Any word on development of a short GSG-16 barrel?

OkayShooter said:
Would that increase the cost? Are they going to be regular chamber or a match/target? Because I like to have a short barrel, but I don't want to lose the reliability with bulk ammo. Because that what the gun is really meant, plink and such, not target. So I don't see the point of a LW barrel.



You cannot thread the standard barrel, due to the barrel diameter. So be obvious that it's not just a shorten factory barrel.
Click to expand...


Yes on all accounts. We are not engraving the barrel because the barrel length alone does not constitute whether the rifle is R or N/R. OAL is the key. If you fear the po-po then I would print off the legal definition of a N/R rimfire rifle and keep yourself a tape measure handy. Easy peasy.

Your average policeman is not a firearms expert so this would be a pro-active way to minimize any potential headaches.

As for the chambering, we will make them with our standard 'Sporter' chamber which feeds 99% of the .22 on the market. This is definitely not a target type rifle, lol. She's a beer can hunter.
 
Someone should do test firings to see if there is still enough energy to cycle the bolt reliably.
9" is almost halving the barrel length.
But actually, by the muzzle energy numbers at:
http: //ballisticsbytheinch.com/22.html
,the bullets might only lose about 3% of their energy from 16 to 9".

So I guess this would not be a concern, unless we got down to sub 6" barrels.
Still, might want to go with not just HV, but hyper v rounds, I'd favour CCI Velocitors. :)

Correction: Velocity declines by only about 3%, but the Energy declines with the square of Velocity, and the actual muzzle energy drops by more than 3%. For Stingers or Velocitors is looks like approx 160lb-ft vs 145lb-ft.
ballisticsbytheinch.com/2011graphs+/22ME.html

Still not a huge drop, although the energy of the bullet does not necessarily equate to the energy that the bolt & recoil springs see, so testing is of course best way to know.
 
Last edited:
Rimfire001 said:
Someone should do test firings to see if there is still enough energy to cycle the bolt reliably.
9" is almost halving the barrel length.
But actually, by the muzzle energy numbers at:
http: //ballisticsbytheinch.com/22.html
,the bullets might only lose about 3% of their energy from 16 to 9".

So I guess this would not be a concern, unless we got down to sub 6" barrels.
Still, might want to go with not just HV, but hyper v rounds, I'd favour CCI Velocitors. :)

Correction: Velocity declines by only about 3%, but the Energy declines with the square of Velocity, and the actual muzzle energy drops by more than 3%. For Stingers or Velocitors is looks like approx 160lb-ft vs 145lb-ft.
ballisticsbytheinch.com/2011graphs+/22ME.html

Still not a huge drop, although the energy of the bullet does not necessarily equate to the energy that the bolt & recoil springs see, so testing is of course best way to know.
Click to expand...

You are the fun police. So much math. Unnecessary. Sadness.
 
Totally going to buy one, I tried to call a few times Friday but never got through. This gun is just begging for a fixed stock and short barrel.
 
Rimfire001 said:
Someone should do test firings to see if there is still enough energy to cycle the bolt reliably.
9" is almost halving the barrel length.
But actually, by the muzzle energy numbers at:
http: //ballisticsbytheinch.com/22.html
,the bullets might only lose about 3% of their energy from 16 to 9".

So I guess this would not be a concern, unless we got down to sub 6" barrels.
Still, might want to go with not just HV, but hyper v rounds, I'd favour CCI Velocitors. :)

Correction: Velocity declines by only about 3%, but the Energy declines with the square of Velocity, and the actual muzzle energy drops by more than 3%. For Stingers or Velocitors is looks like approx 160lb-ft vs 145lb-ft.
ballisticsbytheinch.com/2011graphs+/22ME.html

Still not a huge drop, although the energy of the bullet does not necessarily equate to the energy that the bolt & recoil springs see, so testing is of course best way to know.
Click to expand...

Iv used crappy Winchester and federal bulk in my gsg16 and it has a 9 inch barrel and it functions without an issue
 
Same reason they recommend high velocity ammo: to have enough blowback energy to reliably cycle the bolt & recoil springs. Shorter barrel = less energy into the bullet, and also less energy backwards towards the bolt.
"Quiet" or subsonic ammo probably won't cycle reliably.
Are real silencers legal in Canada?
What are ppl hoping to thread onto the threaded end?
 
I would screw on a fake supressor to make it look like an integrally supressed MP5-SD.
All these mods are about looks primarily. Reliable function is a close second.
 
Rimfire001 said:
Same reason they recommend high velocity ammo: to have enough blowback energy to reliably cycle the bolt & recoil springs. Shorter barrel = less energy into the bullet, and also less energy backwards towards the bolt.
"Quiet" or subsonic ammo probably won't cycle reliably.
Are real silencers legal in Canada?
What are ppl hoping to thread onto the threaded end?
Click to expand...

Quiets don't even cycle in the 16" barrel.
Might want to read the Criminal code/Firearm Act for prohibited devices.

If I can coax myself to spend that much on a barrel, Id look at a 3 lug FH like the Mp5 have, or a thicker fatter fake can to continue the SD look.
 
baldabe said:
I would screw on a fake supressor to make it look like an integrally supressed MP5-SD.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this just make it look like the stock faux suppressed length again....? :confused:
(meanwhile shorter barrel giving less power, accuracy and reliability)

The stock barrel looks to be stainless and my box claims "hammer forged barrel".
That's considered pretty nice stuff, no?
 
Last edited:
Reverse fake suppressor would be more inline with the looks of the MP5-SD. That would thread on 'backwards', covering the barrel all the way to the handguard.
As it is, the 16" barrel is too long for the MP5-SD look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom