Another thread had a discussion about .22 rimfire barrel length vs. velocity. I don't know of a current/newer study comparing the hyper velocity loads AND all the older high-velocity and standard velocity loads in a TRUE head-to-head comparision (that is, starting with a single long-barreled gun, chronographing all the loads, cutting 2" off the barrel, chrono again, etc.).
I've been seriously considering this. I have an old 24" barrel Mossberg .22 single-shot (how old? no serial number was required when it was made) that I could sacrifice to increase our information base on .22 ammo velocities. I also have all the equipment that would be required (chronograph, hacksaw, deburring tool), a moderate amount of gunsmithing skill, and a healthy dose of curiosity.
The first question I have is: Is it worth it? I suppose I could re-barrel the gun later if necessary, but I think I only paid $45-$50 for it, and I don't shoot it much any more so the loss/cost is not really my primary concern.
Question 2 is: If I do decide to do this, what ammo would each of you like to see tested? This would be for VELOCITY ONLY, not accuracy. I would vote for all the hyper-speed stuff (Stingers etc.), common high-velocity hunting hollowpoints (CCI Mini-Mags, bulk pack Remington, Winchester and Federal HPs, etc.), some plinking or informal target shooting ammo (Lightnings, CCI Blazer, etc.) and maybe some of the quiet CB loads (mainly to test their velocity consistency). Any other choices? I need to keep the total number of loads to a minimum, because just one five- or ten-shot string with each of twenty loads, when combined with the time required to shorten the barrel each time, would take darn near a whole day. To keep the test conditions consistent, I think it should all be done in one long session.
Well, waddaya think? Give me some input, rimfire fans...
B Coyote
03-18-2002, 01:22
This has been done before. G&A did it in "The Complete Book of the .22 Rimfire" a few years back. Key2America presently has the only copy I know of. I'm not sure if that issue covered stingers. Their barrel was actually 30 inches to start, and they covered .22 Shorts in it.
Personally, I wouldn't chop up a barrel. Maybe chronograph using several different guns with longer/shorter barrels. That would satisfy my curiosity just fine.
I have a thing about seeing guns cut up....
bc
B Coyote
03-18-2002, 02:20
I emailed CCI and asked if a certain barrel length would give the Stinger a faster velocity (in general). This was CCI's reply.
I've not seen any tests to establish the optimal barrel length. It was
designed to give the ballistics in the same barrels as the regular 22 Long
Rifle cartridges. It may benefit from a different length barrel, but likely
not by much.
Guy Neill
CCI-Speer Technical Services
bc
Edited for spelling error.
GlocksRock
03-18-2002, 06:39
I would really like to see the results of that test. That is if you really don't mind hacking up your bbl. Besides, if you do get better results with a 16" bbl, then you haven't really lost anything have you? Well, maybe some accuracy in the gun, but if you know how to fix that then you are in good shape.
DJ Niner
03-19-2002, 18:32
B Coyote,
Thanks for the heads-up on the article. I PMed Key2America for details, unfortunately he is in midst of moving his household (been there, done that, several times, thanks to the military; excitement MAY be present, but it's really not much fun), which means the tome in question is not readily at hand. Unless someone else has a copy and can let me know exactly what was done/tested, I'll have to wait until he's settled-in to get more info.
GlocksRock,
The gun in question was never really a tack-driver, so it might well improve it's accuracy to re-crown the barrel in a shorter (and therefore stiffer) configuration. All I really lose is the front sight, but I'm pretty well wedded to optical-type sights on my rifles, anyway. Who knows, I might end up with a cute pickup-truck gun when I'm done!
I also hear there's a new .22 load coming out that is supposed to give a Stinger-like boost to velocities with NORMAL .22 bullet weights. No matter what has been done in previous testing, THIS load wasn't tested before (because it didn't exist), so I have at least ONE good reason to test.
No one has suggested any specific loads not covered in my initial post, yet. Did I really hit all the interesting ones?
Let's hear some more feedback!
B Coyote
03-20-2002, 05:42
No problemo, amigo. ;)
Just remember that if you start to shorten your barrel, not to go too short with it. The Feds don't take too kindly to short barreled rifles without a permit.
I think you've hit the major "speedy" loads...maybe try one of this Aquila super screamers I've heard about...If I find out the name I'll post them later.
Maybe if you're feeling really energetic, try the Quick Shok loads (those buggers that split into three pieces)....That would be interesting to see, as well....
bc
GlocksRock
03-20-2002, 06:40
all the loads you mentioned are the ones I want to know about. Ok, maybe some subsonic loads as well.
DJ Niner
03-20-2002, 20:04
Finally found the reference on that new load; it's made by CCI, called the Velociter (January Guns and Ammo mag, New for 2002 article, page 92). Also briefly discussed in The American Rifleman recently (not sure which issue). How does a 40 grain Gold Dot hollow point at 1435 FPS sound?
Like this: BANG! ;f
I have my local gunshop "on the lookout" for it at all the distributors they deal with. So far, none available. I definitely want to test this one, so I'll wait until I can get my hands on some.
DJ Niner
03-25-2002, 17:46
B Coyote,
I actually have a couple boxes of the Quik-Shok ammo on hand; it would be included in the test, I'm sure.
GlocksRock,
I hadn't thought about subsonic loads much. I guess I was leaning toward the max velocity stuff, but it might be interesting to see what the optimum barrel length would be for subsonic velocity loads. The only ones I've seen around here are the Remington Subsonic HPs and the various CB, CB Short and CB Long loads made by CCI and Remington. Any others you're interested in?
Sixgun357
03-25-2002, 18:16
If you have a 10/22 I have seen people selling original barrels and stock for like $25 at the most on ebay. You might want to check it out, at least you wont hack up your mossberg barrel and you will only be out $25.
GlocksRock
03-25-2002, 22:46
I think what you will be testing already will be enough. Do you plan on doing this test for sure, and if so, when?
Intel6
03-27-2002, 03:40
A long time ago in Precision Shooting magazine a guy did the same thing with an old Win 75 bolt gun. Basically found that most of the ammo reached top velocity with a 16" barrel and started dropping off after that.
DJ Niner
03-27-2002, 19:46
Sixgun357,
Starting with an 18.5" barrel won't tell us very much; I want to start at 24", minimum. ESPECIALLY with the newer hyper-velocity stuff (the ammo most likely to benefit from a long tube), we need the maximum COMMON length to get some usable data.
Intel6,
The "long time ago" part is what I want to update; there's a lot of newer loads on the market in the last 10-20 years and I wish to test those and find out if the conventional wisdom still holds true.
GlocksRock,
I'm pretty near certain it's going to happen, but I'm not sure when. I need to gather the rest of the test loads, get some warmer weather, find a willing assistant, and rig up a test fixture so I can operate at high speed without worrying about popping my chronograph with a stray round. I think a 10-shot string with each load, at each of five barrel lengths (24", 22", 20", 18", and 16.25" (to be "legally" safe)) will cover all the bases while keeping the shooting to a minimum (to enable as many loads as possible to be tested under near-identical conditions). This wll also mean I can get by with a single 50-round box of ammo, for the hard-to-find stuff.
I recently heard through my dealer friend that the Velociter ammo has been recalled (supposedly to correct the handgun velocity figures on the boxes to a more realistic number). Until I can get some, the project's on hold; I REALLY want to include this new CCI ammo, as well as a current batch of Stingers and other hyper-velocity stuff. I'd also like to find a $25, busted stock .22 to use instead of my old Mossy, but if one doesn't show up pretty soon, I'm gonna be the proud owner of a single-shot Mossy Carbine!
Key2America
03-28-2002, 04:07
Sorry guys, I have the magazine in question still packed away. I am coming to you here via my motel room, still. It appears we have a slight delay in taking possession of our new facility/home.
As soon as I get into my new residence I will unpack that magazine and post some related data found there.
On the up side of this, we have our own members putting in their 2 cents. This is good :)
DJ Niner
04-02-2002, 18:38
Does anyone know of any dealer/distributor who actually has some CCI Velociter (or is it Velocitor?) on-hand, for sale?
If so, please PM me with the details. Thanks!
BLiTzNicK
04-07-2002, 15:35
I picked up a few boxes at a local dealer. He may ship it to you if you ask nicely. It is $3.99 per 50, same price as stinger.
Jakk
04-30-2002, 18:08
I tried using guns with different barrel lengths a while ago. Granted, the different chambers will give different readings, so this was not a very accurate test. I've also been wanting to chop and test a barrel. Maybe this summer.
One interesting thing I found was that for 2 of the 4 loads tested, I got higher velocities from a 10" pistol barrel than from a 18.5" rifle. I forget offhand what loads I used, but two were Hi-vel plinking ammo, and two were subsonic target ammo. I had one hi-vel and one subsonic load shoot slower from the longer barrel.
VictorLouis
05-01-2002, 08:22
I used to have a copy of that, myself. Hindsight is always 20/20.:rolleyes: IIRC, they cut that barrel down in 1" increments, though I can't remember its full length at the start. Anyhow, I do remember that the 16" bbl. seemed to have the best velocity with each load. This would indicate an optimal powder burn. Anything longer, and the projectile begins to slow down from friction. As to accuracy, I can't recall if the longer lengths may have any superior advantage.
DJ Niner
05-05-2002, 19:21
I haven't forgotton about the test; just waiting for the CCI Velocitor ammo. I've got it on order from three different shops, no one has any yet. I know what's going to happen, of course; they'll all get it in at the same time, and I'll have to shell out $50 for .22 ammo in one day! :cool:
There's worse things than ammo to spend money on, though. I keep reminding my wife about that...
dundee
05-20-2002, 09:53
DJ
before you start with the older rifle you should check it and a few others for velocity. It would be a bummer to do this only to find that your barrel/chamber produced off spec velocity readings.
Is there any way you could also get noise readings from the test. The 22 rimfire is not a noisy cartridge but some would like to use it in urban settings were noise is a factor in shooting.
DJ Niner
05-20-2002, 18:59
dundee,
What is "on spec" for velocity? Every gun is different; there's really no right and wrong. The basic relationship should remain the same, though; in any single gun/barrel, load "X" should give the highest velocity at a single certain length, and this should be more consistent than taking readings from different guns/barrels of varying lengths. Actually, the metal on the Mossy is minty (a minty metal Mossy?); the wood, however, was worked-over by some budding "craftsman", who sanded it with a flat block, and re-stained with some gross-looking finish.
Noise testing, done correctly, is a MAJOR pain in the butt. Besides, unless I'm mistaken, a longer barrel will ALWAYS produce less gunshot noise in a .22 rimfire. No, I think I've already got a full plate with the velocity test, thanks. ;f
All,
GOOD NEWS!!! I finally got the CCI Velocitors thanks to a heads-up that WalMart was carrying them. I'm gonna try to get some Aguila super-speed stuff and Remington Yellow Jackets (can't find the Rems recently, believe it or not), then set a test date. Last chance to get your request in for specific ammo brands/types (please read the above posts to avoid duplication).
THE GAME IS AFOOT!
Glock n Stein
05-28-2002, 05:59
DJ Niner,
Would you accept donations from us, for your replacement barrel, or beer/wings after this data collection?
DJ Niner
05-28-2002, 18:51
Nah; I'm just doing it to satisfy my own curiosity on the subject. Nothing wrong with answering a few friends' questions at the same time, though!
Still working on the Aguila ammo; I may just have to break down and spring for a brick. Darned annoying...
Quake Guy
06-03-2002, 15:21
I see cheap barely functioning .22 rifles around all the time for around $40.
My question is this? To make it really interesting, one should go from 24" all the way down to mouse gun at 2 or 3 inches. However, legally this is a big no-no.
However, if one removed the barrel, bolted it to a 4 x 4 and affixed a striking device that locked the round into the chamber, would it be legal to cut the barrel down to whatever length you wanted?
For example, buy one of the nail drivers that uses .22 blanks and jury-rig to the barrel. Grab a hammer to whack the handle and a hacksaw and let the fun begin.
When you are done, you would have the world's largest 2" barrel .22 hammer fired handgun in the world. Neat huh?
DJ Niner
06-03-2002, 19:03
Quake,
I agree that the test would be more complete with the shorter lengths tested too, but I just can't find a way to do it with one gun, legally. I suppose you could have a custom 24" barrel MADE for a Thompson/Center Contender single-shot pistol, and cut THAT down, but I don't have one (or the money for a custom barrel), so I'll leave that test to someone else.
All,
See the CCI Velocitor Chrono test thread for a preview of coming attractions!
Please note that the 20" beat the 18.5 AND the 24" with the Velocitor ammo. Not by much, but beat it, it did. Wish I had a 22" to test, too, darn it; it may have edged-out the 20"!
Still a bit of apples and oranges with the different guns and all, but it certainly seems as though at least ONE of the hyper-velocity loads prefers longer barrels for highest velocity.
I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I'm still trying to get some Aguilla stuff for the test. I notice it's getting pretty quiet around here on the weekends, so most of you must be popping some caps yourselves; if you try any of the Aguilla, let me know what you think of it.
m65swede
06-04-2002, 09:46
Originally posted by DJ Niner
Still a bit of apples and oranges with the different guns and all, but it certainly seems as though at least ONE of the hyper-velocity loads prefers longer barrels for highest velocity.
DJ Niner:
FWIW, I recently saw an ad for a Remington 40X in .22LR with a 27" barrel; apparently someone believes in longer barreled 22's.
In any case, you sure have chosen an interesting experiment. Good luck in your efforts! :)
Swede
Quake Guy
06-04-2002, 17:57
If you remove the receiver, the barrel loses all legal status as a firearm of any type. Shouldn't be too hard to cut off the cheap metal receiver of a Marlin Model 60 for example.
Once you attach the barrel to a test rig, (a block of wood for example) it becomes a pistol? Maybe? Not a rifle since it doesn't have a stock.
Primer and ignition would be the hardest part. Since its a rimfire, only a tap at the edge is needed.
You're not in Arizona by any chance?
DJ Niner
06-04-2002, 18:10
Quake,
First, I'm pretty sure any combination of metal/wood/plastic/whatever that went "bang" at some point after loaded ammo is fed into it would classify it as a firearm, at least for BATF purposes. I always promised my loved ones I would only go to jail for a REALLY GOOD reason; this does not qualify, IMO.
Second, you not only have to make it go off, you have to keep the breech closed or locked while you do it. This is a function of the bolt and/or receiver, which makes them a necessary part of any functional firearm. Please reference para one, above (again).
Finally, from a purely shooting test/academic standpoint, consistency of ignition is a critical part of velocity/accuracy testing. If you're getting a harder strike on certain shells, you may be changing the ignition of these shells, which is certain to affect velocity, which is what I'm testing for. I don't think my "hammer" technique is very consistent, measured against a spring-loaded firing pin or striker.
While I appreciate your input, I don't wish to be consuming institutional food and rooming with a guy nicknamed "bubba" as a result of these tests.
Feel free to try any of your ideas yourself!;f
m65swede
06-05-2002, 06:09
Originally posted by DJ Niner
Quake,
First, I'm pretty sure any combination of metal/wood/plastic/whatever that went "bang" at some point after loaded ammo is fed into it would classify it as a firearm, at least for BATF purposes. I always promised my loved ones I would only go to jail for a REALLY GOOD reason; this does not qualify, IMO.
I believe that is correct. Far as I know, the most logical (and legal) way to perform your experiment starting with a barrel length of 24" or more then amputating an inch at a time down to 2" would involve the T/C Contender or Encore with a custom barrel.
As you said, such as effort would be a little expensive unless you could interest a gunsmith to chip in "in the interest of science" :)
Swede
Quake Guy
06-05-2002, 12:15
I have seen in the white Ruger 10/22 receivers for sale. If you built one up and never attach a rifle stock to it, it is considered a pistol and you can have whatever barrel length you want.
My last post was regarding the legal status of the barrel which has none once it is removed from the receiver. You could surely devise some sort of breech to hold the mighty .22 rimfire in the chamber of the barrel. A metal block with a swing arm that is somehow mated to the chamber, for example.
Unless someone has better information, it is my understanding you can build any gun you want as long as the final outcome would be legal for you to own. However, you cannot sell it to someone else unless it has a serial number and you register it with the ATF.
AR-15's are a good example. You can build up a receiver as a pistol, no problems, assuming its light enough to meet the 94 laws. However, you cannot convert a AR-15 rifle to a pistol unless you are class III and pay a tax for the conversion. As far as I know, there are no limitations on going from pistol to rifle as long as the 16" barrel minimum is met.
Of course, all opinions are those of someone who may or may not know what he's talking about...
