Fun stuff that wont break your piggy bank, REALLY ?

Nothing is static in the shooting world. Ammo makers are free to provide new ammo and do so frequently.

All 22LR ammo is not identical in speed or bullet shape and particularly in length which largely contributes to BC.

Longer bullets require a faster twist rate than shorter bullets. Faster bullets require less twist than slower bullets.

To paint all 22L with the same brush and make a categorical statement that 1:16 twist is disregarding the above mechanical facts.

I am quick to accept that to push the limits of the 22LR, bullets will get longer (to increase BC) and twist rates will be required to be a little faster than the tried and true ideals of the past.

Industry is just real slow to respond, but has in baby steps.

I've dreamed of high BC center fire bullets 25 or 30 years ago and sat on my hands in frustration that what I wanted was not yet offered. Now we see this stuff common place... finally. It's no different for the good old 22LR.

While I don't expect any significant or earth shattering change, I do expect to see some creative thinking in bullet design to bleed into the market.

Just keep an open mind to it and remember the world is not flat.
 
I waded into this discussion agreeing that without the published results showing the implied benefits of these new barrel designs, the discussion would be better shelved until such a time that those results are published. What we do know right now is that there are people out there right now testing the theory and subsequent postings indicate that offerings of a new barrel design are intended to be available soon that will be of benefit to long range shooters.

Instead, it was asked what information was available out there that proved through the same substantial testing procedures you demand of others to show that a 1:16 barrel is the definitive best match for 22lr at any distance.

So far, nothing at all has been offered.

This isn't a quest to replace match grade centerfire calibers with 22lr at long range. Theres no expectation that a 22lr will ever perform like it's big brothers. The goal is slightly better ballistics for a new game that gives moderate improvements to some aspects of that game - no different than VLD bullets edging out the tried and true Spitzer bullets with a slightly higher BC in the centerfire world, or 308 losing ground to 6.5mm calibers, followed by those 6.5mm calibers losing ground to the 6mm offerings.

I can understand the eagerness to hold onto things you've believed to be true for many years. If there's any data out there to definitively defend those beliefs, it's not well known or published that I can find or that you can apparently offer.
 
grauhanen said:
While it's self-evident that it's incumbent on the fantasist to prove that his fantasies are true, it's surprising the obvious needs to be stated. If there is any doubt -- and there shouldn't be -- the proof and results about the efficacy of the standard 1:16 twist are in the record books. There are decades of evidence that 1:16 barrels perform best at the most rigorously tested distances for .22LR. That evidence is that 1:16 barrels have consistently outperformed all others. In fact they are the overwhelming preference of shooters. Other barrels using .22LR ammo don't compete. It's clear and undeniable. Other than the allusions of a few like Bush, where is the evidence that other twist rates have more success? It doesn't exist.

Other distances are less rigorously contested because of the limits of .22LR ammo. Beyond 100 yards, and especially beyond 200 yards, .22LR ammo sucks for accuracy because of its limitations, because of its nature. Even when lot tested ammo is used, there is simply too much to go wrong to give anything approaching good accuracy at the 300 - 600 meters referenced above.

Changing the twist rate of .22LR barrels produces less accuracy at the distances for which the round performs best. In other words, a 1:16 twist rate produces better accuracy than any other out to 100 yards. If a different twist rate other than 1:16 produces less accuracy at 50 yards and even less at 100, it defies reason that it will improve even further out. It doesn't make sense that a round that does less well than another at 50 yards will suddenly experience a force causing it to do better the further it travels while the other inexplicably does less well. It's known why the ammo does less well, and that's because it's not suited for it.

Just as there's no magic that will cause .22LR bullets to better behave at longer distances than they do at shorter ones, there's no inexplicable force that suddenly exerts itself on a 1:16 propelled .22LR bullet once it has passed 100 or 200 or 300 yards. Increasingly sucking in terms of accuracy at such distances doesn't defy explanation; it's to be expected because that's the nature of the ammo.

As long as long range .22LR shooters don't use the best barrels available and lot test for the best ammo, one or both of which are time and money consuming, they are going to experience even less accuracy than is possible for small bore rifles.

While its always preferable not to delude other readers, if anyone like rlaunay wishes to believe that a remedy to the limitations of the .22LR round itself is around the corner, they are welcome to believe it. Arguing that there's no evidence that the standard twist rate produces the best accuracy at the most strongly contested ranges is not only ill-informed, it's just plain wrong, and insisting that magic will make the .22LR round perform better is simply unconstructive.
Click to expand...

To be brief:

22lr shot at the short ranges it has historically been competed with is heavily researched, tested, and likely has reached a plateau in regards to accuracy.

There has still been no evidence of significant testing provided to show what effect twist rate has on 22lr fired at extended ranges

The "magic" you refer to frequently is the science of ballistics. The "inexplicable force" you frequently refer to is wind/air resistance.

The "nature of the ammo" is exactly what is being discussed, specifically, what changes to that nature would be beneficial for long range shooters. Using the current "nature of the ammo" as an example to why ammo with a different "nature" would fail seems questionable on its face.


This whole conversation is the equivalent of some random dude at the range with his grandpa's old 30/30, that, through 50 years of fine tuning can shoot a round nose/flat base bullet in 100 round/0.1 MOA groups at 100 yards tell the 1000y BR guy who's 6mm only shoots 10 round/0.2 MOA 100 yard groups that his 6mm is useless and everybody should be shooting 30/30's at 1000 yards because they're so accurate - but then gets up and walks away when you ask him to show a 10 round group at 1000 yards.

What is best for one discipline at one distance is not necessarily best for another discipline at other distances.

Right now, you're not arguing against my beliefs. You are arguing against physics.

Heavier/longer (higher BC) bullets shot from a barrel of appropriate twist rate to stabilize them at similar/slightly lower velocities than their lower BC alternatives are better at combating the undesirable forces that air/wind have on them during extended flight.

Unfortunately, this thread has gone way off track - far from the "look how everyone's getting along for once" theme of the first two pages. I'm more than happy to continue through PMs if you'd like to discuss further.

Until then, I need to go pick up a few bricks of Lapua/SK before the store shuts down and I'm left shooting Golden Buckets.
 
Let's just wait and see if anyone's barrel spec experiments bear any fruit.

I have seen it stated on a bench rest forum that "trick rifling" patterns, where one side of the land is sloped rather than a sharp 90 degree edge, causes the bullet to drift less in the wind. It would be prudent to incorporate this rifling pattern into the twist rate experiments.

Another thing I must reiterate, is that .22 LR ammo is still not "the best" it can be. BR shooters have been grumbling for decades about the limitations of the ammo. Top shooters reveal many of the lots they test are not competitive for 50 yard matches. The ammo is manufactured on the balance point of where production costs/difficulties (profitability), quality the major market demands, and cost the consumer is willing to pay intersect. I remain doubtful we will ever see any significant improvement from factory produced ammunition in our lifetime.
 
Had to come back to this thread, lol...

I took my $497.24 CDN IRUNGUNS GSG16 with 2 stick mags and added...

A solid airsoft stock from CYMA for $40 IIRC
A G&P airsoft flashlight pressure switch handguard for $40 IIRC
A Push pin kit from CYMA, only used one to mount the handguard $10 maybe?
A Holosun HS510C red dot for $400 plus tax
And a Dlask 9" factory barrel done by them and an A2 flash hider $254

For a piggy bank busting total of $1241 :slap:

Having a Non-Restricted MP5 clone in 22LR, worth every penny! :rockOn:

89999095_521072858579113_8144592542634082304_n.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 89999095_521072858579113_8144592542634082304_n.jpg
    89999095_521072858579113_8144592542634082304_n.jpg
    135.6 KB · Views: 153
Sorry, wrong post....

however, for those that have never shot far, come on out and give it a try. There is much to be learnt and tested. I am sure we will find new ideas that will move the current understanding and performance of the humble 22lr

Testing is certainly not limited to the US... in fact, Cdn's may have a slight lead. :)

Jerry
 
Last edited:
Ur gun looks awesome and like a #### pile of fun Jay. Good shooting Jerry and it is ugly but that don't matter when they go where yah waana em. Cheers Chris
 
RabidM4U5 said:
Let's just wait and see if anyone's barrel spec experiments bear any fruit.

I have seen it stated on a bench rest forum that "trick rifling" patterns, where one side of the land is sloped rather than a sharp 90 degree edge, causes the bullet to drift less in the wind. It would be prudent to incorporate this rifling pattern into the twist rate experiments.

Another thing I must reiterate, is that .22 LR ammo is still not "the best" it can be. BR shooters have been grumbling for decades about the limitations of the ammo. Top shooters reveal many of the lots they test are not competitive for 50 yard matches. The ammo is manufactured on the balance point of where production costs/difficulties (profitability), quality the major market demands, and cost the consumer is willing to pay intersect. I remain doubtful we will ever see any significant improvement from factory produced ammunition in our lifetime.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that whatever the short range bench rest guys decide as the holy grail for that sport does not necessarily translate as best for guys who are focused on long range applications.

Often times what works best at long range is not all that good at short range and the reverse it true as well.

As an example you wont find many 30 BR guys on an F Class range.
 
Well considering I have almost no money, it digs into my finances quite a bit. I do part time work on my families farm and I make a few hundred a month when I work consistently. Most of that goes to ammunition, usually .22lr. Fair point op lol :ar15:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom