Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barrel Length Question...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barrel Length Question...

    Can some one explain to me what the advantages and disadvantages of having a 22"- 26" barrel?

    A friend of mine is looking at buying a new gun, and asked me...I have no idea.

    Thanks in advance!
    When all else fails...ask your old-man.


    AKArcher

  • #2
    A longer barrel in a small caliber will generate a little bit more velocity. A shorter barrel in a large caliber will have very little affect on velocity differences. A 277 caliber barrel will get more velocity from a 26" barrel than it will from a 22" barrel. A 375 H&H will lose very little velocity from a 26" barrel to a 22" barrel. It's called expantion ratio.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks Allen,

      So...when you are shooting a Rem 700 in 300 Win Mag, the difference between the 24 and 26" barrel should be very little? (Mag vs. Ultra Mag)

      Thanks for the timely response!
      When all else fails...ask your old-man.


      AKArcher

      Comment


      • #4
        Barrel length

        AK Archer,


        Magnums hold more powder. Magnums need more barrrel in which to burn more powder to create more velocity and thus more energy.

        A Magnum with a short barrel is a loud standard caliber, because with less barrel, can't burn extra powder, can't get extra velocity.

        The practical side is a 300 Win Mag looses about 35 fps per barrel inch from 26" down to 22" and more after that.

        Are you sure you don't want to talk about the Savage Alaska Guide Gun?

        Murphy
        Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?


        Comment


        • #5
          And... the shorter the barrel is, the louder is the shooting, especially with magnums...

          Well, in my opinion there is always a good decision for each caliber which makes sense or not. For my .30-06 I prefer 22" barrels, my .375H&H Mag has a 24" barrel. If I would take a magnum, it will be a 24" barrel, taking an UltraMag or something like that: even a 26" barrel...
          And it is also a question of the cartridge: European metric calibers are getting rid with shorter barrels - most of it. So the 9,3x62 or the 8x57IS...

          Good shooting!

          Klaus

          Comment


          • #6
            Murphy...

            ...you're getting sassy! =^)

            Dave

            Comment


            • #7
              Aside from the ballistic question, the advantage of a shorter barrel is that you can move through thick alders much more nimbly without that extra few inches of steel hanging up on every branch.

              Of course, when moving through thick alders, 'more nimbly' isn't all that meaningful a distinction...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Murphy
                AK Archer,

                I'll guess by your name you don't shoot a rifle much.

                A rather esoteric question.

                Did you ever notice that Magnum calibers have longer barrels than standard calibers?

                Did you also norice that Magnum calibers have larger cartridges than standard?

                Did you ever notice on an ammo box that Magnum calibers give more velocity than standard calibers and/or handle heavier bullets?

                Murphy
                Thanks for the response Murphy....

                Actually I do shoot quite a bit. I shoot my 300 Win. Mag when anything will do, and then I step up to my 330 Dakota when I need some "umph"... I have just never dug into to all the factors of barrel length etc...

                I am a Computer/Network Engineer...ask me a question in this field, and I can rattle on and on.... I knew you would do the same with this question.

                AKArcher
                When all else fails...ask your old-man.


                AKArcher

                Comment


                • #9
                  .300 Wsm

                  My father-in-law has the Savage Stryker (not the guide gun!) in a .300 WSM which sports a 14 or 16" barrel (don't remember exactly). I know this won't perform like a full length barrel'd rifle but I have heard the ballistics are similar to that of a full length 30.06. Is this about right?

                  Any opinons on this rig?
                  AKmud
                  sigpic


                  The porcupine is a peaceful animal yet God still thought it necessary to give him quills....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Can't remember which author (my bet is Bob Hagel) did an experiment back in the 70's, whacking an inch at a time off a standard and a magnum rifle, then chronographing again. Did it all the way from 28 or 30 inches down to 16 inches, as I recall. If I can dredge the article out of my files, I'll provide more detail and a reference.

                    As I recall, the standard caliber lost about 25 fps per inch, while the magnum lost 40 or 50 fps per inch.

                    I've only had a few barrels clipped. One, an 257 Roberts 3-inch that RCBS built for me in the 70's had a 26 inch Shilen barrel, which I had clipped to 22 and restocked recently. With my top 100-grain loads it dropped from an average of 3175 fps to just under 3100 fps.

                    I also had a 24-inch 375 H&H clipped to 20 inches. It lost almost 150 fps with 270 grain bullets and a little less than that with 300's. No animal on earth would notice the difference on impact.

                    I notice the difference when packing them, however.

                    Four inches may not seem like a lot until you move into thick brush. Remember that most of that 4" is sticking up over your head on a rifle hanging from your shoulder a sling. Clipping it down to head-high cuts tangles a whole lot more than you might imagine. Ducking under a branch takes the end of the shorter barrel down far enough that it clears along with your head, while a longer barrel forces you to duck a whole bunch lower.

                    It probably depends more on how tall you are and how long your sling is, but the dividing line on my 6'4" frame is between 20 and 22 inches for barrels. Longer than that seems to tangle a lot more, while shorter doesn't seem to help much. I probably won't clip any more barrels shorter than 22 inches, but I need a very good reason to every have any longer than 22 for Alaskan brush.
                    "Lay in the weeds and wait, and when you get your chance to say something, say something good."
                    Merle Haggard

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Barrel length

                      AKWannabe,

                      I prefer the term Grouchy or Old Grouch. Sassy should be reserved for pregnant women and small children.

                      AKmud,

                      Though I'm not familiar with the Stryker per se, it must have a 16" barrel as that is the shortest we can have on a rifle due to ATF rules. Also you are probably correct about it's performance more on a par with the 30-06 in a 22" barrel.

                      This seems a subject which gets a lot of attention here as most folks want a short barreled rifle for portability. And a lot of folks want to know about the effect of a shortened barrel before taking it to the gunsmith and having it whacked, I understand that. But almost always without exception when I or someone else tries to explain what the effects are of a shortened barrel to help the individual make an informed decision, someone will say they cut a barrel to 16 inches and it works great. (Which means; I pull the trigger and the bullet comes out.) Anyway that seems to satisfy and out comes the hack saw. No one really cares if the 300 ultra is now a loud 308 Winchester, all that matters is we don't get tangled in the bushes.

                      What I find staggeringly odd and dangerous anyway is carrying a rifle in coastal ALaska, where bears grow large and have been known to kill us frail humans, especially through the thickest of thickets with the rifle slung over the shoulder. !#*! I have hunted in, well....about a dozen countries and twenty some states, and yes some, a lot of that was in thick jess of some kind. Now most of this was not in areas where in lurked great dangerous beasts, but even then my rifle was in my hands! And, certainly, when danger was afoot nearby, my rifle was at the ready! And,. I still got through the bush!

                      Am I the only reader of this forums script that finds this ahhhh..for lack of a better term......dumb! Sorry folks. Now to make this even dumber, the rifle, in order to qualify as an Alaska rifle MUST be stainless, of course, and plastic and light weight. Not just light weight but super light weight, less than six pounds is great. And oh, yeah, lest we forget SHORT!! (The ATF rules seem to get in the way again.) Sixteen inches is way too long. So it should be very easy to carry in the hands but, it goes over the shoulder and it still gets caught in the alders. I don't get it!

                      I have chronographed dozens of shortened magnum rifles here in ALaska over the past two years. They still suck! They are very loud and velocity is down to standard caliber level or less. Now I understand light, short and handy. I own many of them. Not 16" hunting rifles but 18"-20" barreled rifles. But it seems to me many hunters in this state carry this to an extreme. Judging by the troops going ga-ga over the cheap made Savage Guide Gun, makes me think nothing else matters but .....SHORT!!

                      Oh, well. I'm better now that I have that off my chest. Feel free to berate me at will.

                      Like I said, I own and have owned had many SHORT rifles. We call them carbines in this country. In some parts of the globe the name translates to "Handy" and central Europe has the "Battue" rifle.

                      Some of my carbines are:

                      Remington model 600, 308 Win, 18" bbl.
                      Winchester model 70 (1956 version) 358 Win, 18.5" bbl.
                      Remington model 788, 308 Win, 18" bbl.
                      Sako Battue model, 308 Win, 19.25" bbl.
                      Sako Battue model, 9.3x62, 20" bbl.
                      Winchester model 1894 SRC (1904 version), 38-55 Win, 20" bbl.
                      Savage model 1899, 358 Win, 20" bbl.
                      Ruger model 77, 358 Win, 18.5" bbl.
                      Sako handy rifle, 375 H&H, 20" bbl.
                      Stoner Mk 23, 223 Rem, 14.5" bbl. (1968 version, this one was fun and didn't get tangled, but had a four inch gizmo on the muzzle, the terrain was very thick)

                      I also have many 22"-24" barreled hunting rifles and carry them in thick brushy areas as well, kinda depends on the mood. I promise you, none of these were ever too long to get through any brush or tangle in which I hunted including Kodiak Island. There you have it, more griping by a southern country boy who has actually seen the world, and still lookin'.

                      Good shootin'.

                      Murphy
                      Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Murphy
                        AKmud,

                        Though I'm not familiar with the Stryker per se, it must have a 16" barrel as that is the shortest we can have on a rifle due to ATF rules. Also you are probably correct about it's performance more on a par with the 30-06 in a 22" barrel.


                        Murphy

                        Murphy the Savage Striker is their bolt action pistol.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Stryker

                          Allen,

                          Thanks for settin' me straight. I said I wasn't familiar with it, I should have said I don't know jack about it. I guess it would have to have less than a 16" huh? It seems I remember seeing an add for one but have never seen an actual specimen. I Think that is the answer to a shorter rifle! A pistol!
                          Why didn't anyone come up with one of them sooner?

                          Geeze! I'm loosin' it.

                          Murphy
                          Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Murphy

                            Now to make this even dumber, the rifle, in order to qualify as an Alaska rifle MUST be stainless, of course, and plastic and light weight. Good shootin'.

                            Murphy

                            Not one single SS/S rifle in my battery. Deep blued and pretty wood still rate with me. Only thing stainless I own are revolvers.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Murphy
                              Allen,

                              Why didn't anyone come up with one of them sooner?


                              Murphy

                              Remington and Weatherby both did decades ago.

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X