barrel length

[MIKECAMERON]

Sorry mike. I was still speaking "factory class" when I quoted those lengths.
The most popular lengths in rimfire benchrest probably are a bit longer - but they still "require" the use of a tuner, making them behave as if they were longer, to be competitive. Longer barrels have lower natural frequencies thus longer periods of vibration, natural fact of nature - shorter barrels, with tuners, have longer periods of vibration than shorter barrels (of the same profile) without tuners. So even the 23 and 25" barrels are having to be made to "act longer" to be competitive.

That may be Vibe but if you are insinuating that a 30 inch barrel will shoot competitively without a tuner that just isn't so.And I know that Calfee has made a long barrel shoot without a tuner but that is not a normal thing.I shoot a 27 1/2 inch barrel but it still requires a tuner and every other long barrel I have seen in the past 4 years has as well.Now maybe back in the ancient days there was a gunsmith who could make one shoot.......I don't believe for one second that anything back in the past could come close to being competitive today, now I could be wrong but I am from Missouri if you know what I mean.

Mike Cameron<------not an alias

 

[Vibe]

That may be Vibe but if you are insinuating that a 30 inch barrel will shoot competitively without a tuner that just isn't so.And I know that Calfee has made a long barrel shoot without a tuner but that is not a normal thing.I shoot a 27 1/2 inch barrel but it still requires a tuner and every other long barrel I have seen in the past 4 years has as well.Now maybe back in the ancient days there was a gunsmith who could make one shoot.......I don't believe for one second that anything back in the past could come close to being competitive today, now I could be wrong but I am from Missouri if you know what I mean.

Mike Cameron<------not an alias

You might actually BE from Missouri, but you argue like you've spent time in Washington DC. But if you want to continue to disagree with things I haven't said, go ahead. You don't even need any of my input to do that though.

 

[MIKECAMERON]

You might actually BE from Missouri, but you argue like you've spent time in Washington DC. But if you want to continue to disagree with things I haven't said, go ahead. You don't even need any of my input to do that though.

Yes you did say that we shoot short barrels with tuners that make them shoot "like longer heavier" barrels which insinuates the longer heavier barrels shoot without a tuner, that is exactly what you said .If you weren't insinuating that then you really don't know how a short barrel with a tuner shoots because there isn't a longer heavier barrel without a tuner that can shoot as good as a short barrel with a tuner, that is a fact.Methinks it is you who are trying to be somewhat Washingtonian.

Mike Cameron<-----my real name

 

[bill larson]

Civil Discussions

I believe .....as long ago previously discussed...... if real names were required.....more respectful conversasions would be the result..............
bill larson

 

[MIKECAMERON]

Mr Larson

I believe .....as long ago previously discussed...... if real names were required.....more respectful conversasions would be the result..............
bill larson

I AGREE 100%, I Just dont understand why so many hide behind aliases.
Mike Cameron <------my real name

 

[Vibe]

I AGREE 100%, I Just dont understand why so many hide behind aliases.
Mike Cameron <------my real name

The United States Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission that the First Amendment protects our right to be anonymous:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

Besides. It's not like you don't know who I am.

Vibe<------NOT my real name

 

[MIKECAMERON]

Besides. It's not like you don't know who I am.

Vibe<------NOT my real name

I have no idea who you are.

Mike Cameron<------not an alias

P.S. that ruling was in regard to ELECTIONS, not speech on a forum if the site required you to post under your real name you would have to comply.

 

[Vibe]

I have no idea who you are.

Mike Cameron<------not an alias

P.S. that ruling was in regard to ELECTIONS, not speech on a forum if the site required you to post under your real name you would have to comply.

Oh well. If it was good enough for "Publius".
Forums can really only require that you post under what "sounds like" a real name. I could post under the name on my birth certificate, or under the alias "Mike Cameron" - and in any case you would still only know EXACTLY the same things about me - those things that could be deduced from what I post. So you would not gain much, if anything at all from such a pseudo requirement, and if it prevented posting at all, would in fact have lost much of what would have otherwise been available. Granted, what I post is of little use to those who would rather be spoon fed, but I don't have much interest in whether it's of use to them or not. So it's a mutual thing.

 

[linekin]

Ok, earlier it was said that between 23 & 25 in was the norm. Why did that change from say 27 or 28 in barrels of say the 37's, 40x's, & 52's which ruled in their day? Was there a change in the ammo manfufacturing process? Did the new actions coming out dictate this?I'm curious as to why?
Also when a barrel is made would one see something that would tell them it should have been longer or perhaps take some off. In testing for instance?
I also have a slugging question but that may be another thread.
Keith

 

[Charles E]

Ok, earlier it was said that between 23 & 25 in was the norm. Why did that change from say 27 or 28 in barrels of say the 37's, 40x's, & 52's which ruled in their day?

Well, as a 1957-1963 shooter of several 52s, and against the 37s (don't remember any 40-X), it was because of the longer sight radius. Iron sights, don't you know. Any little thing helped, and iron sights weren't as good in those days as now.


EDIT: Though having said that, my Titherington-smithed 52 had a 24-inch barrel. Here's some of George Titherington's work from the 1930s... http://home.comcast.net/~dsweinrich/


RE the diatribes on this thread:

I remember a rather argumentative thread about humidity and powder burning, where an engineer kept insisting that humidity didn't matter. Problem was, many of us VV N-133 shooters (southerners all, as was the engineer), found that when humidity dropped below a certain number, we had to up the charge -- significantly -- to restore tune.

Engineer got mad an left BR Central. The difference, as I see it, was we quoted numbers and gave test conditions. If humidity dropped below 70%, as measured on a Radio Shack meter, you had to increase the charge roughly one grain, EVERY TIME. It was a observed, repeatable phenomena, just the stuff for science (and eventually, engineering) to have to explain. If it wasn't humidity (not causation), the correlation still has to be explained.

Don't see that here. "Some longer barrels shot better" Or so some remember. Well, what happens if you cut them off? Do they all shoot worse? Some worse & some better?

Nobody wants to risk a set of barrels, or pay for new ones to test? Then it's going to just be another my dad can beat your dad argument.

 

[tim]

Ok, earlier it was said that between 23 & 25 in was the norm. Why did that change from say 27 or 28 in barrels of say the 37's, 40x's, & 52's which ruled in their day? Was there a change in the ammo manfufacturing process? Did the new actions coming out dictate this?I'm curious as to why?
Also when a barrel is made would one see something that would tell them it should have been longer or perhaps take some off. In testing for instance?
I also have a slugging question but that may be


It's likely a combination of a few things. First, in the modern age we shoot stainless match barrels that come from blanks that when trimmed yield practical max lengths of 24"-25". Secondly, these lengths yield optimum weight for class restrictions. Lastly the guns you mentioned generally were shot slinged up without balance considerations but having something barrel heavy assisting steady position hold. Today good balance between the bags is more important. So really, any and all of these.

 

[tim]

Well, as a 1957-1963 shooter of several 52s, and against the 37s (don't remember any 40-X), it was because of the longer sight radius. Iron sights, don't you know. Any little thing helped, and iron sights weren't as good in those days as now.


EDIT: Though having said that, my Titherington-smithed 52 had a 24-inch barrel. Here's some of George Titherington's work form the 1930s...http://home.comcast.net/~dsweinrich/


RE the diatribes on this thread:

I remember a rather argumentative thread about humidity and powder burning, where an engineer kept insisting that humidity didn't matter. Problem was, many of us VV N-133 shooters (southerners all, as was the engineer), found that when humidity dropped below a certain number, we had to up the charge -- significantly -- to restore tune.

Engineer got mad an left BR Central. The difference, as I see it, was we quoted numbers and gave test conditions. If humidity dropped below 70%, as measured on a Radio Shack meter, you had to increase the charge roughly one grain, EVERY TIME. It was a observed, repeatable phenomena, just the stuff for science (and eventually, engineering) to have to explain. If it wasn't humidity (not causation), the correlation still has to be explained.

Don't see that here. "Some longer barrels shot better" Or so some remember. Well, what happens if you cut them off? Do they all shoot worse? Some worse & some better?

Nobody wants to risk a set of barrels, or pay for new ones to test? Then it's going to just be another my dad can beat your dad argument.

Remember Charles, target gun barrels have gone through an interesting evolution since the late 19th century. Then the prevailing match shooting was offhand, Scheutzen derived single shot guns with heavy barrels usually 30" long for steady holds. With the fading of the old style and the advent of "military" style match shooting it was learned shorter barrels with less stress over long matchs a balance evolved and production capabilities became bigger drivers as well.

 

[Charles E]

Uh, I'm kinda with you, Tim, except for being put in the 19th century... I would note that even in 1963, (middle of the 20th century) with our "military style" smallbore matches, you won overall with your offhand scores. All were either 3- or 4-position matches.

* * *

There may be a way to test barrel length without destruction. A fixture using a barrel block & no other contact with the "stock" should allow, effectively, to make the barrel "shorter" without cutting it off. Edit: Scope to be mounted on the block, not the receiver.

As long as it is all a guess, I imagine that tuning will be just as possible with the shorter barrel, though the weighs needed may be different. I would also imagine that accuracy would be the same with long & short barrel -- except it is probably easier to make an accurate short barrel, so the frequencey of "good ones" would be higher. Just a guess, though.

 

[linekin]

The sight radius & weight explanations make sense to me Especially weight for off hand shooting as I prefer a heavy rifle. Heavier the better!
Thanks Tim & Charles.
Keith

 

[tim]

Uh, I'm kinda with you, Tim, except for being put in the 19th century... I would note that even in 1963, (middle of the 20th century) with our "military style" smallbore matches, you won overall with your offhand scores. All were either 3- or 4-position matches.

* * *

There may be a way to test barrel length without destruction. A fixture using a barrel block & no other contact with the "stock" should allow, effectively, to make the barrel "shorter" without cutting it off. Edit: Scope to be mounted on the block, not the receiver.

As long as it is all a guess, I imagine that tuning will be just as possible with the shorter barrel, though the weighs needed may be different. I would also imagine that accuracy would be the same with long & short barrel -- except it is probably easier to make an accurate short barrel, so the frequencey of "good ones" would be higher. Just a guess, though.

OK, we should bump you to pre WWII 20th century. My reference, as I suspect you know was the guns. Even though modern matches may have been determined by offhand, the point was the early guns needed to do one thing, over time it became several, including avoiding exhaustion.

 

[kevinnevius]

That may be Vibe but if you are insinuating that a 30 inch barrel will shoot competitively without a tuner that just isn't so.And I know that Calfee has made a long barrel shoot without a tuner but that is not a normal thing.I shoot a 27 1/2 inch barrel but it still requires a tuner and every other long barrel I have seen in the past 4 years has as well.Now maybe back in the ancient days there was a gunsmith who could make one shoot.......I don't believe for one second that anything back in the past could come close to being competitive today, now I could be wrong but I am from Missouri if you know what I mean.

Mike Cameron<------not an alias

Mike:

Using smallbore prone as an example (it was here long before rimfire BR became popular, thru the "golden age" of paperbox Tenex), it could be argued that we are no more advanced (from an accuracy standpoint) than we were all those years ago. Most of the records set in the 60's and 70's still stand, in spite of the technical advancement in current equipment and ammunition - most of these records set with long, naked barrels using nothing but good gunsmithing and careful ammunition selection. Mr. Calfee was unfortunately not the first to discover a long barrel might shoot well.

Take for instance Mary Stidworthy's 50m anysight record, set in 1975 (400-40x, with an additional 145 consecutive x's), outdoors, in conditions. Personally, I would love to see our best BR shooters take a run at this from the bench. I am surly not saying it would be impossible to break, but you and I might be in a nursing home before it happens! LOL

The advantages of the use of a tuner are not lost in prone shooting, most of the top shooters use them in various configurations. They also utilize the best BR smiths, test as diligently at the manufacturers facilities (or on their own), and use the same barrels found in BR (the influence of BR on the sport has been dramatic)...........yet still these 40 year old records stand. I think (as you do) that we are well beyond the potential of those days, but considering some of the data, are we really?

In many years of building competitive prone rifles, I have on rare occasion found one that was competitive when initially tested - before any tuner or sight extension tube is added. I believe that it would be possible (although highly labor intensive) to set back the crown incrementally and eventually find a node (otherwise the above scenario would be impossible). And I don't believe the Stidworthy's used any gravity defying lapping (nor do I).

Food for thought, thanks for the post,

kev

 

[Dave S]

How did a simple post about barrel length turn into a pissing match.. Makes me wonder about the mentality of some of the members.... Some of you need to put your "big boy" pants on...

Dave

 

[Slick Willy]

thanks Kev!

Kevin sometimes I forget about the Stidworthys accomplishments,I have George`s two 37`s that Karl Kenyon built for him ,I have not even shot them since I got them in 2012. Do you have any Idea what rifle Mary shot that record with?

 

[kevinnevius]

Kevin sometimes I forget about the Stidworthys accomplishments,I have George`s two 37`s that Karl Kenyon built for him ,I have not even shot them since I got them in 2012. Do you have any Idea what rifle Mary shot that record with?

Slick:

I wish I knew for sure.............what they used is fairly well documented (and is the topic of conversation at some point in almost every match I attend!! LOL), but I am not sure what she was using when the record was shot.

This year at Palmyra I got a sense for just what an accomplishment her record was. This range is very sheltered, and scores were very high. Justin Tracy shot a 400-40 in the meter on the first anysight day, and elected to try for the record. I believe he made it thru an additional 35 x's (into his second target)......he only needed another 110 consecutive x's!! (Wow!). Justin finished the day with 155 x's (out of 160)............which was some of the best shooting I had ever seen. FYI - the record is 157, one of the many George has. 155 is truly amazing (Justin is that good!)

I will try to find out the specifics of her rifle and let you know. I have my sources!

Thanks for the post,

kev

 

[PakRat]

Hi Kevin

I have a dumb question. I hear you say you set back the muzzle, is this a counter bore you are doing?

Thanks
Tony