Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles What's with the attraction to short actions?

It seems many on this forum prefer short action rifles. All I have ever owned is a long action and I am not sure what the benefits are to a short action. Loss of performance and seating depth issues? I guess the SA is a little lighter and from what people have said point easier? Talk me into a short action or at least explain the benefits, thanks

Slightly lighter, shorter handling rifles, I guess?
My favorite short action is a falling block, or break action single shot. No cartridge - magazine length issuses, and REALLY short rifle length!
They handle like a dream with a 24 or 26" barrel.
Catnthehat

The short action is lighter and may point a tad easier. But they are more ridgid and in theory should be a tad more accurate. Loss of performance? Depends on the caliber. The new wsm and sarum lines will hang right there with the belted magnums. And they do so in a lighter shorter rifle. Also there are some other short action calibers that will offer performance and range that will exceed most shooters abilities. So I guess its all in what you want. I have and like both.

I too have wondered the same thing...........

Not really an attraction to me... Action length follows caliber choice for the most part, not the other way around. If I want a .308, it'll be short, a 25-06 will be long. Maybe that's just me though.

I think, for the most part, short actions are highly overrated. They're only a few ounces lighter than a long action and only about 1/2" shorter. I doubt you'd notice the difference in the field. True, they're more accurate. But how much difference is a quarter or an eighth of an inch in accuracy going to make on game?

If you are shooting a 308 class cartridge, why shoot it in a long action. sako makes something like five action lengths. really, to me, it all comes down to what feels good in your hands.

Short actions also offer a shorter bolt pull length, which makes them cycle quicker. Whether the difference is relevant in the field probably depends on the shooter and what kind of hunting you're doing. From a set position with a long range shot, the difference is probably negligible, but if taking snap shots in the brush, it might make a real difference.

The difference in accuracy POTENTIAL will not be visible outside a benchrest setup, and probably not then. As to handling, the length of an action is not the major factor in determining a rifle's handling attributes. The way that it's stocked and the weight distribution is much more important. If a couple ounces in weight were that important, then no one would be using McMillan stocks, as they easily weigh a couple ounces more than comparable quality stocks. The major advantage appears to be that they are about 1/2" shorter.

If you have to be talked into a new rifle, then you aren't infected with the disease.

I grew up with nothing but short actions. They just feel good in my hands. I don't feel in any way handicapped with the shorties and their "loss of performance". I've tried long action cartridges in the past (7X57, .280, .30-06) and never felt like they offered any advantage over my .257 Bob, 7mm-08, and .308 for what and how I hunt. I have added one long action rifle to the safe though. It's a .338-06, and I have to admit I'm getting kind of used to it!

Ditto. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Besides, Fords are Better than Chevys. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

BMT

I have have no interest in the curent craze for the short fat rounds. I like big thumpers lol. tom

Well, figured I had to chime in with some positives.

A) it never hurts to have something with even slightly better accuracy potential.
B) slightly more efficient case design (aka uses slightly less powder for same velocities)
C) a shorter, handier rifle isn't always a bad thing (grin)
D) they're new and fun and if you don't have a LA version, why not?

Most important to me at the moment:
E) You're starting out with the above, but also on a platform that weighs in 5 oz less than a comparable LA.

Guys spend a lot of $$$$$ shaving oz off their rifles. It's quite easy to start out with a Model 7 as your action and end up with a rifle that goes under 7.5 pounds, scoped and loaded with no major modifications other than a new stock. Under 7 pounds is just as easy by going with something like a Bansner stock.

Add that to a cartridge that will tread on the heels of their belted LA counterparts (don't know why I don't like belts, but just don't) and you're in the berries!

I haven't bought factory ammo in several years, so that isn't a consideration for me. I really don't care whatsoever if I can find ammo for it at WalMart.

Of course, some might be put off by the "short" and "fat" titles, but since I'm neither short nor fat, I don't have that complex <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> (just kidding! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />)!

And, since I've never been big on nostalgia either, I tend to like the better mousetrap -- even if it is only slightly better (grin).

Hmmm, maybe if you add enough "slightly's" together it totals something a little more significant???? Naw! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Gentlemen�

Let�s �reason together� on these �short, fat� rounds� and be HONEST! Having been a successful company owner for the greater part of my adult life, I think I can understand the moving force behind the �short, fat rounds�.

The so-called �advantages� of these �short, fat rounds� are relatively minor.. or totally non-existent! The ONE THING that is �existent� is� (are you ready for this ?)� let me spell it out for you��E-C-O-N-O-M-I-C-S!�

Who�s �ECONOMICS�??? Why, the firearms manufacturer�s economics, of course!

Let�s face it� the number of hunters and shooters are slowly diminishing and, thus, so are firearms sales. And the best way to improve those sales is to make new guns, but if most of us already have guns in the common calibers, what�s the BEST WAY to insure we HAVE to buy NEW guns???

Simple!!! Come up with new calibers!!!!!

And thus you have the �short, fat� calibers which have very few, if any, REAL advantages, but all the newer fellas who haven�t been around long enough to own the old standard calibers are opting for the new calibers because they believe there�s an advantage when, in fact, any advantage if either tiny or non-existent.

In any event, it�s not hard to figure out why there�s the short, fat calibers, eh?
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />


Strength & Honor�

Ron T.

Yep, 5 oz of weight savings and 1 3/8" shorter action. Nothing to THAT at all <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

No practical advantage whatsoever <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />!!!!!!

I don't think there are too many BR shooters that'd argue that the short/fat design is more accurate. Not that that makes ANY difference in a hunting rifle.

If you sit in a stand, rifle weight and handiness would be of no concern. If you climb 2500 vertical feet to get into your hunting area each day then it WOULD be a concern to you.

Of course, economics plays a part and may be the sole reason why remchester went this route. If so, I'm glad because it DOES have some practical advantages for ME.

As stated, the ONLY reason you'd NOT opt for the better mouse trap is nostalgia.

Of course if you lost 10 lbs or so before you made the 2,500 ft climb you would not need to deal with 5 oz. and of course save money to buy other new toys lol. tom

If the Info on Remington's website is correct, the difference in length of a 700 BDL Short action verses long action in length and weight is:

Length: 7/8"

Weight: 1/8 lb (2 oz.)

I compared the .308 against the 30-06. Both with 22" barrels.

http://www.remington.com/firearms/left_hand/700bdllh.htm

MM

Well, I'll admit to liking short actions. I have no use for the WSMs or the RSAUMs however; the 308 or 350 Mag cases are both very suitable and perfectly functional in their roles already.

My thinking on the short action advantages is that they are mostly next to nothing if considered alone. That fact is, however, that short actions tend to have a number of advantages which, like chain links when taken together, are considerable in practical use.

I like compact guns. Short actions are better suited assuming you don't just fatten the chamber like the short mags have done. Any caliber built on the 30-06 case will give up little if built instead on the 308 platform. What you do get however besides the slightly shorter action is the fact that the smaller chamber will still produce nearly the same velocities (giving up something mainly to the heavier bullets for caliber) but it can do it with somewhat faster powders more effectively and requires somewhat less barrel length to adequately use them efficiently. In other words, in addition to a shorter action which saves little in length, you can also take another inch or two off from the barrel without losing as much as you would with the larger volumed cases. Of course this doesn't apply to the new short mags but, as noted before, I am not a defender of them.

Now in addition to some of the advantages previously named which are collectively worthwhile I believe, the short action has another yet unnamed advantage that I believe is worthwhile. The short action with its shorter bolt does not extend as far from the receiver's rear when withdrawn as does the long action's bolt assuming both make maximum use of the magazine and are consequently constrained by the bolt stop at the same point. There must be some tolerance built in to allow smooth bolt travel. In mass produced guns the tolerance required to manufacture it is more than is necessary in actual use and allows, in many cases, quite a bit of play. Assume the bolt stop is the center of an arc or the pivot and the bolt is the radius or a lever. The longer bolt having greater leverage and swinging a bit wider than one which is shorter has a somewhat greater tendancy to bind than does the short action's bolt. It's a lot more complicated to explain than it is to feel but I believe it's a real difference and it affects the reliability of a weapon especially under duress.

That long actions are useful and reliable is beyond question. I believe the short actions have many small advantages. Taken alone they are easily dismissed. Collectively they cannot be denied especially as they enable one to personalize their tools to their own needs and wants.

Now that we know short actions offer no advantage over the long actions I will be happy to take the nasty things off your hands. Please box them up and ship to:

Prairie Dog Shooter
1313 Mockingbird lane
Texas
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />