The Winchester Model 67 single shot rifle...

Stumbled into this thread during an internet search on the Winchester Model 60 and enjoyed the article all over again John.

The .22 Long Rifle's Optimum Barrel Length For Maximum Velocity

For entertainment and education I once conducted extensive chronograph tests of a number of brands and styles of .22 rim fire cartridges. I satisfied myself that the 27-inch barrel of a Remington Model 513T dependably returned significantly higher velocities than a 22-inch barrel of a Winchester Model 57. Both standard velocity and high velocity .22 Long Rifle ammunition of various kinds were tested as were Longs and Shorts. Only certain standard velocity Shorts yielded higher velocities from the 22-inch barrel, "coasting" to lower muzzle velocities from the 27-inch barrel. I had to resort to trying CB caps in order to get a bullet stuck in the long-barreled Remington and most of these exited.

Several 25 to 27 inch .22 rifles are on hand and they are quieter and more pleasant to shoot as is pointed out above, especially with standard velocity ammunition.
 
Glad I saw this- thanks for resurrecting bmc. For my 6th bday (in 1987), my dad gave me a Model 67A Youth...my grandfather had gotten it for him when he was a kid. After a zillion rounds, it still looks pretty good though it doesn't see as much action as it once did. My uncle actually has one with no sights and a factory scope, a rare bird. I enjoyed the read Paladin.
 
Last edited:
Another thanks for resurrecting this thread, I hadn't seen it.

I picked up a 67 several years ago at an estate auction. It's an amalgamated version - it has the early finger-groove stock, but has a 67A bolt. Also, no serial number.

After running a patch or 20 down down the bore, I cleaned the stock (which was incredibly filthy) with 4-0 steel wool and Mineral Spirits, very lightly rubbing it down.

It looks good now, and shoots very accurately - better than my eyes can see.

Eventually, having no children of my own, I hope to hand it down to a great-nephew (or niece).
 
Thanks for a good article.
Like many, the M67 was my first rifle.
My Mom and I were friends with an old man that attended auctions and such. Mom liked some antique pieces he'd pick up and refinish sometimes and would buy them.
Occasionally he'd pick up a 'farm gun' from somewhere. That's where my M67 came from. I was 13, and had saved up for a hopeful purchase of a .22 of some description. The M67 was sold to me for $15 and I was so excited I could barely sleep after getting it. At the time, .22 shorts were cheaper than LR's, so it saw alot of them.

That rifle was carried for many miles of in-the-field enjoyment. Very accurate and simple as a brick.
A friend tastefully refinished the stock some years back and I still have it.
Hasn't been fired in 20-some years, but probably will not part with it.
 
I have and treasure the 67A I received as a Christmas present in 1952. Uncounted thousands of rounds over the years and half a dozen new shooters taught with this rifle. The rifle is in excellent condition with some wear showing at the balance point.
 
I hadn't seen this article either. Thanks for the revival. My 67A is a great little rifle. It's missing the buttplate but has served as a snake charmer for several decades. Neat little guns.
 
This is a very well researched article on the 67 variants. Winchester .22s are my passion and good informative articles are few and far between. Thanks PALADIN, I appreciate all your threads on these classic rifles.

As of this fall I have acquired at least one example of every single shot .22 Winchester produced, but if you were to get every variation of the different models it would be herculean task.
I have had close to 10 of these fine little rifles and still have a few. One was a gift from a friends Dad. Another one I believe is unfired from the Savage reference library. I had 2 "boys" rifles and gave one to a friend so his daughter can shoot with him. I have a lot of Winchester .22 also but not everyone!
 
The 68's you don't see many around.
Made for a short time period part of which was war time.
Here is one with the finger grooves sandwiched
Between a Winchester 75 target and a Remington 34 also with finger grooves an attribute I like.
 

Attachments

  • 20190714_115827.jpg
    20190714_115827.jpg
    86.3 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:
Coming from a small town in Ohio almost every boy had a single shot 22 and 410. My town was the same as thousands of others. This leads me to the question, were are all those single shot 22s? There had to be hundreds of thousands of them. You don't see a lot of them at shows proportional to the numbers that existed. Same with 410s. Very few of the guys I grew up with still have theirs and can't tell you what happened to them. I'm inclined to believe a sizable portion of them were thrown into the trash just like a lot of BB guns.
 
What an interesting article. I appreciate the research you put into all of your articles.
I have a question about the smooth bore versions of this rifle, and any other smooth bore. Why are they made? I would think that the invention of rifling would eliminate the smooth bore{ except shotguns}. Are they made for bird shot?
 
I learned to shoot with my brothers. My mom bought each brother one with S&H green stamps. I bought one for myself about 5 years ago for 125.00, great shooter
 
What an interesting article. I appreciate the research you put into all of your articles.
I have a question about the smooth bore versions of this rifle, and any other smooth bore. Why are they made? I would think that the invention of rifling would eliminate the smooth bore{ except shotguns}. Are they made for bird shot?

.22 bird shot cartridges have been around for a long time. They can be shot in rifled bores, but many smooth bore guns have been made for them. The patterns are much tighter than when shot through rifling. Here are some photos, including one of a Remington Nylon 10 smooth bore single shot that I own. They are great for garden pests where a normal shotgun would be overkill.

John

22_BIRD_SHOT-1_zpsnxze5nyk.jpg


22_BIRD_SHOT-3_zps6m2y0tpt.jpg



22_BIRD_SHOT-4_zpsdizjnazt.jpg


22_BIRD_SHOT-5-NYLON_10_SMOOTH_BORE-1900_zps1iqigenv.jpg


22_BIRD_SHOT-2_zpszbvcg3kp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice article on a great rifle a lot of us got a start with.


"...A bolt retaining spring was removed in August, 1937...."

That simple bolt retaining spring was removed from the rifle rather quickly after initial production began. The thin, deep mill slice cut required into the rear of the recv'r portion of the assembly weakened that area to the point that it developed a crack that then ran forward even farther on the 'recv'r'.

The spring itself is only about a 1/32" square and maybe 1.5" long with a slight bend to it. It is staked into that sliced cut at about the 7 oclock position looking at the recv'r from the rear.
The idea was that the spring would bear slightly on the bolt body and then jump into a flat on the body when the bolt was in the closed position. The light spring tension on that flat would help hold the bolt closed.,,which it did.
But upon opening the bolt with a bit of gusto as some kids may do I imagine, the bolt handle root slams against the left wall of the recv'r.
Right below it (under the wood line) is that deep thin cut out in the recv'r for the spring,,and I think that helped to bring on the crack and extend it with use. Maybe just poor engineering.

After a couple years,,gone was the milled cut in the recv'r and that simple spring and the recv'r was stronger.

One thing to look for in the very early Mod 67 rifles is that recv'r crack. Just unscrew the TD assembly and lift the bbl'd action out of the wood. Look for the spring itself and follow the channel it sits it forward.
The crack is either there ,or it's not. Sometimes the springs are missing in these but that doesn't mean the channel can't have that crack.
Any M67 with the finger groove forend will have bolt retaining spring and a few early production rifles after that.

Nobody likes to buy a rifle with a cracked recv'r,,even a 22.
 
OOOooo...

By the time the Nylon 10 was introduced I'll bet those smooth bore variants were made in minuscule numbers.
 
I've had a couple. They were great rifles, and accurate if you could overcome the trigger. I wanted one when I was a kid, wanted more a Remington single which cocked on opening. Good article.
 
I have the one my father bought new in 1935. He gave it to me when I was 9. Dad has been gone since 1982. I still have the little rifle & it shoots as good as ever. Me, not so much.

-don
 
The article you reference measures standard .22 LR ammo. I'm pretty sure that the hi-velocity stuff has enough poop that it can utilize some extra inches of barrel. I read that when the Remington Model 66 was designed, they settled on 19.5" as optimum for the high-speed ammo they used and recommended. At that time (1958), the hyper-velocity stuff had not yet been developed, which might have justifiably utilized an even longer length. I'll revise the text to reflect the 19.5" number. Thanks for the heads up on that.

John

Since we're on the barrel length issue, let me suggest some refinement in language.

"Optimum" barrel length in no way implies "maximum" velocity.

Eugene Stoner for example Identified 18" as the optimum length for the .223 Remington round in his fully automatic AR-18 and semi-automatic AR-180. But that was a balance of length and handling versus velocity. In the earlier AR-15 the length used was 20", again seeking a balance between length and ballistic performance (with a 500 yard 10 ga steel plate penetration requirement in the mix).

However anyone who's ever had a 20" .223 and a 24" .223 understands pretty well that the velocity in the 24" barrel is greater. I have 11.5", 16", 18" 20", 21" and 24" .223s and base don my chronograph data it's clear that above 18" the gains in velocity get lower in terms of feet per second per each additional inch of barrel - but the increase is still there. One inch differences in length can be problematic at the longer end of the spectrum as the increase per inch can be lost in the statistical noise of small sample sizes as well as in specific chamber, throat and bore dimensions that produces differences that exceed the differences per single inch of barrel. Below 18" the velocity loss per each inch of barrel accelerates as the barrel gets shorter, at least at normal carbine and SBR lengths.

Most shooters understand that with the .223, but then claim there isn't enough powder in the .22LR to continue accelerating past 16", 19", etc. (pick your favorite number). The theory is that the combined air pressure in front of the bullet and drag of the bullet in the bore is greater than the gas pressure behind the bullet.

That theory then gets "supported" by faulty data (like the BBTI data) where high standard deviations and extremely small sample sizes create differences between adjacent barrel lengths that are less than the standard deviation in velocity at each barrel length. Inevitably that leads to an "average" velocity for a barrel length that is lower than the 1" shorter barrel. That's far more likely to happen at longer barrel lengths over 18"-19" where the increase in velocity per inch is less.

That theory is also supported (and actually has some truth) in .22 BB and .22 CB caps, where the bullet is powered only by the primer compound. In some long barrel, snug bored rifles the primer can potentially be insufficient to cause the bullet to exit the bore.

Again however, looking at my own chronograph data over the years even standard velocity .22 LR increases in velocity in barrel lengths, at least out to the 26" length of my match rifles. It's not great and may be less than 10 fps per inch, but it's still increasing. You do often high quality ammo, and a sufficient sample size to get a low enough SD to see the difference in 1" of barrel, but it's there.

----

Consequently, I suggest that you not read more into "optimum barrel length than is really there and just leave it at "optimum" and not repeat an internet and gun rag fallacy that "maximum" velocity is achieved at "x" inches of barrel, unless you are stating that about a barrel length that is greater than at least a yard.
 
Back
Top