choosing first .22

[mikeystew]

JasonP, congrats on the new marlin! Looks to be shooting pretty good. With practice it will only get more fun and expensive

shorter barrels are stiffer than longer barrels so there is less whip in them when they are fired, this makes them more accurate.

Sorry man, that's a false preconception. The most accurate .22's I've ever owned had 27-29" barrels. Barrels just need to be proportionally fat enough compared to their length to achieve a stable harmonic pattern from shot to shot. Marlins are so accurate in part because they have a very proportional barrel diameter compared to their length and overall weight.

 

[easyrider604]

What makes the 16" barrel versions more accurate than the 20.5" versions?

Further to what Dizzy said, 16 inchers are more accurate because bullets are in the barrel for a shorter time (dwell time)...which allows less time for shooter induced inaccuracies (flinch/jerk/no follow-through/body vibrations etc) to creep in.

I don't know if this has any bearing on accuracy, but an "expert" in another forum measured actual velocities produced by different brands and types of ammo starting with a 26" barrel and cut it down an inch at a time. Result was best velocities were produced by the 16 incher.

 

[mosinmaster]

Marlin 900 series. Check out the Marlin 925, not made anymore, but I'm sure there are more floating around NOS.

 

[mikeystew]

Right, depending on the velocity of the bullet, 14-16" is ideal for maximum velocity. However when accuracy is the ultimate goal, keeping the bullet from going transonic is paramount. This again is why long barrels are inherently more accurate if they are of sufficient diameter. Because they will ensure, by means of actually slowing down and stabilizing the bullet on its path down the bore, that it leaves the muzzle subsonic and does not take on a wobble. I have chrono'd standard velocity from a marlin 60 and get over 20% that leave the bore supersonic. Not so in my BSA martini with a 29" heavy barrel.

Barrel length has much more to do with accuracy than simply sight radius. I'm not saying short bull barrels aren't also accurate, because obviously they are. But to claim a shorter barrel is inherently more accurate than a longer barrel shows a bush league understanding of ballistics.

 

[mikeystew]

Further to what Dizzy said, 16 inchers are more accurate because bullets are in the barrel for a shorter time (dwell time)...which allows less time for shooter induced inaccuracies (flinch/jerk/no follow-through/body vibrations etc) to creep in.

Barrel residence time is only a factor in centerfire bullets with much larger charges. And even then, If the harmonics are sound it has no bearing on overall accuracy. It may cause POI issues with different bullet weights and different velocities, but groupings don't care about how long the bullet travels down the bore. But that said, calibers with longer residence times do generally benefit from a shorter heavier barrel.

And seriously, it takes a fraction of a millisecond for the bullet to travel down the barrel, I don't think the extra fraction of a fraction of a millisecond has any effect on any rimfire round. And on the opposite side of the argument there is a case to be made for the added weight of a longer barrel making for a much more stable shot.
Try swinging a 4' pole compared to a 8' pole and tell me which is mire likely to be affected by operator error, flinch... Etc.

I think gun makers realized they could make 15 barrels instead of 10 from the same piece of barrel stock years ago, and the cost savings stuck them to it.

 

[mosinmaster]

So the reason why my Marlin shoots so well is: It has a 22'' barrel, It's super thick, and it has microgroove rifling? Anything else? stock pressure at the tip? I just use the plain iron sights. How about the bolt itself locking up in the receiver?

 

[mikeystew]

So the reason why my Marlin shoots so well is: It has a 22'' barrel, It's super thick, and it has microgroove rifling? Anything else? stock pressure at the tip? I just use the plain iron sights. How about the bolt itself locking up in the receiver?

All pieces of a puzzle. Reliability is mainly due to good magazine engineering, and accuracy to high quality medium contour barrels.

 

[camster]

Welcome aboard Fargal! For a fourth post, you picked a good one!

Sadly, I don't own any of your "shopping list". I have whittled my .22's down to a count of nine. Wasn't easy but, there's still soooooo many .22's I haven't tried yet!

Any on your "list" are sure to please. I'm a frugal shooter so, unless I inherit (doubtful...long line of frugal shooters) a CZ or, Browning, odds are against my owning one. Don't discount the suggestions of "older" .22's ...they are affordable and, have many years of "testing" to back 'em up.

I also side with Grizzlypeg in suggesting you purchase new as, that might keep the market fair for us frugal shooters. To play fair, don't get upset when a Mossberg, Marlin or, Cooey (among others) happens to be on the same range as you but, seems to "outperform" a shiny new rifle....partly because, being your first .22 [I'm guessing] you're "fresh" to the sport. Partly (I hate to sound so old), "they don't make 'em like they used to"....

Regardless of what you decide on, it'll be fun. I like to hit tiny things at 100yds (golfballs etc...) with one of my old Cooey 75's over open sights. I also can't deny the pleasure of spray n' play (as with my remington 597 and a few hi-cap mags.) either....

I doubt anyone here (CGN) will deny the pleasure of shooting a .22!

P.S.
If you (or anyone) needs a fair priced .22, make me aware! I could replace any 2 rifles in my safe for the cost of a new CZ or, browning......

 

[camster]

laugh time...

I guess I have an "antiquated" version of one on your shopping list...I have a Lakefield/Mossberg MKII (well before acu-trigger). Shoots very well (for 65$'s including shipping half a country away).

It shoots very well but, on a range, shooting against m'self, the Cooey 75s would win...very, very old lasers with "crazy-long" barrels!

 

[easyrider604]

Almost forgot!

If you are inclined to go used, look for a Winchester 69A, (lots of patience and luck required). I have two, one with a peep sight and the other with open irons (v-notch). With my aging eyes, average shooting skills and cheap winchester bulk dynapoints, you could almost cover 5-shot groups at 25 meters with a dime....a quarter for sure.

On the EE, with peeps, probably cost you $200-250. With iron v-notch, probably $125-175.

At this stage in my shooting life, I will choose a good old 69A over any new current Savage or Marlin. Not knocking the S and M brands, cos I got five of them as well as a couple of CZ452s...all very good shooters. Just saying not to overlook the old classics as mentioned in previous posts.

These old rifles are sleepers here in Canada but in the US, they are quite prized by both shooter and collectors and their prices reflect this.

 

[Fargal]

The Verdict is in

Because of this thread I went out today and bought a Marlin 795 for $139 AND 10% discount card, AND mail in rebate of $25. Drove to the range and put a few boxes through it and man what a nice suprise for the money!

Congratulations! Glad to hear this thread could be of help beyond my own dilemma of choosing a .22

I know one thing-and that is the trigger on an old marlin bolt action is WAY better than my new marlin 795,light, crisp and breaks with no creep-I think they must have held a contest to see who could come up with the heaviest trigger and awarded first prize to the guy who did and put that into production[that said-its the only thing I don't like about the 795-its very accurate]

While I haven't been carefully monitoring the used market, I will definitely keep an eye out for an old Marlin. And yes, the quality control of new Marlins appears to be getting out of hand. For anyone interested, a local dealer 'Sail' still has Marlin's stamped out of the pre-Remington factory.

...And seriously, it takes a fraction of a millisecond for the bullet to travel down the barrel, I don't think the extra fraction of a fraction of a millisecond has any effect on any rimfire round. And on the opposite side of the argument there is a case to be made for the added weight of a longer barrel making for a much more stable shot...

At the end of the day, I'm thinking barrel length in a .22 has more to do with intended use/purpose than it does accuracy. There will always be trade-offs.

Welcome aboard Fargal! For a fourth post, you picked a good one!

Sadly, I don't own any of your "shopping list". I have whittled my .22's down to a count of nine. Wasn't easy but, there's still soooooo many .22's I haven't tried yet!

Any on your "list" are sure to please. I'm a frugal shooter so, unless I inherit (doubtful...long line of frugal shooters) a CZ or, Browning, odds are against my owning one. Don't discount the suggestions of "older" .22's ...they are affordable and, have many years of "testing" to back 'em up.

I also side with Grizzlypeg in suggesting you purchase new as, that might keep the market fair for us frugal shooters. To play fair, don't get upset when a Mossberg, Marlin or, Cooey (among others) happens to be on the same range as you but, seems to "outperform" a shiny new rifle....partly because, being your first .22 [I'm guessing] you're "fresh" to the sport. Partly (I hate to sound so old), "they don't make 'em like they used to"....

I doubt anyone here (CGN) will deny the pleasure of shooting a .22!

Thank you for the welcome and your response! Yes, I can't help but see the writing on the wall, I'm likely to own 3+ .22's within the year (a semi, lever, and bolt action).

While I do sometimes check out the EE section, I have more or less decided on purchasing new primarily because i couldn't spot a lemon if my life depended on it. I just don't know what to be looking for. As you've pointed out, there are plenty of old rifles out there (and some rusty cooeys) that are outstanding.

Almost forgot!
If you are inclined to go used, look for a Winchester 69A, (lots of patience and luck required). These old rifles are sleepers here in Canada but in the US, they are quite prized by both shooter and collectors and their prices reflect this.

Thank you for the tip! I'll definitely watch out for them and with any luck may even pick one up.


At this point I'm pretty much decided on a CZ 452 . After all the positive feedback on this .22 I'm confident that if there's a problem with it, it's probably me, not it . Shortly after purchasing the CZ, I'm thinking I will pick up a Browning SA-22 -> they are amazing little take-down semi's with great fit & finish.

Thank you for everyone's feedback, ideas, and comments, they were much appreciated as I was quite lost in the foray of .22's out there. Hopefully this thread has been of help to others facing a similar quandary.

Catch you on the range!