Brno .22Lr.

[nod 285]

My first .22 was a Brno, loved it shot straight and killed plenty with it, it was long so had it cut down, never the same after that, swapped it in for an Anschutz can't fault it.

[Bunny Boiler 177]

Remember though guys. Barrels are made long for accuracy. Cutting them down is great for shooting from a tight spot, but if you dont need to, i wouldn't cut an inch off. You find tighter groups, better zero'ing and better long shots. If the barrel wasnt designed to be long, it wouldn't be...

[shropshire dan 467]

I may just leave it and see how I get on. I've always wanted a cz452 varmint so ill get a variation for a 2nd rifle and save for it.

If not save for the varmint and trade in the brno.

[Deker 3,477]

Remember though guys. Barrels are made long for accuracy. Cutting them down is great for shooting from a tight spot, but if you dont need to, i wouldn't cut an inch off. You find tighter groups, better zero'ing and better long shots. If the barrel wasnt designed to be long, it wouldn't be...

 

No argument in principle with that, but for the difference it makes at .22lr hunting distances the debate isn't worth the ink!

Edited December 6, 2013 by Deker

[Bunny Boiler 177]

 

Remember though guys. Barrels are made long for accuracy. Cutting them down is great for shooting from a tight spot, but if you dont need to, i wouldn't cut an inch off. You find tighter groups, better zero'ing and better long shots. If the barrel wasnt designed to be long, it wouldn't be...

No argument in principle with that, but for the difference it makes at .22lr hunting distances the debate isn't worth the ink!

While the difference may be minimal, unless you have an advantage to shortening the barrel, such as only ever shooting from a vehicle, then its a waste of time, money and a small amount of accuracy for no benefit. I guess what I am saying is not that you wont hit anything, but that you only need cut the barrel if it serves a purpose.

[dadioles 68]

Remember though guys. Barrels are made long for accuracy. Cutting them down is great for shooting from a tight spot, but if you dont need to, i wouldn't cut an inch off. You find tighter groups, better zero'ing and better long shots. If the barrel wasnt designed to be long, it wouldn't be...

 

I have to disagree with pretty much every word of that statement. It is VERY out of date.

 

A long barrel can aid accuracy if you are using iron sights. The further the front sight is from the back sight, the easier it is to focus the eye and more accurately aim at the target. This does not apply if a scope is fitted.

 

A barrel needs to be long enough to ensure that there is enough volume capacity in the barrel to allow all the powder to burn and maximise the speed of the bullet. In the case of rimfire, tests have shown this to be as short as 12 to 14 inches after which the friction of the barrel actually slows down the bullet.

 

Optimum barrel length is 14 to 16 inches.

 

A long barrel, particularly if of light construction, will flex considerably when fired, A shorter, more sturdy barrel can be more accurate in general use.

 

If you compared shots at a target from a 14 inch barrel with those from a 22 inch barrel you will not see any "real world" difference in accuracy.

 

The spread of velocity may look significant as a number but in "the real world" a few feet per second makes little difference, just zero correctly.

4" barrel 1045fps, 8" 1150, 12" 1220, 16" 1240, 20" 1235, 24" 1210, 28" 1170 (figures from Bob Forker - he cut a barrel down for theses tests).

 

A rifle with a shorter barrel is an awful lot more convenient to use and carry around. You must also factor in the additional length and weight of a moderator. A heavy moderator on the end of a long barrel exerts quite a significant lever action.

 

If you already have a rifle with a long barrel it is a significant decision whether or not to shorten it. That decision is based on the cost and quality of workmanship available to you, a bad job would leave you very unhappy.

 

Ideally buy a rifle with a factory shortened barrel (my Anschutz .17 hmr is factory 14").

[shropshire dan 467]

I will be getting a varmint 16" 452 in the future. But for now funds permit the brno

Still a lot of great review on this rifle so still a winner by the looks of things

[Deker 3,477]

 

Remember though guys. Barrels are made long for accuracy. Cutting them down is great for shooting from a tight spot, but if you dont need to, i wouldn't cut an inch off. You find tighter groups, better zero'ing and better long shots. If the barrel wasnt designed to be long, it wouldn't be...

I have to disagree with pretty much every word of that statement. It is VERY out of date.

 

A long barrel can aid accuracy if you are using iron sights. The further the front sight is from the back sight, the easier it is to focus the eye and more accurately aim at the target. This does not apply if a scope is fitted.

 

A barrel needs to be long enough to ensure that there is enough volume capacity in the barrel to allow all the powder to burn and maximise the speed of the bullet. In the case of rimfire, tests have shown this to be as short as 12 to 14 inches after which the friction of the barrel actually slows down the bullet.

 

Optimum barrel length is 14 to 16 inches.

 

A long barrel, particularly if of light construction, will flex considerably when fired, A shorter, more sturdy barrel can be more accurate in general use.

 

If you compared shots at a target from a 14 inch barrel with those from a 22 inch barrel you will not see any "real world" difference in accuracy.

 

The spread of velocity may look significant as a number but in "the real world" a few feet per second makes little difference, just zero correctly.

4" barrel 1045fps, 8" 1150, 12" 1220, 16" 1240, 20" 1235, 24" 1210, 28" 1170 (figures from Bob Forker - he cut a barrel down for theses tests).

 

A rifle with a shorter barrel is an awful lot more convenient to use and carry around. You must also factor in the additional length and weight of a moderator. A heavy moderator on the end of a long barrel exerts quite a significant lever action.

 

If you already have a rifle with a long barrel it is a significant decision whether or not to shorten it. That decision is based on the cost and quality of workmanship available to you, a bad job would leave you very unhappy.

 

Ideally buy a rifle with a factory shortened barrel (my Anschutz .17 hmr is factory 14").

 

 

I'm not following that, what am I missing, how can it be VERY out of date and then you say it is true? A long barrel can aid accuracy if you are using iron sights. The further the front sight is from the back sight, the easier it is to focus the eye and more accurately aim at the target. What is VERY out of date about that, it is as true today as ever!

 

And how can the optimum barrel length be between 14-16" when you quote an example that clearly says 16-20"? Do you have the full chart or was it only done in 4" increments? The example you quote is clearly a High(ish) velocity .22lr ammo, what is the story with sub sonic .22lr as used by many (probably most) for field work?

 

This is HMR, from Varmint Al's, so obviously not .22lr (but you quote rimfire) this rimfire has 19" as optimum, and even 22" is better than 14-16"! (it does seem to chuck up some interesting spreads)

 

Bullberry Barrel Length vs. Velocity DATA

22 inch = 2517 fps, 103 fps spread

21 inch = 2523 fps, 66 fps spread

20 inch = 2515 fps, 86 fps spread

19 inch = 2538 fps, 83 fps spread

18 inch = 2522 fps, 41 fps spread

17 inch = 2505 fps, 43 fps spread

16 inch = 2492 fps, 53 fps spread

15 inch = 2477 fps, 27 fps spread

14 inch = 2432 fps, 70 fps spread

13 inch = 2419 fps, 32 fps spread

12 inch = 2387 fps, 57 fps spread

11 inch = 2338 fps, 45 fps spread

10 inch = 2276 fps, 45 fps spread

 

Shorter barrels can certainly be more convenient and as already said, in field hunting situations the difference in accuracy/power is relatively insignificant at the end of the day!

Edited December 6, 2013 by Deker

[dadioles 68]

Ok Deker... I am tired, it's been a long day....... Lots of clumsy wording on my part but.... You are nit picking and not really adding anything constructive.

 

The OP is talking about .22lr and I do not want him to be persuaded that a long barrel is good and a short barrel is bad based on irrelevant nonsense.

 

"Barrels are made long for accuracy"

This implies long is accurate, short is less accurate. In the real world that most in this forum occupy the statement is misleading and trying to persuade the OP that by shortening his barrel it will make it less accurate, that is simply not true. He is obviously not using iron sights (few people do these days other than at close ranges) or he would not contemplate cutting the end off!

Barrels are manufactured long for many different reasons, they are also manufactured short. Pure fashion, even at the expense of function, can be one of those reasons "mine is longer than yours...." (maybe 40 years ago ).

 

"Cutting them down is great for shooting from a tight spot, but if you don't need to, I wouldn't cut an inch off"

I cannot think of a single advantage of a long barrel - in the context of .22lr and the average shooter. Obviously if your rifle has a long barrel and you are happy with it, leave it alone. It is not just about shooting from a tight spot.

 

"You find tighter groups, better zeroing and better long shots"

Poppycock. There is no practical difference whatsoever.

 

"If the barrel wasn't designed to be long, it wouldn't be"

Oh dear.

 

A barrel length of 14" to 16" is optimum, in my opinion, taking into account practical handling, the use of bipod and moderator, fitting a scope, a sling, storage and transport and all the other things that we do with a rifle.

Shorter than 14" and the barrel is really too short to be practical, an over-barrel mod would not fit, the fore-stock becomes too short and the balance may be uncomfortable.

Longer than 16" and the length starts to become inconvenient with no advantages.

Differences in fps whether 4" or 28" are utterly insignificant. Changing the make of ammunition will have a far greater effect than barrel length.

Edited December 6, 2013 by dadioles

[shropshire dan 467]

Sorry for causing conflict chaps

Ill see how I get on with it like I say I'm wanting a 16" varmint in the future as I like the look of them. But could only afford this old brno at the moment. Ill probably keep both and use the varmint as a vehicle lamping gun and the brno as a day rabbiting gun and to start the wife and in a few years my daughter. If I get on with the long barrel ill leave it if not ill get it cut if I havnt already got the varmint

Thanks for all advice.

Atb

Dan

[dadioles 68]

Conflict.... Ha!! I didn't fight in two world wars in order to engage in verbal fisty cuffs. No.... I didn't fight in two world wars (or at all.... ever.... ) but I did see a film once.......

 

Enjoy your shooting shropshire dan

 

 

P.S. Keep it to yourself - remember walls have ears......... there is a rumour that Deker, on the other hand, flew choppers in 'nam........ shhhhh don't tell anyone that I mentioned it......

Edited December 7, 2013 by dadioles

[Deker 3,477]

Ok Deker... I am tired, it's been a long day....... Lots of clumsy wording on my part but.... You are nit picking and not really adding anything constructive.

 

The OP is talking about .22lr and I do not want him to be persuaded that a long barrel is good and a short barrel is bad based on irrelevant nonsense.

 

"Barrels are made long for accuracy"

This implies long is accurate, short is less accurate. In the real world that most in this forum occupy the statement is misleading and trying to persuade the OP that by shortening his barrel it will make it less accurate, that is simply not true. He is obviously not using iron sights (few people do these days other than at close ranges) or he would not contemplate cutting the end off!

Barrels are manufactured long for many different reasons, they are also manufactured short. Pure fashion, even at the expense of function, can be one of those reasons "mine is longer than yours...." (maybe 40 years ago ).

 

"Cutting them down is great for shooting from a tight spot, but if you don't need to, I wouldn't cut an inch off"

I cannot think of a single advantage of a long barrel - in the context of .22lr and the average shooter. Obviously if your rifle has a long barrel and you are happy with it, leave it alone. It is not just about shooting from a tight spot.

 

"You find tighter groups, better zeroing and better long shots"

Poppycock. There is no practical difference whatsoever.

 

"If the barrel wasn't designed to be long, it wouldn't be"

Oh dear.

 

A barrel length of 14" to 16" is optimum, in my opinion, taking into account practical handling, the use of bipod and moderator, fitting a scope, a sling, storage and transport and all the other things that we do with a rifle.

Shorter than 14" and the barrel is really too short to be practical, an over-barrel mod would not fit, the fore-stock becomes too short and the balance may be uncomfortable.

Longer than 16" and the length starts to become inconvenient with no advantages.

Differences in fps whether 4" or 28" are utterly insignificant. Changing the make of ammunition will have a far greater effect than barrel length.

Ok, I'll go with your

 

... I am tired, it's been a long day....... Lots of clumsy wording on my part .....

 

But

 

I have to disagree with pretty much every word of that statement. It is VERY out of date .......

 

is

 

....not really adding anything constructive.

 

You are offering a view on Bunny Boilers post, I am offering a view on yours, which falls somewhere between both posts.

 

I think you will find that shorter barrels, as shown in your own example, produce less velocity/energy, therefore accuracy. Your 14-16" being optimum is based on your considered view of what is convenient to handle, not energy/accuracy, the post you queried was about accuracy. Therefore your comment... Poppycock. There is no practical difference whatsoever........... is confirming he is right, but simply accepting the difference is marginal!

 

It isn't nit picking it is reality, your own example showed 16-20" as optimum for .22lr HV and my example showed 19" for HMR. Now, what may be convenient to handle for some, or the difference the length makes for some, is a different matter, and a personal choice! That is why I worded #19 the way I did.

 

Not everyone shoots out of a motor all the time and not everyone finds a short barrel more convenient. Personally, I chucked my last 15.75" WMR for an identical model 19" WMR because I didn't like the shorter barrel, accuracy was not a factor, it was gun balance/feel, and both had mods, so that is one factor to consider before you remove a load of your barrel.

 

I made it clear in my first post on this specific point the difference in accuracy isn't worth the debate, but that doesn't make it untrue!

 

If you find 12-14-16" most convenient and optimum for YOU then fine, not everyone does, and it isn't necessarily the most accurate!

Edited December 7, 2013 by Deker

[shropshire dan 467]

Thanks again chaps. Ill see how I get on with it.

Atb

Dan

[dadioles 68]

I think you will find that shorter barrels, as shown in your own example, produce less velocity/energy, therefore accuracy.

 

 

Are you correct in linking velocity/energy to accuracy? I don't think so. Sorry Deker but you are falling into the same language trap that I fell into. The relationship between velocity/energy and accuracy is not absolute.

 

The point I am trying to make is that the choice of short barrel or long barrel is a personal decision, there are no practical differences in accuracy and velocity to affect that choice.

 

FACT - short barrelled rifles are easily as accurate as those with long barrels.

 

Shorter barrels will, in certain circumstances, produce less velocity because the bullet leaves the barrel before the powder has fully ignited and therefore does not benefit from the full amount of energy released.

 

A long barrel will also produce less velocity as the bullet is still only part way up the barrel after the powder is fully burned and the additional length of the barrel serves to slow the exit of the bullet through friction.

 

Taking those statements to be correct, there is clearly a mathematically "optimum" barrel length for any particular ammunition based on the size of the charge and the speed of the burn.

 

I contend, however, that this is of no consequence to any "normal" shooter as the differences are so small as to be insignificant and it does not relate to accuracy.

 

Different makes of ammunition vary considerably in their rated velocities, and indeed from bullet to bullet within the same batch, due to manufacturing tolerances and other environmental factors.

 

Those differences are greater than the difference made by barrel length. So discussing barrel length in relation to velocity is of mild academic interest but of no practical worth to the shooter. His choice of ammunition is far more significant.

 

Lets' take yards as an example using my SK .22lr subs fired from a CZ452 with a 16" barrel

 

The bullets leave the barrel chrono'd at typically 1033 ft/s and at yards the drop is 2.2 inches and the velocity 958 ft/s

 

Looking at "Chairgun", if the theoretical velocity dropped to 1000 ft/s the drop become 2.4 inches and the velocity 927 ft/s

 

Similarly at a theoretical 1060 ft/s the drop reduces to 1.9 inches and velocity 983 ft/s

 

So with a theoretical velocity ranging from 1000 ft/s to 1060 ft/s the spread is only half an inch at yards. A lot of ammunition is less accurate than that.

 

My SK subs (Lapua) are pretty good bullets and after testing several brands they suit my rifle very well. I can achieve a 10 bullet one inch group at yards with no fliers.

 

In my CZ with the 20" barrel, the same ammunition produces an average starting velocity of 1010 ft/s (23 ft/s slower than the 16" barrel) with a variation of 998 ft/s to 1024 ft/s - very consistent ammunition.

 

I only have experience with rimfire but the same principles have been tested and proved to be true of much bigger calibres.

 

I mentioned before that a long barrel can flex causing a decrease in accuracy. Adding a moderator can, in some circumstances, lessen those barrel harmonics and actually increase accuracy.

 

One piece of research that I came across just a few minutes ago can be read here... http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/daniel-zimmerman/the-truth-about-barrel-length-muzzle-velocity-and-accuracy/

 

I particularly liked the comment:

 

"In an age of misinformation, hard fact can be hard to come by. The internet is full of armchair know-it-alls and trolls a plenty, but for the most part, these can be ignored. Mental preconceptions of the researched concepts are still deeply entrenched in a more or less Napoleonic era of the theory of arms. Most of what is commonly argued about small arms is false and based on opinion."

[Deker 3,477]

Did you read my post?

We are not talking centerfires, we are not talking changing ammo, we are talking of barrel length effect on rimfires accuracy which you questioned.

A .22lr does not exert anything close to the stresses and pressures on barrels as centrefires, you may as well compare apples and pears, the harmonics do not begin to compare, so neither will the results! Rimfire ammo also tends to have far worse ballistic coefficient than centrefires.

I am not falling into any traps of velocity/accuracy with rimfires, and I have not made any suggestion that ammo may not be more of a factor either. Also remember different ammo suits different barrels, so any individual results you achieve may not be reflected in another barrel, we are talking the norm/average, not specific one gun results.

HV ammo is debateable in .22lr, primarily because of the inherent twist rate of most .22lr, 1-16, that does not favour it. Higher velocity subs, will be more accurate than low speed subs, and that is achieved by a longer barrel to get full burn. Nobody is arguing that VERY long barrels are not counter productive, but figures I have seen suggest 18-19" barrels tend to work best in rimfires, producing highest velocities and best accuracy, not your 14-16". That is also born out with 10 years experience of Club target/competition work, with .22lr. I am not saying that 14-16" guns are useless, they are very efficient in many circumstances.

Nobody is disputing the fact the difference is of relatively no consequence, have you not noticed that!

Edited December 7, 2013 by Deker