I think it would benifit the experiment if you cryogenically froze the barrels first.🧐

 

I think it would benefit the experiment if you cryogenically froze the barrels first.🧐

I would second this recommendation (if you have the time and money) to see just how much accuracy you can wring out of the rifles.
The experiment would be to test accuracy of both before doing anything.
Then cyrogentically freeze the barrel and receiver of just one.
Compare accuracy improvement of the one after freezing.
Then lap the two.
Finally compare accuracty of both for relative delta change.

FWIW, I had two Ruger mini 14s (80 series and 81 series) that I had the action and barrel cryogenically treated. The result was that the accuracy was improved in both since machining stresses were removed/reduced. Sold the 80 series one and still have the 81 series for WTSHTF.

 

Imo you would make a cheap gun into worth less than it started as.
Cheap RF barrels are soft steel with shallow rifling.

 

…
Cheap RF barrels are soft steel with shallow rifling.

Sounds like no experience with the gun in OP but rather a generalization with no regard to the individual maker or quality of steel/barrel. Perhaps it’s based on older cheap guns I don’t know.

Anyway with these I can put in the ear hole or eye of critters at 25 yards consistently.

Here’s a screenshot from YouTube of a 3 shot group at 25 yards.

 

I used the now discontinued Tubbs 22 rimfire kits on several rifles. A borescope is a necessary tool to have. Bores damaged be light rust pitting cleaned up well with accuracy restored. The last barrel I lapped was a Shillen on a new BR50 build. The former owner had allowed the last seven inches of the barrel to rust, inside and out. After lapping it is a match winner.
I have not tried, though I have thought about it, using manual lapping. 100 strokes with each grit will wear out your shoulder.

 

I lapped my 77-22 a long time ago...no appreciable difference in accuracy, so, I haven't done another since. YMMV!