Are Comp Ports Wasted on .22 Pistols?

[Rule3]

Obviously, you missed the whole point completely. No mention on my part concerning improved "accuracy" , and the expanding gas jetting upward helps to improve with quicker recovery for the next target acquisition. Muzzle flip, is there to some extent, even on my Ruger Mark II with the 10-inch barrel, which was proven in my Ransom Rest to be there:

View attachment 985529

Must be why some speed shooting events discern classes between no compensators, and those with compensators. Whatever the explanation involves and results involved are, there will be some who just can't grasp the end result unless they do some testing and experimenting of their own. Have you ever done any actual testing yourself? If you have, please post your actual results.

Well excuse me.
OK you proved beyond a shadow of a piece of tape that gas comes out the holes. Bravo.!

You now added:
"Muzzle flip, is there to some extent, even on my Ruger Mark II with the 10-inch barrel, which was proven in my Ransom Rest to be there"

Nice pictures.

 

[243winxb]

Muzzle flip, 10" barrel, bullets barrel time.

When shooting 1 handed, i have to wonder if a 5.5" bbl is more accurate then a 10"? Bullet exits sooner with the 5.5" barrel. Less follow thru needed

In the 70s short 20" barrel Benchrest rifles were thought to produce better groups then 26". The bullet had less barrel time.

Thoughts?

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Muzzle flip, 10" barrel, bullets barrel time.

When shooting 1 handed, i have to wonder if a 5.5" bbl is more accurate then a 10"? Bullet exits sooner with the 5.5" barrel. Less follow thru needed

In the 70s short 20" barrel Benchrest rifles were thought to produce better groups then 26". The bullet had less barrel time.

Thoughts?

I think you nailed it, and those are my thoughts, but slightly different. Involving ALL of the accuracy testing I've done using Ruger Mark pistol barrels of all lengths available, and some lengths NOT available, from the factory, with all the Ruger Mark pistols I own, the 10-inch versions prove to be the most accurate when testing all those barrel lengths in my Ransom Rest with the very same .22 rimfire ammunition involving the very same lot #'s. I try to avoid any serious testing when I, me, myself, without any personal assistance, shoot my pistols, so by using the Ransom Rest, pretty much all of the human influence has been left out. Then, when I do shoot, with one, or both hands, I will then try my best to emulate the groups accomplished by that particular pistol when set up in the rest. At least, that's my intent.

My theory involving accuracy in the various barrel lengths is based on the longer time the bullet is engaged with the 1:16 rifling twist in the longer barrel, therefore, once the bullet hits free-flight it's more stable and has better gyroscopic stability than a bullet from a shorter barrel. Both of my Ruger Mark II 10-inch versions shoot with the same accuracy (tighter groups) as each other with the same .22 rimfire ammunition when tested at 35 meters in my Ransom Rest. The Ruger Mark pistols with 4 and 5 ½ inch barrels do not shoot the tighter groups as the 10-inch barrels because the bullets are not getting the same advantage of being engaged with the rifling twist as those same bullets in the much longer barrels, all other things being equal, except for the length of time engage with the rifling. If anyone has actual proof different, let's read about it, and show the proof. I'm always willing to learn from others experiences and not some WAG.

If there's one .22 rimfire manufacturer that I would give loads of credit to, it's CCI. One only needs to look at the plethora of .22 rimfire ammunition these folks have come up with since the half black powder and half smokeless powder (LESMOK) was used in the very early days. CCI seems to be working on .22 rimfire ammunition that plays well with 1:16 twist .22 rimfire barrels used in short barrel pistols and then the longer pistol barrels, by using different burning rate coatings and gunpowder types, that work with the various barrel lengths much better. I buy, and try, every new CCI .22 rimfire ammunition that they bring out, if only to see for myself how it will perform in my Ruger Mark pistols, so I just don't bother with any others negative opinions, unless they actually provide differing proof rather than just a bunch of keyboard strokes.

 

[Trashyshoots]

Huge difference. I'm a huge fan of them.

I had a ruger mkiv that was twice the weight of my current volquartsen, and the muzzle rise and flip was considerably less with the volquartsen.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

I don't doubt one bit that the idea of adding weights to the bottom side of any .22 rimfire barrel will help to constrict "muzzle flip" to some measurable degree. Two things I'd like to clear up though:
1) I didn't ADD muzzle flip to any of the posts after my very first. It's plainly mentioned in post #1, but was apparently overlooked.
2) If one were to L@@K closely at the right side of the Ransom Rest, they will be able to observe a rather large coil spring. That spring is there to arrest much of the muzzle flip involved with centerfire ammunition testing. Now, look closely at the frame just above that spring and you will see a red outlined scale with a white pointer. Then move your eyeballs forward a bit more and you will notice a "pad" that the top of part of the rest holding the pistol has a stem that the upper owns and then rests onto the pad. When firing the pistol any rise can then be measured, from the top of the pad to the bottom of the reset stem. The coil spring can be removed to allow lighter recoiling ammunition to cause the muzzle end to flip up more easily. After each shot fired, and a new round chambered, one needs to reset the stem back down onto that pad, so that the muzzle will be pointing to its original intent, so groups can be accurately measured.
Didn't mention this previously, as it's just something I've gotten used to using when employing this mechanical rest.

 

[243winxb]

Run into this old High Standard that's ported & for sale. New to me. Never seen one before. Model S 101 https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=373994

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Run into this old High Standard that's ported & for sale. New to me. Never seen one before. Model S 101 https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=373994View attachment 991362

That is very interesting. Looks like something that the late Jim Clark may have done. I always thought that High Standard had a good idea with barrel swapping and how easy that was done.

 

[Otto]

"Are Comp Ports Wasted on .22 Pistols?"

Would installing dual exhausts on my grandmother’s Camry be a waste?
Would she get to the bingo games any faster?

 

[JCooperfan1911]

Beautiful gun OP. I bet it shoots amazingly well.

I bought one of the new Ruger Mark 4 pistol in the traditional 4” Standard flavor. Even with the simple fixed sights and factory trigger (which is acceptable but not great) it is stunningly accurate and I’m no great shootist with a handgun.

 

[kidneyboy]

I've been experimenting with compensator porting on .22 Long Rifle chambered pistols, off and on, since 1993. A couple of things that I've sorta discovered, for my own concern and knowledge, is that YES, there is enough expanding gas behind a High-Velocity .22 Long Rifle bullet whereby that gas can be put to some use.
The BEST use of that expanding gas, at least as to what I've found, lies in where and how those ports are located above the gas collecting chamber and as to what diameter is most useful to jet that gas upward to counter-act some amount of muzzle flip.

My 22lr race pistol has 2 top ends. One with a 5.7" barrel and a 2 port compensator and 1 with a 5" barrel and no compensator. The compensated barrel has noticeably less muzzle rise and is easier and faster to shoot. It's also a bit more accurate but that probably has more to do with barrel to barrel differences.
The added benefit with the compensator is it keeps the noise back where the timers can pick it up.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

^^^NICE!

 

[lysanderxiii]

I've been experimenting with compensator porting on .22 Long Rifle chambered pistols, off and on, since 1993. A couple of things that I've sorta discovered, for my own concern and knowledge, is that YES, there is enough expanding gas behind a High-Velocity .22 Long Rifle bullet whereby that gas can be put to some use.
The BEST use of that expanding gas, at least as to what I've found, lies in where and how those ports are located above the gas collecting chamber and as to what diameter is most useful to jet that gas upward to counter-act some amount of muzzle flip. This Ruger Mark II pistol is the "crash-test dummy" that I've been using for all of my testing. The muzzle brake has a gas collection chamber that I bored out leaving a side wall thickness of the compensator at 1/16 inch, there are four 1/8 diameter ports at top-dead-center and then four 1/8 diameter ports at 45° on each side of the TDC row and spaced accordingly:

View attachment 985360

This compensator is screwed onto the muzzle end of the barrel, though I doubt you will be able to find the joint.

To seek proof that the venting gas is indeed jetting up and out of those ports forcefully, I first wrapped one layer of painters tape around the muzzle to cover up the ports, and then fired one CCI Mini-Mag, for effect:

View attachment 985361
View attachment 985362

I sorta figured some gas would come out, so then I wrapped two layers of tape in the same manner:

Again, the tape wrap was blown to smithereens. Next attempt involved four wraps of tape, to see if the jetting gases could get through those four wraps. No sweat:

View attachment 985363

All right, the tape doesn't seem to cause any resistance to the expanding gases coming out the ports, so I then tried a playing card wrapped around the brake, along with four wraps of painters tape:

View attachment 985364
View attachment 985526

Well, the whole wrapped affair was blown off the muzzle, again, by the expanding gasses. So, I did learn something here.
#1) Yes, there is some expanding gasses from a .22 Long Rifle CCI Mini-Mag round that will work with a properly ported muzzle compensator.
#2) The ports will work much more effectively when positioned where they'll do the best job. That's in a position where they will help to counteract muzzle flip, on top of the muzzle brake. Ports that go all the way around the compensator work more against one another than they help. And large slots in the side of the compensators don't really do much to quell muzzle flip.
I look at this sorta like water coming straight out of a garden hose, not much pressure involved. Now, once an adjustable nozzle is screwed onto that garden hose and the exiting water is constricted to a smaller diameter, that's where we get pressure and force involved.

A look at the muzzle pressure of a typical .22 LR would tell you that compensators for them are worthwhile. For a 6 inch barrel you have about 6,000 to 8,000 psi to work with

 

[lysanderxiii]

While I have done no testing to verify the theory, suspect there is some basis to support it. Smith & Wesson (possibly High Standard also) felt there was something to gained especially in the rapid fire events. Wonder if the comp didn't help as much as they hoped and that's why weights were added.

View attachment 985545

The barrel weight are there for different reasons. They are there for balance.