What 22LR Reamer & Barrel

[Intell]

So even though I shoot RF (IR50/50) and finished in the top 10 in the country on the Unlimited List points,
I'm not a "RF Guy"?? God I feel so inadequate.
Please let me in on the secret handshake before the next match.
(Sarcasm intended, just to clarify)
You guys crack me up.

Congratulations on your top 10 finish.

 

[urbanrifleman]

Very eye opening thread, to say the least.

 

[Tony K Harper]

After all the twist and turns this thread has taken, I'm going to attempt to put together an answer to the original question.

What .22LR Reamer & Barrel?

The reamer: When it boils down to it there is only so many ways to design the reamer and many designs have had success. First you have the leade angle. That can be anything, but today it seems 1.5 to 5 degrees is the range most often used.

I own both, 1.5 and 2.0 degree, and if they weren't marked, I could not tell them apart. Both can work and there may be a time to use one vs the other based on the actual size of the bore of the barrel. Whomever is doing the barrel work will make that decision based on personal experience. If that decision will show up in actual scores is another debate.

Back to design. The .22LR was designed with a tapered case. So, reamers are made for that taper. But there are also straight sided reamers that do not taper, and they are actually more popular today than the original tapered designs.

There are reamers with fixed stops that will only allow the reamer to go so deep and reamers with no stop that will allow the machinist to go to whatever depth he chooses.

There are reamers that use different style cutters. One of which is a spiral cut reamer which I prefer.

Finally, some reamers have fixed pilots and others with live pilots that can be changed to fit different size bores. The most popular are the live pilots.

There is one big problem with the .22 LR cartridge that drives which of the reamer styles are best for the job. That problem is the inconsistence of the round., from round to round, from lot to lot, and from manufacturer to manufacturer. Longer round, longer hole. Can't have fixed stop.

There is also one big problem with the barrels we use. It is the same problem; the bores are not always the same from manufacturer to manufacturer or even from the same manufacturer. Smaller hole, smaller pilot. can't have fixed pilot.

The reamer must be capable of adapting to the actual size of the round and the actual size of the barrel.

The reamer must have live pilots and no stop.

With all this said, the two most popular reamers used are 1.5 -2.0-degree leade, straight sided, reamers with live pilots, and no stop. People that use the 1.5 degree leade tend to use very little engraving on the bullet. The 2.0 degree crowd normally use much more engraving.

A popular thing you hear is "I engrave up to the second driving band." That statement drives me crazy. The person that said it believes he did just what he said. The problem is if he had kept inserting rounds in his chamber, he would have found the rounds vary so much some would engrave up to the second driving band and others would have engrave through the second driving band.

I believe this explains at least partly of why some lots shoot well in certain barrels but not so good in others.

Good news for anyone still reading. I'm going to stop here. Depending on how this is received I'll do barrels later.

Yes, I know I haven't even mentioned boring or grinding chambers.

I'm back. Before going to barrels let me finish up with chambers.

Chambers can be bored, and they can be ground. I have a friend that worked in the machine shop at Westinghouse. He had access to some of the finest machine tools available on the planet. Luckily, he also had an interest in .22LR rimfires. He bored some chambers, and he ground some chambers, his conclusion was, there were little to be gained by using these methods vs using reamers.

I actually watched him bore a chamber and I thought there were too many ways to screw it up for me to do it that way, so I use reamers.

Now on to barrels:

Most of our barrel makers have shown they can produce excellent barrels, winning barrels, but the most popular currently are Shilen, Muller, and Benchmark. There are others such as Lilja, and a host of centerfire barrel makers. But these are the most popular and have to most winning records.

One big controversy about barrels for rimfire is about button rifled vs cut rifle barrels. Cut rifled barrels dominates centerfire but not rimfire. I will not go into the different arguments, but I can ask you to look the current rimfire records and you can see for yourself the barrels that are winning.

Then we have the rifling patterns. The Shilen rachet is considered a minimally invasive pattern (MI). What this means is the rifling does not cut very deep into the bullet or at least not as deep as normally grooved barrel. With the rachet pattern (one side cut at a slant rather than at 90 degrees it is supposed to buck the wind better. The Muller 4 MI is an even more MI rifling pattern and is also said to buck the wind. I'm not going to go into all the different rifling options, or I'll never finish this.

Shooting MI rifling patterns is a little different than shooting the old style 4 groove barrels or the new Muller 8 grooves. Now some will tell me I'm crazy, and I may be, but I shoot nearly every day and have done so for many years. But this is what I think.

A MI barrel will hold point of aim and if the wind gets up just a little but enough to see it on the flags it may continue to hold point of aim. As the wind progresses you will reach a point that the MI can't hold point of aim and the bullet will move with the wind. That break point can be a killer. If you shoot only MI barrels and you learn that point you can do really well, plus if you miss a small change in the wind the MI can save you. But it does take some getting used to.

Non MI barrels are more linear meaning the bullet strike moves with every change in the wind.

These are just my beliefs and may be worth no more than what you paid for them.

In summary, you need a straight sided 1.5 or 2.0 degree leade, live pilot reamer without a stop. If you choose the 2.0 degree, you will want more engraving.

If you choose an MI barrel you may want to stick with MI barrels and not try alternating between MI and normal rifling patterns.

The great thing is you have options.

TKH

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

G,

Tads post is something we can agree on. The pic shows my shop and my Heavy 10. I've used that Heavy 10 to produce some good shooting rimfire barrels.

Until this morning, I have not had the advantage of knowing who you are, or your background of experience.

Since your experience is in centerfire, I now understand your ignition comment.

Centerfire ignition with those perfectly self-contained primers is a far cry from rimfire.

We have a circle of primer mixture spun around the inside of our case heads. Our ignition, and to a degree our accuracy, is dependent upon hitting that case head very consistently shot to shot.

Accuracy in rimfire can be dependent on properly tuned ignition. Meaning, the firing pin fall, the weight of the firing pin, the location of the strike, and the actual footprint of the pin, and location of the trigger are all part of tuning rimfire ignition. Not so with centerfire.

When I shot centerfire about all that was done for ignition was buy the best, most popular, primers, clean the pockets and seat them. Please advise if things have changed.

I know we got off to a bad start and if I owe you an apology, you have it.

TKH

Yes, Tony, weather it has changed or not...I don't think so because centerfire ignition has always been an important aspect of reliable accuracy. It's really not that different. The priming compound is just in a different location. That might be a little bit over simplified but not a lot. I hear all the time how rf is a different animal than cf. Generally speaking, they are very similar in just about every aspect. How far the rf cartridge protrudes from the chamber...centerfire folks refer to that as jam. IOW, how far into the lands is the bullet when chambered. It's a tuning tool/method. It's one that we can play with in cf where it's essentially fixed in rf, other than differences in brands and lots.

Tuning is another biggie that I hear all the time is so different but in the end, the biggest difference is the typical rf br bbl is less stiff than its cf counterpart and the bullet is in the bbl for roughly 3 times as long. IME, tuning both is not remarkably different but very similar. There are small differences but overall, amazingly similar. The bbl doesn't know or care where the primer is.

Alex, who posted above has done a great job with his work on the ignition aspect of the cf rifles and just as well at making it more of a focal point to better accuracy in the cf community.

 

[Tony K Harper]

Yes, Tony, weather it has changed or not...I don't think so because centerfire ignition has always been an important aspect of reliable accuracy. It's really not that different. The priming compound is just in a different location. That might be a little bit over simplified but not a lot. I hear all the time how rf is a different animal than cf. Generally speaking, they are very similar in just about every aspect. How far the rf cartridge protrudes from the chamber...centerfire folks refer to that as jam. IOW, how far into the lands is the bullet when chambered. It's a tuning tool/method. It's one that we can play with in cf where it's essentially fixed in rf, other than differences in brands and lots.

Tuning is another biggie that I hear all the time is so different but in the end, the biggest difference is the typical rf br bbl is less stiff than its cf counterpart and the bullet is in the bbl for roughly 3 times as long. IME, tuning both is not remarkably different but very similar. There are small differences but overall, amazingly similar. The bbl doesn't know or care where the primer is.

Alex, who posted above has done a great job with his work on the ignition aspect of the cf rifles and just as well at making it more of a focal point to better accuracy in the cf community.

You may have explained to me why I never did particularly well in centerfire benchrest. I simply bought primers, cleaned the pockets, and seated the primers and worked on my loads. If there was more to ignition (firing the round) than that, I missed it.

I don't want to start an argument here but rimfire ignition is more like flint locks and centerfire ignition is more like caps.

If you guys are now worrying about firing pin shapes, and firing pin weights and firing pin travel, and firing pin strike locations you aren't any better off than we are.

Since this isn't a centerfire thread I'll stop here and make my inquiries about centerfire ignition over on the centerfire threads.

Thanks for cluing me in.

TKH

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

You may have explained to me why I never did particularly well in centerfire benchrest. I simply bought primers, cleaned the pockets, and seated the primers and worked on my loads. If there was more to ignition (firing the round) than that, I missed it.

I don't want to start an argument here but rimfire ignition is more like flint locks and centerfire ignition is more like caps.

If you guys are now worrying about firing pin shapes, and firing pin weights and firing pin travel, and firing pin strike locations you aren't any better off than we are.

Since this isn't a centerfire thread I'll stop here and make my inquiries about centerfire ignition over on the centerfire threads.

Thanks for cluing me in.

TKH

Most ignition issues are already worked out within know values on good cf custom actions but we have two things in particular that cause issues, among other less common ones. One is obvious, just keeping things clean and PROPERLY lubed and within spec, meaning within the area where things like pin weight and spring pressure are known to work best. I think these things apply to both rf and cf. Pin shape, for the most part, are all the same but diameter can and does make a difference. A smaller pin dia tends to take less enerygy from the spring and weight of the pin, as well as put less stress and stretch of the brass that we somewhat commonly see and describe as "primer cratering". It can be related to both pin diameter and light spring pressure. Both rf and cf are dependent pn the correct energy. It can be with a heavy and slow pin or with a light and fast one. Same imo, with rf, most builders and action makers have their idea of what is best. Also, in effort to minimize bolt lift and make things feel super smooth, I think there are cases where we have gone too far and given up any margin for error...mostly in search of perfect feel.

But yes, other than pin shape, we chase the same things with cf as with rf.Shape has been played with to a much smaller degree. I'm not aware of anything earth shattering coming from different shapes, where I can see the eclipse footprint that has become popular in rf, having value but the amount of energy has to be properly adjusted to make up for that wider area, one way or another.

But yes, a ton of work has/is being spent on ignition in cf these days. Lots more than I have mentioned here.

The way I look at both rf and cf..the primer compound does best if shattered as opposed to simply broken, in simplest terms. I've seen a new fp spring make a huge difference, for one example...on a few occasions.

 

[scasa]

You may have explained to me why I never did particularly well in centerfire benchrest. I simply bought primers, cleaned the pockets, and seated the primers and worked on my loads. If there was more to ignition (firing the round) than that, I missed it.

I don't want to start an argument here but rimfire ignition is more like flint locks and centerfire ignition is more like caps.

If you guys are now worrying about firing pin shapes, and firing pin weights and firing pin travel, and firing pin strike locations you aren't any better off than we are.

Since this isn't a centerfire thread I'll stop here and make my inquiries about centerfire ignition over on the centerfire threads.

Thanks for cluing me in.

TKH

If you would like to elaborate on firing pin shapes, firing pin weights, pin travel and pin strike locations I'd like to hear what you have to say and I'm probably not the only one.

 

[urbanrifleman]

After all the twist and turns this thread has taken, I'm going to attempt to put together an answer to the original question.

What .22LR Reamer & Barrel?

The reamer: When it boils down to it there is only so many ways to design the reamer and many designs have had success. First you have the leade angle. That can be anything, but today it seems 1.5 to 5 degrees is the range most often used.

I own both, 1.5 and 2.0 degree, and if they weren't marked, I could not tell them apart. Both can work and there may be a time to use one vs the other based on the actual size of the bore of the barrel. Whomever is doing the barrel work will make that decision based on personal experience. If that decision will show up in actual scores is another debate.

Back to design. The .22LR was designed with a tapered case. So, reamers are made for that taper. But there are also straight sided reamers that do not taper, and they are actually more popular today than the original tapered designs.

There are reamers with fixed stops that will only allow the reamer to go so deep and reamers with no stop that will allow the machinist to go to whatever depth he chooses.

There are reamers that use different style cutters. One of which is a spiral cut reamer which I prefer.

Finally, some reamers have fixed pilots and others with live pilots that can be changed to fit different size bores. The most popular are the live pilots.

There is one big problem with the .22 LR cartridge that drives which of the reamer styles are best for the job. That problem is the inconsistence of the round., from round to round, from lot to lot, and from manufacturer to manufacturer. Longer round, longer hole. Can't have fixed stop.

There is also one big problem with the barrels we use. It is the same problem; the bores are not always the same from manufacturer to manufacturer or even from the same manufacturer. Smaller hole, smaller pilot. can't have fixed pilot.

The reamer must be capable of adapting to the actual size of the round and the actual size of the barrel.

The reamer must have live pilots and no stop.

With all this said, the two most popular reamers used are 1.5 -2.0-degree leade, straight sided, reamers with live pilots, and no stop. People that use the 1.5 degree leade tend to use very little engraving on the bullet. The 2.0 degree crowd normally use much more engraving.

A popular thing you hear is "I engrave up to the second driving band." That statement drives me crazy. The person that said it believes he did just what he said. The problem is if he had kept inserting rounds in his chamber, he would have found the rounds vary so much some would engrave up to the second driving band and others would have engrave through the second driving band.

I believe this explains at least partly of why some lots shoot well in certain barrels but not so good in others.

Good news for anyone still reading. I'm going to stop here. Depending on how this is received I'll do barrels later.

Yes, I know I haven't even mentioned boring or grinding chambers.

TKH

Great post. Thank you.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

If you would like to elaborate on firing pin shapes, firing pin weights, pin travel and pin strike locations I'd like to hear what you have to say and I'm probably not the only one.

I wanna throw this out there and then let Tony reply. Many in both rf and cf know Alan Hall, the action maker for Hall Actions. I saw him a few years ago and he showed me one of his lightweight titanium rf firing pins. It weighed next to nothing. He also showed me some fired cases. He claimed that with enough speed, his actions, with that pin gave good and reliable ignition with only .002" firing pin indentation.

I'm not say that's right or wrong but he felt like it was enough, which is in agreement with the point I made earlier...that we need to SHATTER the priming compound rather than smush it.

Pro's and cons to both ways so I think the best answer is somewhere in between but weighted toward a light and fast strike that shatters the compound as opposed to heavy and slow...even if both yield a "BANG".

I think a fine powder of the shattered priming compound is ideal for ignition, based on what little I know about primer composition. A fast strike would appear the way to go for that but as fp footprints get larger, ie the crescent pin shape, it will likely benefit from more mass as well.

Raised mostly a farmer, I relate it to corn dust explosions. There's more to it than that but I visualize large chunks of fragmented primer compound vs a dust, where the dust ignites much more readily and consistently. That's just my opinion and we all know how those are. It used to be, maybe still, that primer compounds were largely silica(glass) based. In that context, it might make more sense..the point I'm trying to make.

Maybe Tony will explain it better. I never do the best in type.

Anyone that has done much glass bead blasting can attest to seeing tiny ignitions in the blast cabinet, for what that worth, too.

 

[urbanrifleman]

The guy who dominates in my club in rimfire benchrest shoots a stock 40x from the 1960s.

Have things really changed all that much?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

The guy who dominates in my club in rimfire benchrest shoots a stock 40x from the 1960s.

Have things really changed all that much?

In a sense, no. Because unless something is wrong, the winner is still the guy who screws up least in this sport. Generally speaking

 

[urbanrifleman]

In a sense, no. Because unless something is wrong, the winner is still the guy who screws up least in this sport. Generally speaking

I honestly have no dog in the fight. I know nothing about rimfire except that my Anshultz shoots better than anything I've ever tried. I guess Deider knows some stuff.

 

[TRSR8]

I wanna throw this out there and then let Tony reply. Many in both rf and cf know Alan Hall, the action maker for Hall Actions. I saw him a few years ago and he showed me one of his lightweight titanium rf firing pins. It weighed next to nothing. He also showed me some fired cases. He claimed that with enough speed, his actions, with that pin gave good and reliable ignition with only .002" firing pin indentation.

I'm not say that's right or wrong but he felt like it was enough, which is in agreement with the point I made earlier...that we need to SHATTER the priming compound rather than smush it.

Pro's and cons to both ways so I think the best answer is somewhere in between but weighted toward a light and fast strike that shatters the compound as opposed to heavy and slow...even if both yield a "BANG".

I think a fine powder of the shattered priming compound is ideal for ignition, based on what little I know about primer composition. A fast strike would appear the way to go for that but as fp footprints get larger, ie the crescent pin shape, it will likely benefit from more mass as well.

Raised mostly a farmer, I relate it to corn dust explosions. There's more to it than that but I visualize large chunks of fragmented primer compound vs a dust, where the dust ignites much more readily and consistently. That's just my opinion and we all know how those are. It used to be, maybe still, that primer compounds were largely silica(glass) based. In that context, it might make more sense..the point I'm trying to make.

Maybe Tony will explain it better. I never do the best in type.

Anyone that has done much glass bead blasting can attest to seeing tiny ignitions in the blast cabinet, for what that worth, too.

And that’s a primary reason folks moved away from Hall’s sooner rather than later.
Quite a few of the ones that finally came alive were the ones that Eck altered the firing system primarily by adding brass weights to the pin which also gave greater momentum and compression to the spring.
Alan was simply too obstinate to change anything. They would shoot well on occasion , simply not consistent.
There were other issues as well, non pertinent to this thread .

 

[TRSR8]

The guy who dominates in my club in rimfire benchrest shoots a stock 40x from the 1960s.

Have things really changed all that much?

Yes

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I honestly have no dog in the fight. I know nothing about rimfire except that my Anshultz shoots better than anything I've ever tried. I guess Deider knows some stuff.

Lol! It's not a fight at all...at least not to me. This is quite civilized compared to many, many threads on somewhat controversial subjects. Heck, lets keep it going! It is a good thread. It seems like a lot of posts/threads that get sideways on here are related to things that posters can't shoot or see the difference in. If I can't shoot the difference, I have no problem in saying so and I learn from that.

 

[TRSR8]

I honestly have no dog in the fight. I know nothing about rimfire except that my Anshultz shoots better than anything I've ever tried. I guess Deider knows some stuff.

Few are competitive in sanctioned matches and the few that are wear custom barrels.

 

[urbanrifleman]

Yes

The selection of ammunition has really shrunk. I know that.

 

[Tony K Harper]

If you would like to elaborate on firing pin shapes, firing pin weights, pin travel and pin strike locations I'd like to hear what you have to say and I'm probably not the only one.

Rimfire ignition has been a major problem forever. It is in the design, but it has only been in the last 5-7 years it received the attention it deserves.

Most high quality rimfire actions were designed for three position shooting or shoulder fired sporting uses.

When rimfire benchrest came along with a game called BR 50 those rifles were what was available and used by most shooters. The custom rimfire actions didn't come along until later. When they finally did, they took two designs the Remmington 37/40X or the Winchester 52. One of the first truly new designs was the Time Precision action. It had adjustable headspace, firing pins north and south, and right bolt left port configuration.

It was known by centerfire shooters that fast lock time while benefitting shoulder fired rifles did little to nothing for benchrest rifles.

When Flash Ebert designed the Turbo he used what is called momentum dependent ignition. Meaning it had a heavy firing pin and a long firing pin travel or fall. Not a short fast strike like found in European made rimfires.

Even today the argument goes on about which is better. It is amusing.

The Hall custom rimfire action was a thing of beauty. It was well machined, and it was smooth as butter, but it simply did not work.

I owned four of them and at least 20 barrels for them and they never came close to shooting like my Time Precision rifles. Tim mentioned Gordon Eck working on the Hall ignition by adding weight to the firing pin to make them better. It did improve them.

Alan Hall has given much to the shooting community, but he never came to grips with spring driven firing pins vs momentum driven firing pins in rimfires.

Firing pin shapes:

A few years ago, maybe 7-8, a guy in New York designed a Crecent shaped firing pin for a turbo action. This pin struck the case and made an indent about twice the size of the chisel shaped pins that had been popular. note: before chisels most firing pins were round like found in centerfires. This wide strike area gave many the impression it would give better, more consistent, ignition if more of the priming compound was struck.

Many hobbyists, and others went to work trying to find the right combination firing pin spring and firing pin fall to drive this wider pin footprint. Many may know Vudoo actions were supplied with crescent shaped pins for a while.

I spent a great deal of time and energy looking for the right combination. I did achieve my goal but I was hand grinding the pins individually.

Di Orio at Turbo now offers his Turbo V 3s only with the crescent shaped pin. Upon special request he will provide a chisel pin. He uses an EDM machine to shape the pin head, so they are very consistent and has designed a special spring to drive the pin with the geometry of his action. I tested one all last year in an Turbo V 3 unlimited rifle and did very well with it and I did no modifications to it once I installed the new parts.

I know everyone wants to ask are they actually better, more accurate, do they provide an advantage. Sorry but you will have to decide that for yourself.

TKH

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Rimfire ignition has been a major problem forever. It is in the design, but it has only been in the last 5-7 years it received the attention it deserves.

Most high quality rimfire actions were designed for three position shooting or shoulder fired sporting uses.

When rimfire benchrest came along with a game called BR 50 those rifles were what was available and used by most shooters. The custom rimfire actions didn't come along until later. When they finally did, they took two designs the Remmington 37/40X or the Winchester 52. One of the first truly new designs was the Time Precision action. It had adjustable headspace, firing pins north and south, and right bolt left port configuration.

It was known by centerfire shooters that fast lock time while benefitting shoulder fired rifles did little to nothing for benchrest rifles.

When Flash Ebert designed the Turbo he used what is called momentum dependent ignition. Meaning it had a heavy firing pin and a long firing pin travel or fall. Not a short fast strike like found in European made rimfires.

Even today the argument goes on about which is better. It is amusing.

The Hall custom rimfire action was a thing of beauty. It was well machined, and it was smooth as butter, but it simply did not work.

I owned four of them and at least 20 barrels for them and they never came close to shooting like my Time Precision rifles. Tim mentioned Gordon Eck working on the Hall ignition by adding weight to the firing pin to make them better. It did improve them.

Alan Hall has given much to the shooting community, but he never came to grips with spring driven firing pins vs momentum driven firing pins in rimfires.

Firing pin shapes:

A few years ago, maybe 7-8, a guy in New York designed a Crecent shaped firing pin for a turbo action. This pin struck the case and made an indent about twice the size of the chisel shaped pins that had been popular. note: before chisels most firing pins were round like found in centerfires. This wide strike area gave many the impression it would give better, more consistent, ignition if more of the priming compound was struck.

Many hobbyists, and others went to work trying to find the right combination firing pin spring and firing pin fall to drive this wider pin footprint. Many may know Vudoo actions were supplied with crescent shaped pins for a while.

I spent a great deal of time and energy looking for the right combination. I did achieve my goal but I was hand grinding the pins individually.

Di Orio at Turbo now offers his Turbo V 3s only with the crescent shaped pin. Upon special request he will provide a chisel pin. He uses an EDM machine to shape the pin head, so they are very consistent and has designed a special spring to drive the pin with the geometry of his action. I tested one all last year in an Turbo V 3 unlimited rifle and did very well with it and I did no modifications to it once I installed the new parts.

I know everyone wants to ask are they actually better, more accurate, do they provide an advantage. Sorry but you will have to decide that for yourself.

TKH

I believe we are in agreement on most if not all of your post Tony. You bring up a good point about "momentum dependent" ignition systems that many rf actions have gone to, I'm curious as to your thoughts on why/if it's better or not. At the very least, on one end of the spectrum, it conflates its dependency on the end user maintenance vs a typical spring driven ignition system similar to most all cf systems. Thanks in advance for your thoughts to this post.

 

[Williwaw]

I am constantly amazed that the ammo manufacturers have not taken responsibility in this matter,ie. where to hit the rim, how hard, and pin dimensions/shape. They should at least provide a starting point IMO.

Great thread guys.