[19828]

Sounds like you were **** lucky. You have the exception, rather than the rule. Tell your gunsmith buddy not to laugh too hard, the next one might be a disaster....

 

[9257]

Chief Says:
(4) Fired 100 rounds thru each rifle - functioned flawlessly.

We found : 96/17M2 barrels fit and work perfectly on the 10/22lr . Need no
other modfications to shoot the 17m2. In short - ( drop in process ).

TOTAL cost to do a 10-22lr to 10-17M2 = under $100.00

ps. Friend is a certified gunsmith and was rather amazed as to the simplicity of the swap. He also saw all the duhh's about excess recoil , ect.
now he LAUGHS !
BWAHahhaaaaa!!!!
CD.

Chief...are you suggesting that Ruger is gun shy about just changing over the 1022 barrels to H2 and offering them for sale? And the other manufacturers too?

Is there no merit to the ideas of different pressure curves requiring different bolt weights/spring combination....that the stock 1022 is equipped to handle the H2 cartridge?

That I can put my stock charging handle back on my Boyds Summer Special (Shaw barrel, Boyds stock) and really not have ANY problems with the guns safety and function?

As an aside, how do you find the accuracy of the H2 cartridge?

thanks.

 

[Ole' Man River]

What the Chief said is true. I also stated that it can be done without the extra bolt or handle weight. I put a Lilja 17HM2 barrel on my 10/22 with a PC Titanium handle and a STI trigger. No troubles, No problems.

 

[9257]

I guess I had better get Dakotan's hex head bolt and wrench...the number of times the action is going in and out of the stock.

Will swap back to stock bolt and give her a rip.

Thanks guys

 

[SQUAWSACH]

truth?

The truth according to chiefdave doesn't mean it's going to be true in your case. Be careful. :1t

 

[RWAL]

Right on CD

My VQ barreled 17HM2 conversion (with extra power springs only) is the most flawlessly reliable, accurate firearm I have ever had the pleasure of shooting period.

 

[Vincent]

Too many people have had trouble with this to just say this is true in ALL circumstances. Just because it works over the short term does not mean the 3000 round from now you are not going to have a cracked receiver or hole banged out of round. Too many good engineers at ATK (Federal, CCI), Hornady, Ruger and others say otherwise.

If it was just Ruger I might wonder.....it is NOT just Ruger. Marlin and T/C sure took their time to get it right and T/C was the test gun for developement.

Too be bluntly honest 100 rounds thru two rifles doesn't mean crap. I suggest you give Green Mountain a call and ask them how they feel about this. Bet they do not so fully support this idea. Taking bets?

Edit: After posting the stuff above another question came to mind. We know all 10/22's are not created equal. Some are tighter then others. That is when they are new. But what about down the line a few ten thousands of shots. It would not surprise me at all that this would work on SOME new guns. But what about my "76 Liberty model that has a bare minmum 75,000 round thru it and is....let's call it well broken in?

Not only does 100 rounds not mean a bunch but which ones. I'm shooting a bolt action conversion and certainly the Eley and Made in England Remingtons are very different story than the Hornadys I've shot. I'm not the only one that has had trouble just changing brands of ammo. Not enough info here to go against what ATK and all their engineers and millions of dollars worth of very sophisticated equipment tell us. Heck if memory serves me right Skeeter doesn't even start having troulbe with Eley's in his gun till he shoots 200 or so without cleaning and then the trouble starts.

Each shooter will have to make up his or her mind on this but several people here has had cases rupture in there faces and none of them seem ready to enjoy THAT process again.

 

[Eric Mayer]

I for one say if you follow CD's suggestion, make sure you are wearing proper eye protection, as well as shooting gloves and long sleeve shirts.

I am not giving up mine and the barrel maker has offered to have my entire rifle looked at by his gunsmith. After two weeks of thinking on it, I will take him up on his offer. But, make no mistake, if you have never had a serious case seperation while having a gun tucked into your shoulder and your face down on the stock, you don't know what having the crap scared out of you means! I can still feel the pits the brass made on my shooting glasses...

btw, if you don't know by now, I fully agree with Vincent's opinion on this matter.

Eric A. Mayer

 

[RWAL]

It would seem as if many of the semi-auto conversion problems have to do with liners, either DIY or in factory barrels like WP. At least thats what the feedback here would indicate. Don't recall any negative feedback using VQ barrels for instance.

 

[Vincent]

It would seem as if many of the semi-auto conversion problems have to do with liners, either DIY or in factory barrels like WP. At least thats what the feedback here would indicate. Don't recall any negative feedback using VQ barrels for instance.

All the VQ barrels tested her that I have seen also had the VQ bolt and they (VQ) say that is neccessary for safe operation. Their 17M2 bolt is 22% heavier then their 22 lr bolt and comes with different springs. This is about bolt interia and slowing bolt opening by increasing bolt inertia. VQ and EABCO were the first two companies to offer 17M2 kits. This why they have been so trouble free, because it is offered as a system instead of just changing barrels. Cynics might say it would be another way to make money but that just ain't so. The "Simple" blowback operation is really a very delicate balance of propulsion (powder gases burning) against resistance (bolt weight, recoil spring and hammer spring tension). If any of these things are off you either get a gun that doesn't work (too much inertia) or will "work" but beat the thing to death (not enough inertia). Again. Call VQ and ask them what their opinoin is of just using their barrel to convert. You will be in for an interesting conversation I'll bet. Same with EABCO, this another company that has for years built several different guns from scratch as well as doing alot of work with Thompson Center converting Contenders and inventing whole lines of cartridges. These people are not dummies and they and VQ have been at it for a long time. I remember E. Arthur Brown Company from over 25 years ago. You don't get the rep that VQ or EABCO have by pulling the wool over peoples eyes.

 

[RWAL]

I think the barrel makers are not offering the heavy bolts as a money making sceme but to cover their rear ends from liability after one of the ammo companies came out with a warning (don't blame them one bit). I still say the majority of problems are liner related. How can my gun and scores of others out there be functioning perfectly with an increasing number of rounds through them and no issues?
I believe the 17HM2 has no steeper pressure curve than a Stinger and I don't think it is as hard on a reciever as a Stinger or Aguila Hyper Velocity round. I wouldn't be surprised if the problems in testing this round arose from testing with liners installed in factory barrels. Nothing against anyone using one of the "approved" conversions or anyone being careful and waiting for more testing to be done if thats your cup of tea fine, in the mean time I will continue to enjoy shooting this great round that doesn't work and enjoying every minute of it.

 

[18600]

Seams to me there was a thread on here awhile back in which ChiefDave stated that the 17m2 neaded an modified chamber allowing the brass to fireform up to the end of the neck to reduce pressure to a safe level.

 

[12851]

rwal,

i think you did a good post. before i got my kit awhile ago, did a lot of homework and was really confused, which at my age is not hard to do lol, but finally settled on the EABco kit with the "cludgy" handle which dont bother me, and after shooting 4-500 rnds and not having ONE problem, am satisfied i spent $200.00 in my mind well worth it, as i cant afford to be xperimenting, sending back bbls, bolts, guns, etc to some manufacturer that has just put this system on the market and dont work too well.

my .22 cents FWIW, but gotta luv the conversion !! 100 yds, yahooie. need more ammo, lol

 

[Vincent]

I think the barrel makers are not offering the heavy bolts as a money making sceme but to cover their rear ends from liability after one of the ammo companies came out with a warning (don't blame them one bit). I still say the majority of problems are liner related. How can my gun and scores of others out there be functioning perfectly with an increasing number of rounds through them and no issues?
I believe the 17HM2 has no steeper pressure curve than a Stinger and I don't think it is as hard on a reciever as a Stinger or Aguila Hyper Velocity round. I wouldn't be surprised if the problems in testing this round arose from testing with liners installed in factory barrels. Nothing against anyone using one of the "approved" conversions or anyone being careful and waiting for more testing to be done if thats your cup of tea fine, in the mean time I will continue to enjoy shooting this great round that doesn't work and enjoying every minute of it.

Do you know who ATK is? One of there products is the solid rocket boosters for the space shuttle. They also own Federal, CCI and and Hercules powders and are the largest in the world.

Now, do you know who the SAAMI is? They are the orginization that established and enforces the small arms specs like barrels, ammo pressure and all that.

The guys at ATK are smart enough to do their testing with SAAMI approved barrels (in fact there was probably many of them) and powders (they probably teated six or eight of those) and priming material. And in the end it was the engineering group at ATK that wrote the warning letter's that warned the manufacturers that they would not be able to get by with SAAMI approved ammo in SAAMI approved barrel in semi auto firearms without what they called "Substancial" other changes to the mechanisms of those firearms. I just this week threw my copy of that warning away stupidly thinking that every body knew this stuff by now.

Why would you doubt that? Why would you doubt that the pressure curve is different when ATK, Eley, Remington, Hornady all confirm that it is. Where do you get your information? Are you privy to information that those hundreds of engineers are not? If you change the barrel and your gun shoots, fine, shoot it. But don't come with all these wild theroys that it comes down to undersize liners. How do you know that you are not cutting the life of your reciever in half or worst? You don't. You are dealing in speculation and they are dealing with cold hard facts. Anybody that suggests that anybody else go against these long established warnings from established testing labs is really opening a can of worms if someone takes that advice and builds a dangerous firearm that hurts themselves or worse than that someone else.

What all this is is internet voodoo. All those companies and testing labs are dealing with facts. You are guessing and then stating as fact some very dangerous ideas. How much liability insurance do you carry for the guy that takes your advice? You may need it the way liability courts are.

 

[18600]

ChiefDave, In the thread [no give up on 17m2 ] You made the claim that you were using an improved chamber, and were trying to get a barrel manufacture to test it. You stated this as a cure for the many troubles reported with this conversion. Is your current change in opinion based on on those results? Are the reasons for the warnings resolved? Was that mod. just a waste of time?

 

[Skeeter27red]

Yes and no.

If I recall correctly, CD's original conversion, as stated above, was a High Standard chambered barrel that he explained to me later in PM as re-chambered to a free-bored HM2 utilizing a custom undercut HMR reamer on his mini-mill.
When I attempted this modification on the same GM barrel with an HM2 reamer, it worked, but not without difficulties, and the accuracy was not as good as what is possible with a "Tight" chamber.
In the end, after more than several failed caseheads and much experimentation, I have a great working action, and a verified .216"@50 5 shot group to date, from 1 of those GM barrels.
No heavy handle, no bolt weight.
The big differences are, I lopped off the chamber end, and re-chambered "As tight as I could" at about 16 5/16" overall, ported, hand lapped, and triple Moly Fusion treated.
As stated many times, each action must be tuned individually, and even two identical rifles can and do shoot very differently.
Again, my biggest pointed finger would be towards going too long without running a patch down through.
An unweary lr shooter could very easily experience a casehead failure from a round that did not chamber fully, and was able to fire with the bolt slightly open on the breech of a semi-auto action.
You most certainly can make an action perform fantastically without any bolt weight, but you need to take notice of some of the important differences between lr and HM2. To me, HM2 behaves more like fully jacketed 22MAG than anything else, but without nearly as much devastation to the target traded for better accuracy.
Go ahead and build an HM2 in any number of fashions, just be intelligent about how you execute the build, and how you use the end product. Shooting glasses and gloves and ear protection are intelligent choices. :t

 

[9257]

ChiefDave, In the thread [no give up on 17m2 ] You made the claim that you were using an improved chamber, and were trying to get a barrel manufacture to test it. You stated this as a cure for the many troubles reported with this conversion. Is your current change in opinion based on on those results? Are the reasons for the warnings resolved? Was that mod. just a waste of time?

Was that mod using the "adjusted chamber" on the high standard aguila 17 barrel?

(skeeter aced me out on this one )

 

[Vincent]

My memory is a little different than Skeeter's as that mod, I believe he used a 22 lr reamer but it really doesn't matter as the result was the same. The Chief opened up the chamber in the area ahead of the shoulder and then when the gun is fired the shoulder blows forward giveing the gas more room to expand. What this is called is fireforming. I have fire formed hundreds of cases in centerfire cartridges while making wildcat cases but my problem with the way it was done it that he fire formed right up to the front edge of the case, not leaveing very much to seal the chamber. When you fire form you lessen the pressure within the chamber and but you lose accuracy and velocity, Again it seems to me that the Chief lost between 100 and 200 feet per second.

If you will recall it wasn't much longer after that the Chief posted to say that for most people the EABCO and VQ methods seemed to be best . These methods were also what the engineering groups at ATK were discussing. Adding inertia to the bolt assembly is the easiest, safest and in the long run probably the cheapest way to go.

Skeeter and another gentleman whose name is tack (I believe) used barrel ports to reduce barrel pressure part of the way down the barrel. This seems to work. There was also another gentleman that has been converting MKII pistols to 17M2 with very good results. He got the gun to funtion without weight but said it was obvious that bolt speed was MUCH higher and added weight to the charging handle until he got bolt speed back down to the stock 22 realm to make him comfortable with not beating the gun to death. I followed his posts closly an his methodology was impecable from what I read. He did a great job of it but how? Same inertia solution the engineers at ATK suggested. Skeeter put in a ton of time and effort into his experiments trading barrels, trying different things. Most of you out there are not going to try 4 different barrels and chamber combos. Why not stay with the proven, backed up, proven safe methods.

Remember, just because your rifle goes bang and cycles does NOT IN ANYWAY PROVE YOUR GUN IS SAFE!! You are very likely shortening the life of your gun substancially with the increased beating. Maybe a 20,000 round life is okay with you, or is it 15,000, or ten. Most of you will get well over 100,000 rounds life out of your 10/22. Why beat up a good gun when another 50 or 60 dollars does the job correctly?

 

[RWAL]

Adding weight to the bolt may slow it down but will not decrease the amount of energy the bolt will transfer to the reciever. A buffer and or heavier spring can slightly lengthen the time frame in which this energy transfer will take place and in theroy impart less stress to the reciever.