barrel length for accuracy in a scoped 22lr shooting from bench?

[243winxb]

Cut and crown where the groove diameter is tightest. So i have read?

 

[Tim Slater]

I do not, but years before the 2013 and, to the best of my knowledge years before any representation of any type of BR version, best guess ‘90-‘91
When this took place, my understanding was the BR-50 was in discussion….not offered yet.
Action, I believe, was not nickel plated but hardened electroless nickel …..was harder than case colored.
This I know because when they came they had the action clamp screws plus a 4-40 set screw that indexed on a barrel flat…..which was glued.
Mine snapped and I had a high end machine shop locally that could only get it out using EDM and then new tap to clean it up. Tool and die guy indicated it was some hard stuff.

Thank you. I'd think it might have been '91, as the earliest 2013 receivers were blued. The advertisement of a nickel finish suggests to me these were production rifles, not prototypes.

Regarding the tuner/tube/weight, I'm not surprised it was considered a tuner. The thicker clamping section is unusually long for an extension tube. Anschutz supplied slip-on weights with the 20xx position rifles, so my first thought is that the heavier tube isn't just for mass/balance as extra rings could do that. At the time Anschutz wete developing the 2013, they were arguably at their peak, having dominated the smallbore world (outside the USSR) for twenty years, and I think wanted the 2013 to be the ultimate 3P rifle.

 

[kevin nevius]

Thank you. I'd think it might have been '91, as the earliest 2013 receivers were blued. The advertisement of a nickel finish suggests to me these were production rifles, not prototypes.

Regarding the tuner/tube/weight, I'm not surprised it was considered a tuner. The thicker clamping section is unusually long for an extension tube. Anschutz supplied slip-on weights with the 20xx position rifles, so my first thought is that the heavier tube isn't just for mass/balance as extra rings could do that. At the time Anschutz wete developing the 2013, they were arguably at their peak, having dominated the smallbore world (outside the USSR) for twenty years, and I think wanted the 2013 to be the ultimate 3P rifle.

Good morning Tim:

Love this conversation, it is right in my wheelhouse! I shot a 2000 series Anschutz action (in position and prone stocks) for over 20 years, it was the first action that made barrel swapping (for the non-gunsmith in the early years) a practical option.

I have one of the original (I believe prototype) blued actions. I'm not sure how to research it, but there can't be many. In the very early 90's I shot an indoor smallbore league in the winter, and a guy I knew had one (and I had been looking ever since).

What's interesting are the changes Anschutz made to these actions through the years (some significant). The configuration of the bottom of the action was originally a cross shape (recoil lug area), and later just a "T". The loading ramp / ejector system was also changed from a rigid "bolted" connection to an angled ejector that pushed the ramp against the tennon (and secured with a spring clip). But the biggest change was the slot at the action clamping screws. In the early actions it stopped at the third clamping screw (making it ineffective as there was no allowance for movement). Later actions have the slot cut past the third screw - giving all three the ability to purchase on the tennon.

There is / was a center setscrew that bore on a flat on the tennon, that I never understood. If you follow Lilja's replacement directions (and tighten it first, with the clamping screws relaxed) it creates a significant pressure point and in testing ruined accuracy, or made it erratic and unpredictable at best. All of us left it out, using only the three clamping screws (which were adequate to secure the barrel, even at low torque values, say 2nm).

I struggled with this action throughout all those years for consistency. I documented action setup meticulously with each barrel, and only on rare occasion could you get documented accuracy to repeat (same barrel, exact same setup, same tuner position and same documented lot of ammunition). Many have said if you get this action to shoot well, leave it completely alone until the barrel / lot is expanded, and I totally agree. The only problem was that this action made it so easy to experiment it was impossible to do.

Regarding accuracy, the action has exceptional ignition and extraction. Clamping screw torque was one of the most significant modifiers, that and tennon diameter. Tennon diameter was critical regarding the clamping screws, the tennon needed to be a light press fit so you got as much contact as possible, and the screws expended as little force as possible to close the gap between the action and tennon. If you bedded the action, variation in the tennon diameter would cause the corner of the action at the clamping screws to "lift", which was never a good thing.

Anyhow, thanks for the conversation.......I have really enjoyed it!

kev

 

[Tim Slater]

Hi Kevin,

Thank you, I'd never noticed that 2013 ejectors changed early on; I'll file away that titbit. I have in mind that Anschutz changed the ejector's spring clip to a screw recently.

I do have one question: have you, or anyone you know of, considered filling in the split in the receiver, and bonding in the barrel? That would lose the quick change facility, but also any stress on the action from torquing around the barrel tenon.

 

[blades]

American rifleman mag , early 90's I think, private person article, shortening barrel 1" at a time from apx 27"? to ? as I can't remember stopping point, perhaps 16". velocity gain each time , below 20" accuracy fell off. ( possible just that barrel) gist of it was that 20" seemed to be the best length velocity vs accuracy in particular test. Shortly after that article appeared Anz did their own test in house ( as reported in same Mag.) and shorter barrels appeared on Anz units- they also had a hollow tube mounted up front. Nothing to do with accuracy or tuning just there to extend Iron sight radius so that the 5 clicks per A36 target ring remained constant .
18xx series Running boar rifle had several weights , removable ,different sizes, not for tuning but for balance to a shooters desire. I have one of these rifles.
Many thought the hollow tube was some sort of tuning device ( gave rise to the name of Bloop Tube- due to the distinctive sound).

 

[PWNolan]

Did I say anything about an issue ?

"That there, friend, is an ammo issue far more likely than a barrel issue."

 

[VLNBYR]

Why waste your time and energy and money fighting a system that doesn't want to work?

 

[Tim Slater]

Shortly after that article appeared Anz did their own test in house ( as reported in same Mag.) and shorter barrels appeared on Anz units- they also had a hollow tube mounted up front. Nothing to do with accuracy or tuning just there to extend Iron sight radius so that the 5 clicks per A36 target ring remained constant .

Yes, that's the 2007/2013 50cm barrel that's been in discussion for the last page.

The extension tube was fitted for maintaining a standard sight base for aiming precision and focal distance, not just sight adjustment. While, there's no written proof that the extension tube has no tuning function, there's equally not that it hasn't, and the design is heavier than one would expect if just for aiming.

 

[TRSR8]

Good morning Tim:

Love this conversation, it is right in my wheelhouse! I shot a 2000 series Anschutz action (in position and prone stocks) for over 20 years, it was the first action that made barrel swapping (for the non-gunsmith in the early years) a practical option.

I have one of the original (I believe prototype) blued actions. I'm not sure how to research it, but there can't be many. In the very early 90's I shot an indoor smallbore league in the winter, and a guy I knew had one (and I had been looking ever since).

What's interesting are the changes Anschutz made to these actions through the years (some significant). The configuration of the bottom of the action was originally a cross shape (recoil lug area), and later just a "T". The loading ramp / ejector system was also changed from a rigid "bolted" connection to an angled ejector that pushed the ramp against the tennon (and secured with a spring clip). But the biggest change was the slot at the action clamping screws. In the early actions it stopped at the third clamping screw (making it ineffective as there was no allowance for movement). Later actions have the slot cut past the third screw - giving all three the ability to purchase on the tennon.

There is / was a center setscrew that bore on a flat on the tennon, that I never understood. If you follow Lilja's replacement directions (and tighten it first, with the clamping screws relaxed) it creates a significant pressure point and in testing ruined accuracy, or made it erratic and unpredictable at best. All of us left it out, using only the three clamping screws (which were adequate to secure the barrel, even at low torque values, say 2nm).

I struggled with this action throughout all those years for consistency. I documented action setup meticulously with each barrel, and only on rare occasion could you get documented accuracy to repeat (same barrel, exact same setup, same tuner position and same documented lot of ammunition). Many have said if you get this action to shoot well, leave it completely alone until the barrel / lot is expanded, and I totally agree. The only problem was that this action made it so easy to experiment it was impossible to do.

Regarding accuracy, the action has exceptional ignition and extraction. Clamping screw torque was one of the most significant modifiers, that and tennon diameter. Tennon diameter was critical regarding the clamping screws, the tennon needed to be a light press fit so you got as much contact as possible, and the screws expended as little force as possible to close the gap between the action and tennon. If you bedded the action, variation in the tennon diameter would cause the corner of the action at the clamping screws to "lift", which was never a good thing.

Anyhow, thanks for the conversation.......I have really enjoyed it!

kev

Always get great color from your posts Kev.
Mine always seemed OK but then, I was shooting against few true customs.
Tommy Meredith stocked and bedded mine.
FWIW, I always used the setscrew very lightly to index then backed it off.
One curiosity that was supplied was the factory “ torque wrench” which had two settings, basically a long allen wrench with two finger grooves. Connected it with rifle standing on ground and when butt raised slightly, torque was reached. Never saw another.
At one point fit a Lilja but it was about same as factory barrel, was the first true “ modded” RFBR rig I ever shot. Thanks……now I feel old.
Anyway have a nice holiday.
P.S. put car in storage yet?

Tim

 

[wsmallwood]

I know it's an old post but most BR rimfire rifles are in the 24-25 inch range. The actual length has little to do with accuracy as far as length alone. Calfee and other gunsmiths I've known let the barrel tell them the best place to chamber and crown. Although not set in stone, the 24-35 inch range seems optimum in most barrels. Calfee once chambered a 28" barrel that was great because his assessment of the barrel was that the 28" inch length was optimum. Even Calfee could fall to the "I can do it again the same way" syndrome and tried to replicate the barrel to no avail. He finally gave up and reassessed and cut to 25.5" approx. His intended customer for that barrel wanted the longer barrel but I got the shorter version for $125. Great barrel.

 

[kevin nevius]

Hi Kevin,

Thank you, I'd never noticed that 2013 ejectors changed early on; I'll file away that titbit. I have in mind that Anschutz changed the ejector's spring clip to a screw recently.

I do have one question: have you, or anyone you know of, considered filling in the split in the receiver, and bonding in the barrel? That would lose the quick change facility, but also any stress on the action from torquing around the barrel tenon.

Thanks for the reply Tim:

Just to clarify, it was the ejector pin / ramp assembly that changed (not the actual extractor / ejector that is a part of the bolt assembly).

And no, I have never heard of anyone doing as you suggest. But if this was the 90's again, you can bet this idea would spawn a whole new line of experimentation! LOL

Have a great Christmas Season,

kev

 

[kevin nevius]

Always get great color from your posts Kev.
Mine always seemed OK but then, I was shooting against few true customs.
Tommy Meredith stocked and bedded mine.
FWIW, I always used the setscrew very lightly to index then backed it off.
One curiosity that was supplied was the factory “ torque wrench” which had two settings, basically a long allen wrench with two finger grooves. Connected it with rifle standing on ground and when butt raised slightly, torque was reached. Never saw another.
At one point fit a Lilja but it was about same as factory barrel, was the first true “ modded” RFBR rig I ever shot. Thanks……now I feel old.
Anyway have a nice holiday.
P.S. put car in storage yet?

Tim

Tim:

Thanks so much, as I get older it doesn't take much to get me rambling on about this stuff!

Using the setscrew to set barrel clock position was probably it's original intention (makes sense). That's all I would use it for, as you mentioned.

And I still have several of the Anschutz "torque wrenches".........which would make one believe they knew torque with these actions would be of some significance (actually, I think they came about and were provided with the round 54's too). I had a prone version of the round 54 that used stacked Belleville washers on the action screws - probably as a means to make action screw tension more consistent?

And yep, the car is on the battery tender as we speak. ODOT has put down a bunch of salt in recent weeks, but this year I was still driving in October (for which I am grateful).

Have a great Christmas Season,

kev

 

[kevin nevius]

Why waste your time and energy and money fighting a system that doesn't want to work?

Great question! (there isn't any reason, especially with the products we are offered today). But these actions in their day offered opportunities nothing else offered.

Ammunition testing and procurement was almost as challenging as today, and the ease with which you could swap barrels with the same rifle gave competitors (for the first time, practically) the ability to take a new approach when chasing ammunition lots. Without test centers, you ordered small quantities of a few lots, waited for good testing conditions, and by the time you were ready to buy someone had already purchased it.

This action allowed people to keep multiple barrels (all proven, tested and documented) then buy as much of a single lot matching a barrel to it. You could have several match barrels finished for the cost of a single case of ammunition, and after a few seasons you had enough documented barrels to start to make the idea more and more practical. Before sponsorship, this is what I did season after season, and I was competitive doing it.

But that's what exposed the vulnerability of this action. In most cases, you just couldn't get it to consistently repeat test data. I would rotate back to a known barrel after testing others, and you were lucky to get back to what you had. We looked at what we thought were all the variables, but we must be overlooking something (that's about the best explanation I have for it). But when you get this action to shoot well, it will shoot with anything.

All the very best,

kev

 

[TRSR8]

I know it's an old post but most BR rimfire rifles are in the 24-25 inch range. The actual length has little to do with accuracy as far as length alone. Calfee and other gunsmiths I've known let the barrel tell them the best place to chamber and crown. Although not set in stone, the 24-35 inch range seems optimum in most barrels. Calfee once chambered a 28" barrel that was great because his assessment of the barrel was that the 28" inch length was optimum. Even Calfee could fall to the "I can do it again the same way" syndrome and tried to replicate the barrel to no avail. He finally gave up and reassessed and cut to 25.5" approx. His intended customer for that barrel wanted the longer barrel but I got the shorter version for $125. Great barrel.

Little to do with accuracy???? How much, I know not but little, I would offer the following.
Even going back to Calfee, I used to talk with him on a fairly regular basis way back when and I’d offer the following.
One attribute of a good barrel, is how fast and how completely it seals a slug in the bore, some seem to take considerably longer than others. The point being, several smiths, now and historic, and Calfee, at least at one point, believe, with length you allow a slug that until it completely seals in the bore often moves toward muzzle in what can be called an “excited” state. As pressure passes peak, it settles down and leaves bore without that issue. It would seem some sooner, some later but with OAL your offs of better results seem to increase.
Frank Tirrell in his articles, I believe, spoke of this as well..
Is it mandatory….tested…..I doubt anybody can conclusively prove than, does it make sense…..I’d tend to believe that in many cases

 

[wsmallwood]

" little to do with accuracy as far as length alone" in other words you just can't say I'm going to use a 20", 22", 24", whatever and expect a great result every time based on length. So, you may have a 20" barrel that is great. So, you try to replicate that, and it may not work very well or not at all. Even Calfee, knowing better, fell victim to that thinking with the 28" barrel.

I was in Calfee's shop many times. I know how he "made accuracy" as he put it. It all started with a barrel blank where he would assess and mark the barrel for chamber and crown, It was a meticulous process but he had done it many times. Usually, the best place for the chamber was approx 2-2.5" from the chamber end and the crown about 1.5". Most finished at about 24" although there were exceptions. I have one that he finished at 22" that is great. Same at the longest one he ever finished for me.

I would guess that you could potentially get good accuracy with a 30" barrel as, as far as that, a 16" barrel. I think Calfee did an experiment where he cut a barrel 1" at a time until it was about 1" long. I don't recall the details but I think it's in his book. So, length as far as length alone will not be the best bet for achieving great accuracy. There's much more to it.

Before anybody throws up a 1" barrel on a rifle. Yes it is illegal and when Calfee first published that article in Precision Shooting Magazine, he received a friendly reminder of that from a BATF agent in Louisville. He immediately turned the short barrel over to them.

 

[patriot54]

Gene Davis built me a mini-palma 40X 22 LR using a Lilja tight bore that is just shy of 30 inches (same sight radius as my long range rifles). It's very accurate. 50 yards - 3 MPH variable wind from 3 o'clock - three shot groups.

 

[Paddyd]

As in any application, you strive for complete powder burn to happen about an inch from the muzzle. It would be nice if 22LR ammo was actually loaded for specific barrel lengths. As it is, choose your poison and find some ammo it likes. I've found my 20" does a fine job tho.

 

[Lynn Brase]

this may not be relevant to your discussion but I have a 54 MS from the early 80's. It came with a 20.5" barrel. It also came with the action wrench with two finger notches for about a 10 lb. and about a 12.5 lb. gun. This seemed to work quite well. I had it set up for just under 10lb. I played with muzzle weight and also put a tube that clamped on. The weight could be moved all the way out to just short of 30 in. I always thought it shot better with the tube and weight on it. A tuner might be fun to play with on this 20.5 in barrel.

 

[patriot54]

this may not be relevant to your discussion but I have a 54 MS from the early 80's. It came with a 20.5" barrel. It also came with the action wrench with two finger notches for about a 10 lb. and about a 12.5 lb. gun. This seemed to work quite well. I had it set up for just under 10lb. I played with muzzle weight and also put a tube that clamped on. The weight could be moved all the way out to just short of 30 in. I always thought it shot better with the tube and weight on it. A tuner might be fun to play with on this 20.5 in barrel.

The Bill Calfee XP100 40X 22 rimfire pistols have 21-22 inch somewhat thin barrels with tuners. The one I shot was extremely accurate.

 

[wsmallwood]

The Bill Calfee XP100 40X 22 rimfire pistols have 21-22 inch somewhat thin barrels with tuners. The one I shot was extremely accurate.

They're not all 21-22 inch. The first one I had was 22" and the one I have now is 24". The shorter/thinner barrel was more for weight than anything as was the entire XP-Rimfire concept as applied to benchrest (The first conversions were for silhouette) due to BR-50 and the weight handicap. You may not have the best target and still win when you get 5%added to your score.