Well Dave... Good questions (really). Your 1st question on "why a 20" bull barrel" was answered because of the "+ weight". And I should have said accuracy also (my bad).
If you want weight (or as I suspect, weight out in front rather than just more weight for its own sake), then that barrel should do it. A longer barrel does not contribute to inherent accuracy (and only improves practical accuracy when there are sights on it); in fact, all things being equal, a longer barrel should be
less accurate than a shorter one of the same. (There are some exceptions to this, but that's a subject better addressed by technical papers, which it has been.) It won't be a huge difference either way though, and you said that you wanted weight, so it probably doesn't matter anyway.
This 2nd one I'll answer by saying "both" to your above question. And before you ask "why" I'll try and leap ahead of it. Now my answer is going to be personal and from a learned background. Without going into a absolute TON of background a lot of this preference is a carry over from shooting professional archery. I taught and helped set up all make and models of bows and shot many of them myself. I learned from my students and my own experience. The more weight and balance of a bow the more accurate it was. Same for bow draw let-off's. A 50% let-off bow is superior to say a 70% one. But it comes with the knowledge that YOU must be willing to build up the muscle fiber to draw out the advantage of weight.
I know next to nothing about archery. I'll take your word on that.
So back to .22's now... My point of the heavier bull 920" barrel without flutes was to add weight because it's easier to hold still in the offhand position. But you have to realize when this advantage "peaks" during the shot or you have lost it. If you think it's wrong or know it is during aiming and squeezing then stop! Your still in control and can start over. And again the longer heavier barrel is more accurate itself but that advantage has to be "drawn" out of it. It can be a narrow margin or none for some people. Heavier slower arrows are more accurate then light fast ones.
Before I go any further, allow me to provide a little context. I spent a significant portion of my life hauling around heavy stuff, including guns. I didn't like it when I was young and I like it less now that I'm approaching middle age. When evaluating a firearm, my very first thought (after verifying that it works satisfactorily) is, "Can I get away with making this thing lighter?" Sometimes I can't. Usually I can. What I like and what you like seem to be opposites in many ways, which is why I asked the questions that I asked. I was curious as to why you wanted that. I can't disapprove of it any more than I can disapprove of someone's favorite color, but I approach it the same way: when I say that I like blue and someone tells me that they like red, I ask why - not because I disapprove, but because I'm genuinely curious.
As you said, back to the .22's. It sounds as if you're using that mass out front to damp movement. It's a valid approach. Service rifle competitors do it all the time. I'm not sure that it's the best approach with a rimfire though. There are other ways to tighten up a position.
So Dave.... with the above said and believed by me it now turns into a practical reason. And some may say bull... Limitool is off his rocker.... (they might be right!). But I used to shoot my target bow against some good offhand .22 shooters. The ones that always came the closest to beating me were the ones shooting the heaviest rifles. That's another reason I'm heading off into that direction on this first .22 target build. I want to see the guns overall balance when some tech work is completed by gunsmith. If it's too front heavy I'll be drilling and adding more weight to the rear.
Crazy is a matter of perception.
Dave: Do you have some advise to share with me or some knowledge because I'm all for learning from the opinions and experiences of others guy! That's why I'm trying to tap out some knowledge from my fellow T-neter's.
I may not be the best guy to ask, but I'll share my builds - one completed and one in progress - to compare and contrast, and perhaps show a little insight into how I think.
Build #1: Ruger receiver, Ruger bolt (with various mods), Volquartzen trigger, 16.5" Green Mountain barrel, Hogue stock, Leupold VX-1 on top. Receiver is pinned to stock. Barrel is pressure bedded with a tuning screw. Built in 2004.
Why? At the time, I was a poor service member with a nice, clean KD range to shoot at. This was meant for the bench only. I was on a budget, but I wanted something that would shoot well with budget ammunition. It would not normally be used beyond 50 yards, but a fun game that I used to play at the time was shooting at clays on the 200 yard berm, so it needed to be able to group at distance as well. Money was tight but time was not, so I could spend plenty of time tuning. The pinned/bedded setup was essentially the best way to do things back then if you were handy and had time, which I was and did. A higher magnification scope would have been more appropriate for 200 yard shooting, but I enjoyed the challenge and this heavy little sucker did go out into the woods for small game on occasion, making low magnification desirable. The 16.5" barrel was a compromise: I wanted a 14" barrel (you gain nothing but weight past that length with most ammunition) but WA state did not allow for SBR stamps back then, so 16.5" it was. Green Mountain was very highly regarded back then, yet was priced lower than most of their competitors.
Did it shoot? Hell yes, it shot. It shot like a house on fire. I spent many hours tweaking that thing just so to work with the cheap crap from Walmart and it was worth it. In fact, it worked so well that I got tired of shooting it. (The only other firearm that I ever had this problem with was a nice K31 after I mounted a scope on it. It rarely happens, but it's possible for a tool to be so good for the job that it's no longer fun to use.) Eventually I only shot it at 200 to keep things interesting, then I put together a bolt gun to do that job better, the county shut that range down, and the thing has gathered dust for the last 7 years. It's kind of a shame. If I counted my time, that was an extremely expensive rifle. I keep meaning to haul her out for a trip to the gravel pit these days, but I was an early adopter when Class 3 became legal in WA back in 2011 and this rifle just doesn't have a spot in the rotation anymore, yet I'm too fond of it to get rid of it. Sad, huh?
Build #2: Ruger receiver, Ruger innards which I may replace or modify...not sure yet. Stock is a PMACA chassis and a Shockwave arm brace that was freed up when an AR pistol "graduated" to SBR recently - I love recycling gun parts. No barrel yet, but I'm leaning toward simply cutting down a factory carbine barrel to 4.5" and having it threaded. Sight is undecided, but it will probably be a low magnification scope. An AFG will go on the front rail.
Why? I like light, and this is light; some of the spots that I shoot at require some walking, and as I'm already carrying ammo, water, other guns, and various crap, ounces become pounds and pounds become annoying. The PMACA/brace combo is slightly lighter than a factory stock, and the brace part was a cast-off from another project and had already been paid for. The 4.5" barrel is because this will only ever be shot with budget ammo and a suppressor mounted, and that's a good length to guarantee that budget ammo will exit the muzzle at a subsonic velocity. I'm opting for a modified factory barrel because I already have one (as every 10/22 owner does), they're pretty good barrels, the price is right, and I can always replace it later if it doesn't shoot. Because of the PMACA's mounting system and the tiny barrel, I'm not bothering with bedding anything here - it's not necessary, and the barrel is light enough that floating the barrel won't be a problem, even with the can on the end. The muzzle ought to be lively with so little weight on it, but I'll have a stock to lean on and I've controlled livelier things in the past, so I'm not worried about this - I'll be able to shoot it accurately enough. It's meant to take over 50+ yard duties from my MkIII, and that's basically how it's built: a suppressor host with a barrel short enough to keep the ammo subsonic, but with a shoulder stock for more stability, that just happened to use what was essentially a surplus firearm. Once the stamp is in and everything is assembled, I'll go ahead and throw some money at the trigger. I'll argue long and hard that a good trigger is not necessary for good shooting, but it's a pleasure to use and I have money to spare on tools that are enjoyable, so the trigger will be nice once I'm done screwing around with everything else. The resulting abomination of a SBR will be so godawful ugly that it will make your teeth hurt when you look at it, but art's for looking at and guns are for shooting by my way of thinking, and I don't have a problem with ugly guns if they shoot well - which I suspect this will.
Am I right? I'm right for
me, but my views may not be right for anyone else. Firearms are very subjective. 10/22's may be the most subjective of them all. My father has one that he dressed up as a M1 carbine. It is one of the coolest and most fun firearms that I've ever shot, and the only reason that I didn't do the same to my 10/22 (the one that is becoming the SBR) is that I have an actual Inland M1 in fantastic condition, and I don't need something similar in a different caliber. Even a new factory-fresh 10/22, with its crap sights and plastic parts and lousy trigger is a lot of fun to shoot, particularly for someone that has never shot one before. I don't believe that there is a wrong answer, but merely best answers on a case-by-case basis.
That one got away from me and ran a little long, but you know what I'm trying to say. If you know what you want, build it. If you think that you want it, build it anyway; if it turns out that you didn't want it, you get to build another one. WINNING!
