Difference between heavy and regular barrels for a 22LR?


PDA






BL
October 26, 2008, 04:24 PM
I'm looking at two Mark II rifles from Savage
http://www.savagearms.com/markiif.htm
http://www.savagearms.com/markiifv.htm

It seems like the only difference between them is that one has a heavy barrel and the other does not. Is this going to make a difference when firing a round as small as the 22LR?

If you enjoyed reading about "Difference between heavy and regular barrels for a 22LR?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LemmyCaution
October 26, 2008, 10:00 PM
I've got a varmint barreled Savage MKII. Good rifle. The differences between the two are more than just barrel weight. The F has iron sights, whereas the FV has weaver bases for glass optics. If you want to put glass on the F, it has a standard grooved rimfire receiver. There is no provision to put iron sights on the FV.
Additionally, I find that the varmint barrel is heavy for offhand shooting, but is good and solid prone or from a rest of whatever kind.
If I had the purchase to make over again, I'd go with a MKII FVT, which has the varmint barrel, as well as a good set of iron sights as stock configuration. Not sure what provision, if any, there is for glass on the FVT, though.

kansas45
October 26, 2008, 11:01 PM
BL, don't be afraid to buy either one of these rifles. I have both models & am impressed with the accuracy of each. I mostly use them to practice long range stuff with, (.22 cost less than .308) Usually prone with a bi-pod. I haven't noticed either barrel heating up enough to change th point of impact. Both rifles see 250-400 or so rounds per week.

rangerruck
October 27, 2008, 01:34 AM
straight physics tells us that a stiffer bbl is more accurate than a thinner bbl.
but unless you are demanding of sub moa performance, or shooting benchrest comps, there is not enough of a diff to worry about here, and if you are going to go humping around in the woods, get the lighter one.

Inspector3711
October 27, 2008, 04:29 AM
Lets not forget that on a .22 a heavier barrel reduces felt recoil. This also can increase accuracy... Thick barrels on a .22 can (CAN!) improve accuracy because they are stiffer and they reduce felt recoil... They can also extend your firing session because they take longer to heat up... they also take longer to cool down. I have a Ruger 10/22 that shot 5 shot 1" groups at 50yards. I replaced the factory barrel with a Butler Creek target barrel and now print 10 shot sub half inch groups at 50 yards. I can fire about 30 rounds quickly before the barrel begins to heat up.

Inspector3711
October 27, 2008, 04:33 AM
Lets not forget that on a .22 a heavier barrel reduces felt recoil. This also can increase accuracy... Thick barrels on a .22 can (CAN!) improve accuracy because they are stiffer and they reduce felt recoil... They can also extend your firing session because they take longer to heat up... they also take longer to cool down. Would I want to walk all day with it? Nope... Great from a bench but too heavy for walking and definitely nose heavy.

Beagle-zebub
October 27, 2008, 04:34 AM
Thick barrels on a .22 can (CAN!) improve accuracy because they are stiffer and they reduce felt recoil...

Felt recoil, on a .22? Quoi?

gunnie
October 27, 2008, 07:29 AM
also, anything over 16" is wasted for the pipsqueak 22 LR case's powder capacity.

BUT, most target 22's have long tubes to insure subsonic bullet velocity. this aids in accuracy too.

gunnie

moooose102
October 27, 2008, 08:37 AM
recoil on a 22lr, what recoil? the little nudge that happens is so slight that even my 4 year old daughter isnt affected by it. when the rifle goes bang, she gets this huge grin on her face!

Vern Humphrey
October 27, 2008, 08:38 AM
Heavy barrels on a .22 are there to make for a steadier hold. The greater mass makes for a greater moment of intertia, so they're more resistant to the trembles.

22-rimfire
October 27, 2008, 10:27 AM
I think the choice of barrel should be based on your intended use. If you intend to shoot from a bench all the time, then I'd pick the heavy varmint barrel. If not, I'd go with the regular barrel. I have the Mark II Classic which has a beautiful walnut stock, weaver bases, and no sights on the barrel. It is a real nice rifle!! I just picked it up from layaway this past week.

Unless you shoot or plan to shoot a lot of quick shots on paper, I would go with the plain barrel myself (as I did). The regular barrel gives you more flexibility from plinking to hunting or just carrying it out in the woods comfortably. I think the Savage Mark II is a good value for the money and it priced about the same as the CZ 453. The only heavy barrel 22 I own is on a CZ452. I'm not carrying that rifle out in the woods. I have others including the Savage.

wyocarp
October 27, 2008, 11:43 AM
Lets not forget that on a .22 a heavier barrel reduces felt recoil.

A limbsaver pad would really help that recoil of the .22.

Vern Humphrey
October 27, 2008, 11:49 AM
A limbsaver pad would really help that recoil of the .22.

You need a muzzle brake, too. I recommend one of those for .50 BMG rifles.;)

BL
October 27, 2008, 02:38 PM
First, I want to thank you all for your help. I'm probably going to go with the FV simply because it has the scope bases and I'm not too worried about iron sights. And According to the website the heavy barrel only weighs an extra pound. I don't think it will make that much of a difference between carrying 5 pounds or 6. Thanks again everyone for your insight and knowledge.
BL

SlamFire1
October 27, 2008, 03:42 PM
I would go with the one with the heavy barrel. It weighs 6 lbs. That is not that heavy.

This is after all a rimfire rifle. Ammunition, chamber and barrel are the most accuracy critical items in a rimfire. (assuming the sights are mechanically tight) After that comes things like a trigger, bedding, etc.

I have a couple of Remington 40X small bore target rifles. One is very rare, has a thin barrel, the other, a 40X-B has the standard heavy barrel.

I cannot tell any accuracy difference between the two. The extra weight of the heavy barrel rifle might make the package more accurate as my heartbeat will move it slower.

If you were shooting small bore competitively, especially offhand, a heavy barrel rifle is less twitchy, but not necessarily more accurate.

22-rimfire
October 27, 2008, 05:13 PM
I believe my Mark II Classic weighs 6.5 lbs.

Dookie
October 27, 2008, 10:41 PM
the barrels are identical to one another except the exterior, they will shoot identical to one another until heat becomes a problem, that is where the .920 barrel will take over, the heavy barrel will also make you steadier. A thin barrel will not flex or bend in a 22LR
Longer barrels tend to be more accurate, don't know if I ever saw a 16 or 18 inch barrel at a tournament, 24 is about the standard.

Felt recoil, really?

BL
October 28, 2008, 04:08 AM
My current M4 is very front heavy, and weighs close to 13-15 pounds and I don't have a problem carrying/firing for 6-10 hours at a time.

rangerruck
October 28, 2008, 04:34 AM
uh, yes, physics does tell us this. but don't take my word for it, just look at benchrest comp shooters, shooting 12 lb 22's, with barrel tuners on the front as heavy as a car disc brake.
all bbls , no matter how tiny a cartridge is fired down them, go through a set of laws governed by internal ballistics, a huge field of work that everyone in firearms development put s a ton of research into. Every bbl, goes through bbl whip, as an object moves down it's bore, every bbl also is subject to harmonics, basically the wave created by the projectile passing down the bore. And there are other things as well, such as heat, cooling time, deflection, outside temps, metal core temps, humidity, direct sunlight, wind shear, we can go on, and on. All these things effect bbl accuracy , all of them, on every shot.
A thicker , stiffer bbl, on any weapon, helps to reduce the effects of all these fields of thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, flow dispersion aerodynamics, etc. And the more we can reduce these factors , the more accurate a bbl can be, all things being equal, even with a sloppy chamber, and a sloppy made bore. a fat stiff bbl, can even help a ruger 10.22, God willing, with it's accuracy.

am I saying a thin bbl cannot shoot accurately? Oh contrare, I have several that do, but if I heat them up, or shoot more than about 5 groups in a row, even with 1 minute waiting periods between shots, they will not keep up with my heavy bbl 22's, which I have in Marlin, Savage, Cz , and ruger, and a long bbl pistol by Anschutz

Vern Humphrey
October 28, 2008, 09:07 AM
Longer barrels tend to be more accurate
Longer barrels are not inherently more accurate than short barrels. They give better balance (a muzzle-heavy weapon tends to hold better), have more mass (and hence more heat absorbtion) and if you are using iron sights give a longer sight radius. But in and of themselves, they are not more accurate.

Eyesac
October 28, 2008, 02:23 PM
+1 King...

If you enjoyed reading about "Difference between heavy and regular barrels for a 22LR?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!