40x Rimfire question

[davidjoe]

I wouldn’t pass over a marked trainer or a competition model .22 40-X, priced appropriately. Like an M1 Garand, some of those actual trainers may have seen heavy use, all the way down to none or very little.

I don’t see these ever being made again, so each one is a find.

 

[Pyscodog]

The barrel code on the left side is WAP8 if it helps.

 

[davidjoe]

If those are the first or only letters, then W is August. A was 1932, 1954 and 1980. P I’m unsure of and 8 could mean assembly, what I think relates to an internal Remington record.

If there are letters behind those, then that could be repair stamps Remington added after manufacture.

 

[Pyscodog]

That's all on the left side of the barrel. Thank you for helping!

 

[10XSHOOTER]

MY 40X .22LR. Has Ser#26XXXB. I had to call Remington Custom Shop in Sturgis, SD to find out it was made in 1966. It is polished and knurled bolt handle. the 4 letter on Barrel are WRLB. Mine is marked US above serial number. Also likes Eley 10X

 

[RGRobinett]

The serial number will only give an approx. date. The barrel code is the only way to know month and year.

Butch - acquired this CMP rifle last fall. With Harrell's tuner, it's semi-respectable - bolt ser# matches. What is it?
OK to PM, or, e-mail me if you prefer. RG

 

[XTR]

Mine is a commercial version. It has a serial number below 600 (If I recall correctly when I looked it was 1954ish) with the straight bolt, but it also has an after market barrel. I picked up the barreled action from someone in OH on GB yrs ago. It was a small bore BR shooters backup gun. It shoots better than I can.

 

[davidjoe]

I was born two generations behind my time. To me, they had the Model 52 and 40-X down pat. Harder to make than anything produced today, and still, sooooo good on the line. Imagine, as new.

Here’s the rub, they didn’t free float barrels on the models where they were really chasing accuracy, and for my life I can’t understand why today we eschew that marvelous, convenient dampening device, otherwise known as the forearm.

The serious target Winchester 52 attached the two together with an adjustable steel band. Then patented it. Pulling the barrel stock ward.



Remington on the 40-X couldn’t infringe but they did the next thing, utilizing screws to push the barrel the other way.



Either approach ties two different resonating bodies together which can’t help but dampen vibrations and give us a level of tunability. A modern barrel tuner can change the unit’s resonance, but these old methods cut down on vibrations before they even got that far. They physically absorbed and dissipated much of the energy in waves traveling down the barrel.

Are we smarter, or were they in this regard? I’ll say this about generous free floating of barrels, its bloody easy to do, and to eyeball a rack of rifles from a distance for maintenance, if that’s the goal. But I grew up reading how free floating was better for accuracy, and to my thinking, that possibility if true would have occurred to the people making the 52’s and 40-X’s. I can imagine the new guy on the shop floor, hey I got an idea, what say we skip these steps? By golly now why couldn’t any of us have ever thought of that.

 

[Tim Slater]

...and for my life I can’t understand why today we eschew that marvelous, convenient dampening device, otherwise known as the forearm....

I’ll say this about generous free floating of barrels, its bloody easy to do

Not everyone does. In the position shooting world barrel bedded rifles have reappeared. It started with the Unique X-Concept in 1999, went dormant, then popped back up with the Esprit Carabine alu stock. The new FWB2800 and Pardini FR22 also use dampened barrel rings in the fore-end.

I agree that free-floating was partly an exercise in manufacturing convenience. The big factories were certainly not stupid, but maybe they were more reactive than we think. Perhaps they bedded barrels at (or along) the fore-end because that was what the trade had always done.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

One of the most accurate rifles made during the same period, BSA MK III has a free floated barrel and is considered the more desirable model of all the MK's
so BSA must have known something with free floating barrels

Lee

 

[Tim Slater]

One of the most accurate rifles made during the same period, BSA MK III has a free floated barrel and is considered the more desirable model of all the MK's
so BSA must have known something with free floating barrels

Lee

Lee,

I don't think it wasn't considered the most desirable at the time. I believe that BSA thought the free-floated barrel was a desirable and modern feature. The revised test firing standard suggests they were doing something right. The Mk II had been a success, and BSA expected the same from the Mk III. However, the Mk IV and V went back to bedding the barrel on the fore-end.

Don't get me wrong, Mk IIIs can shoot. But, I don't think smallbore shooters at the time thought it was the best ever. It had the misfortune to be launched around the time that Anschutz were making their name. The Mk III is also pig heavy, with a lot of weight up front. I'm 6'1" and don't find the Mk III comfortable in prone. In contrast, the Mk IV is much nicer.

 

[davidjoe]

I could see the possibility of manufacturers testing both ways and determining that the extra effort to dampen the barrel was not worth the benefits. They could have determined that the process resulted in slight gains but not sufficient to justify the extra complexity in manufacturing. Of course the .1% of buyers that will pay centerfire prices for the best Rimfre match ammo would pay, but a business has to consider whether a feature’s costs helps or hurts sales, more broadly than the core of purists and devotees, which we here basically all are.

It could also be the case that patented or proprietary processes claiming to be “better” tend to dare makers and popular sentiment in our hobby, to prove that such is simply not true. Many patents on the books do deserve skepticism. I recall that same sentiment toward 5R barrels.

Because these methods were adjustable down to neutrality, it can’t be said that they would detract from accuracy, even if improvements were doubted. But, especially the 52 system was a difficult proposition. If the barrel gap was too large, the barrel’s potential droop and stress on the action would become a real issue. If the torqued down barreled action already was pushed upward, then it probably negated the band quite a bit. It had to be “just right” - probably touching just enough the action perceived no weight from the barrel, at the band’s nominal position, and they were dealing with wood.

They both made models concurrently that omitted the extra work, then apparently decided to do so across the board. But, there’s no question that Winchester was slashing costs back then. It always spoke of (complained) of the production costs of the 52. To this day the pre 1964 70’s are what riflemen want. So, it cannot be assumed that the march toward accuracy or absolute quality is always a straight line. Costs present forks in the road.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Lee,

I don't think it wasn't considered the most desirable at the time. I believe that BSA thought the free-floated barrel was a desirable and modern feature. The revised test firing standard suggests they were doing something right. The Mk II had been a success, and BSA expected the same from the Mk III. However, the Mk IV and V went back to bedding the barrel on the fore-end.

Don't get me wrong, Mk IIIs can shoot. But, I don't think smallbore shooters at the time thought it was the best ever. It had the misfortune to be launched around the time that Anschutz were making their name. The Mk III is also pig heavy, with a lot of weight up front. I'm 6'1" and don't find the Mk III comfortable in prone. In contrast, the Mk IV is much nicer.

Tim, All the shooters that I know who shoot BSA MK's always tell me to get the MKIII because of the floated barrel. after going through the non floated MK's they tell me the MK III is the most accurate.
on the other hand I have not known anyone shooting a 40X or 52 with the tuner stock actually tell me it works.
The one thing I learned is that to tune a rifle barrel it needs to have movement to kill the movement will effectively narrow the tuning range or window and be very picky on lot selections.

Lee

 

[davidjoe]

I do hear that thick barrels don’t stand to gain as much from the use of tuners, which is along similar lines to a dampened barrel setup, in relation to the tuner. I can’t see moving away from heavy barrels, though.

I do think free floating limits the weight and length of barrels to what a particular action and the area of stock under it can realistically support rigidly, which would be another benefit of a block or dampened type setup. I’m thinking of actions specifically that use steel inserts in aluminum, but generally all others to a lesser degree, as well.

I can perceive a “solidity” with dampened barrels when I work the bolt that is very apparent and appreciable. Every once in a while a big rifle dampened and bagged in a certain way that seems to happen by chance will just “thud” the same way on firing without ringing, and shoot very well.

 

[Tim Slater]

Tim, All the shooters that I know who shoot BSA MK's always tell me to get the MKIII because of the floated barrel. after going through the non floated MK's they tell me the MK III is the most accurate.

Lee

Lee,
I did say "at the time". Most shooters with a BSA International today, at least in the US I suspect, are shooting from a bench. That makes a difference and totally changes the context of my comments about weight. I'd also question how many of those giving that advice had compared enough Mk II to enough Mk IIIs to make a statistically valid conclusion. I'm sure some speak from a position of real experience. But some might only be able to say that one rifle is better than another, which doesn't automatically translate to all. Were others just assuming that the free-floating is inherently more accurate?

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

I do hear that thick barrels don’t stand to gain as much from the use of tuners, which is along similar lines to a dampened barrel setup, in relation to the tuner. I can’t see moving away from heavy barrels, though.

I do think free floating limits the weight and length of barrels to what a particular action and the area of stock under it can realistically support rigidly, which would be another benefit of a block or dampened type setup. I’m thinking of actions specifically that use steel inserts in aluminum, but generally all others to a lesser degree, as well.

I can perceive a “solidity” with dampened barrels when I work the bolt that is very apparent and appreciable. Every once in a while a big rifle dampened and bagged in a certain way that seems to happen by chance will just “thud” the same way on firing without ringing, and shoot very well.

When you say thick barrels are you talking RF or CF? and what is thick?

Lee

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Lee,
I did say "at the time". Most shooters with a BSA International today, at least in the US I suspect, are shooting from a bench. That makes a difference and totally changes the context of my comments about weight. I'd also question how many of those giving that advice had compared enough Mk II to enough Mk IIIs to make a statistically valid conclusion. I'm sure some speak from a position of real experience. But some might only be able to say that one rifle is better than another, which doesn't automatically translate to all. Were others just assuming that the free-floating is inherently more accurate?

Tim,
I have never seen a non free floated barreled rim fire shoot better than a free floated barreled rim fire. are they inherently more accurate I would say yes, with all things being equal and only difference being floated vs non-floated.
as you know I shoot only BR and use tuners based on what I have seen when someone tells me a non floated barrel will not shoot as good as a floated barrel I have to agree.

Lee

 

[butchlambert]

My Mod 37 that I got from Mike Walker has a thin band around the barrel to put tension on the fore end. I had an after market stock for a mod 37 that had 2 screws in the fore end to push on the barrel.

 

[davidjoe]

When you say thick barrels are you talking RF or CF? and what is thick?

Lee

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



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



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



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.

 

[justinp61]

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. A friend of mine told me to try a piece of inner tube under the barrel instead of using the tuners and my rifles are more consistent now. It took a little testing to find the right thickness (preload) to get them there though.

I put my 40XB in a stock that I refinished, pillared and epoxy bedded the action and recoil lug and so far it's not happy with the rubber under the barrel. I need to remove the rubber and start testing it again. If I cant find a sweet spot it'll go back in the beat up stock it came in.