40x Rimfire question

[davidjoe]

I don’t clamp barrels down from the top side which is taking the idea a step further than I have ever gone with it, and so I do know what you mean. I’ve seen guys have barrel tuners go in and out, too. Can be very problematic.

I have had the thought that the goal I’m pursuing in centerfire target guns is similar to what a “dead blow mallet” is to hammers. A dense rubber mallet tends to bounce on certain objects. A steel hammer on concrete or steel would make you wonder if your watch still works. The response of a dead blow mallet on the square end of a big oak log is my goal.

I have used semi compressible 3M materials in channels before because after their initial heat and pressure movement, they form a firm shell. When I remove a barreled action that bond - that is not from adhesive, which I’d never use, resists separation, and the more so the better. That firm contact will also result in the barrel not “ringing” if you rap knuckles anywhere along its length, as if knocking on a door. Hold a rifle vertical with the other hand by the forearm, and you can both hear and distinctly feel the vibrations, otherwise, when rapping on a barrel, especially a 1.25 straight.

 

[davidjoe]

I have three 52D's and one 40XB, all have tuning screws in the fore end. What I've found with my rifles is that they don't like the same amount of tension on the screws every time, even using the same lots of ammo. I would test and find a setting that shot very well, then the next time out it would not shoot consistent.

I think part of what’s going on there is that the stocks are solid pieces of wood. The pressure might be in tune, then later, in completely different weather it’s slightly more or less, even differing side to side. Bedding back then was stressed, whereas these days many composite or metallic stocks marginally or don’t gain from it.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Just talking for the moment Rimfre, the thinnest barrel I’ll shoot in matches is a factory class Ruger 77/22.

View attachment 1248626

I have one Remington 40-X with a thinner barrel than is typical. It does shoot very well. I have not ascertained whether that is a factory original. It is also shorter than my other 40-X .22’s

View attachment 1248627

Then there is the “typical” and what I’d call heavy .22 rimfire barrel. This barrel is similar to the heaviest model 52’s.

View attachment 1248628

All of these barrels, which wouldn’t be considered exactly “light” on a centerfire rifle, are especially rigid in the application of Rimfre.

I see .22 RF group size as a function of only these things:

1) shot to shot variations in the load (its encompassing meaning);

2) the environment changing;

3) the condition of the interior of the barrel;

4) the rifle moving differently shot to shot;

5) the rifle’s barrel vibrating differently shot to shot.

Take the tunnel tests of Eley and Lapua for example. They virtually eliminate 2&4 (tunnel and mounted action jig).

They consider 3 to be the fixed “given” and inalterable, and try to isolate number 1 with at least most if not all of your free floated barrel touching nothing, necessary to resemble most rifles. Number 1 (which they judge by group size) is going to depend in part on number 5.

Now imagine as a thought experiment that instead of free floating the barrel, they took a 500 pound 18 inch thick butcher block table as the base to secure 6 barrel vices in row, put some leather in each vice and carefully torqued down your barrel, the action too for good measure.

This would clearly eliminate number 5. To my thinking, your barreled action can never shoot “more transparently” - leaving only the load to speak for itself, than it can when it doesn’t move or vibrate at all. It is difficult to argue against the principle that the most accurate rifle possible - would be a rifled hole through the middle of a huge cube of steel.

What do these analogies have to do with plausible rifles? I think that moving toward a concept that is intrinsically valid in absolute terms, some dampening, is better than than no dampening, i.e., free floating.

It’s technically harder to set up the stock to dampen the barrel without overdoing it and stressing parts, than free floating is. And it might not show a benefit on paper at relevant distances of some matches because our barrels have already gotten thick enough to greatly resist resonance. But I believe it is nevertheless a step in the direction of a valid accuracy ideal.

I been to Lapua in Mesa twice. first time my custom Falcon was clamped by the barrel and produced a 12.14mm @50m and a 18.54mm @ 100m 10-shot group. the rifle was in all sense un-tuned due to being clamped by the barrel. when put back in the stock, which I bedded and designed to ring and have maximum barrel movement( fully floated) it shot a 10-shot group with the same lot of CX outside in natural conditions of 8.63mm
tuning rim fires is about barrel timing or more correctly bullet exiting timing, dampening has some effect, but barrel movement is key to bullet exit timing. so to kill that movement will also narrow or close that exit timing. you may get it to shoot with certain lots but those would be under certain conditions, such as warm temps or cooler temps. but really couldn't produce same results at anytime.

getting back to the Falcon I mentioned this same rifle when shot off a rest when tested again at Lapua the second time, got a 11.68mm @50m at the time it had a mid-barrel tuner which when removed and the barrel retuned again using the same lot of CX that produced the 11.68mm group shot outside got a 20-shot group of 9.22mm at 50yds. by removing the mid-barrel tuner I freed up the barrel's movement and got better timing.

What you mentioned about going to thicker barrels to dampen or remove barrel movement would work to some degree but to truly see how well a rifle or barrel in this case will shoot you need barrel movement.
free-floating is the only way at this time I know of to get that barrel movement timing.
Lee

 

[davidjoe]

You raise a good point, Lee. With Rimfre, you can’t make your own loads as in centerfire and some versatility, (tunability) to maximize the performance of a brick of rounds is a good thing. I can see that. I follow your thought that an unyielding rifle might sometimes find its ideally suited load and shoot great but other times be unable to improve on the lot it was dealt.

 

[davidjoe]

Does anyone have an idea how many Rimfire 40-X’s were manufactured?

It seems that 40-X’s are consecutively numbered under that model regardless of chamber.

None of my Rimfire 40-X’s are anywhere near the end of the production line. Any idea when they shut that chamber down?

It seems to be to that maybe half of all the 40-X’s were made in the first decade or so, and then it took much of the 70’s to 00’s to make the same number again.

Is that far off? I’m basing it on the range of serial numbers and appearance of the rifles I’ve seen.

 

[Phil McGrath]

Hhmm, maybe this will shine a little light or not? 40x production was never continuous they built X amount of rifles in the custom shop and it took as long as it took. I’ve heard that on avg that only about 500 or less rifles were made a year? I don’t know if that total rifle’s combined or just CF or RF?

Don’t forget this was Remington’s flagship target rifle, I know centerfire rifles were Target tested and the test target and load data was sometimes supplied to the original buyer but I’ve also heard test targets didn’t alway make it into the box and I don’t know if the same information was done with rimfire rifles.

 

[MrG52D]

I picked up a Remington 40-X in 22 LR today at the Tulsa Wanenmacher show. Not the most knowledgeable on the 40-x rifles, what is the main difference in the U.S. marked rifles and the others? Or is there? Mine looks like a Govt. rifle but it has no markings. Its the full bull barrel in the dark oil finished stock. I looked on line to find out when it was made and the differences but didn't have much luck so I thought I would ask here. I think I got a good one, metal is nice and the stock is in very good shape as well. I got home early and stuck a scope on it, headed to the range and put some rounds through it just for testing function and its a shooter, I had some wind but it still shot very respectable groups at 50 yds,

There is little difference between the U.S. marked one verses the commercial versions. The stock was the major difference, it was oil finished and was equipped with sling swivels. Yours could be a CMP rifle, as all of them were not marked U.S. Property, or USMC, same goes for the Winchester 52’s.
Most of the early 40X marked U.S. Property and the USMC’s were standard barrels, were as the 40XB’s were heavy barrels. I am not a 40X expert, but have owned several of them.

 

[PWNolan]

Does anyone have an idea how many Rimfire 40-X’s were manufactured?

It seems that 40-X’s are consecutively numbered under that model regardless of chamber.

None of my Rimfire 40-X’s are anywhere near the end of the production line. Any idea when they shut that chamber down?

It seems to be to that maybe half of all the 40-X’s were made in the first decade or so, and then it took much of the 70’s to 00’s to make the same number again.

Is that far off? I’m basing it on the range of serial numbers and appearance of the rifles I’ve seen.

From The Remington Rimfire Rifles Book by John Gyde and Roy Marcott. These figures are just the 40-XB Target Rifles. It does not include the 40X-XB Sporters, 40-XR Position Rifles, International Free Rifles, or 40X-XR-BR Benchrest Rifles

• Model 40X-S1 - 12,346 sold between 1955 and 1975
• Model 40XB-S1 - 8 sold between 1978 and 1989
• Model 40X-S2 - 1,163 sold between 1955 and 1974
• Model 40X-H1 - 12,670 sold between 1955 and 1975
• Model 40X-H2 - 2,517 sold between 1955 and 1975

So 28,704 40-XB Target Rifles total

 

[davidjoe]

From The Remington Rimfire Rifles Book by John Gyde and Roy Marcott. These figures are just the 40-XB Target Rifles. It does not include the 40X-XB Sporters, 40-XR Position Rifles, International Free Rifles, or 40X-XR-BR Benchrest Rifles

• Model 40X-S1 - 12,346 sold between 1955 and 1975
• Model 40XB-S1 - 8 sold between 1978 and 1989
• Model 40X-S2 - 1,163 sold between 1955 and 1974
• Model 40X-H1 - 12,670 sold between 1955 and 1975
• Model 40X-H2 - 2,517 sold between 1955 and 1975

So 28,704 40-XB Target Rifles total

Great information, thank you for sharing it. I would not have guessed that number of 40X rimfires were made, and that’s not even the entirety of them.

Seems to be almost half of the number of 40-X’s I estimated to have been made. I believe a late model I have was in the mid or high 60k serial number range.

I wasn’t aware of that book. I have two sporter rimfire 40-X’s and six heavy barrel versions, one being glued into one of the international version stocks. I use them all and a few in monthly matches.

It is much easier to find center fire 40-X’s for sale and I have many more of them than rimfires, and that’s mainly why I would have estimated the .22’s to be maybe 5-10% of the total. Apparently they are much more than that, but perhaps more loved, and rarely listed.

There is something endearing about a .22 LR barrel lasting as long as the rest of the gun will. I’m in that group that doesn’t often see that happen.

 

[butchlambert]

What do I have?

 

[davidjoe]

Stripper clip fed repeater. I have those. Badger makes the king-of-rails picatinny for those actions with lugs that sink into both front and rear recesses. That is the taller rail in use on the actual sniper rifles at the base in Georgia and in the field.

For reasons only known to Badger, they are not a drop in fit, and further the rear is flat instead of conformal to the contour of the action, so it’s a JB Weld mandatory bedding finish.

I have mounted three of these with the rule being the action stays as-is. It’s very frustrating because the Badger front must be ground along the entire semicircle and you must take into account where the front and rear material being removed is going to place the screw holes. It is a waste of the lugs to take so much off the front and back that the rail can slide back and forth until the holes align, but doing it the right way where a tap in fit has aligned holes guarantees you aren’t parting with that gun, as you’ve spent half a day in the life, together.

Remington’s top fed slots couldn’t be used with a scope, and iron sight shooting hasn’t been friendly to loading magazines. I don’t really know what the intended application out the world was.

 

[butchlambert]

Stripper clip fed repeater. I have those. Badger makes the king-of-rails picatinny for those actions with lugs that sink into both front and rear recesses. That is the taller rail in use on the actual sniper rifles at the base in Georgia and in the field.

For reasons only known to Badger, they are not a drop in fit, and further the rear is flat instead of conformal to the contour of the action, so it’s a JB Weld mandatory bedding finish.

I have mounted three of these with the rule being the action stays as-is. It’s very frustrating because the Badger front must be ground along the entire semicircle and you must take into account where the front and rear material being removed is going to place the screw holes. It is a waste of the lugs to take so much off the front and back that the rail can slide back and forth until the holes align, but doing it the right way where a tap in fit has aligned holes guarantees you aren’t parting with that gun, as you’ve spent half a day in the life, together.

Remington’s top fed slots couldn’t be used with a scope, and iron sight shooting hasn’t been friendly to loading magazines. I don’t really know what the intended application out the world was.

I know that it a stripper clip repeater, but what is it? The barrel has the Remington roll stamp with address and 308 caliber. It has no proof marks or the number code to date it.

 

[davidjoe]

I know that it a stripper clip repeater, but what is it? The barrel has the Remington roll stamp with address and 308 caliber. It has no proof marks or the number code to date it.

I have looked at most of my Remington and Custom Shop barrels and I don’t see any that lack proof marks. Only one of them, out of the custom shop lacks a date code.

None of my repeaters have that “U. S.” engraving over the serial number. The roll stamp on the barrel with an address is completely novel to me for a 40-X. I don’t have any that are either roll stamped, or include the address.

 

[butchlambert]

This is all that is on the barrel.

 

[davidjoe]

Ok, that barrel is similar to the one I have that lacks the date stamp on a custom shop 40X, late 90’s. Mine was definitely engraved and had the typical cone contour. But the serial number of the action puts it in area of the 1970’s.

My stripper clip repeaters are in the 60k serial number range and still look old. Your action markings do not look old to me. The 40-X looks different in fact, a bit compressed lengthwise and smaller X. The Action apart from the US actually looks like the RR era.

Something is odd. Your gun looks cerakoated and I’m wondering what the appearance was at that time. I imagine that these stripper clip guns were thought to be usable by the military but none of mine say US. That US mark does not look to be a later added addition.

Possibly the rifle is something provided in low quantity in the Vietnam era for sniper use or training.

The US is centered over the serial number, so that looks legitimate.

 

[RGRobinett]

From what era is the 40X pictured in post #26? BTW, it has the [so called] "tuning" screws, which are click adjustable. I've been told that the screws were used to fine-tune the sight-in (ZERO) as opposed to obtaining smaller groups - anyone know, "the rest of the story'? RG

 

[1911nut]

From what era is the 40X pictured in post #26? BTW, it has the [so called] "tuning" screws, which are click adjustable. I've been told that the screws were used to fine-tune the sight-in (ZERO) as opposed to obtaining smaller groups - anyone know, "the rest of the story'?

I found this which is supposed to be from a 40 X manual.

”Here's a quote from a 40X manual. "BARREL CONTACT The receiver is assembled to the stock at the factory to maintain a free floating barrel. If desired to control the vibration of the barrel when firing, the two bedding screws in the front section of the stock may be used. Detents are provided to hold any re-adjustment and the bedding screws are also adaptable for use with electrical bedding devices."

I read continuity meters were used to determine the screw contact with the barrel.

 

[PWNolan]

I found this which is supposed to be from a 40 X manual.

”Here's a quote from a 40X manual. "BARREL CONTACT The receiver is assembled to the stock at the factory to maintain a free floating barrel. If desired to control the vibration of the barrel when firing, the two bedding screws in the front section of the stock may be used. Detents are provided to hold any re-adjustment and the bedding screws are also adaptable for use with electrical bedding devices."

I read continuity meters were used to determine the screw contact with the barrel.

Most people back those screws out and forget about them

 

[RGRobinett]

I found this which is supposed to be from a 40 X manual.

”Here's a quote from a 40X manual. "BARREL CONTACT The receiver is assembled to the stock at the factory to maintain a free floating barrel. If desired to control the vibration of the barrel when firing, the two bedding screws in the front section of the stock may be used. Detents are provided to hold any re-adjustment and the bedding screws are also adaptable for use with electrical bedding devices."

I read continuity meters were used to determine the screw contact with the barrel.

Roger this ^^^ - following establishing contact via ohm meter, I messed with screw tension, finding no happiness. So, I purchased a Harrell's tuner, which turned the rifle into something useful. I'm more curious about when it was made. Thank you. RG

 

[barefooter56]

Just talking for the moment Rimfre, the thinnest barrel I’ll shoot in matches is a factory class Ruger 77/22.

View attachment 1248626

I have one Remington 40-X with a thinner barrel than is typical. It does shoot very well. I have not ascertained whether that is a factory original. It is also shorter than my other 40-X .22’s

View attachment 1248627

Then there is the “typical” and what I’d call heavy .22 rimfire barrel. This barrel is similar to the heaviest model 52’s.

View attachment 1248628

All of these barrels, which wouldn’t be considered exactly “light” on a centerfire rifle, are especially rigid in the application of Rimfre.

I see .22 RF group size as a function of only these things:

1) shot to shot variations in the load (its encompassing meaning);

2) the environment changing;

3) the condition of the interior of the barrel;

4) the rifle moving differently shot to shot;

5) the rifle’s barrel vibrating differently shot to shot.

Take the tunnel tests of Eley and Lapua for example. They virtually eliminate 2&4 (tunnel and mounted action jig).

They consider 3 to be the fixed “given” and inalterable, and try to isolate number 1 with at least most if not all of your free floated barrel touching nothing, necessary to resemble most rifles. Number 1 (which they judge by group size) is going to depend in part on number 5.

Now imagine as a thought experiment that instead of free floating the barrel, they took a 500 pound 18 inch thick butcher block table as the base to secure 6 barrel vices in row, put some leather in each vice and carefully torqued down your barrel, the action too for good measure.

This would clearly eliminate number 5. To my thinking, your barreled action can never shoot “more transparently” - leaving only the load to speak for itself, than it can when it doesn’t move or vibrate at all. It is difficult to argue against the principle that the most accurate rifle possible - would be a rifled hole through the middle of a huge cube of steel.

What do these analogies have to do with plausible rifles? I think that moving toward a concept that is intrinsically valid in absolute terms, some dampening, is better than than no dampening, i.e., free floating.

It’s technically harder to set up the stock to dampen the barrel without overdoing it and stressing parts, than free floating is. And it might not show a benefit on paper at relevant distances of some matches because our barrels have already gotten thick enough to greatly resist resonance. But I believe it is nevertheless a step in the direction of a valid accuracy ideal.

Don't forget the TYPE AND LOT of that ammunition.