I thought it was about the same...?

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/23/ballistics-inch-adds-22-magnum/

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/22mag.html

My savage 93 BTVS is 21" but I think it can go down to 18" without much loss, the Landry is 16.5".

 

Well, seeing as though the .22 Mag does not have a lot of powder capacity, as compared to a magnum center-fire round, I can't imagine anything over 20" is any advantage at all. JMHO

 

I lost 100 fps cutting back from 22 inches to 16 inches for a marlin 882. The magnum is considerably more powerful than the long rifle and it doesn't reach its maximum at the same barrel length. It is however not a center fire. I have read that those won't reach max velocity until closer to 30 inches but then they would be like carrying a long mosan nagant....

 

WMR is pretty well done by 18", gains are slight after than, similar to 17HMR. 22LR seems like 12-14" is the sweet spot.

 

And the gun.

I have a Zastava .22 WMR rifle that lost less than 100 fps going from a 22" barrel to a 16.25" barrel with 40 grn loads, if I remember correctly. No real fps loss with 30 grn ammo, though.

However, that 16.25" Zastava with its tight chamber sends out ammo as fast as my friend's Henry lever gun in .22 WMR with its 19.25" barrel.

The Henry's looser chamber is better suited to shoot any .22 WMR you can find. The Zastava thinks it's a prima donna and won't chamber some ammo.

30 grn ammo out of either gun can reach 2300 fps.

40 grn ammo out of either gun is in the 1850 fps to 1980 fps range.

 

Ask yourself: Why do ammunition engineers use 24" length test barrels to publish their ammunitition stats?

 

Ballisticsbytheinch methodology is not sound. Review it for yourself.

 

SAAMI Has Already done the work

Check out the paper. Beginning on page 61 are schematics with all the test barrel specifications. All rimfire cartridges, including the .22 short, are tested with 24 inch length barrels.

Now why would you think SAAMI went to all this trouble, but used a test barrel that was up to 5 to 6 inches too long to give them optimal ballistic results?

Shorter barrels are fashion, not science.

http://www.saami.org/specifications...cifications_and_information/publications/download/Z299-1_ANSI-SAAMI_Rimfire.pdf

 

Check out the paper. Beginning on page 61 are schematics with all the test barrel specifications. All rimfire cartridges, including the .22 short, are tested with 24 inch length barrels.

Now why would you think SAAMI went to all this trouble, but used a test barrel that was up to 5 to 6 inches too long to give them optimal ballistic results?

Shorter barrels are fashion, not science.

http://www.saami.org/specifications...cifications_and_information/publications/download/Z299-1_ANSI-SAAMI_Rimfire.pdf

There is nothing in the SAAMI measurement doc that states or implies that 24" will deliver the maximum velocity for rimfire. It appears to be an arbitrary value use for all rimfire data collection. All smug aside, I read the doc very carefully.

ey I have no axe to grind, sorry the "Ballistics by the inch" website struck a nerve with you.

But ..... to your question, beats me - I don't know the answer. Does their actual document say why they chose 24" barrels for a test standard?

Exactly the point. No. if it was some kind of critical or science based length they would not all be the same. Logic aside, they do not say and do not imply - it is simply their standard for everything.

On the other hand the velocity data "by the inch" does provide real data to suggest that 20" is not fashion but the max velocity length. It would have been better if they tested out to 28 in 2 in steps with more shots recorded. Easy to poke holes after the fact. It seems some ammo was still on the increase going over 18 and some had began to drop off. It dose not seem 22mag gain or loss any different than 22LR. The results do vary with the loading. I do see discrepancies. They did an excellent job of showing these discrepancies instead of throwing out the suspect data. That is proper. There is no 10 measurements with normal curve fitting. Or I did not see that. This was a lot of work, certainly they could have done more. A reasonable person would respect and applaud the effort. And if this was all bogus an explanation might be provided with a source for better data.

 

If anyone cares more about this question, they could get out pencil and paper and graph the results from the by-the-inch data. Use a different colr pencil for each load. Or do it on a computer. XL can do graphs. A picture would be a lot more useful than scanning a table of numbers. I can read and I really dont need to know any more it but for anyone who has to know, they could roll up the sleeves and dig into the numbers.

 

BBTI has a graph like you mention, but for muzzle energy. It's good for a quick look.

http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/2013data/22magME.html

 

I don't have any axe to grind. I doesn't bother me a bit what anyone else believes. Hey, go forth and prosper, have fun, its still a free country. And, please, do not take my criticism the wrong way.

I just do not beleive that an industry, with their product on the line, would use a barrel length that was less than optimal to publish product performance numbers.

But, hey, just maybe ammunition manufactures conspired to put their collective fingers on the scale and sandbagged their own product performance numbers. I just do not think they would do that. Besides, barrel manufactures have responded to customer demand and sell a lot more barrels shorter than 24" today. Even with this massive industry move to shorter barrel lengths, the ammo, manufactures, through SAAMI, when updating their testing in 2015, did not shorten test barrel lengths. They could have, but they didn't.

As for the guys at ballistics by the inch, I can't find their published information about any of their control methodologies. Unlike SAAMI, which published an entire paper on their very deliberate methodology and control procedures.

Believe what you want, and be happy in your belief. I am.

 

Chronograph Fallibility

Worth a read: https://gunsmagazine.com/velocity-myths-vs-facts/

 

Regarding the BBTI .22 WMR tests with results from the Rossi Circuit Judge throwing out very poor numbers, more reading about that is below.

http://www.guns.com/review/rossi-circuit-judge-22/

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/05/when-is-a-magnum-not-really-a-magnum/

 

I have a non cataloged Ruger 77/22WMR with an 18.5 inch barrel. This is a blued/synthetic gun with threaded receiver that I assume was a "cleanup" gun with leftover parts from the Lipseys International exclusives. Anyway, the chrono shows it beats factory published numbers with everything I have fired from CCI and Winchester. This includes the Winchester jacketed tin 28gr @ a 10 shot average of 2326. CCI 40gr hollowpoints averaged 1961fps. This gun out raced a 22" Savage and 22" Marlin in a side by side comparison. It is a little louder than the longer barreled rifles. btw, it is also the most accurate rimfire I have ever owned.

It has convinced me that that 18" is plenty long for the WMR as far as velocity is concerned. However, this rifle is not as easy to hold steady when shooting offhand as a longer barrel. I can tell a significant difference just comparing it to a 20" 77/22. Carrying it on a sling is a delight. It is almost as handy as a 10/22--just a tad heavier.

 

Don't want to ruffle any feathers here but I have a 22" 22 mag RAR that shoots almost 100 fps slower than another guys. Mine is a tack driver as 22 mags go and his is not. His shoots very close to adv fps and mine shoots slower. So it appears barrel length isn't the only thing to consider. I guess this is why Ballistics by the Inch calculator doesn't have a solid conclusion when you look at the real world results comparing various guns and barrel lengths. I guess this is why they sell so many chronographs.