Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Barrett Fieldcraft LW, Just curious...

Micro action. Shorter than current "short" action.

What’s the OAL gonna be?

Im not sure off the top of my head. I have been shooting a 16" threaded with a tiny suppressor, so "short". I also have an 18" light barrel.

I think he's asking about the maximum OAL of the ammo that will work in the magazine. How long is the magazine box?

Right on.

Thanks Chris.

Sounds "rough".

Laughing!..............

Yes, what are the dimensions of the mag box?

Sweet. Mag box OAL is THE deciding factor now. Thanks TN!

Anything else coming along in the Fieldcraft for 2019?

Receiver length interests me more.

If it's the 308 receiver shoe-horned...then the sky is the limit.................

I cannot remember the exact dimension off the top of my head so please don't burn me down if this is not accurate but, I believe it is .060" over SAAMI max. There is enough room (relative to throat geometry) to load several bullets to touch lands.

That being said, I would not get too wrapped up about that dimension exclusively. The rifle has very good throat geometry that has proven to shoot a variety of bullet shapes equally well. That is always the goal, after safety and reliability of course.

I have shot so many rifles that are capable of extreme precision with generous bullet "jump" that I don't make decisions based solely on that dimension. Its purely about output. Small groups, or statistically-better low radial SDs, low velocity SDs, consistency across temps. Performance, not theoretical numbers.

I understand if you had a 3" mag box you could seat a 90 grainer way out there. There is a point of diminishing returns with so little fuel behind it. Might as well go 22-250/22 Creedmoor at that point.

I have been shooting factory-loaded full 5.56 pressure Mk262 and its fantastic.

Is the magazine box blocked off or simply a little longer than SAAMI length, and as long of a box as will fit in the micro action? A mag length ~.060 over SAAMI really isn't going to work, as it just doesn't allow room for the longer bullets. The issue isn't so much with bullet jump as it is maximizing capacity. 75-90 grain bullets work awesome in the 223, especially when loaded to acceptable lengths (say 2.45-2.5"), and it would be a darned shame to build a rifle with quick enough twist for those bullets, yet not be able to take full advantage of them due to trying to squish the rounds into too short of an action. If the magazine box can't be lengthened, then I fear Barrett has screwed up bigly - and should've just built the 223 on a regular short action. If the magazine can be lengthened, I'll be first in line to buy one.

I would be just as happy seeing the 223 in a regular short action as a micro action---particularly if it gives you a longer magazine. Seems like a no brainer to me.
R

Yep. If the actions aren't built with a long enough magazine to take advantage of heavies, what's the point of buying one?

Might as well just use a ~ 2.8" magazine on the regular short action, too....I mean factory ammo will work with a 308 or 6.5 Creedmoor, why bother with 3"? 180s are a waste in the 7mm-08 too, need a 7mm Mag to shoot them...diminishing returns and all

2.250" COAL is where it's at in 223!

Hint.

LAUGHING!............

It's all about RPM/BC/COAL in the 223 and 2.25" is just sad. Hint.

More like pathic, as I don't see anybody else coming along anytime soon with a 2.5" internal mag box..
And they but a 1:7 on their short box .223 and go from a 1:7 in their 22-250 to a 1:8??
Genius..

You Do NOTHING Kchunts are a hoot!

Hint.

Laughing!..............

When did you make the P100?

I see all those targets you shot at 50yds, but I don't see your name on the CMP site. Or the NRA or any other organization's site. No national records, no match reports. You must have got your feelers hurt coming in last.

Oooopsie!..............