrel is that the bullet stays in it longer, thus giving more time for that same impulse to move the barrel before the bullet exits.

Harmonics play a role too, any rifle barrel "whips" as the bullet travels along it's length. Barrel tuners work for that reason.

Yup, I've read that several times. I think I should have asked why people always expect the longer barrel to be more accurate, when most of these factors would contribute to the exact opposite effect, i.e. less accuracy.

In reality, the shorter barrel is probably more accurate...but to such a minute extent as to be virtually impossible to measure. In practical terms, the other advantages of the longer barrel are, to me at least, more observable and important.

 

[hoytcanon]

I disagree. I shoot about 3000 rounds of .22 LR per year from various shooting positions. Standing, kneeling, sitting, prone or whatever awkward shooting position I want to work on. I'm not going to put 3000 rounds through my 7mm Remington Mag to learn the rifle, I already know how to shoot it. And I'm not going to shoot reloads through my .308 to practice shooting kneeling supported from a tree. It would be a ridiculous waste of premium ammo.

I shoot about 30-40 bricks of LR ammo annually, and thousands of rounds of centerfire... if you want to learn about your centerfire rifle you have to shoot it... you learn very little about the centerfire rifle by shooting a rimfire rifle with similar ergonomics... are you training for S.W.A.T? That is the only way you would gain any value, re; learning to rapidly use the firearm controls with speed under pressure. In addition, you learn nothing about trajectory, wind drift and the rifle's quirks, by shooting a rimfire "trainer." IMO, the guys preoccupied with trainer rifles, have spent too much time on World of Warcraft, or watching Hollywood movies. As for "a waste of premium ammo," that is ridiculous... shooting your rifles is never a "waste." It is the only way to learn how to shoot "that" rifle... Just my opinion, YMMV.

 

[hoytcanon]

Bingo, life is expensive. 22lr it’s a great option for shooting cheap and going through the same motions you would with a centre fire. I shoot long range and a 300 yard 22lr shot is near identical click value as a 1000 yard 308 shot. Teaches reading wind and plethora of other fundamentals that you mentioned. Call it a trainer call it a regular old .22 doesn’t bother me but it’s still training

"A regular old .22" is not a "trainer" rifle... that term is referring to a rifle that is set up to closely resemble another rifle in ergonomics, in this case, a rimfire rifle set-up to mimic a centerfire rifle. I am all for learning to shoot on rimfire rifles and for learning technique and for shooting a quantity of rounds using rimfire rifles... I shoot ALOT of rimfire, and have enjoyed it immensely for five decades. I am offering the opinion that you will actually learn "VERY LITTLE" about a centerfire rifle by shooting a similarly appointed rimfire rifle... apples and oranges... again, unless you are military or SWAT, there really is no point to the "trainer" pursuit, unless it is purely a cosmetic thing, in which case, knock yourself out.

 

[RabidM4U5]

There is no difference in accuracy potential for barrels based on length. The accuracy of a barrel lies within the quality of the bore, and finishing work on the chamber and crown. The stiffer a barrel is, the easier it is to realize the full accuracy potential. It is less likely to be sensitive to different loads/ammo, and shoot a wider variety of them well. A long, whippy barrel can be just as accurate as it's shorter, stiffer compatriots, it just may take more effort finding the right load/ammo for it.

 

[RangerPark]

If you want to learn about your centerfire rifle you have to shoot it...

Agreed. If you need to learn how to shoot a particular rifle that is. I've shot enough rifles that unless the ergonomics are drastically different, I don't need to learn how to shoot any particular rifle. This isn't why I would use a "trainer" rifle.

you learn very little about the centerfire rifle by shooting a rimfire rifle with similar ergonomics...

I couldn't disagree more with this. Unless you're a naturally and extremely gifted marksman you need to practice. Anyone who's ever shot rifles know that shooting standing and unsupported is where the real marksmanship happens. At this it doesn't matter what rifle you're shooting, repetition and volume are key. Sure if I had unlimited funds I would just shoot .223 and .308 standing unsupported all day long. With Federal Gold Premium ammo no less. But I'm not made of money, and most us us aren't.

are you training for S.W.A.T? That is the only way you would gain any value, re; learning to rapidly use the firearm controls with speed under pressure.

Nor true and completely irrelevant to this discussion. People that have trained for SWAT understand that the Tactics part is far more important that the Weapons part. Most SWAT types aren't advanced marksmen at all. They stay alive and get the job done by flawlessly applying the tactics they repeatedly trained for, not by rapidly handling their firearms. The saying fast is smooth, smooth is fast is absolutely true but firearm manipulation speed has very little to do with it.

In addition, you learn nothing about trajectory, wind drift and the rifle's quirks, by shooting a rimfire "trainer."

Agreed. There's also much more to marksmanship than reading wind and calculating drop. As for a rifle's quirks, yes you can only work those out on that particular rifle. That being said, if a rifle has quirks that you need to work over you should probably get rid of it. Plenty of other quirk free rifles out there.

IMO, the guys preoccupied with trainer rifles, have spent too much time on World of Warcraft, or watching Hollywood movies.

Hurling stereotyped insults doesn't advance your argument one bit. I thought you were better than that.

As for "a waste of premium ammo," that is ridiculous... shooting your rifles is never a "waste."

I reload premium ammo that can often give me .6 MOA 10 shot groups at 300 meters, depending on the rifle of course. Can you tell me what the point would be of shooting such ammo to practice shooting standing unsupported at 100 yards? As mentioned above, if money was no object then sure.

It is the only way to learn how to shoot "that" rifle... Just my opinion, YMMV.

If one needs to learn to shoot "that rifle" then yes. I think most of us are past learning to shoot "that rifle". Marksmanship is an art that applies to all firearms, not just "that rifle". Firing thousands of rounds through a rimfire trainer rifle will have the same beneficial effects on marksmanship skills that firing the same thousands of premium ammo through a centerfire rifle, but at only a fraction of the price.

Now yes, if you want to improve shooting a .308 at 800 yards then a rimfire trainer will do very little to help that. However if you want to improve your ability to shoot the same .308 in various field positions then the rimfire trainer will absolutely have a positive contribution to that goal.

Every year I run into a though shot in the field that I sometimes miss. This year, it was a prone shot with a significant downhill lie with myself at the top of the hill and the target at the bottom. 250 yards, nice 5x5 mule deer buck. Started at 300 yards out, couldn't get much closer as all the does had already spotted me. Managed to crawl downhill 50 yards before the buck started paying attention. Prone at 250 yards I will hit the heart practically every time, on a flat prone shot that is. For this shot I ended up collapsing forward as I pulled the trigger. I saw the crosshairs go down as the shot went off. I shot clear under the buck and away he bounced. This had nothing to do with my ability to shoot "that rifle". I didn't have the skill or practice to make that shot with any rifle. I fully intend on practising that shot for about 500 repetitions come spring. I can guarantee you I will never miss a similar shot again. I can also guarantee you that after 500 practice shots with a rimfire I won't be needing another 500 on a centerfire rifle. The skill will be ingrained at that point. The final test will be with my actual hunting rifle at 300 yards, yes, which I know won't be a problem because of the ingrained repetition from the rimfire shooting.

But as you said, YMMV.

 

[hoytcanon]

Agreed. If you need to learn how to shoot a particular rifle that is. I've shot enough rifles that unless the ergonomics are drastically different, I don't need to learn how to shoot any particular rifle. This isn't why I would use a "trainer" rifle.



I couldn't disagree more with this. Unless you're a naturally and extremely gifted marksman you need to practice. Anyone who's ever shot rifles know that shooting standing and unsupported is where the real marksmanship happens. At this it doesn't matter what rifle you're shooting, repetition and volume are key. Sure if I had unlimited funds I would just shoot .223 and .308 standing unsupported all day long. With Federal Gold Premium ammo no less. But I'm not made of money, and most us us aren't.



Nor true and completely irrelevant to this discussion. People that have trained for SWAT understand that the Tactics part is far more important that the Weapons part. Most SWAT types aren't advanced marksmen at all. They stay alive and get the job done by flawlessly applying the tactics they repeatedly trained for, not by rapidly handling their firearms. The saying fast is smooth, smooth is fast is absolutely true but firearm manipulation speed has very little to do with it.



Agreed. There's also much more to marksmanship than reading wind and calculating drop. As for a rifle's quirks, yes you can only work those out on that particular rifle. That being said, if a rifle has quirks that you need to work over you should probably get rid of it. Plenty of other quirk free rifles out there.



Hurling stereotyped insults doesn't advance your argument one bit. I thought you were better than that.



I reload premium ammo that can often give me .6 MOA 10 shot groups at 300 meters, depending on the rifle of course. Can you tell me what the point would be of shooting such ammo to practice shooting standing unsupported at 100 yards? As mentioned above, if money was no object then sure.



If one needs to learn to shoot "that rifle" then yes. I think most of us are past learning to shoot "that rifle". Marksmanship is an art that applies to all firearms, not just "that rifle". Firing thousands of rounds through a rimfire trainer rifle will have the same beneficial effects on marksmanship skills that firing the same thousands of premium ammo through a centerfire rifle, but at only a fraction of the price.

Now yes, if you want to improve shooting a .308 at 800 yards then a rimfire trainer will do very little to help that. However if you want to improve your ability to shoot the same .308 in various field positions then the rimfire trainer will absolutely have a positive contribution to that goal.

Every year I run into a though shot in the field that I sometimes miss. This year, it was a prone shot with a significant downhill lie with myself at the top of the hill and the target at the bottom. 250 yards, nice 5x5 mule deer buck. Started at 300 yards out, couldn't get much closer as all the does had already spotted me. Managed to crawl downhill 50 yards before the buck started paying attention. Prone at 250 yards I will hit the heart practically every time, on a flat prone shot that is. For this shot I ended up collapsing forward as I pulled the trigger. I saw the crosshairs go down as the shot went off. I shot clear under the buck and away he bounced. This had nothing to do with my ability to shoot "that rifle". I didn't have the skill or practice to make that shot with any rifle. I fully intend on practising that shot for about 500 repetitions come spring. I can guarantee you I will never miss a similar shot again. I can also guarantee you that after 500 practice shots with a rimfire I won't be needing another 500 on a centerfire rifle. The skill will be ingrained at that point. The final test will be with my actual hunting rifle at 300 yards, yes, which I know won't be a problem because of the ingrained repetition from the rimfire shooting.

But as you said, YMMV.

That is way too much to read... I pulled out one sentence though; "If one needs to learn to shoot "that rifle" then yes. I think most of us are past learning to shoot "that rifle". Marksmanship is an art that applies to all firearms, not just "that rifle"."

So, here is the point again; I 100% support and advocate the shooting of rimfire rifles to learn technique, have fun, and participate in rimfire pursuits... it is beneficial and economical. What I feel is largely pointless, is attempting to make a "trainer" rifle that mimics a centerfire rifle to learn about the centerfire rifle... you learn virtually nothing about a centerfire rifle by shooting a rimfire copy. The concept arrived from military and police applications and has virtually nothing to offer a sport shooter or hunter, it is largely "little boys with their toys."

Again, I am not opposing in any way, practice using rimfire rifles... I am simply pointing out the silliness around the rimfire "trainer" concept.

Suggesting that the idea and impetus for trainer rifles arrived from World of Warcraft and Hollywood movies is far from an insult... it is the reality that 99.5% (give or take) of the trainer advocates have ZERO experience in the military or special police services, and therefore are being influenced by pop culture more than anything else... look, if you want to incorporate roll playing into your shooting, I am fine with that, just don't kid yourself that you are doing meaningful work as it relates to the rifle that your trainer is copying.

 

[jjohnwm]

I don't practice shooting a particular rifle; I practice shooting. Trigger control/squeeze, breathing, sight picture, stance, position shooting...shooting any rifle will improve competence in these areas. Of course it is essential to also learn the individual characteristics of each rifle to be completely comfortable with it, but that requires only a tiny fraction of the amount of practice needed to simply learn the mechanics of producing a good shot.

If you were to find yourself without a rifle on a hunt...due to damage suffered in travel, a possible theft, or even the impossible logistics of importing a rifle into some foreign country on an exotic hunt...and a rifle were handed to you on the spot, would you refuse it because you didn't have the opportunity to put 500 or 1000 rounds through it? Of course not; you would cycle it a few times, dry fire it a few times to become acquainted with the trigger feel, fire a few shots to confirm the sighting, and then you would go hunting. If you had spent a lifetime shooting other rifles, even rimfires, you would be able to adapt to the new firearm very quickly and effectively. Without that background...hmmm.

Frankly, the main thing about shooting a centerfire for practice instead of a rimfire, aside from learning drop, wind, etc. (which will differ for each rifle/cartridge combo) is learning to handle and accept recoil and muzzle blast.