benchrest 22lr 100yd barrel in the wind
- Thread starter Old1942
- Start date
Here is everything you ever wanted to know about Microgroove barrels and then some. On July 29th., 1953 Marlin Firearms introduced the Microgroove barrel in their .22 cal. rimfire rifles. The barrel had 16 grooves with a land width of .014 and a groove depth of .0015. I never owned one so I can't attest to the accuracy and wind bucking abilities of the Microgroove barrel . However, If they were all that great I'm sure barrel makers would be producing them today. I don't think you would want to shoot any Golden Bullets in a Microgroove barrel. It would be a smooth bore after one shot.
Last edited:
vtmarmot
P Magoon, Livin' Free NH
I would advise you to Google micro-groove rifling as there is more to the story. This type of rifling results in less bullet deformity due to having more and finer lands and grooves. This supposedly also makes the bore easier to clean. Perhaps the most important reason for its use is that it can be produced using a carbide button imparting less stress on the barrel. Some 11 million Marlin model 60 semi-auto rifles have been produced using this method, over twice as many as the Ruger 10-22.
That being said, most Shilen ratchet barrels are installed on expensive custom rifles which exhibit care and hand work in every aspect of their manufacture and costing 15 or more times as much as the mass produced Marlin. We are truly talking apples and oranges here.
I'm not a hugely experienced rimfire competitor, but I have never heard anyone talk about the advantages of one type of rifling over another in bucking the wind with respect to the .22 long rifle. That might be a better question for centerfire competitors who load their own ammo.
That being said, most Shilen ratchet barrels are installed on expensive custom rifles which exhibit care and hand work in every aspect of their manufacture and costing 15 or more times as much as the mass produced Marlin. We are truly talking apples and oranges here.
I'm not a hugely experienced rimfire competitor, but I have never heard anyone talk about the advantages of one type of rifling over another in bucking the wind with respect to the .22 long rifle. That might be a better question for centerfire competitors who load their own ammo.
So, you have never heard anyone talk of the advantages of one type of rifling over another with respect to wind bucking abilities of the .22 long rifle. Hmmm, Then I want my money back from Shilen for the Ratchet barrel I was sold under those pretenses. 
Google is your friend. Practice what you preach.
Google is your friend. Practice what you preach.
Last edited:
...not so fast Tim!
Here’s my recent article and one barrel maker has recently contacted me with interest in making them...https://forum.accurateshooter.com/t...ok-at-micro-groove-barrel-technology.4014914/
Here’s my recent article and one barrel maker has recently contacted me with interest in making them...https://forum.accurateshooter.com/t...ok-at-micro-groove-barrel-technology.4014914/
Last edited:
tonykharper
Well-known member
As Tim said I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer.
Many have claimed that the shape of the lands such as the shilen rachet buck the wind better.
These types of rifling are sometime referred to as trick rifling patterns.
The term "micro-groove" is a style of rifling and marketing term that has been used by many barrel makers.
In RFBR, Bill Calfee came up with another term to describe shallow rifling patterns "minimally invasive" (MI).
The term micro-groove rifling indicates the grooves are shallow compared to the bore size or normal rifling patterns.
So what is the difference? The original Muller MI barrels were only four shallow grooves. That made these barrels minimally invasive (MI).
As you add grooves or make the grooves deeper you are making the rifling pattern more invasive.
Micro-groove barrels have typically had many many grooves. These are not MI barrels!
Matter of fact if you look at the main guns on Naval ships they have what could be called micro-groove barrels.
They also have many, many grooves, too many for me to count, all relatively shallow for the bore size. These are very invasive rifling patterns.
Now we have the 8 groove Muller MI barrels. Many argue these work even better than the original 4 grooves.
Will we see a 16, 32, 64 grooves in the future?
If that happens it would bring us full circle back around to the original "Micro-Groove" barrel and away from MI barrels?
Only time will tell.
TKH
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&url=...ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCNiz4oSF5-0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
Last edited:
Yes, I did see that. I guess, maybe coming is not the same as currently in use.
I guess the practical answer is that the old micro groove thinking has evolved into what we now know to be MI barrels.
We got 4’s, 5’s, 8’s, corrugated, etc. so it would seem the concept is well embraced, but heck another entry.....why not?
Anyway, to answer, I’ll give you my interpretation which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
First off, with rimfire shooting you are dealing with wind involving a vertical element, i.e. the coriolis effect.....
In other words, with traditional rifling, a left wind will push a slug right and down, a right wind, will go left and up.
The MI barrels I have “seem” to shoot with somewhat less vertical but this is somewhat subjective since exactly same wind shooting 2 different barrels, etc. that is never going to happen. So in the end you pays your money and takes your chances....a great barrel in ANY configuration beats an OK barrel in your ideal configuration.
By the way Kindler..... you ruined me for life, got a safe full of CF 22’s &17’s and all I shoot are my two TAC 20’s
Last edited:
It is, although have a ratchet as well.....strictly speaking not MI.
Sorry, only shoot 50.
10X X3L in a Meredith TMBR.
Last edited:
BillBrawand
New member
ijn regards to wind and riflind hart barrels at 18 in; shoot the best the targets i shot at 50 and 100 yds were terrific and they were wittnesed. Ron dill 0of va. May still have them and have 100 yd on my wall .164