Just as a preamble; I wrote this article early in 2005 in response to another in NZ Guns & Hunting which appeared late in 2004. It was published about mid 2005 in that publication. I appoligise for the chart not appearing in the main body of this text as it became corrupt during the upload process and made no sense at all.

Introduction.

Having read the article about the “stretched” CZ .22 LR Bolt action in NZ Guns No, I noted you call for articles of further information. I thought that I’d like to take up the challenge, being that I had 2 weeks holidays ahead of me with very little planned, and also for my own interests as well. I have a keen interest in .22 and other rimfire rifles and also keen 50 metre & indoor smallbore shooter as well.

Having 3 BRNO .22s of varying barrel lengths I thought it would make for a good comparison seeing as they come from the same stable as the abovementioned rifle as it were. I have a couple of other rifles that I would like to include in the test as well, just for interest sake and comparison. And of course I have one of those all important chronographs.

As far as Ammo is concerned it would only be right to use Winchester Powerpoints (which I have already) and maybe Winchester Superspeeds (which I’ll have to purchase). I also have some Eley subsonic hollow points which were brought into the country for one of our southern ammo agents for use on the rabbits during pre virus times. Being a target shooter, I have on hand plenty of match grade target ammo and so thought it only appropriate and interesting to include some in the tests, in this case I chose Eley Match EPS which has an interesting semi wadcutter profile with a pimple on its nose. This design produces not only a neat little hole in the target (which is really good for scoring), but is said to help with its accuracy and wind bucking abilities.




Left to Right: Win PowerPoint, Eley Sub HP, Eley Match EPS & Win Super speed.
Note the pimple on the nose of the Eley Match EPS.


Rifles.

The rifles that I would like to use in the tests are as follows; Brno No1, Brno.No2, Brno No2E Varmint, German made Model BULLY and a Remington Model 41. But before I get onto the actual testing I’d like to give you a little on the background of each of the rifles

See picture below: Left to Right: Remington Mod 41, Brno No1, Brno No2, Brno No2E and BULLY

The BRNO No 1 has a barrel length of 22.5 inches. I purchased this from a local shop in the early 1990s. I fell in love with figuring in the wood grain and just had to have it. Date of manufacture is uncertain as it does not have the usual date stamp that most BRNOs have. However, proof and other markings seem to indicate that the rifle was made during the period of the German occupation of Czechoslovakia during the Second World War. Rifles manufactured during this time had to conform to the Proof rules of the third Reich, depending where they were proofed. None of the marks on the rifle appear in my copy of “The Standard Directory of Proof Marks”. The fit of the metalwork in the wood would seem to indicate that the wood work has been refinished at sometime, with the metalwork protruding above the woodwork in places. Despite having a crack at the wrist of the pistol grip, it is still a fine shooter, having won 2nd place in a rimfire .22 competition at Kopara (and a box of goodies that went with it).

The BRNO No 2 Has a Barrel Length of 24.5 inches. I purchased this in the late 1980s from a friend who lives just round the road from me. The date stamp on the action and barrel indicates DOM of 1983. The previous owner had the barrel threaded to take a sound moderator by a local Blenheim engineering firm. The execution of the job was very poor. Marks left inside the muzzle would indicate that the barrel was turned on a stationary mandrel, showing the engineer’s total lack of regard or appreciation of the effects of such a deed on the accuracy of the rifle. Despite the handicap the rifle still shoots appreciably well. Topped with a Weaver K 4 scope it was my main rabbit ting piece for a time.

The BRNO No 2E Varmint has a barrel length of 20 inches. I purchased this through a gun smithing friend of mine in 1999. After having read a review in NZGUNS extolling the virtues of the model, I just had to have one. When I bought it I was sorely disappointed. It had what could only be described as manufacturing defects due to a lack of attention to detail:
1. When the bolt was opened, it could be moved far enough rearwards for the handle to disengage the guide slot in the action, allowing the handle to rotate thus locking the bolt open. Not a good look when wanting to get a second shot away quickly. The rifle was returned for prompt repairs and received a new sear thanks to Eric Lang of Kilwell Sports.
2. The stock was cut from the wrong or should I say not preferred grain and could possibly warp putting the bedding of the action under strain. Had it been in anything other than a .22” it could also be in dire danger of splitting around the pistol grip area.
3. The forward mounting screw is fixed into a pillar which is in turn dovetailed into the barrel. The fit of this dovetailing was extremely loose and when the rifle was disassembled for cleaning etc the pillar would fall out of the dovetail of its own accord. (I have since placed shims in the dovetail in an effort to tighten this up).
4. Although the barrel has a recessed crown which is obviously there to protect the muzzle, it was poorly executed and had a horrendous burr left it. I’ve now lapped the crown using a 3/8” diameter ball bearing glued on the end of a stick and fine valve grinding paste.
Despite all of the above and with a little more fine tuning the rifle shoots appreciably well, producing 50 metre groups of around 0.7”.

As an aside, its interesting to have the three rifles above together and appreciate how over the ensuing years that the quality of these fine rifles has suffered, I guess in the name of mass production and the need to cut corners in order to produce to a price, for example: The action of the No 1 is very smooth to operate with the bolt gliding smoothly in the action. In contrast the No2E is quite clunky by comparison, the bolt is quite rough in the action, and gives the impression that it is full of sand. It also lacks the little spring loaded ball in the bolt handle which engages a detent in the action to latch the bolt handle in the close position, which the Nos 1 & 2 have. The Magazine for the No 1 is of all steel construction, whereas the ones for the Nos 2 & 2E have plastic floor plates, the magazine wells for the No 2s are also plastic.

The “BULLY” has a barrel length of 18 Inches. This is an interesting little boy’s rifle of German manufacture, probably pre 1939 if the proof markings are anything to go by. I don’t know which firm made the rifle but it is extremely similar in design and construction as another rifle given to me by a shooting colleague and has the markings “FL-PRAZISIONS-KARABINER-29” stamped on the barrel, so much so (apart from size) that its possible to safely swap the bolts & half moon shaped extractors and they will function perfectly well. When I purchased the Bully for $15 at an Antique Arms Association auction, the extractor was missing. I was latter able to replace it through the generosity of a friend in Nelson. He had built up a collection of all sorts of gunny bits over the years of tinkering with firearms and he kindly let me ferret through them until I found an extractor which although fitted in the recess in the barrel, required shortening a little so as to engage the bolt, in order for it to function correctly.

See picture below: Marking on the Barrel of the Bully.

and: Other markings on the Bully (Ser No, Caliber & Proof).

and: Markings on the barrel of other rifle

Shortly after I had purchased the rifle, another friend inadvertently fired the rifle, forgetting that the extractor was missing, with catastrophic effect. Upon firing, the cartridge without the support of the missing extractor, ruptured. The force of the high pressure gasses being directed downwards into the woodwork beneath was of such intensity that it actually split the stock. My friend was absolutely aghast at what had occurred and insisted on repairing the damage, which of course he did without protest from me. When he returned the rifle, the repair was so well done that it has to be point out before anyone can notice it.

See picture below: If you look closely you can make out a black line above the trigger which is the repair I mentioned.

I should point out here that having slugged the barrel I have found it to be significantly tighter than any other .22 that I have slugged and this may have a significant impact on the velocities attained due to the increased pressures produced by the projectile having to be forced into a tighter barrel. I decided to use this rifle because of the shortness of the barrel (being only 18”).
Although I have replaced the rear sight with one that I made in order to get it to shoot in the right place, it is still not a particularly straight shooter. It is however sufficient to give the rabbits a hurry up out to about 40 or 50 yards.

The Remington Model 41 has a barrel length of 27”. It was a toss up between this and a Winchester model 67A (also with a 27” barrel). The Remington won the day because of its more reliable extraction of spent cartridges. It is another one of those rifles which I purchased at another A.A.A. auction just because I liked it at the time, cost around $80. Its one of those rifles which was pressed into military service during the Second World War, as evidenced by the proliferation of military and “sold out of service markings which adorn the barrel and action. I decided to use this rifle in the tests because of the length of the barrel (the longest .22 that I have). It would also be useful for comparison of results against the CZ review in issue # 86 of NZG&H, being just 2” shorter in the barrel.

See picture below: The various Military Markings found on the Remington.

While we are talking about the CZ review, the Editor made mention of 14 inches being the optimum length for .22s for extracting the best velocities etc. Anschutz produce among their offering of target rifles, models with barrels of around 16 inches, which it is said to be about optimum for accuracy. The rifles look longer because of the extension tube attached to the to the front of the barrel, purely to extend the sighting radius, thus allowing the shooter to better judge the alignment of the rifle with the target, using aperture sights.

The Testing and Results

Sunday after the New Years celebrations turned out nice and fine. I’d pre-arranged the assistance from a shooting friend and so I went to pick him up, albeit at short notice. We called back at home on our way out to our local smallbore outdoor range to load up with rifles, ammo, chrony etc and away we went to spend a pleasant Sunday afternoon Once set up at the range the procedure was to fire a 10 shot string through each rifle in turn, the idea being to allow each rifle to cool down between each lot of ammo tested so as not to unduly effect the results with a hot barrel. Testing went along just fine. I do hope that we didn’t upset the close neighbours too much with the racket from the supersonic .22s being as they are normally used to the quieter clatter of standard velocity target ammo normally used on the range The only problems encountered along the way were a misfire in the Bully and a low battery warning from the Chrony whilst retrieving data after testing the Winchester PowerPoint’s in the Brno No2 and it wouldn’t calculate the SD (standard deviation) reliably. And of course a little finger trouble when I inadvertently deleted the last shot off the first string when recovering the data for recording purposes, thankfully no other data for the string was affected as it was recovered just prior to that happening. As for the results, I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions, bearing mind the different rifles used, their ages and condition.

See the Chart attached below (hopfully it works)

I will however, share some of my own observations with you: Apart from the Winchester Super speeds, the Brno No1 produced the highest velocities and was only 11 ft/sec slower than those produced in the Brno No2E Varmint rifle which in general produced velocities very close behind the Brno No1.
These tests in my mind seem to indicate that a barrel length of around 20 to 22 inches would be optimum for extracting the best velocities out of these .22” cartridges, but as I said, I’ll leave you to make up your own mind. Interestingly, when looking at the standard deviations (which is a measure of consistency) produced, The Winchester Super speeds seemed to give the better results of the ammo tested and the Brno No1 gave the more consistent results of the rifles across the ammo tested.
So there you have it, I guess a more scientific method for testing would be to start off with a rifle having a long barrel and progressively shorten it after each round of tests until you can come up some sort of conclusion and of course a firearm that’s been destroyed in the process.
A parting thought, remember nothing works better than an empirical approach when trying to find what works best for you in your chosen firearm. If you would like to know a little more about .22” ammo, I would suggest that you get hold of an old copy of NZ Guns Issue # 13, in it you’ll find a comprehensive test by Lynn Harris on a large number of .22” ammos albeit a little dated now.

To view the chart just click on the Test Results.xls link & open or download, your preference. You will probably need MS XL or at least the XL viewer minimum (available free from MS). I will try and put it into a format that is readable on the buletin board be beware, I'm only a novice so might not happen

Thanks for that Grumpy,

Very interesting results.
Really highlights the need to match ammo to your rifle and that it would be foolish to say "The ammo I use is the best". May be in one rifle but may be the worst in the next rifle.
I guess unless you perform a test like that you could be handicapping youself unnecesarily.

Leads me to wonder if the test cards that come with new rifles are performed with the best match of ammo.

I suspect that the test cards are all lined up and shoot all in one go?????????????? maybe not?????
I have in the past used a bench test rig to trial ammo and tune the rifle to the ammo by altering the torque loadings on the action screws.
Also some of the guys here have got barrel tuners made by Harvey Westland fitted. these are basicaly weights in the form of a fancy nut screwed onto the end of the barrel and by adjusting this in or out you can tune your rifle to a sweet spot thereby tightening up the groups achieved for a particular ammo. Our old mate Robert Ward used one to great effect,may he rest in peace.