Chuck Hawks on Compact Rifles (and the grain of salt™)

[manbearpig]

Chuck Hawks on Compact Rifles (and the grain of salt™)

due to his high relevance in any gun search, and the fact that he presents himself as an expert on everything, i used to put quite a bit of stock into Chuck's gun and cartridge reviews to the point that they actually influenced my buying decisions.

then i came across his 'review' of a rifle i own several of, and i wonder if hes actually fired one before he wrote his 'expert review'. what i find most offensive is that these biased opinions are not presented as opinions but as hard, indisputable facts that many people take for granted. it also makes me question how accurate his other 'expert reviews' are:

Removing wood from the stock and metal from the barrel makes the compact rifle lighter, which means that it kicks more--a lot more. So does chambering such a rifle for powerful cartridges. Add a short stock to this unholy mix and the result is a rifle that would make King Kong flinch. Of course, when the print magazines review such rifles they never mention these troubling facts.

i consider myself recoil-sensitive. a 300 win mag is the upper limit of what i consider tolerable, but i can shoot a .308 all day. .308 recoil is highly manageable at 15-17.5ft-lbs in an 8lb rifle (according to Chuck's own data). a 16.5" Ruger, for example, weighs no less than a full-length Savage, Tikka or Remington, and thus results in no greater recoil. 'King Kong flinch'? give me a #%@$ing break.
also, the insinuation that a half pound of weight here or there will turn the highly manageable recoil of a .308 into recoil that would 'make King Kong flinch' is absolutely absurd.

Short, lightweight rifles are also difficult to swing smoothly on running game. The tendency is to poke the little rifle at the target rather than swing smoothly and follow through. Anyone who has shot a little trap with a shotgun can verify that the result of this is to shoot behind. That is why trap guns are heavy and have long barrels. The shotgunner who shoots behind a clay target scores a "loss," but the big game hunter who shoots behind ends up gut shooting an animal. That is not acceptable.

if you are using a bead (or to a lesser extent iron sights), sure. this is not a factor on a scoped rifle. again, more BS. this isnt 'trap-shooting' or a bead shotgun (and for the record ive seen a guy clean house at trap with a 14" barreled 'rinco while the older guys with their 30" barreled $5000 guns looked on). nice try though.

Here is the length of pull, barrel length (for standard calibers such as .308 Win., etc.), and weight of some of today's typical "compact:" rifles:

* Browning A-Bolt Micro Hunter - 13 5/16" LOP, 20" barrel, 6 1/4 lbs.
* Remington Model Seven SS - 13 3/8" LOP, 20" barrel, 6 1/4 lbs.
* Ruger M77CR Compact - 12 1/2" LOP, 16 1/2" barrel, 5 3/4 lbs.
* Ruger M77FR Frontier - 12 1/2" LOP, 16 1/2" barrel, 6 3/4 lbs.
* Winchester Model 70 Compact - 13" LOP, 20" barrel, 6 lbs.

Clearly, none of these rifles will correctly fit men of average size and build
These stocks should fit shooters of normal proportion about 4' 8" in height (Ruger), 5' 2" (Winchester), to maybe 5' 7" (Remington and Browning).
Taller than normal individuals of average proportion require a rifle stock with a longer length of pull, while shorter people need a shorter stock. A shooter 6' 2" tall will usually take a stock with a 14" length of pull.

im 6'1", which is a bit taller than average and certainly much taller than 4'8". i have no problem shouldering a Compact, especially not when im wearing a hunting jacket. in fact, id say the short LOP was a clear advantage over a long LOP rifle when shouldering quickly while wearing hunting gear, especially in winter. too-long LOP for a short person is an insurmountable problem that must be addressed. short LOP, however, is not - your body and shooting position simply adjusts for the shorter LOP automatically. its no big deal, and its benefits outweigh any possible disadvantages.
taller individuals do not require a longer length of pull - every taller shooter i know just uses standard LOP rifles. you adjust. your thumb being 1/4" closer to your nose isnt the end of the world.

all of them will kick like the devil incarnate with cartridges on the order of the .308 Winchester their short barrels will closely emulate a flame thrower. Versions of these little monsters are also available chambered for magnum cartridges, but I refuse to go there.

again, more BS. no extra kick is noticeable since the rifles all weigh the same as their larger counterparts. i am more recoil-sensitive than most shooters i know, and if you cant handle the recoil of a .308 in an 8lb+ scoped/loaded rifle its time to find another hobby.

their short barrels will closely emulate a flame thrower.

i wish. again, no extra muzzle blast. 16.5" is adequate to burn the powder of a .308 class cartridge, and if you buy a 16.5" magnum you are tragically retarded far beyond the scope of CGN's ability to help you.

i was looking forward to the flamethrower muzzle-flash, but alas i was disappointed. no flamethrower

from the standpoint of ballistics, there is a definite limit to how much a rifle barrel can be shortened before the performance loss becomes unacceptable.

One startling example of this is the U.S. Military's M4 carbine, which uses the 5.56mm NATO (.223 Remington) cartridge. The Army's M16A2 service "rifle" has a 508mm (20") barrel, and the M4 carbine version has a 370mm (14.5") barrel. The latter weapon's ultra short barrel reduces the Muzzle Velocity (MV) of the .223 cartridge from its former 3240 fps (in a 24" barrel) to .22 Hornet levels. No wonder soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq complained about a lack of stopping power!

more BS. (52gr bullet, 25.5 powder)
.223 w/20" barrel = 3250fps
.223 w/14" barrel = 3025fps
but we are not talking about a 14" barrel
.223 w/16.5" barrel = 3110fps, a whopping velocity loss of 140fps or 4%. group size improved.

a .22 hornet pushes the same 52gr bullet at around 2300-2400fps in a 24" barrel
a 10" barreled .223 at 2818fps is still well beyond the capabilities of any .22 hornet with a 52gr bullet.

there was an experiment with a .308 700P (on one of these LEO/sniper wannabe sites) where they cut and crowned the 26" barrel down inch by inch and fired 20 chronographed shots each time. going from 26" to 20" with 168gr Federal Match resulted in no velocity loss. the drop from 20 to 18" resulted in a loss of only ~30fps and 18" was determined to be the 'optimal' length for a .308 balancing both effectiveness and portability. a drop of another 1.5" would reduce the velocity by another 30fps or so. if the success of your hunt depends on 60fps then you have problems.
significant velocity drops only occurred below 16" lengths.
again, accuracy improves with the shorter barrel because it is stiffer and there is less barrel sag when heated.

these rifles are not advertised as long-range beanfield or mountain rifles, but as compact bush guns.
in Ontario most shots on game are taken under 150 yards (im probably being overly generous with that estimate). with a modern centerfire cartridge reducing a barrel from 22" to 16.5" is not a significant performance loss, much less the disaster that Chuck makes it out to be

all i can say is that before you take any gun review, recommendation, article, forum post at face value please do yourself a favor and try to actually fire the gun yourself so you can come to your own unbiased and objective conclusions, rather than putting faith in someone like Chuck to do it for you.

there are people that dont like the Ruger Compacts/Frontiers for various reasons, but if you dont like them then just say that and explain why you would prefer a full-sized rifle - rather than dreaming up knee-jerk bullsh!t like 'flame-thrower muzzle flash' and 'recoil that would make King Kong flinch'. id love to post what i really think of Chuck for making those statements and presenting them as fact, but id probably rack up some infractions for it so ill hold my tongue.

 

[cdngunner]

I'm sorry!

 

[bjjzak]

Good points. The only time I have seen such a "flame thrower muzzle flash" was in a single shot 22-250 handgun, 10" barrel, that would light up the area quite nicely. A bit extreme, but when it comes to a normal style of gun, yes you might get a bit of flash, but it would be interesting to see just what combination it took to produce a flamethrower. I'll use it for my next gopher gun, if you don't hit 'em, at least you could toast 'em a bit!

I too am a bigger fellow, and I've always loved the little guns, 13" lop's, 18.5-20" barrels, fast, easy to carry in bush & over rough terrain, shoot as good as anything else I've ever had. So what if you lose a few fps or foot lbs, I don't think the critter in your sights will really notice. And they will shoot as far as I can practically take game at.

In terms of 223 stopping power with a few less fps, try that line of drivel on someone like KevinB, or any of our forum members that have "been there and done that". Should make for an interesting discussion! Mind you, this one has been beaten to death many times already.

Tell Chuck to go back to his armchair.

 

[manbearpig]

Good points. The only time I have seen such a "flame thrower muzzle flash" was in a single shot 22-250 handgun, 10" barrel, that would light up the area quite nicely.

dont tell Chuck -- hell probably say that the .22LR will achieve a higher muzzle velocity and be more lethal than a .22-250 with a 10" barrel, the recoil of it would amputate the arms off of Godzilla and the shockwave of the muzzle-blast will strike everyone within a 3km radius deaf, blind and impotent.

 

[Woodsman]

I think ol' chuck is talking generalities and is certainly exagerating with some of his comments. Personnally I have handled the new Ruger Compact Rifle and found it way too short in the stock (I'm 6'1" tall too and have more of a longer neck as compared to someone with more of a shorter one.). Now I suppose I could practice bringing up the gun repeatedly to adjust for it's shorter LOP. I have done this with my Win 94 and can accustomize myself to feel ok shooting it. It does require me to think about not thumbing myself in the nose on a shot and adjusting my head for the scope. This to me isn't ideal by no means, but I like the carbine for it's size, balance, and weight when I go stalking for deer.

My M77 Ruger, however, requires no thinking, practicing, adjusting, etc. It simply comes up like a custom over and under shotgun bang on ready to shoot. This also makes this a better long range shooter, because the gun fits me better and has a certain weight in the hand.

 

[Gatehouse]

Chuck Hawks is the KING of the intraweb!

 

[J Stuart]

So I take it that you will not be asking this fellow over for tea ?

 

[Gatehouse]

So I take it that you will not be asking this fellow over for tea ?

I don't drink tea, so no.

 

[J Stuart]

I don't drink tea, so no.

Sorry Gate, my reply was directed to Mbp.

I believe that our tea is your dinner.

 

[todbartell]

if our dinner is your tea, what is your meth?

 

[manbearpig]

wtf?

no, no tea for Chuck.... although i have a bag of poisoned Pork Rinds for him that he can eat while he sits in his comp chair all day posting his expert articles.

i wonder if hes gotten out of his computer chair to actually fire a gun since the intarweb was invented.

 

[H4831]

Facts???

MANBEARPIG, you are doing exactly what you condemned Chuck Hawks for. You are stating your opinions and claiming them as facts!
Some of your "facts" I consider to be BS. A high powered rifle, from 308 up, would be absolutely unbearable to shoot with a 16 inch barrel, because of the noise. My opinion is it isn't the fact that the end of the barrel is closer to you, it is because the powder is still burning vigorously as it leaves the barrel. I once had a 600 Remington 308 with its short barrel. At the range I used ear plugs, then standard ear muffs, but firing it made my ears ring.
I once came from the range to the clubhouse and two shooters there asked me what kind of a magnum I was using!
Regarding fire from the barrel, even Jack O'Connor once talked about this and in his style of writing stated the fire (from barrels shorter than 20 inches) would start the daisies on fire.
I could go on a lot more, but this should be enough to get you going!!

 

[prosper]

'chuck hawks' is a bit of a douche. But, you'll notice, most articles on his site no longer credit him as the author - rather there's a collection of assorted articles by various authors.

Like any media source (especially gun media sources), there are good points, bad points and LOTS of bull####. Don't accept everything he says 'cause it's often made up on the spot. On the other hand, don't dismiss EVERYTHING he says simply because he's a tool.

Lots of big name gun writers are tools. But once you sift through all the bull#### and bias, there's often some useful tidbits to be found

 

[Gatehouse]

Sorry Gate, my reply was directed to Mbp.

I believe that our tea is your dinner.

You guys must be hungry if all you have for dinner is tea....

 

[manbearpig]

MANBEARPIG, you are doing exactly what you condemned Chuck Hawks for. You are stating your opinions and claiming them as facts!
Some of your "facts" I consider to be BS. A high powered rifle, from 308 up, would be absolutely unbearable to shoot with a 16 inch barrel, because of the noise. My opinion is it isn't the fact that the end of the barrel is closer to you, it is because the powder is still burning vigorously as it leaves the barrel. I once had a 600 Remington 308 with its short barrel. At the range I used ear plugs, then standard ear muffs, but firing it made my ears ring.
I once came from the range to the clubhouse and two shooters there asked me what kind of a magnum I was using!
Regarding fire from the barrel, even Jack O'Connor once talked about this and in his style of writing stated the fire (from barrels shorter than 20 inches) would start the daisies on fire.
I could go on a lot more, but this should be enough to get you going!!

ATM i have three 16.5" barreled .308s, as well as 22", 24", 26" and whatever length an M305 is. there is no noticeable difference between the report of my 16.5" Rugers and the other .308s.... especially nothing like what adding a muzzle break would produce. all i wear is a set of inexpensive Peltor Tac-6s, and noone around me has ever complained about noise either.

like any shooter with an ounce of common sense i always fire a rifle with hearing prtection, so i couldnt tell you the difference without hearing protection. usually the only thing around without hearing protection is the animal im shooting at, and i dont think theyre too concerned about noise by the time the report catches up to them.

if yours was making your ears ring through ear plugs and muffs you should really get better quality hearing protection.. and im not being a smartass, seriously - theres no way it should be hurting your ears.

 

[Woodsman]

ATM i have three 16.5" barreled .308s, as well as 22", 24", 26" and whatever length an M305 is. there is no noticeable difference between the report of my 16.5" Rugers and the other .308s.... especially nothing like what adding a muzzle break would produce. all i wear is a set of inexpensive Peltor Tac-6s, and noone around me has ever complained about noise either.

like any shooter with an ounce of common sense i always fire a rifle with hearing prtection, so i couldnt tell you the difference without hearing protection. usually the only thing around without hearing protection is the animal im shooting at, and i dont think theyre too concerned about noise by the time the report catches up to them.

if the powder was still 'burning vigorously' in a 16.5" barrel there would be a huge muzzle flash. guess what - there isnt. if yours was making your ears ring through ear plugs and muffs you need to buy some better hearing protection

It may likely depend on the type of powder you are using. Some powders burn slower and require longer barrels to reach respectable velocities.

 

[manbearpig]

just factory loads, so whatever powders Federal, American Eagle, Winchester, Igman, etc use.

i just dont see how - all else being equal - cutting a barrel down 2-4 inches will turn a standard rifle report into some supernatural earth-shattering shockwave that penetrates 2 sets of hearing protection

im sure there were other factors involved. ie: poor hearing protection, muzzle brake, hot loads or something because ive fired short barreled .308s countless times and have yet to experience noticeably increased muzzle flash or noise.

 

[220Swifty]

Chuck Hawks, rhymes with S____ C_____. Fill in the blanks

How much has shooting really changed in the last 20 years. To stay competitive, gun scribes have to be numb nuts because they need to capture the attention of the newbies, and the semi-educated in order to get any sort of a following.

 

[J Stuart]

You guys must be hungry if all you have for dinner is tea....

Seeeeee....having tea for dinner is what happens when you are poor, down-trodden and generally miserable because you are represented by low-life, filthy apologists in Parliament who are intent on turning all and sundry into half-baked housewives.
At least that is how it is in Australia, how are you faring over there ?

 

[pharaoh2]

Chuck Hawks is Ghey.

But I know of a few gunnutz who subscribe and worship him. (Waiting for them to chime in here)

Everyone has an opinion. His is ghey. But of course if you ask him, I'm sure he'll tell you his is the only one that counts.