Barrel length in a mountain rifle

X

xcaribooer

Regular
Rating - 100%
405   0   0
Location
The fishing highway
How much difference does barrel length have on long range accuracy?
I was looking at a couple examples for liteweight mountain rifles, that are on opposite ends of the scale, the Ruger liteweight has a 20" barrel and the Weatherby ultralite has a 24/26".Quite a difference.I like the Ruger because it has alot of features that I like, crf,lightweight, integral rails,..price!
 
xcaribooer said:
How much difference does barrel length have on long range accuracy?
I was looking at a couple examples for liteweight mountain rifles, that are on opposite ends of the scale, the Ruger liteweight has a 20" barrel and the Weatherby ultralite has a 24/26".Quite a difference.I like the Ruger because it has alot of features that I like, crf,lightweight, integral rails,..price!
Click to expand...


I personally would pick the Ruger for all the reasons you listed.
 
From the list weights in catologs the Weatherby's seem to have been anything but light compared to the Ruger compact. Unless they have come out with something new.

The ruger 308 Ultra light I had was a pretty good shooter. The best I could do was two hits in one ragged hole and the third was always 1 1/4" up to the right. Be it my flinch, or bedding issues it was always the same with Barnes X bullets, Nosler partitions and the bulk PSP bullets too.

It was just barely a hair over 7lbs scoped and loaded. A joy to carry all day but the weight bias was so far back it was a challenge to hold steady for me anyway. Shooting it was anything but enjoyable, muzzle blast was like it had a brake on and recoil felt not much different than a 338WM hunting load.

The thinner the barrel the more whip you will get. Not to say it won't shoot but it might be more of an adventure getting it to do so well. Hunting quality accuracy should not be an issue tho.

Factor in a trigger job for the Ruger just in case, all four of ours were terrible.
Other than that I would go for the Ruger every time. The big w causes a gag reflex. Sorry......
 
Last edited:
shorter barrels can often lead to increased accuracy because of the shorter, stiffer barrel. you lose a bit of FPS over something like a 24" factory barrel but IMO its negligable, at ethical hunting ranges an animal isnt going to be any deader from a 2800 FPS bullet than he is from a 2680. i cant believe how many people i encounter still think that longer barrels = better accuracy. above a minimal length (15-16" or so) its the quality of the barrel and crown that determines accuracy, not length. using iron sights a longer barrel gives you a longer sight plane, but thats about it.

IMO for a mountain rifle look around for something as short, handy and light as possible. the Ruger Compact/Frontier is quite nice actually, and very accurate because of the short, stiff barrel. im still waiting for the 3-foot flamethrower muzzle flash that will instantly strike me deaf/blind and the crippling shoulder-fracturing recoil that people gravely assured me would come with the evil 16" barrel. honestly, i hardly notice a recoil or muzzle flash difference between it and my 22-26" barrels.
the main drawback to the compact Rugers is that the laminate stock makes it a bit heavier than it could be with a synthetic stock - its still lighter and handier than most synthetic stocked rifles though.

alternately you could get something like a synthetic stocked Savage or Stevens which are quite light rifles, mount a small scope like a 4x or something on it, and then have your gunsmith cut/crown the barrel down to the minimum legal length. youd end up with a very light mountain rifle for half the cost of one of the dedicated 'mountain rifles' on the market.
 
Last edited:
manbearpig said:
im still waiting for the 3-foot flamethrower muzzle flash that will instantly strike me deaf/blind and the crippling shoulder-fracturing recoil that people gravely assured me would come with the evil 16" barrel. honestly, i hardly notice a recoil or muzzle flash difference between it and my 22-26" barrels.
.
Click to expand...


What........what'd he saaaayyyyyyy?;)

I don't find too much difference between 22"+ barrels but that 20" on my Ruger was brutal, just like the 81 BLR in 243. Never had trouble with the muzzle flash but 4320 is a bit fast to have to worry about that in a 308.
 
More often then not the Muzzle flash will be more noticeable to those around the shooter, then to the shooter themselves.

Also IMHO mountain guns Always = Carbines. :D
 
Barrel length?

Calum said:
More often then not the Muzzle flash will be more noticeable to those around the shooter, then to the shooter themselves.

Also IMHO mountain guns Always = Carbines. :D
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want anything shorter than a 22 inch barrel for a mountain rifle. Weight is important on hard trips, but a short barreled rifle is harder to shoot well, under the usual mountain conditions. With the wind blowing and unable to shoot from the prone position, a longer barrel holds steadier while wrapped in the sling, elbows on knees. Actually, I wouldn't trade my old, lightweight and very accurate Husqvarna, with it's 24 inch barrel, for any other. And it has been scarred up from some of the best mountains in BC!

(This was just meant to be a reply, and not from a quote, but I guess it is OK.)
 
Last edited:
H4831 said:
I wouldn't want anything shorter than a 22 inch barrel for a mountain rifle. Weight is important on hard trips, but a short barreled rifle is harder to shoot well, under the usual mountain conditions. With the wind blowing and unable to shoot from the prone position, a longer barrel holds steadier while wrapped in the sling, elbows on knees. Actually, I wouldn't trade my old, lightweight and very accurate Husqvarna, with it's 24 inch barrel, for any other. And it has been scarred up from some of the best mountains in BC!

(This was just meant to be a reply, and not from a quote, but I guess it is OK.)
Click to expand...

you could argue that overall rifle *weight* helps accuracy, or that the longer sight plane on a longer barrel will help accuracy with iron sights...
but a longer barrel has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy. a shorter barrel is not harder to shoot well unless you are using iron sights. in fact im so impressed with the performance of the shorter barrel that most of my guns are slated to be lopped off -- starting with the 26" barreled ones.

a shame you are in BC and not Ontario, i would happily let you shoot my 16" barreled guns and see for yourself that they are really no harder to shoot than a longer barreled rifle, but a LOT nicer to carry around all day.
 
I don't think long range accuracy is going to be negatively affected as much as long range velocity might.

Everyone has a different idea of what a mountain rifle should be like, however you have to realize that there are many many different types of mountains and therefore a rifle suited to your specific hunting and mountain type is what really is needed.

If you have thicker bush then maybe a shorter barrel is right for you, if your bush is not so thick and the terrain is more open then maybe a medium to long length barrel is a better option.

I chose 23" with my 280 Ackley
 
Mountain hunting?

manbearpig said:
you could argue that overall rifle *weight* helps accuracy, or that the longer sight plane on a longer barrel will help accuracy with iron sights...
but a longer barrel has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy. a shorter barrel is not harder to shoot well unless you are using iron sights. in fact im so impressed with the performance of the shorter barrel that most of my guns are slated to be lopped off -- starting with the 26" barreled ones.

a shame you are in BC and not Ontario, i would happily let you shoot my 16" barreled guns and see for yourself that they are really no harder to shoot than a longer barreled rifle, but a LOT nicer to carry around all day.
Click to expand...

I was a bit taken back when I see someone from Ontario, telling me what a rifle should be like for mountain hunting!!!
As I said, my favourite rifle "has been scarred by some of the best mountains in BC." And that means from Atlin and Fort Nelson area in the north, to the east Kootenays in the south, as well as those splendid goat mountains south-west of Burns Lake and in the Smithers area. No, I haven't hunted in the "mountains of Ontario."
If your rifles with 16 inch barrels are 22 rim fire, I would shoot them. If they are high powered hunting rifles, no thanks, you shoot them while I stand away back. I had a short barreled model 600 Remington in 308. It was so loud that with ear muffs over ear plugs, my ears still asng after a shooting spell. I didn't take it hunting, because I did not want to shoot even one shot, without ear protection! I was once shooting it at the range and when I went in the clubhouse two shooters asked me what kind of a magnum I was using.
 
Last edited:
Shorter barrels are stiffer, so they generally improve accuracy. However, longer barrels to about 28" get to take advantage of increased pressure as the gas propels the bullet down the barrel.

A 2" shorter rifle doesn't' give a significant velocity drop, but I would not go less than 20" minimum for a mountain rifle. I use a 22 or 2" barrel,
 
All too often, we get hung up over theoretical shorter/stiffer arguments, which are virtually meaningless when it comes to a lightweight hunting rifle.

As H4831 stated well, a longer barrel is better. Not for the "weight", but for balance. A mountain rifle barrel will typically be slim, and if it's a bit longer will balance better. It depends so much on what stock you will use...how heavy is it? A heavier stock needs more barrel to balance well.

For a backpacking rifle, that will be slung a lot of the time while climbing up through the trees to get to the alpine, you don't really want the muzzle to sit higher than the top of your head as it will catch on a lot of branches and such. BUT, when you get to the alpine, the longer barrel settles better on target, even with a backpack or such for a rest.

I've had several "sheep" rifles over the years, and built my ultimate a couple of years back. It weighs 6 pounds 11 oz all up with scope, and wears a 24" barrel. It is the same contour as a M700 mountain rifle. It also has a lightweight stock, 22 oz. It balances on the front guard screw. I think it's perfect. That said, I'm 6'1". If I was shorter, a 22" barrel may fit better.

As for a loss of accuracy with a thin, whippy 24" barrel, it will shoot into 1/2" with it's hunting load. Just because a barrel is thin doesn't mean it won't shoot.
 
I was a bit taken back when I see someone from Ontario, telling me what a rifle should be like for mountain hunting!!!
No, I haven't hunted in the "mountains of Ontario."
Click to expand...

come on now, i wasnt aware that ballistics and ergonomics changed as you headed west :)
a mountain rifle is a concept, nothing more. you dont actually have to live on a mountain to own a 'mountain rifle', just like you dont have to live in Alaska to own an 'Alaskan'. ive spent a lot of time in the Austrian Alps, however, so i do know what a mountain looks like :)

living in BC you probably know a lot more about this than me, so i am by no means trying to argue with you. i was merely offering the suggestion that people at least *try* the shorter barreled guns - in my experience a lot of the negative hype they get is quite unfounded or exaggerated. you will most certainly not be struck deaf/blind/dumb/impotent, kill hundreds of kittens with the concussion wave and start a forest fire with the 10 foot muzzle flash when you fire one.

H4831 said:
If your rifles with 16 inch barrels are 22 rim fire, I would shoot them. If they are high powered hunting rifles, no thanks, you shoot them while I stand away back. I had a short barreled model 600 Remington in 308. It was so loud that with ear muffs over ear plugs, my ears still asng after a shooting spell. I didn't take it hunting, because I did not want to shoot even one shot, without ear protection! I was once shooting it at the range and when I went in the clubhouse two shooters asked me what kind of a magnum I was using.
Click to expand...

i dont shoot anything without hearing protection with the exception of .22 CBs and subsonics. this really shouldnt make much of a difference because if you are shooting a .30 cal you should be wearing good hearing protection anyways. i know too many construction workers, truck drivers and shooters that have irreparably damaged their ears so i try to be as careful with mine as i can.
that said, when i fire the 16" .308 i hear a faint pop like a kernal of popcorn going off in the microwave... dont take this the wrong way but if your ears ring with plugs and muffs you need to upgrade your hearing protection. are you sure you didnt have a muzzle brake or something on it?

the main drawback to a short barreled rifle is the velocity loss, youll lose around 18-25 FPS per inch cut off. at *ethical* hunting ranges i really dont think the FPS drop makes much of a difference.
i dont own a chrony, but according to my ballistic software going from a 22" barrel down to a 16.5" barrel you would lose at most 137.5 FPS. really not much when you are considering the 2600-2900FPS velocities of the .308:

with a 200 yard zero, shooting a 180 grain factory load (Remington Premier® Core-Lokt® Ultra):
22" barrel -10.5" @300 yards, -30.25" @400 yards
16.5" barrel -11.75" @300 yards, 33.80" @400 yards

200 yard zero, 150 grain factory load (Remington Premier® Core-Lokt® Ultra):
22" barrel -9.2" @300 yards, -27" @400 yards
16.5" barrel -10.3" @300 yards, -30" @400 yards
3" trajectory at 400 yards is hardly enough to get in a fuss over...
its not that big of a difference... some of you guys act like it would have the trajectory of a football :)

i do see a huge advantage in carrying such a rifle in the bush, however. the rifle is far less obtrusive on your back and doesnt get hung up on branches, rock outcroppings, etc. in fact sometimes you forget its even there. a shorter barrel is often much less nose-heavy than long barreled rifles and is easier to aim/track a target with IMO.

i have never shot at anything other than groundhogs at over 200 yards. if you guys are shooting at things at like 600 yards across a mountain, by all means get a longer barrel :)
but dont be afraid to try the short ones, they are not as bad as people make out.
 
Well I have gone with something different. I bought a used Rem BDL 700 30-06 in stainless. it is anything but light but I am workin on it..I have a tan with black spiderweb B&C carbelite stock on order and talley liteweight rings.
As money allows I will have the barrel fluted and possibly shortened from 24" to 22".It will have a nice scopechief Vl 4x40 on it for now but will replace it with a leup VX ll 3-9x40 also as money allows.


I just decided to go with remington cause of all the guns I have owned and handled I like their action the best.
thanks for all the input, seems like a 22" bbl with be the happy compromise.
I just hope I can get the finished weight down to about 7lbs.
 
xcaribooer said:
Well I have gone with something different. I bought a used Rem BDL 700 30-06 in stainless. it is anything but light but I am workin on it..I have a tan with black spiderweb B&C carbelite stock on order and talley liteweight rings.
As money allows I will have the barrel fluted and possibly shortened from 24" to 22".It will have a nice scopechief Vl 4x40 on it for now but will replace it with a leup VX ll 3-9x40 also as money allows.


I just decided to go with remington cause of all the guns I have owned and handled I like their action the best.
thanks for all the input, seems like a 22" bbl with be the happy compromise.
I just hope I can get the finished weight down to about 7lbs.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good project. Always fun working toward a goal weight or configuration...:)

Any idea what the carbelite weighs? My medalist weighs 36oz or so, but it has the bedding block. For another 4oz weight savings, you could go with a Leupold VXII Ultralight 3-9x33...
 
Last edited:
blargon said:
I doubt he feels that way...:D
Click to expand...

You sure got that right!!!

And while we are on the subject and also Jack O'Connor has been written about quite a bit lately, I would just like to point out teh following.
Jack O'Connor did a tremendous amount of mountain hunting and was also a rifle expert. I remember an article in Outdoor Life devoted entirely to a mountain rifle. Jack did not likd any big game rifle with a barrel shorter than 22 inches. In magnum calibres he wante 24". He would discuss the merits and go back and forth between 22 and 24, concluding that a 270 with a 22 inch barrel was about perfect for a mountain rifle.
In speaking of shorter barrels he always brought up the greater noise, even at 20".
 
It's been a year and I stil haven't changed my mind, I like a 22 or 24" barrel. I tend to agree with JOC.

Where a 20" barrel would shine is in some areas around here, in the thick coastal jungle.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom