bull barrels on .22 handguns are bs - Arms Locker
Arms Locker Gun Forum
Go Back   Arms Locker > Gun Forums > Handguns


Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By BigBassMan
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-19-2016, 06:50 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,430
bull barrels on .22 handguns are bs

unless you're a top level competitor at some Bullseye related event, limited to firing with just one hand. If you can use both hands on it, a skinny barrel is plenty accurate enough, as in 2" at 50 yds or better, even with just iron sights. So why lug around a pointless extra 6 ozs or so?
 
Remove Ads
Old 10-20-2016, 04:19 AM   #2
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: Girard, IL

Posts: 1,157
6 1/2in High Standard HD military, all touching at 50, one hole at 25. with SV Federal Champion from the 80s, modern CCI SV almost as good. Gun is dated 1947 so no HV stuff has ever been in it due to frame cracking issue with some of them. 100% gun, was unfired when I got it, only thing ever done to it was replacing the old springs. And all three mags work without tuning. Once the old oil was washed out, trigger pull is a dream. Yes it has the long bull barrel. And it resides in a old bullseye shooters case with 3 S&Ws.
FordPrefect likes this.
 
Old 10-20-2016, 05:49 AM   #3
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,430
ruger standard had a 4.2" barrel, according to google
 
 
Old 10-20-2016, 05:50 AM   #4
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,430
what's the point of such accuracy, tho? the x ring is 2" wide at 50 yds. gotta hit the groundhog in the eye?
 
Old 10-20-2016, 10:03 AM   #5
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme View Post
ruger standard had a 4.2" barrel, according to google
I had a 6" ruger standard. Bought new in 1977 iirc; maybe '78.
 
Old 10-20-2016, 02:58 PM   #6
Registered User
 Terry G's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 4,367
I had a 6" Standard, too. A good friend still has it. I bought it in the early '80's. I bought a 6 7/8" Ruger MKII to replace it. Probably my most accurate .22 handgun, although the CZ Kadet Kit is close. I never owned a bull barrel pistol though I've shot a lot of them. A lot of guy's swear that there is better control and more accuracy with the bull barreled .22's. I never noticed it. Although I would say that I wouldn't consider six ounces to be a big deal on a target or field gun.
 
Old 10-20-2016, 04:37 PM   #7
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,005
Not sure what brought up the contention on the Ruger barrel length to begin with; BigBassMan was talking about a High Standard pistol...
 
Old 10-20-2016, 05:00 PM   #8
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: Girard, IL

Posts: 1,157
One nobody mentioned is the 5in. Ruger bull barrel target model. They were decent shooters an something else could be done to them, remember Melvin?
 
Old 10-20-2016, 05:23 PM   #9
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: Girard, IL

Posts: 1,157
Back to 22 pistols, a weekender here at the lake has a mint pair of Colt Woodsmans he bought years ago, doubt if either has had a full box fired. Will not sell, leaving them to his sons.
Not a lot of talk about the Smith model 41 anymore, those were one tempermental gun. Shot great when they wanted to work, witch was not often! Expensive now.
Shot a Sig 22 govt model last week, was not impressed, a Ceiner unit will outshoot it.
 
Old 10-20-2016, 05:31 PM   #10
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBassMan View Post
One nobody mentioned is the 5in. Ruger bull barrel target model. They were decent shooters an something else could be done to them, remember Melvin?
Something like this, but a couple inches shorter & seamless..?


 
Old 10-20-2016, 05:43 PM   #11
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,005
I spent a buttload of time today with three .22 pistols, trying various loads in a fairly organized way to see and document which guns like which loads. (Technically, two .22 pistols and an AA .22 kit on a glock.)

Only put thirty rounds of each load thru each gun, but thirty rounds times three guns, times eight or nine loads is a bunch; doing nothing but function-testing.

It was informative, but it's the first time in a while that I went shooting that wasn't actually fun...

FWIW, while I haven't collated everything yet, the mini-mag once again showed what a great round it is. IIRC, it was the only one that ran 100% in all three guns. May be wrong on it being the only one; will check & confirm.
 
Old 10-20-2016, 08:56 PM   #12
Registered User
 Garand's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
From: Canadian Badlands

Posts: 8,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBassMan View Post
One nobody mentioned is the 5in. Ruger bull barrel target model. They were decent shooters an something else could be done to them, remember Melvin?
It was an excellent pistol, very reliable I had one from the mid '80's to around 2005
 
Old 10-21-2016, 11:51 AM   #13
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: Girard, IL

Posts: 1,157
Bottom looks sorta of the same, kinda.
 
Old 10-21-2016, 01:20 PM   #14
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,005
That's what I meant; that's a Norrell Ruger on the bottom. The one on the top is an Abraxas 9mm. That pic is one I use sometimes to show people the difference in old vs new suppressor designs.

The old-tech .22 suppressor (and a Norrell is considered one of the better ones for its time) is 25-30% longer and roughly the same diameter as a modern-design 9mm suppressor. Or looked at from a different perspective, that suppressed 15-shot 9mm is only a hair larger than the suppressed 10-shot 22 rimfire is.

For a more apples-to-apples comparison, this other pic helps. A 10-shot suppressed 9mm, actually smaller than the old-tech 10-shot suppressed .22 rimfire:


Isn't that crazy though? Put a 15-round G19 magazine in that G26 and it's still only a hair bigger than a 10-shot rimfire; just due to design improvements over the decades.

And the Abraxas isn't even "cutting edge" anymore; iirc I got mine in 2006 or 2007, so the design is at least a decade old. Can't wait to see what the future brings...
 
Old 10-21-2016, 01:31 PM   #15
Registered User
 Terry G's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 4,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by John in AR View Post
I spent a buttload of time today with three .22 pistols, trying various loads in a fairly organized way to see and document which guns like which loads. (Technically, two .22 pistols and an AA .22 kit on a glock.)

Only put thirty rounds of each load thru each gun, but thirty rounds times three guns, times eight or nine loads is a bunch; doing nothing but function-testing.

It was informative, but it's the first time in a while that I went shooting that wasn't actually fun...

FWIW, while I haven't collated everything yet, the mini-mag once again showed what a great round it is. IIRC, it was the only one that ran 100% in all three guns. May be wrong on it being the only one; will check & confirm.
I shoot a lot of .22 and have an embarrassing number of handguns in .22, so I'm interested in your results. What I have found in all my semi-auto's is : Mimi-Mag No.1, Remington Golden Bullet and Blazer No.2, Federal a poor No.3. Aguila sub-sonic is accurate, but won't work reliably in any Semi-auto I own.
 
Old 10-21-2016, 03:00 PM   #16
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry G View Post
I shoot a lot of .22 and have an embarrassing number of handguns in .22,
Surprisingly, until recently I didnít really have a Ďnormalí recreational .22 pistol. My only .22 handguns were the Norrell Ruger, a Beretta 21A (really my wifeís old gun), an FA mini-revolver, and an HP-22. Last year or maybe year before, I bought an AA kit for 1911 and have used it a bunch & really like it. But I didnít have a plain-old, playing-around .22 pistol.

Just recently I got the three I was talking about above; a ruger MkIII (guy didnít have a MkII to share magazines with my suppressed gun), a used sig mosquito, and an AA kit for glock 26. The glock AA kit lends itself to long shooting sessions better than the 1911 kit because the 1911 kit relies on the tension of one particular screw that has to be checked occasionally. The glock kit goes on & off just like a glock upper, so you donít need to dink with it sporadically, the way you do with the 1911 kit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry G View Post
...so I'm interested in your results.
Iíll try & get them posted soon.
 
Reply

  Arms Locker > Gun Forums > Handguns


Thread Tools
Display Modes






Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Arms Locker. All rights reserved.