Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Short barrel question?

Looks like a few of the firearm companies have come close to equaling long action magnum performance using a short action magnums. My question is can a 5 shot group less than an inch in diameter be obtained with 20 inch barrel of reasonable weight?

Of course. Bench resters generally prefer short = stiff barrels. Long barrels improve velocity, as Hatcher pointed out a century ago with the .30-06. Bigger powder charges also increase velocity but are harder on barrels and recoil. If the weight is acceptable, a moderately long, fairly heavy (for stiffness) barrel is the generally used compromise. Going from 22 or 24 to 28-29 inches can gain you up to a couple hundred fps, same as you might gain going to a larger cartridge.

Using good reloading components that the rifle likes, sure they can!!!

Other than length, the only difference between a longer barrel vs a shorter barrel, is the velocity performance gained by the longer barrel. A longer barrel is not more accurate, and in theory anyway, the shorter ones are supposed to be a little more accurate because of less barrel length to vibrate, writhe or resonate.

In case you`re wondering about velocity loss from a 20" tube, I`ll throw this in....After weeks of chrony experiments using a wide variety of identical reloads (minimum, medium, up to max charges), my 300 WSM Ruger Frontier (thanks to todays more modern powders) with only its 16.5" barrel, fell short in the overall velocity dept by only 4.2% to 4.5%, when compared side by side vs two 24" tubed 300 WSMs. The average loss (per inch) was from 16 to 19.5 fps. A 20" barreled short mag, will reduce that 4.2 to 4.5 percentage down even further.

From my experience, short mags are excellent performers from the shorter barrels and very accurate too.

My Remington SPS Tac 308 will shoot 1/2 MOA with factory Federal Match ammo. My handloads so far have been grouping around .350 - .370 with 5 shots. The little Remington has a 20" heavy barrel not sure what it weighs but it's not bad.

Pat

By all means they can.....I like short barrels.

How'd you feel about a 20" 264????

One company did make them.....

Well actually no I wouldnt like that, but in all actuality I prefer short barrels, I always wanted a long barreled .264 so thats why I chose the length I chose.

I would certainly not want a smaller bore magnum .300 or less) with a 20 inch barrel. It defeats the whole purpose of buying magnum performance.

Rem has their LTR .300 SAUM cut to 20" I think? My Rem 700 LTR .308 win with medium heavy 20 inches puts them in 3/4 easy, as will my 700 Mtn and M7 in 308 win. They are very slim and very accurate when bbl's are not hot.


nut

Dammit!

I go to the 264 guru and he doesn't like it!

Scored a couple new, unfired Sako bbls., one in 264 from a carbine Finnbear. Gonna run it despite what you say...

Should dupe the 6.5/06 I was going to build (with a slight waste of powder, but WTF). Only cost 55 bucks....

For that price I would have no problem what someone does, but if it were me and I wanted a short barreled 6.5 it would be in a WSSM case.
Give us some feedback on those short barreled .264's in the velo dept if you would.

..........Not defeated by really too much there!!........Sacrificing only 4.2% to 4.5% in total overall velocity as I do with my shorty 16.5" 300 is well worth it, especially with having 10" or so less in overall rifle length and less rifle weight to deal with in many terrains.

A 20" barreled short mag, will easily come to within 3% of a 24" tubed short mag. A reduction of 4.5% and less in the velocity dept, should not handicap any hunter given the same shooting distance.

Either way, no deer, elk, moose, bear, or any other game hunted would know the difference.

3% and 4.5% of 3000 fps = 90 fps and 135 fps, or 61.3 mph to 92 mph. Most if not all of us, can easily throw a baseball in-between those speeds.

Will do. The other tube is a 7mm Rem..

I'm basically looking at RL-25 or 22, unless you have some others you'd recommend?

The WSSM case I have experience with in 243. I see no magic in it.

Thanks for the replies. I see this could be more of question of what is the rifle to be used for. I am always searching for that perfect rifle.

You can not change physics. You can take a .5 inch off a case length and take an inch off the barrel length and not lose too much velocity. However, don't for a minute believe that any magnum round is anywhere near efficient particularly with a slow powder like RL22 in a 20 inch barrel!

The smaller the bore, the more velocity it loses per inch of barrel length. This whole business about case shape and physical laws of ballistics being suspended defied is marketing hocus-pocus or BS if you will!

Cut 4 inches of barrel off a .270 WSM and all you will have is a loud .270 Winchester!!!!

"can a 5 shot group less than an inch in diameter be obtained with 20 inch barrel"

Guys do that all the time with good handguns, T/C's, XP-100's, etc. I just picked up an 15" Encore in 260 Rem and the guys I hunt with can't believe I can almost shoot groups as small as theirs with a barrel 11" shorter. With shorter barrels though many people scale down to more efficient cartridges that are better matched to the barrel length. The muzzle blast from big magnum cases in a short barrel can be substantial.

In theory a shorter barrel of the same thickness of a longer barrel would be stiffer and therefore more accurate.

In cartridges a shorter barrel equals less bullet velocity at the muzzle. In terms of a 26" barrel over a 20" barrel a larger diameter bullet would lose less velocity than a smaller velocity. So a 375 H&H would lose less velocity per inch than a 22-250.

Lots of folks insist a magnum cartride require a 26" barrel.I think their argument is over stated. Expect 25-50 fps less muzzle velocity per inch less barrel length.

If you shorten a 300 Weatherby barrel from 26" too 20" expect to lose 150 plus fps. Do that with a 257 Weatherby you lose closer to 300 fps muzzle velocity due to the smaller diameter bullet.

I'd love to see the muzzle flash off of that baby when fired on a dark night!

Any velocity loss as it relates to bore diameter, depends on the characteristics of the individual rifles tested, or those which are compared side by side, at the same time in the same weather conditions.

Using a wide variety identical reloads, my side by side chrony testing proved conclusively, that a shorter tubed 300 WSM loses 16.3 to 19.4 fps per inch of shorter barrel length with the rifles that were used in my experiment.

On the other hand, when I duplicated an on line 375 Ruger load which chrony`d at 2875 fps out of a 23" Ruger African barrel, my results were 2808 fps from my Alaskan`s 20" barrel. A difference of 22.3 fps per inch.

In the above example anyway, the larger .375 bore had an increase in the fps (per inch) dept.

Several years ago in an on-line article still there, Dick Metcalf chronographed bullet velocities from a 16.5" barreled 7mm/08 Ruger Frontier using factory ammo, giving him 2647 fps. That same ammo from a 7/08 24" barrel gave 2770 fps. In his case, the (per inch) difference was only 16.4 fps from the smaller 7mm bore size.

Interestingly, he concluded that regardless of any available Ruger Frontier chamberings at the time (from the 243 up to and including the 308 Win), the average velocity loss across the board should be uniform at about 4.5% vs 24" barrels using the same identical loadings. This would also make uniform, the fps (per inch) regardless of bore diameter.

Unless tested side by side at the same time, I`m not so sure that
the smaller bored, shorter barreled rifles would have a fps (per inch) loss increase over the larger bores.

In my experience, it`s kinda going a little the other way.

.........I think you should get the rifle you like, in the cartridge you like, in the barrel length you like, and worry about the other small incidentals later.

Many put velocity as a top priority vs the few including me, who prefer the better handling, shorter OAL rifles that give up only a small percentage of velocity.

Many will tell you that having a 20" tubed or less 264 Win, any WSM, any magnum etc, defeats the purpose of having those cartridges! Imo; hogwash!!

Are they then saying, that when a small percentage of velocity is lost (estimating 4% or less between a 20" barreled 264 Win vs a 26"), that one is more likely to be less successful on a hunt given the same shooting distances? Be less accurate? Is that 4% and less extra velocity cushion, going to make a difference in the killing power on game in the field? In all reality, the answer is,,,,no!

But, there are compromises in everything. A shorter OAL rifle gives better handling, carrying ease, manuverability, generally less rifle weight, but comes with more recoil, while at the same time, more noise from a shorter barrel by a more pronounced muzzle blast along with increased night-time muzzle flash. As with everything, there are trade-offs! Gains in certain areas, while having dis-advantages in other areas.

Think of it this way as I do. On a hunt, one can carry a rifle for hours, but doing the actual shooting takes only a split second. For that difference in time (hours vs split seconds), I`ll take more noise or more blast and flash, in return for a lighter, better handling, shorter and easier to carry rifle.

My Walker Game Ears work great in the field and my ear muffs work great at the range. Regardless of barrel length, good hearing protection in the field or on the range should always be worn anyway, which imo, really makes any increased noise issue an extremely mute point.