Ruger Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Would the 20 inch barrel make a dramatic difference in accuracy over the 18.5? the only down side i see is I would have to get the black synthetic stock
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
No difference as far as I can tell. Doing some research on custom barrels, alot of so called experts claim that a .22LR is at max velocity with a 16" barrel. The longer barrel may provide better accuracy in extreme cases like long distances hunting or competitions. How much accuracy I couldn't tell you however it's slight.
 

·
Former Hoadpiler
Joined
·
32,418 Posts
No difference as far as I can tell. Doing some research on custom barrels, alot of so called experts claim that a .22LR is at max velocity with a 16" barrel. The longer barrel may provide better accuracy in extreme cases like long distances hunting or competitions. How much accuracy I couldn't tell you however it's slight.
With iron sights the sight radius is slightly longer but I don't see any real improvement of accuracy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
With iron sights the sight radius is slightly longer but I don't see any real improvement of accuracy.
I agree. Other than a longer sight radius, you should notice no difference between the two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
a 10" or 14" T/C barrel will shoot as good as any barrel.
lower vel. and shorter sight radius tho. I used to buy 22lr but the case to get same lot # than weigh each one and sort by weight. the same weight was my match ammo, sort out the clunkers,their will be light ones. I used my balance beam scale.once u get scale set it u sort fast depending how fusy u want to get. IHMSA 40 course * # of entrys each week end. it sucks to sort than JERK trigger during a match. easier to blame ammo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Actually the 18.5 inch barrel may have less harmonics than a longer barrel and thus shoot a bit more accurate. However, with.22LR, variances in ammunition would probably cause a greater change in accuracy than the barrel length.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
I prefer the balance of a 20 inch barrel over 181/2 inch.
This -- shooter comfort -- is really the only practical difference. I'm fine w/ the 18.5" barrel, so that's what I bought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,532 Posts
Very good chance you won't see any difference unless you were to try and squeeze every last fractional inch from it. Look at the aftermarket barrels available and you'll notice those with the highest regard are all in the 18" or less lengths.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Would the 20 inch barrel make a dramatic difference in accuracy over the 18.5? the only down side i see is I would have to get the black synthetic stock
Earlier this year I got a brand new 10/22 with a 20" barrel, no barrel band and a wood stock (guessing Birch?) from the Bass Pro in Garland, TX. It was the last one they had left, and it was the same price as the regular 18.5" wood-stocked, barrel-banded 10/22.

I don't know how true this is, but the guy at the counter said the one I got (the 20" one) is supposed to be an exact replica of the original "old school" 10/22s when they first came out a few decades ago. Regardless of the accuracy of that claim, if you're looking for a factory wood stocked 20" 10/22, you might want to check with Bass Pro to see if they have any more of those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
331 Posts
Earlier this year I got a brand new 10/22 with a 20" barrel, no barrel band and a wood stock (guessing Birch?) from the Bass Pro in Garland, TX. It was the last one they had left, and it was the same price as the regular 18.5" wood-stocked, barrel-banded 10/22.

I don't know how true this is, but the guy at the counter said the one I got (the 20" one) is supposed to be an exact replica of the original "old school" 10/22s when they first came out a few decades ago. Regardless of the accuracy of that claim, if you're looking for a factory wood stocked 20" 10/22, you might want to check with Bass Pro to see if they have any more of those.

The guy at the counter must have been a young guy. When I bought one in 1964 ($50), it was the 18.5 with the barrel band. There was only one model. It loked like the carbine model of today only it had metal parts where there is plastic today and they all had walnut stocks instead of birch. I gave it to my sister and bought a stainless when they first came out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
The guy at the counter must have been a young guy. When I bought one in 1964 ($50), it was the 18.5 with the barrel band. There was only one model. It loked like the carbine model of today only it had metal parts where there is plastic today and they all had walnut stocks instead of birch. I gave it to my sister and bought a stainless when they first came out.
Yep, now that you mention it, he was a younger guy, or at least younger than my late-40's self.
 

·
Former Hoadpiler
Joined
·
32,418 Posts
The guy at the counter must have been a young guy. When I bought one in 1964 ($50), it was the 18.5 with the barrel band. There was only one model. It loked like the carbine model of today only it had metal parts where there is plastic today and they all had walnut stocks instead of birch. I gave it to my sister and bought a stainless when they first came out.
I took it to mean he was talking about 22 rifles in general and not just the 10/22. In that case the 22 rifles of a hundred years ago were mostly 20 inches or longer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
No, he was specifically referring to the original 10/22s when they first came out when he sold me the 20" barrel with no barrel band. I was looking at both the 18.5" with the barrel band and the 20" one. I'm new to 10/22s, and knew even less about them then than now. I knew of the 18.5" carbine, the Sporter and the Target model, so when I saw the 20" with no barrel band I specifically asked him about it and why it was different. He said it was supposed to be a replica of the first 10/22s, claiming that's exactly how they came when they first came out. Judging from the responses on here, I'm assuming it was either an honest mistake on his part, or maybe I completely misunderstood what he meant. One other difference I noticed is that the butt-end of the stock on mine looked slightly different than the regular 18.5" barrel-banded butt-end stock. Maybe that's what he meant?
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top