.22 lr ELR ammo... this is going to be interesting.

Go back and carefully re-read my posts. I am not agreeing with you or retracting my statements. Arguing with you is just going to drain me, and I don't need that. Have fun in La-La land.

Let's not elevate such an achievement to represent the limits of what can be achieved on a typical day by a more developed shooter. For some of us, 22LR only starts to get interesting at 200 yards.... AKA your max limit.

I look forward to seeing your name as the second entry into the 1/4" at 50 yard club, then. Should take you 15 minutes and only 30 rounds of ammo ;) ;)
 
For some of us, 22LR only starts to get interesting at 200 yards.

In an effort to understand the this representative point of view, it would seem the eschewing of shorter range shooting suggests one or a combination of several things.

One is that these shooters have done everything up to 200 yards and conquered it handily and are looking for further challenges. That is to say that they shoot so well and so consistently at ranges more traditional for .22LR -- especially at 50 yards and more generally at 100 yards -- that it represents a challenge unworthy of their rifles and shooting skills.

A second reason is that shooting at 200 yards and beyond is viewed more appropriate for the .22LR round and shooter. Long distance shooters better appreciate the true potential of the .22LR cartridge and see it as appropriate one for shooting at 200 yards and more. In short under 100 yards represent an insufficiently robust challenge for the ammo and the shooter, perhaps even unmanly.

Another reason is a less palatable. Some shooters are interested in shooting at 200 yards and more because accuracy standards are less well defined. Unlike 50 yards where standards of sub-MOA in general and half-MOA in particular are clear and understood, they are more vague and ambiguous at longer ranges due to the inherent limitations of the .22LR cartridge.

Interest in long distance shooting for the first reason is easily understood. Anyone who does something extraordinarily well -- significantly better than average, much better than typically seen with regard to shooters posting on these pages -- may well want to have new .22LR shooting challenges. Interest in long distance shooting for the second reason seems informed by an insufficient appreciation for the inherent limitations of the round and the challenges of shooting at distances for which the round was and is designed. Interest in long distance shooting for the third reason, while perhaps very common and understandable, is nevertheless little more than shortchanging the shooter himself.

On the other hand it's possible for it to be simply thought of as a fair challenge to be able to hit a target at 350 yards 8 or more times out of ten that is, as described earlier in this thread, "roughly 11 3/4" wide and 19 3/4" tall" (from post #90). Who is anyone to take issue with what shooters like to do. From elsewhere in this thread a different target size is given for .22LR ELR: "For a target size reference, the ELR game is a 12"X12" target.... CRPS and BCPRL rimfire will use much larger targets per distance BUT you are also shooting from 'compromised' positions" (post #111). Perhaps that too is a fair challenge. In any case it's asserted in this thread by an ELR shooter that
Hitting a 12" square target at 400yds is no longer a mystery... now the game is further

While striking a square foot target at 400 yards may not be a puzzle, how regularly it can be done remains unclear. So too is what a good standard of acceptable accuracy is at 300 yards and more, given the limitations of the round, especially at ELR ranges.

Also unclear, and very oddly so, is what's an acceptable standard of accuracy at 200 yards for shooters who see 200 yards with .22LR as a mere starting point.

In that regard, 200 yard shooting with .22LR is described in the following way:
2" to 3" at 200 is no problem..
More dramatically and specifically, the best 200 yard groups shown in this entire thread so far (Rabid's in post #117) are described only as
just mediocre.... Nothing special.

Dismissive comments such as these suggest a poorly informed view about what ought to be considered a consistent standard for good shooting at 200 yards, the minimum distance for some where .22LR first becomes interesting. If 2 - 3" groups at 200 yards are no problem and nothing special, what is the consistent standard at that distance?

To be sure, it's possible to shoot smaller groups at 200 yards. With enough groups it can be repeated. The trouble is that it's awfully difficult and so very unusual so as to be able to do it with a regularity that can be described as consistent. Anyone who has shot sub-.250" groups at 50 yards knows that two or three out of five groups is may not be unusual, but to shoot more consistently is devilishly tough indeed. To shoot 2" to 3" groups consistently at 200 yards, however, is a greater challenge than the above comments suggest. A persistent belief otherwise betrays a lack of understanding about what's reasonable.

In general, it's doubtful that anyone posting on these pages shoots so well at 50 yards and 100 yards that it is only at 200 and more yards that his skill level, rifle's potential, and ammo selection is truly tested. With that in mind, it's hardly surprising that this forum doesn't have a lot more shooters posting MOA shooting at 200 yards, let alone sub-half-MOA at 50. Some shooters, even with an informed understanding of the limits of .22LR ammo and with very good rifles have yet to do the latter. It's certainly not because it's inappropriate for .22LR or it's an unmanly or insufficiently difficult challenge. There's only so much that can be reasonably expected from the ammo that's available, even if much of it is out of reach because of its high cost.
 
This thread has truly become so side tracked and off topic that I’m deleting the thread subscription.

You guys wanna measure your dicks, go do it somewhere else. This started out as a discussion on a potentially new line of 22LR ammunition that would change the game of CRPS (and perhaps some others).

It has degraded to 2 guys who are yelling at their computer screens calling each other names for no apparent benefit....

Cheers!
 
This thread has truly become so side tracked and off topic that I’m deleting the thread subscription.

You guys wanna measure your dicks, go do it somewhere else. This started out as a discussion on a potentially new line of 22LR ammunition that would change the game of CRPS (and perhaps some others).

It has degraded to 2 guys who are yelling at their computer screens calling each other names for no apparent benefit....

Cheers!

its sad but its pretty much what ive come to expect in the rimfire forums here.
 
This thread has truly become so side tracked and off topic that I’m deleting the thread subscription.

You guys wanna measure your dicks, go do it somewhere else. This started out as a discussion on a potentially new line of 22LR ammunition that would change the game of CRPS (and perhaps some others).

It has degraded to 2 guys who are yelling at their computer screens calling each other names for no apparent benefit....

Cheers!

Two guys? That's all? Your disconsolate voice makes it at least three.

More generally, if you see questioning rather than unabashed support and agreement, it doesn't mean #### measuring, as you put it. It means there is a discussion going on, not a girls club talking about why the latest teen idol is the greatest.

Seriously, the thread is about .22LR ELR ammo. The question of whether is such an ammo is part of it. Any discussion along those lines raises the question of long range shooting standards.

Any new line of .22LR ammunition that claims it changes the nature of any kind of shooting deserves a full and frank discussion. Any shooter hoping for a magic bullet that makes long distance shooting more consistent and brings expectations and dreams closer to reality should welcome it rather than cry foul. A cold shower of reality does nothing when measuring dicks, but it's helpful for readers who may want to know more about what proposals such as those of Cutting Edge really mean.
 
Honestly I don’t think those new pills could be pushed fast enough to really help, bullet design looks like it was meant for high speed as was suggested way earlier, but I will wait and see. Not sure what it would take for one of these to justify a 6 twist. Not that I would ever build one but hey to each their own.
 
Honestly I don’t think those new pills could be pushed fast enough to really help, bullet design looks like it was meant for high speed as was suggested way earlier, but I will wait and see.

That is part of the problem with .22LR as is. Since it is so slow, trajectory calculations for various distances is a nightmare, added to the fact that temperature swings also alter combustion properties, so your DOPE for warm weather will not line up with the cold weather results. Further to that, any variation in muzzle velocity results in significant differences in vertical POI as distance increases. Here is a closer look at the two 200 yard targets I had posted up with the pic on the range showing my "aiming sticks". Ammo was SK Biathlon, chronograph data is shown on the target, ES = 57 fps. As per my ballistic calculations, the calculated vertical for this velocity spread is 7.12". Real world results are congruent with the calculation.



The next ammo was BBM High Velocity, ES = 61 fps, but with a higher velocity than SK, 1038-1099 min-max, the calculated vertical is 6.28". I'm eyeballing 6.5" on my target, so, given tolerance for shooter error, I'd say the data is pretty darn good. The SK min-max was 1009-1066 fps, this slight shift in velocity delivered about 1" less vertical spread on target, given a similar ES for MV.



Shooters are doing well to stay inside 4" horizontally (for 50 shots). It is very apparent, even given this small data set (though one could visit RFC's "50 at 200" thread for a comprehensive data set that confirms my results) that if we are to make any significant improvements in ELR shooting, velocity must be maximized, and ES must be minimized.

A new bullet alone is not enough to "significantly change the game". Current ammunition manufacturing methods will continue to deliver unsatisfactory results, no matter what bullet you stick in the casing.


A cold shower of reality does nothing when measuring dicks
, but it's helpful for readers who may want to know more about what proposals such as those of Cutting Edge really mean.

I have it on good authority that a decrease in temperature causes physical matter to contract. It may not be advisable to take a measurement immediately following a cold shower, lest the results be less than flattering ;)
 
I have it on good authority that a decrease in temperature causes physical matter to contract. It may not be advisable to take a measurement immediately following a cold shower, lest the results be less than flattering ;)

:agree:
I should have replaced the word when with for in the bolded text above. "I was in the pool! I was in the pool!"
 
In an effort to understand the this representative point of view, it would seem the eschewing of shorter range shooting suggests one or a combination of several things.

One is that these shooters have done everything up to 200 yards and conquered it handily and are looking for further challenges. That is to say that they shoot so well and so consistently at ranges more traditional for .22LR -- especially at 50 yards and more generally at 100 yards -- that it represents a challenge unworthy of their rifles and shooting skills.

A second reason is that shooting at 200 yards and beyond is viewed more appropriate for the .22LR round and shooter. Long distance shooters better appreciate the true potential of the .22LR cartridge and see it as appropriate one for shooting at 200 yards and more. In short under 100 yards represent an insufficiently robust challenge for the ammo and the shooter, perhaps even unmanly.

Another reason is a less palatable. Some shooters are interested in shooting at 200 yards and more because accuracy standards are less well defined. Unlike 50 yards where standards of sub-MOA in general and half-MOA in particular are clear and understood, they are more vague and ambiguous at longer ranges due to the inherent limitations of the .22LR cartridge.

Interest in long distance shooting for the first reason is easily understood. Anyone who does something extraordinarily well -- significantly better than average, much better than typically seen with regard to shooters posting on these pages -- may well want to have new .22LR shooting challenges. Interest in long distance shooting for the second reason seems informed by an insufficient appreciation for the inherent limitations of the round and the challenges of shooting at distances for which the round was and is designed. Interest in long distance shooting for the third reason, while perhaps very common and understandable, is nevertheless little more than shortchanging the shooter himself.

On the other hand it's possible for it to be simply thought of as a fair challenge to be able to hit a target at 350 yards 8 or more times out of ten that is, as described earlier in this thread, "roughly 11 3/4" wide and 19 3/4" tall" (from post #90). Who is anyone to take issue with what shooters like to do. From elsewhere in this thread a different target size is given for .22LR ELR: "For a target size reference, the ELR game is a 12"X12" target.... CRPS and BCPRL rimfire will use much larger targets per distance BUT you are also shooting from 'compromised' positions" (post #111). Perhaps that too is a fair challenge. In any case it's asserted in this thread by an ELR shooter that


While striking a square foot target at 400 yards may not be a puzzle, how regularly it can be done remains unclear. So too is what a good standard of acceptable accuracy is at 300 yards and more, given the limitations of the round, especially at ELR ranges.

Also unclear, and very oddly so, is what's an acceptable standard of accuracy at 200 yards for shooters who see 200 yards with .22LR as a mere starting point.

In that regard, 200 yard shooting with .22LR is described in the following way:

More dramatically and specifically, the best 200 yard groups shown in this entire thread so far (Rabid's in post #117) are described only as


Dismissive comments such as these suggest a poorly informed view about what ought to be considered a consistent standard for good shooting at 200 yards, the minimum distance for some where .22LR first becomes interesting. If 2 - 3" groups at 200 yards are no problem and nothing special, what is the consistent standard at that distance?

To be sure, it's possible to shoot smaller groups at 200 yards. With enough groups it can be repeated. The trouble is that it's awfully difficult and so very unusual so as to be able to do it with a regularity that can be described as consistent. Anyone who has shot sub-.250" groups at 50 yards knows that two or three out of five groups is may not be unusual, but to shoot more consistently is devilishly tough indeed. To shoot 2" to 3" groups consistently at 200 yards, however, is a greater challenge than the above comments suggest. A persistent belief otherwise betrays a lack of understanding about what's reasonable.

In general, it's doubtful that anyone posting on these pages shoots so well at 50 yards and 100 yards that it is only at 200 and more yards that his skill level, rifle's potential, and ammo selection is truly tested. With that in mind, it's hardly surprising that this forum doesn't have a lot more shooters posting MOA shooting at 200 yards, let alone sub-half-MOA at 50. Some shooters, even with an informed understanding of the limits of .22LR ammo and with very good rifles have yet to do the latter. It's certainly not because it's inappropriate for .22LR or it's an unmanly or insufficiently difficult challenge. There's only so much that can be reasonably expected from the ammo that's available, even if much of it is out of reach because of its high cost.
I have a couple different reasons to shoot 200 yards plus.
I use it for practice for the precision rifle matches. Shooting prone at 50 yards can get a bit mundane and shooting steel farther out gives instant feedback and requires that same wind reading that you would use in long range rifle
I enjoy challenging myself. While I haven’t posted my groups on the half inch challenge, I have done it many times with multiple rifles. So I go farther out to keep myself focused and not just shooting the same small target over and over.
When I shoot at the same distances over and over at the range from a bench I get bored, I need a change to keep interested. I have my son interested in the 22 now and he also enjoys launching the lead down range with his old dad. He is pretty good and gives me a run for my money, he doesn’t shoot much but he does very well. The last thing I want to do is bore him.
 
Good job scuba52. With the next generation involved, it gets better. And I am the same way. Need to constantly do different and more challenging things. And love your new gun. Been looking at them for a bit. This needed a bit of sunshine on the ####ty thread! I'm in milton, think I might run into here and there. Warmer weather is on the way!
 
Good job scuba52. With the next generation involved, it gets better. And I am the same way. Need to constantly do different and more challenging things. And love your new gun. Been looking at them for a bit. This needed a bit of sunshine on the ####ty thread! I'm in milton, think I might run into here and there. Warmer weather is on the way!

Going tomorrow to see what it will do at 200. Will it be perfect, nope. Will it be fun yup. Will it give me a rough velocity for the march crps, damn close.
 
Going tomorrow to see what it will do at 200. Will it be perfect, nope. Will it be fun yup. Will it give me a rough velocity for the march crps, damn close.

As noted in the "200 yard challenge" thread running concurrently in this forum, please post your 200 yard targets today, without cherry picking any one especially good result. While it's cold today, it would be instructive to readers and other shooters to see what can be achieved by an experienced shooter who has a good rifle and is knowledgeable about the importance of ammo selection. Such targets can help put in perspective what shooters can more reasonably expect under current conditions. Of course, it will not be a surprise if better results can be achieved in the future when shooting in warmer weather.
 
As noted in the "200 yard challenge" thread running concurrently in this forum, please post your 200 yard targets today, without cherry picking any one especially good result. While it's cold today, it would be instructive to readers and other shooters to see what can be achieved by an experienced shooter who has a good rifle and is knowledgeable about the importance of ammo selection. Such targets can help put in perspective what shooters can more reasonably expect under current conditions. Of course, it will not be a surprise if better results can be achieved in the future when shooting in warmer weather.

Will definitely post mine but can’t wait to see what someone who knows how to shoot can do lol. I am anticipating 3-4 inch some bigger, maybe a great group smaller but mostly bigger
 
So back to the original issue, long range ammo. How big of a bullet is required in a 22 for a 6 twist? You could source the barrel but would you even be able to push it enough to make it worth while, and who would really have an action. Would have to be single shot and would you need an extremely large ejection port, not to eject as the brass would be normal but to get it into the loading port?
This ammo seems to have a lot going against it

Had a crazy idea the other day. Get a custom .22lr barrel made up with the groove diameter matching the i.d. of the case neck. It would be a wildcat. You would not have to bother with heeled bullets. But it would be an odd bird, a mold would have to be made up. Not sure how you would address variability in case mouth thickness. It might be impossible with all the different types of .22lr brass out there.
 
Had a crazy idea the other day. Get a custom .22lr barrel made up with the groove diameter matching the i.d. of the case neck. It would be a wildcat. You would not have to bother with heeled bullets. But it would be an odd bird, a mold would have to be made up. Not sure how you would address variability in case mouth thickness. It might be impossible with all the different types of .22lr brass out there.

There's already quite a variation in barrel configuration for the 22LR. It depends on the model.

I can clean all but two of my 22LR rifles with a Dewey 22 cal cleaning rod, but not my Brno semi auto or CZ452. Those barrels have a minor diameter that is smaller than any other. I have to clean them with a .17 cal cleaning rod. I even had to polish down the thread adapter so it would fit without force.

It seems those barrels have deeper grooves as a result of the smaller minor diameter. I suspect that might be why they tend to shoot so well.

I have no idea where one might find a list of barrel dimensions listed by brand or model.
 
Last edited:
There's already quite a variation in barrel configuration for the 22LR. It depends on the model.

I can clean all but two of my 22LR rifles with a Dewey 22 cal cleaning rod, but not my Brno semi auto or CZ452. Those barrels have a minor diameter that is smaller than any other. I have to clean them with a .17 cal cleaning rod. I even had to polish down the thread adapter so it would fit without force.

It seems those barrels have deeper grooves as a result of the smaller minor diameter. I suspect that might be why they tend to shoot so well.

I have no idea where one might find a list of barrel dimensions listed by brand or model.

Some bores are made to SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute) specs, while others conform to CIP (Commission internationale permanente pour l'épreuve des armes à feu portatives or Permanent International Commission for the Proof of Small Arms) specifications. Generally speaking, SAAMI is on this side of the Atlantic, while CIP is on the other. The specs for each are available online, but to get to the point, here's how the specs for bores differ.



CZ shooters should be aware that the ejector often interferes with a .22 caliber cleaning rod. A .22 rod is invariably smaller than .22" and should fit in CIP bores.
 
There's already quite a variation in barrel configuration for the 22LR. It depends on the model.

I can clean all but two of my 22LR rifles with a Dewey 22 cal cleaning rod, but not my Brno semi auto or CZ452. Those barrels have a minor diameter that is smaller than any other. I have to clean them with a .17 cal cleaning rod. I even had to polish down the thread adapter so it would fit without force.

It seems those barrels have deeper grooves as a result of the smaller minor diameter. I suspect that might be why they tend to shoot so well.

I have no idea where one might find a list of barrel dimensions listed by brand or model.

You would think there would be dimensions available for the heeled portion of a .22 short, long, or longrifle bullet easily available on the www. It is not so. All I have is a pdf file from SAAMI in which you have to guess. It appears to be around .217" - not a lot. Maybe if you had dies made up you could swage the mouth down to accept a .20 calibre bullet. But .20 calibre bullets are usually designed for higher velocities. And you would be swaging the neck down on a factory primed case. Probably not worth the fuss and bother. I do understand in Australia at one time some .22 lr rifles were made with tapered bore barrels, maybe with gain twist rifling. I don't know much more about it than that. It would be an interesting rifle to experiment with. For something like that I would imagine it would be a locked breech design. It would be kind of cool to have a choke bored gain twist barrel for a .22 LR blowback rifle. Not sure how it would affect the mechanics.

Here is the PDF file of the SAAMI drawing of .22LR.

https://web.archive.org/web/2015082...drawings/Rimfire/22 Long Rifle - Sporting.pdf

here is an archived post from the cast boolit forum on the Australian development.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/archive/index.php/t-274296.html

Arthur Langsford invented it. Like the Littlejohn adapter of WWII there were limits to the system.

Langsford's squeeze-bore rimfires: is this near-forgotten idea too good to die?
Link/Page Citation
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Taper-bores are the stuff dreams are made of. Imagine firing a bullet that begins life as one caliber down a bore that progressively gets smaller and smaller in diameter. What emerges is a bullet of smaller caliber with an improved ballistic coefficient at a relatively high velocity. The late Australian gunsmith and cartridge designer, Arthur Langsford, had a better idea. Why not just dispense with the taper-bore design and simply fire a conventional .22 Long Rifle cartridge down a 17- or 20-caliber barrel and see what you get? What he got is one of the most intriguing stories in rimfire history.

Langsford's earliest rimfire experiments centered around the development of sub-caliber wildcats using unloaded ICI .22 LR shot cases, no less, necking them down to. 17 as his "Minor-Mite" and "Vixen" cartridges as well as his "Tini-Mite" series in .08, .11, .14 and. 17 calibers. The. 17 TiniMite was actually produced and sold in some quantity through his Myra's Sports Store in Broken Hill, Australia. None was quite the commercial success he had hoped for, but Langsford was 20 years or so ahead of the commercial appearance of the 5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum, .17 HMR and .17 on to pursue a better idea.

He reckoned if using a soft lead bullet he might be able to squeeze it down in caliber and still achieve reasonable accuracy as well as higher velocity and an improved bullet form. Jacketed bullets had always proved a problem in taper-bore guns. Some of the better known experiments included the German Gerlich gun using a flanged bullet that gradually collapsed as it progressed down a tapered-bore barrel.

While taper-bore barrels proved expensive and a pain to make and were subsequently abandoned, during bore, anti-tank cannons like the 42mm PAK 41 that fired a 42mm Gerlichtype projectile that left the muzzle as a 30mm shell after having been squeezed down in a smaller diameter, smoothbore portion of the barrel.

In the US, there was also some early work in 1942-43 at the Frankfort Arsenal Laboratory, which focused on the .50 BMG cartridge loaded with sub-caliber 30- and 35-caliber bullets encased in either ventilated, collapsing jackets or disintegrating sabots. While the experiments were terminated in 1943 for more pressing war time priorities, the sabot design did reemerge later as the current .50 BMG Saboted Light Armor Penetrator "SLAP" round.

Extruders

But back to Mr. Langsford and his "Extruders." That's what he called his new cartridge series--the Extruders--actually the "Myra Extruders--"Myra being his wife. Langsford's solution to the squeeze-bore challenge called for the use of a standard diameter 17- caliber or 20-caliber barrel with 1:6.5" to 1:8" twist. While the barrel was chambered for the conventional .22 Long Rifle cartridge, the secret lay in the form of the throat or lead. Langsford designed a forcing cone in the throat that eased the bullet into the smaller bore without damaging it. The picture (sorry, but these were Langsford's original photographs) illustrating the gradual transformation of a .22 bullet into. 17 projectile clearly shows the angle and structure of the forcing cone. He called his squeeze-bore design the "Myra Extruder" and indeed that's just what the process did, it extruded a bullet into a completely new form. Because the extruding process elongated the bullet, the faster twist barrels he used were essential.

In fact, he got a bit carried away with the idea that a faster twist imbued the bullet with greater hydraulic shock, penetration and lethality. It was good marketing, although he seemed to be right about penetration if the photo he sent me showing the comparative impacts of a conventional .22 LR Mini-Mag, .20 and .17 "extruded" Mini-Mags on a 6" steel post is accurate. The .22 LR just splashes against the post while the "Extruders" penetrate fully. Unbiased, third-party tests later did confirm Langsford's claim for improved penetration with the Extruders.

The chronograph and ballistic data Lansford furnished me is interesting. The test gun was a Model 2 Brno fitted with a standard factory barrel and subsequently with .20 and .17 Extruder barrels. The test cartridge was Winchester's Super-X PowerPoint with its 40-grain HP clocking 1,248 fps at the muzzle from the Brno barrel. When "extruded" from the 20-caliber barrel, the muzzle velocity was 1,337 fps and from the 17-caliber barrel, 1,445 fps. Retained energy at 100 yards for the three bullets was 84, 99 and 124 ft-lbs respectfully. Drop at 100 yards, 13.6", 11.6" and 9.6" and with a 10 mph crosswind; deflections at 100 yards for the three bullets were 6.3", 5.4" and 4". Langsford claimed, when compared to the standard Power-Point, the .17 Extruder from the muzzle to 150 yards averaged 20 percent more velocity, 47 percent more energy and 47 percent less wind deflection.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The first question many raised to his Extruders was what about pressure? Squeezing a .22 caliber bullet down to .20 or .17 had to raise pressures. Langsford addressed concerns about excessive pressures in two different ways.

First, he took standard .22 LRHV cartridges and, through a small hole in the case walls, drained out all the powder. He then began trickling powder back into the case and firing the rounds until the bullets were completely extruded through the chamber throat and seated fully in the breech of the 20-caliber barrel. He found it took only 2.5 percent of the original charge to complete the short extrusion. The second was an ad he ran in the April, 1994 issue of the Australian Shooters Journal illustrating a simple, but rather unconventional, pressure gun fixture he invented and presumably was using as a control instrument. The ad copy he sent me had his handwritten note on it, reading "Our latest pressure deflating ad! Regards, Arthur."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Third party testers, experienced no pressure signs when working with the .20 Extruder, but Langsford admitted the .17 Extruder was not consistent when it came to pressures and that possibly an 18-caliber barrel might be optimum; however, he never indicated he had actually built an .18 Extruder. Langsford sent me a very professional and balanced article on the Myra Extruders, written by Warwick Mitchell, and published in Australia's Guns & Game magazine. Mitchell had an opportunity to really wring out the .20 Extruder. He found that depending on the type of .22 LR round being fired, velocities did increase in the Extruder from 25 to 60 fps; penetration in wet newspaper increased from 3-4 cm; trajectories were flatter by about 1" at 100 yards; accuracy ranged from excellent to fair depending upon the parent brand of .22 LR being fired, and the .20 Extruder did deliver more impact energy on the distant rams at the silhouette range.

Mitchell's conclusions were the real potential of Langsford's squeeze bore Extruders lay in developing the smaller, more effective, . 17 or. 18 bore sizes, but that the $475 cost of a new Myra barrel hardly justified the slight improvement offered by the .20 Extruder over a conventional .22 Long Rifle.

While the appearance of the .17 HMR and the .17 Mach 2 made the further development of the Extruder concept unnecessary, the late Arthur Langsford with his remarkable "Extruders" deserves a prominent place in the archives of rimfire history.

^ https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lang...s+this+near-forgotten+idea+too...-a0268869254

All very interesting but again it points to just using a rifle originally chambered in .22 Magnum for more economical experimentation. Langsford's impressive creations appear to have been designed more with short range small game hunting in mind as an additional point.
 
Last edited:
You would think there would be dimensions available for the heeled portion of a .22 short, long, or longrifle bullet easily available on the www. It is not so. All I have is a pdf file from SAAMI in which you have to guess. It appears to be around .217" - not a lot. Maybe if you had dies made up you could swage the mouth down to accept a .20 calibre bullet. But .20 calibre bullets are usually designed for higher velocities. And you would be swaging the neck down on a factory primed case. Probably not worth the fuss and bother. I do understand in Australia at one time some .22 lr rifles were made with tapered bore barrels, maybe with gain twist rifling. I don't know much more about it than that. It would be an interesting rifle to experiment with. For something like that I would imagine it would be a locked breech design. It would be kind of cool to have a choke bored gain twist barrel for a .22 LR blowback rifle. Not sure how it would affect the mechanics.

There's info out there with enough digging.

Eley's patent dimensions.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6959648?oq="ammunition+cartridge"

9Iirz4o.jpg
 
I did not think of patent search. Thanks. A wildcat like that appears to be an ambitious project. It will remain a thought experiment for myself anyways. So the measurement of interest is theoretically .211". That the heeled portion if the bullet is so much smaller comes as no surprise to me. The heeled bullet was designed to bump up. Viewing 22 LR bullets recovered from soft media is interesting.

IMG_0647_zps6b0a245a.jpg
 
Last edited:
I did not think of patent search. Thanks. A wildcat like that appears to be an ambitious project. It will remain a thought experiment for myself anyways. So the measurement of interest is theoretically .211". That the heeled portion if the bullet is so much smaller comes as no surprise to me. The heeled bullet was designed to bump up. Viewing 22 LR bullets recovered from soft media is interesting.

IMG_0647_zps6b0a245a.jpg

I'll have to do some digging to find it again, but I recently came across some results showing the heel had remained the smaller dimension through flight and impact into soft media targets at ELR ranges. The author seemed to be quite surprised by those results, but the photos showed almost perfect bullets as they'd have been when loaded, with little deformation showing - suggesting that it might not be the internal ballistics expanding the heel as much as thought.
 
Back
Top Bottom