Lets poke the beehive. 22LR Heavy barrels purly cosmetic for rifles under $1000

[chanman]

ya know, my dad and myself have twin guns we picked up back in the 90's.
mine is bone stock on a folding stock and his is the same with the exception of two thing.... he added a GM bull barrel to it and a Boyd stock.

i should have him bring it up and we should test them to see.
both are $200 10/22's just one has a $100 barrel and the other has the stock barrel.

he is coming up for a visit here in 3 weeks, ill shoot him a email and ask him to bring his up.

Wouldn't you need to grab a GM sporter barrel and a Boyd's stock to make it like vs. like?

In mass-market guns, the amount of variation between barrels of the same profile is going to be too great to tell anyway.

Do bull barrels save the factory work of turning it down to a sporter profile or do they just start out with a narrower blank or are they just associated with 'target' rifles?

 

[stubblejumper]

I disagree, I ignored the human input. That can make ANY rifle shoot like crap, or shoot well... If the person doesn't know how to shoot well, it doesn't matter how much the rifle costs. It will never reach its potential.

If you take a heavy barrel savage, CZ, Marlin, ruger, ect ect... Vrs a regular barrel. Strap them in to a rifle sled/vice. Take 5 shots, with 2 minutes between shots. None of those manufactured rifles will be guaranteed to group better then its heavy barreled counter part.

Five shots in ten minutes? I have fired a hundred shots in an hour in a good gopher field. On a warm day, even a 22lr barrel can heat up under those conditions.

 

[hoytcanon]

Op... are you 13 years old???

 

[dizzy]

Bull barrels are typically more consistent as it's the rotational torque that most affects harmonics and a bull barrel is less affected by the rotational forces than is a skinny barrel.....Which is why all match barrels are bull. A bore can be pretty sloppy as long as it tightens up at the muzzle and the crown is good and forms a good seal the instant the projectile leaves the muzzle. I have seen barrels with no rifling for first half of barrel shoot lights out. Accuracy in 22's is elusive as there are so many unseen forces at work and for longer periods of time in a 22 than in a center fire. All else being equal a bull barrel will be more accurate than a non bull barrel. . Unfortunately in the manufacturing world not everything is equal. So the question is very hypothetical.

 

[S1de8urnz]

I like this, hold on a minute. Let me get a few pics up

 

[grauhanen]

Bull barrels are typically more consistent as it's the rotational torque that most affects harmonics and a bull barrel is less affected by the rotational forces than is a skinny barrel.....Which is why all match barrels are bull. A bore can be pretty sloppy as long as it tightens up at the muzzle and the crown is good and forms a good seal the instant the projectile leaves the muzzle. I have seen barrels with no rifling for first half of barrel shoot lights out. Accuracy in 22's is elusive as there are so many unseen forces at work and for longer periods of time in a 22 than in a center fire. All else being equal a bull barrel will be more accurate than a non bull barrel. . Unfortunately in the manufacturing world not everything is equal. So the question is very hypothetical.

The discussion here concerns .22LR barrels. How great do you imagine the rotational torque to be in a .22LR barrel with a 1:16 twist rate and relatively low MV? If they were sufficiently great to impart a deleterious effect on a .22LR bullet in a "skinny" barrel, what havoc would they produce on a "skinny" centre fire barrel with a greater twist rate and a significantly higher MV? The argument that the nature of the bore is largely irrelevant between the chamber and the final few inches before the muzzle seems an odd one to make. More specifically, the claim that a bore can be free of rifling for the first half of its length yet still "shoot lights out" seems like an overstatement that deserves reconsideration.

 

[hoytcanon]

I have seen barrels with no rifling for first half of barrel shoot lights out.

Where have you seen any barrels that are only "half" rifled?

 

[thepolinator]

Those two factors are the only benefits to a heavy barrel, regardless of price.

 

[SUPER TENERE]

I find HEAT more detrimental than barrel thickness on accuracy. If you were to only take 1 shot every 15 minutes with HB or LB, the accuracy would be about the same IMHO. But after taking several shots, say in 1 minute then maybe a HB would make a difference. IN my Marlin 795 Medium Barrel Semi I find Point of Impact will change slightly as rifle gets warmer and warmer especially shooting many rounds quickly. In the past I have purchased HB 1022s and RB 1022s and found 0 difference in accuracy. True I am only talking Semis. Have had HB bolts and they are usually a bit more accurate than Semis in .22lr but not enough to make much difference on gophers using Bulk ammo.

 

[dizzy]

Where have you seen any barrels that are only "half" rifled?

In a test facility...... This happens to be a subject I have spent considerable time on

 

[dizzy]

The discussion here concerns .22LR barrels. How great do you imagine the rotational torque to be in a .22LR barrel with a 1:16 twist rate and relatively low MV? If they were sufficiently great to impart a deleterious effect on a .2.

I don't imagine anything. I have seen extremely slow motion footage while study barrel harmonics and was amazed along with others observing at the amount of rotational torque there was on the 'lowly' 22 LR barrel and action. I believe it because I saw it. I can understand there are doubters.

 

[grauhanen]

I don't imagine anything. I have seen extremely slow motion footage while study barrel harmonics and was amazed along with others observing at the amount of rotational torque there was on the 'lowly' 22 LR barrel and action. I believe it because I saw it. I can understand there are doubters.

Can you explain more than what you've revealed by anecdote? Perhaps I misunderstand. You say a sporter configuration .22LR barrel undergoes sufficient rotational torque that it renders it less accurate than a .22LR bull barrel. If that were so, then the rotational torque on a sporter configuration CF barrel, through which travels a much faster rotating, faster moving, and heavier bullet, must make it so inaccurate that all CF rifles without bull barrels would be even less accurate than their .22LR sporter barrel cousins. Indeed, by your interpretation of what you saw on video, CF rifles with sporter barrels ought to be ipso facto inaccurate. Yet, here on CGN, are countless anecdotes of sporter barrel CF rifles shooting accurately.

 

[Canadiankeeper]

Op... are you 13 years old???

No. I would love to know why you ask. Seeing as this has generated a pretty good discussion.

 

[dizzy]

Can you explain more than what you've revealed by anecdote? Perhaps I misunderstand. You say a sporter configuration .22LR barrel undergoes sufficient rotational torque that it renders it less accurate than a .22LR bull barrel. If that were so, then the rotational torque on a sporter configuration CF barrel, through which travels a much faster rotating, faster moving, and heavier bullet, must make it so inaccurate that all CF rifles without bull barrels would be even less accurate than their .22LR sporter barrel cousins. Indeed, by your interpretation of what you saw on video, CF rifles with sporter barrels ought to be ipso facto inaccurate. Yet, here on CGN, are countless anecdotes of sporter barrel CF rifles shooting accurately.

Your statement makes many assumptions without considering all the variables.

Why rotational torque makes "SUCH" a difference on 22's is for a variety of reasons. CF's typically have more consistent ammo, and time spent in the barrel is shorter for starters. 22's have much wider variance in the ammo, which results in a wider range of explosive forces in the chamber, and those forces then translate to barrel harmonics, also the bullet is in the barrel longer, so when you have a shock wave thats running down your barrel and that shock wave is not consistent from shot to shot, the bullet doesn't exit the barrel at the exact same spot in the shock wave so you will have a bullet leaving the barrel at different spots in the barrel harmonics.... because the bullet is torquing the barrel as its traveling down, the muzzle is then pointing in different 'rotational' directions during the affects of the shock wave you are going to toss bullets all over the place....... sorry explaining is not my strong point...... This is the very reason, chasing accuracy in 22's is so difficult. You can resolve all this in a centerfire with consistent ammo.

Centerfires also experience torque but not to the same degree, this has to do with burn rates of powder, and forces that drive the bullet into the lands. A centerifre projectile is "blown" into the barrel at a much higher rate of speed and force, and more forces form the explosion are exerted on the action and barrel, and those forces often overcome the rotation torque the bullet exerts on the barrel to the point of cancelling them out..... not so in a 22.

In slow mo vids you will see a lot more rotational torque on a 22 barrel than centerfire. I realize on the surface this may not make sense, however it is what happens.


Keep in mind a 22 bullet is in the barrel 3 times longer on average than a bullet is in a centerfire this gives that little lead projectile plenty of time to wreak havoc and counteract with the harmonics caused by the explosion of the powder. If you fire a 22 without a bullet you will observe much different harmonics in a barrel than you will when you fire a 22 with a bullet going down the barrel.

Due to different ignition rates, burn rates, friction rates among others, 22's react a little differently than centerfire's.

 

[grauhanen]

Your statement makes many assumptions without considering all the variables.

Why rotational torque makes "SUCH" a difference on 22's is for a variety of reasons. CF's typically have more consistent ammo, and time spent in the barrel is shorter for starters. 22's have much wider variance in the ammo, which results in a wider range of explosive forces in the chamber, and those forces then translate to barrel harmonics, also the bullet is in the barrel longer, so when you have a shock wave thats running down your barrel and that shock wave is not consistent from shot to shot, the bullet doesn't exit the barrel at the exact same spot in the shock wave so you will have a bullet leaving the barrel at different spots in the barrel harmonics.... because the bullet is torquing the barrel as its traveling down, the muzzle is then pointing in different 'rotational' directions during the affects of the shock wave you are going to toss bullets all over the place....... sorry explaining is not my strong point...... This is the very reason, chasing accuracy in 22's is so difficult. You can resolve all this in a centerfire with consistent ammo.

Centerfires also experience torque but not to the same degree, this has to do with burn rates of powder, and forces that drive the bullet into the lands. A centerifre projectile is "blown" into the barrel at a much higher rate of speed and force, and more forces form the explosion are exerted on the action and barrel, and those forces often overcome the rotation torque the bullet exerts on the barrel to the point of cancelling them out..... not so in a 22.

In slow mo vids you will see a lot more rotational torque on a 22 barrel than centerfire. I realize on the surface this may not make sense, however it is what happens.


Keep in mind a 22 bullet is in the barrel 3 times longer on average than a bullet is in a centerfire this gives that little lead projectile plenty of time to wreak havoc and counteract with the harmonics caused by the explosion of the powder. If you fire a 22 without a bullet you will observe much different harmonics in a barrel than you will when you fire a 22 with a bullet going down the barrel.

Due to different ignition rates, burn rates, friction rates among others, 22's react a little differently than centerfire's.

With this explanation you therefore assert that .22LR experiences more rotational torque than a center fire. Is that correct? And furthermore, the "speed and force" brought to bear by the CF round on a CF rifle's action and barrel "often overcome the rotation torque the bullet exerts on the barrel to the point of cancelling them out".

When you say that "on the surface this may not make sense," you sure aren't kidding.

 

[hoytcanon]

In a test facility...... This happens to be a subject I have spent considerable time on

What "test facility?"

How are you seeing "rotational torque" on video"

 

[guntech]

I believe if the quality of the barrel and the chamber and the ammunition being equal, the heavier barrel will be more accurate.

Take this to extremes and I think you will agree... turn an accurate shooting .22 barrel down so after the action it measures 5/16' of an inch in diameter all the way to the muzzle ... now see how accurate it is... not as good as it was...

 

[mikeystew]

I believe if the quality of the barrel and the chamber and the ammunition being equal, the heavier barrel will be more accurate.

Take this to extremes and I think you will agree... turn an accurate shooting .22 barrel down so after the action it measures 5/16' of an inch in diameter all the way to the muzzle ... now see how accurate it is... not as good as it was...

True, but surely there must be a point of diminishing returns where the difference is immeasurable. As an example I've shot both a mossberg 144 lsb and own a 146-b and found them to shoot indistinguishable groupings with both using SK standard plus. That said the shooting was from a bench with front and rear lead bags. With just a front rest it's clear the 144 is heavier, which means less movement during lockup and trigger travel etc. But as far as I'm concerned they are equally accurate guns despite mine having a tapered sporter barrel and magazine tube, and the 144 having a heavy barrel and box mag. One is just better suited for the bench punching paper, and one is better to carry around.

 

[hoytcanon]

True, but surely there must be a point of diminishing returns where the difference is immeasurable. As an example I've shot both a mossberg 144 lsb and own a 146-b and found them to shoot indistinguishable groupings with both using SK standard plus. That said the shooting was from a bench with front and rear lead bags. With just a front rest it's clear the 144 is heavier, which means less movement during lockup and trigger travel etc. But as far as I'm concerned they are equally accurate guns despite mine having a tapered sporter barrel and magazine tube, and the 144 having a heavy barrel and box mag. One is just better suited for the bench punching paper, and one is better to carry around.

Your observations are irrelevant... with so many variables at play between two completely different platforms any conclusions are rendered meaningless.

 

[grauhanen]

I believe if the quality of the barrel and the chamber and the ammunition being equal, the heavier barrel will be more accurate.

Take this to extremes and I think you will agree... turn an accurate shooting .22 barrel down so after the action it measures 5/16' of an inch in diameter all the way to the muzzle ... now see how accurate it is... not as good as it was...

Your "proof" is that if an accurate barrel were reduced to a slim diameter of 5/16" (0.31") it would no longer be as accurate as it was before such a reduction. A .22 caliber barrel that is 5/16" or .31" in diameter would have 0.045" of metal barrel around the bore (.22 + 0.045 + 0.045 = 0.31). To use this as "proof" is rather absurd.

There is no reason to believe that a factory bull barrel made for a sub-$1000 rifle is necessarily more accurate than a factory sporter profile barrel. There is no evidence to support that contention. Furthermore, rotational torque is not a factor in .22LR rifles insofar as comparing standard sporter profile barrels with bull barrels. If dizzy has any evidence that can be cited or referred to that supports that idea I would be pleased to see it.