I have been very interested in knowing how much velocity is sacrificed by shortening a rifle's barrel.
I found a report by a fellow who's name I won't reveal but who's initials are Charlie Sisk. It seems by his findings that not so much is lost by shortening barrels as I was led to believe.
For example;in the testing of the .338 Winchester Magnum, 73 grains of RL 19 was sparked by a Federal GM 215 M primer and pushed it's bullet from a 27" barrel at 2806 fps. then it was shortened one inch at a time with average velocities recorded for each inch lost. (26"= 2787, 25"= 2761, 24"=2743, 23"= 2716, 22"= 2697, 21"= 2676, 20"=2656).
This was only one example of many that showed similar amounts of loss per inch.
What strikes me is that for handling a short stout barrels seems, well...handy.
The differance between a 24" barrel and a 20" barrel shows about 87 fps. loss in velocity.
Sure if you are shooting(on the bench) with out hearing protection, it's going to hurt...and it should, WEAR HEARING PROTECTION. When in the field, it will be a little louder...but not much, if you know what I mean.
So, other than a little noise, what's not to like about a shorter barrel. I really wonder what I would be sacrificing by shortening my heavies (with 24" barrels) down to 20".
Specificaly, I am thinking of building another bigger 35, like a 358 Norma, and I am wondering about it's performance with a 20" barrel.