Contender carbine in .22 Mag?

specweldtom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,066
Location
Texas
I've pieced together a Contender frame and a 23" .22lr match barrel. Will rechamber it to .22 Mag and find out how it shoots.

Have any of you done this or know how it might shoot? This is my second attempt. I screwed the first one up, so still don't know if it has potential.

Thanks, Tom
 
Barrel should be pretty tight on a 22mag. I don't know a whole bunch about bore diameters etc but do know 22mag is larger than LR. The Ruger Single Six is notoriously inaccurate with 22lr ammo because it has the correct bore for the Mag cylinder.
 
Knifemaker, you are right. The .22 Mag has the same bore diameter as .22 centerfire barrels. The reamer pilot diameter is .218". Pilot diameter for .22lr is .216". I talked to several people after doing the first one, which I screwed up. The consensus is that .22 Mag chamberings in .22 lr bores are safe and frequently very accurate.

I have verified the safety, but not the accuracy. I fired (2) five shot strings late last week, doing barrel break-in, neither of which were very accurate. 1 moa to 1 1/4 moa at 100 yds. I still have 4 more types/brands of ammo to test, so am not discouraged yet. If the barrel doesn't shoot any of them well, I'll rechamber it to .22 K-Hornet and try again. I have a.216" pilot for it also.

I didn't follow up on the thread sooner because I haven't had a chance to shoot it. I plan to just take a couple of rifles to the range and give them a good test, including chronographing velocities. When I know more, I'll do a better job of updating.

7mmSendero, I've just started follow-up testing on a Marlin 917VS after doing some badly needed stock and trigger work on it. So far, it's not very promising either.

Tom
 
Knifemaker, you are right. The .22 Mag has the same bore diameter as .22 centerfire barrels. The reamer pilot diameter is .218". Pilot diameter for .22lr is .216". I talked to several people after doing the first one, which I screwed up. The consensus is that .22 Mag chamberings in .22 lr bores are safe and frequently very accurate.

I have verified the safety, but not the accuracy. I fired (2) five shot strings late last week, doing barrel break-in, neither of which were very accurate. 1 moa to 1 1/4 moa at 100 yds. I still have 4 more types/brands of ammo to test, so am not discouraged yet. If the barrel doesn't shoot any of them well, I'll rechamber it to .22 K-Hornet and try again. I have a.216" pilot for it also.

I didn't follow up on the thread sooner because I haven't had a chance to shoot it. I plan to just take a couple of rifles to the range and give them a good test, including chronographing velocities. When I know more, I'll do a better job of updating.

7mmSendero, I've just started follow-up testing on a Marlin 917VS after doing some badly needed stock and trigger work on it. So far, it's not very promising either.

Tom

Tom,

I bought a basic Savage heavy barrel rifle in 17HMR (about $250) and it shoots the lights out for a factory rimfire. It easily shoots under MOA at 100 yards and I haven't even looked at bedding or free floating the barrel. If your Marlin doesn't pan out, considering trading it in on a Savage.

Let us know how all your testing goes.

Brian
 
Finally got to wring it out. Fired Federal .22 mag, CCI solids and hollowpoints, Winchester solids and hollowpoints, and Remington Premier. Terrible groups (gatherings) with everything except the Win Super X hollowpoints. They could only do 1 moa consistently, though. Shooting at 100 yds. on 9 power. Not acceptable. Will rechamber to .22 K-Hornet and try again.

The Marlin .17 HMR is next up, or the Swift, or the 7-08, or???

Tom
 
Last edited:
the .22 mag has a diameter of .224 and a .22lr nonjacketed bullets are .222
and the cci jacketed bullets mic'ed at .223 so i assume that would affect accuracy going from .22 mag to .22lr but the other way round should be ok, still i would chronograph it to see how fast the velocity is compared to the specs given by the manufacturer gun)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top