Help me deciding on Barrel Length

Brambles

Brambles

Regular
Rating - 100%
50   0   1
Location
West Kootenays B.C.
So hears the short and fast version

I'm having a custom rifle build, some of you might have heard of it on another post.

Remington Titanium 280 AI with Match #1 featherweight lothar walther barrel and all the target rifle treatment and a hi-tech stock
This is my high country backpacking rifle so weight is important but so is flat shooting, so hence my dilemma.

The longest the barrel can be is 23 3/4 inches, the shortest I want to go is 23".

I know I am probably nit picking. Save a couple ounces by shortening the barrel
(the weight will be taken off the chamber end of 1.2" diameter IIRC, not the skinny .550 end) or save the increase in velocity that might be 20-30 fps.

This may seem trivial but believe me this means a lot to me, this is a very expensive undertaking and I want it to be right.

Another thing is if I shorten the barrel to 23 inches then the gunsmith might not have to touch my beautiful paintjob while inletting the barrel in due to the different chamber profile. I can always touch it up, nice thing about doing your own stock finishing.

So lets hear your arguments for and against barrel length vs weight, keep in mind I live in B.C. and BIG mountains.

Thanks and I look forward to hearing your opinions.

Brambles
 
Beare in mind, the shorter the barrel, the stiffer it will be, and thus the more accuracy you will achieve. But I agree, 3/4" is nothing. If your going .280, and using a faster powder, you could still get away by losing another, dare I say it, 3"!
 
SuperCub said:
You're losing sleep over 3/4"?? :eek: :)
Click to expand...
Holy Mosers.......and I thought I was ANAL ? :onCrack:

Even if one chronied the two lengths very doubtful any diff would be apparent ???....the spread from shot to shot would probably vary more then the barrel length;)

Personnaly on a "mountain" rifle I'd go 22" they just "feel" better in my hands.

IMO a 24" min. would probably be more ideal for that that particular chambering though ???

But fretting between 23-3/4" vs 23"............non issue:cool:
 
BCWILL said:
Personnaly on a "mountain" rifle I'd go 22" they just "feel" better in my hands.

IMO a 24" min. would probably be more ideal for that that particular chambering though ???

But fretting between 23-3/4" vs 23"............non issue:cool:
Click to expand...

Its aways seems to be a compromise, you said it perfectly, IDEALY 22" for a mountain rifle however since its a 280 AI then 24 would be IDEAL (23.75 is as close as I can get). So 23" should be the proper compromise between each IDEAL scenario.

Can no one FEEL MY PAIN:rolleyes: :)
 
Brambles said:
So 23" should be the proper compromise between each IDEAL scenario.

Can no one FEEL MY PAIN:rolleyes: :)
Click to expand...
Well then if 23-3/4 is as long as your blank will allow then I'd go with that and check it for fit, feel and shootability when done.

You can always have it shortened later but it's tough to add it back on ;)
 
Sure it does. The shorter the barrel, the stiffer it is with less movement upon firing. It is the same as having a longer, heavy barrel. The more rigid the barrel, the more likely the barrel will deliver the next shot to the same place. It's like having a wodden dowel that's two feet long. Shake it, and it will flex. Cut it in half and the flex disappears. Same idea, so yes, in the real world, the stiffer the barrel, the more accuracy potential your rifle has.
 
This barrel has a 3 inch chamber section, if I am going to shorten it it will be at this end so that the maximum amount of weight will be saved, I will be leaving the .550 end alone. I don't believe increased barrel stiffness will be significant in this case.

By what I've read on other websites a high energy cartridge like the 280 AI could potentially loose 40 fps per inch, not sure how much of this can be reduced with faster powders.

Maybe some other 280 AI shooters will chime in.
 
Same idea, so yes, in the real world, the stiffer the barrel, the more accuracy potential your rifle has.
Click to expand...

Of course that statement is much more accurate than the one in your previous post.

Beare in mind, the shorter the barrel, the stiffer it will be, and thus the more accuracy you will achieve.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between saying that a shorter stiffer barrel will provide more accuracy potential,and saying that it will be more accurate.

Are you aware that Remingtons most consistantly accurate rifle,the 40xb has the longest barrel that they offer on a high powered rifle?(27.25").It is the consistancy of the barrel flex than influences accuracy,not the amount of barrel flex.That being said,a stiffer barrel is usually,but not always easier to produce the best accuracy with.
 
Last edited:
pharaoh2 said:
Sure it does. The shorter the barrel, the stiffer it is with less movement upon firing. It is the same as having a longer, heavy barrel. The more rigid the barrel, the more likely the barrel will deliver the next shot to the same place. It's like having a wodden dowel that's two feet long. Shake it, and it will flex. Cut it in half and the flex disappears. Same idea, so yes, in the real world, the stiffer the barrel, the more accuracy potential your rifle has.
Click to expand...

You scope guys forget that long barrels have more sight radius for the non-scope user, and thus, more accuracy potential.
In addition, would you say my heavy weight octagon 28" 45-70 barrel has less accuracy potential (because it's longer) than my sporter weight 20" 30-30 barrel?

There are more considerations than just short means stiff. :evil:
 
John Y Cannuck said:
You scope guys forget that long barrels have more sight radius for the non-scope user, and thus, more accuracy potential.
In addition, would you say my heavy weight octagon 28" 45-70 barrel has less accuracy potential (because it's longer) than my sporter weight 20" 30-30 barrel?

There are more considerations than just short means stiff. :evil:
Click to expand...

True, but I have a funny feeling that he won't be installing a folding tang sight and front globe on a .280 AI!:slap:

But you do have a valid argument about a longer sight radius. Also, a factory loaded 45-70 probably won't benifit any from a 28" barrel. It's called parasetic drag. But that's just picking nits. It may help stabalize the bullet better, but the proper rate of twist for your given weight of bullet will do that better than a standard ROT in a 6 foot barrel.
 
23". You won't notice a difference in velocity and therefore no difference in ballistics.

By taking the metal off the big end of the barrel, you'll save about 3.2 oz. That's not much but when building a light-weight rifle, every ounce counts.

(steel weighs .283 lbs(4.5 oz)/cu in)
 
Mauser98 said:
23". You won't notice a difference in velocity and therefore no difference in ballistics.

By taking the metal off the big end of the barrel, you'll save about 3.2 oz. That's not much but when building a light-weight rifle, every ounce counts.

(steel weighs .283 lbs(4.5 oz)/cu in)
Click to expand...

Hey if I loose 3.2 ounces by cutting off 3/4 of an inch the I'll do it for sure, to me 3.2 ounces is HUGE. I am hoping this rifle will be under 6 lbs scoped and for a long action that is LITE
 
I prefer a minimum 24" on all my hunting guns as it balances just right for me. Who cares about 50fps velocity loss unless you're shooting at 600 yds or beyond it won't matter one bit. Find a gun you like and feels right for you, that's my philosophy on barrel length.

Now target guns are a whole different matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom