Short barrels on Magnum calibers
- Thread starter tommy88
- Start date
This is true, but I didn't say they were using faster powder for a short barrel, but only a proprietary one. Maybe Hornady is loading them closer to maximum pressure in the RCM cartridges.
A similar example is the speed of factory Hornady .204 Ruger cartridges that nobody seemed to be able to duplicate when it first came out.
100% true.
It's good (and surprising) that this oft-proven fact seems to have taken hold on CGN. Many boards still have many shooters clinging to the old "Magnums need long barrels to burn all the slow powder, and short barrels need fast powders" nonsense.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Like most things in life moderation is the key, everything is a trade off. This said, your parameters aren’t unreasonable (short barrel, 300-400 yards max). I also like short barrels, and have spent a lot of time on short barreled builds and rifles, trimming down to that from highs of 29” to a contemporary preference of 18.5-20”. Make a short list of cartridges, and google “Rifleshooter, Ballistics by the Inch” and the cartridge. They’ve done most of them, cutting barrels back and chrono’ing velocities as they go.
Few points to keep in mind to help the decision process,
-Muzzle blast starts to get obnoxious under 22” in a standard magnum (7mm, .300), and truly obnoxious by 20”. Nothing hearing protection can’t deal with, but it’s a major increase over a 24” in a .300 etc, and you’re never going to want to take a hunting shot unprotected. This said if the rifle is a hunting rifle and carried more than shot, the short barrel can be a reasonable trade off for the ease of handling.
-In the spirit of moderation, moderate cartridges like Hoyt’s .358s or even plain old .308 see less velocity loss in short barrels. Todd’s quickload proves out that large capacity cases remain faster in a shorter barrel, there’s no getting around physics, powder is available energy and energy equals power. However with a .358 you may see as low as an average 15-20fps per inch loss of velocity for every inch shorter. A 7 mag may 40 fps per inch, or 200% or more velocity loss per inch. Statistics and twisting them to make a splash is fun.
-Medium and larger bores (.338, .358, 9.3, .375, .416, .458) are affected less than smaller bores by barrel length due to expansion ratio. The burning powder has more volume to fill in a larger bore before the bullet leaves the barrel, allowing more work to be done before the bullet’s sent on its way. Like everything else, compromises are to be made, I wouldn’t choose a .458 for 300-400 yards but it can be done.
-Most good ideas have already been done, there’s a reason short .308s abound and short 7 Mags get looked at like a three winged chicken, I wouldn’t try to buck convention too hard lest disappointment result. Usually that disappointment comes in the learning to live with it factor (muzzle blast, recoil) rather than the gun’s actual capabilities.
In summary, for what you want short barrels, as short as 16” and 300-400 yards range, I’d suggest it’s hard to argue with a 16-18.5” .308 Winchester. Again I recommend reading the “Ballistics by the Inch” on it. I’m building a new .308 right now, and it will likely have a 20” barrel just my preference in an agglomeration of compromises, but it won’t do anything different in the field than a 16”.
Few points to keep in mind to help the decision process,
-Muzzle blast starts to get obnoxious under 22” in a standard magnum (7mm, .300), and truly obnoxious by 20”. Nothing hearing protection can’t deal with, but it’s a major increase over a 24” in a .300 etc, and you’re never going to want to take a hunting shot unprotected. This said if the rifle is a hunting rifle and carried more than shot, the short barrel can be a reasonable trade off for the ease of handling.
-In the spirit of moderation, moderate cartridges like Hoyt’s .358s or even plain old .308 see less velocity loss in short barrels. Todd’s quickload proves out that large capacity cases remain faster in a shorter barrel, there’s no getting around physics, powder is available energy and energy equals power. However with a .358 you may see as low as an average 15-20fps per inch loss of velocity for every inch shorter. A 7 mag may 40 fps per inch, or 200% or more velocity loss per inch. Statistics and twisting them to make a splash is fun.
-Medium and larger bores (.338, .358, 9.3, .375, .416, .458) are affected less than smaller bores by barrel length due to expansion ratio. The burning powder has more volume to fill in a larger bore before the bullet leaves the barrel, allowing more work to be done before the bullet’s sent on its way. Like everything else, compromises are to be made, I wouldn’t choose a .458 for 300-400 yards but it can be done.
-Most good ideas have already been done, there’s a reason short .308s abound and short 7 Mags get looked at like a three winged chicken, I wouldn’t try to buck convention too hard lest disappointment result. Usually that disappointment comes in the learning to live with it factor (muzzle blast, recoil) rather than the gun’s actual capabilities.
In summary, for what you want short barrels, as short as 16” and 300-400 yards range, I’d suggest it’s hard to argue with a 16-18.5” .308 Winchester. Again I recommend reading the “Ballistics by the Inch” on it. I’m building a new .308 right now, and it will likely have a 20” barrel just my preference in an agglomeration of compromises, but it won’t do anything different in the field than a 16”.
.35 Sambar mentioned close approximation long action .350 RM & seat bullets out for increased case capacity works good I get 250gr@~2750 fps mv with 24" barrel.
Another 35 caliber wildcat: 9.3 Barsness-Sisk aka 9.3 BS.
https://pewpewzone.com/top-6-weirdest-wildcat-cartridges-you-are-never-heard-of/
Another 35 caliber wildcat: 9.3 Barsness-Sisk aka 9.3 BS.
https://pewpewzone.com/top-6-weirdest-wildcat-cartridges-you-are-never-heard-of/
freddyfour
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Brant County, Ontario
Thank you for this!
- Location
- Saskatchewan
I've damaged my hearing enough already from shooting to desire any increase in muzzle blast, and corresponding increase in tinnitus, hearing loss, balance problems, and pain. I like short handy barrels for their handling, but not the blast. So my solution is to shoot a single shot rifle. Action length is 4-6" shorter and barrel length can be "standard" 22" - the best of both worlds. If you don't care for single shots, the Blaser R8 accomplishes the same thing with its telescoping action and unique trigger group.
Good luck finding any of those powders
Went down into the basement. Found some.
I had a 308 Norma Magnum many years ago that had a 22" barrel. Got a fair bit of flack about
it being a noisy 30-06, but when I finally had access to a chronograph, some original Factory
Norma 180 dual-Core ammo was still making 3020 fps, so plenty of gain over the '06, even with
the shorter tube. I'm guessing a 20" would still have made 2950+ Dave.
it being a noisy 30-06, but when I finally had access to a chronograph, some original Factory
Norma 180 dual-Core ammo was still making 3020 fps, so plenty of gain over the '06, even with
the shorter tube. I'm guessing a 20" would still have made 2950+ Dave.
blast and noise limit for me on short action standards is 20" and prefer 22"+ on anything burning more than 50 grains of powder, currently shooting a 16.1" barrel 6.5 Grendel only burning 30 grains at 52,000 psi and that's my limit for that...about the same blast/noise as a 308 20" imo, the short barrels make most sense for suppressors, otherwise up here in Canada they make most sense when you have slower, less powder, less pressure set ups or they're just rude and obnoxious and you're not likely to shoot it as well as other choices
start with the bullet you want to push for this 300-400m range/game...then figure out what the minimum impact velocities you want at those ranges....then the cartridge that can drive that bullet to those velocities will reveal itself....don't start with the cartridge and work your way backwards, we will hunt big game to 400 yards with a 16.1" barrel anti-magnum with our 6.5 Grendel's and we have been for 5 seasons and 14 head of big game and a wolf, 10-420 yards so far, moose, sheep, both species of deer and several black bears...I used the formula above to get to this, bullet first, then distances I will truly want to be capable of, then the cartridge revealed itself from there, wanted no fat and max efficiency so the whole family could shoot it well
hope that helps, but the easy button would be a 20" 6.5 Creedmoor with 140 eld-m factory ammo to do pretty much everything you'd need very well if recoil and factory ammo are considerations for the next hundred years for big game to 400m
start with the bullet you want to push for this 300-400m range/game...then figure out what the minimum impact velocities you want at those ranges....then the cartridge that can drive that bullet to those velocities will reveal itself....don't start with the cartridge and work your way backwards, we will hunt big game to 400 yards with a 16.1" barrel anti-magnum with our 6.5 Grendel's and we have been for 5 seasons and 14 head of big game and a wolf, 10-420 yards so far, moose, sheep, both species of deer and several black bears...I used the formula above to get to this, bullet first, then distances I will truly want to be capable of, then the cartridge revealed itself from there, wanted no fat and max efficiency so the whole family could shoot it well
hope that helps, but the easy button would be a 20" 6.5 Creedmoor with 140 eld-m factory ammo to do pretty much everything you'd need very well if recoil and factory ammo are considerations for the next hundred years for big game to 400m
There was a SAKO carbine with a VERY short barrel offered quite a few years ago. Can't remember the model designation, but is had an 18" barrel, and was offered in several calibers including 375 H&H.
I handled one of them at a gun shop in Juneau, Alaska, but never bought it. Already had a Mark X with a 20 inch barrel, and that was LOUD enough.
Ted
I handled one of them at a gun shop in Juneau, Alaska, but never bought it. Already had a Mark X with a 20 inch barrel, and that was LOUD enough.
Ted
^ SAKO Handy Rifle
I was always curious about these in 7mm Rem Mag. Who was that chambering intended for? Maybe people in France and similar countries where “ military chamberings” were banned.
I liked the idea so much I cut down a 338 wm Aiii (20 inches though) and put it in a mcmillan and added an oem peep and front sight.
I was always curious about these in 7mm Rem Mag. Who was that chambering intended for? Maybe people in France and similar countries where “ military chamberings” were banned.
I liked the idea so much I cut down a 338 wm Aiii (20 inches though) and put it in a mcmillan and added an oem peep and front sight.
I was quite surprised by the mild manners of my 16.5" .300RCM. The muzzle blast and recoil seemed as normal as any other magnum rifle I've fired. And there was no noticeable fireball either. Same goes for a 16.5" .260 I have.
I like these short barreled rifles so much, I'm building a compact .308 with 16" carbon barrel now.
I like these short barreled rifles so much, I'm building a compact .308 with 16" carbon barrel now.
The Sako Handy came in a few different configurations, and in many different chamberings, from non magnum, all the way up to 416 Rem Mag. Barrel lengths varied from 18.5" to 20". Stocks were in the "standard" wood, and rare Fibreclass. ICR they were intended as guide stopping rifle, for NA and Africa, as well as Euro hunting rifle in the smaller chamberings. The 7mm RM in this configuration is just a beauty to shoot. The one in 338 WM was on the edge of reasonable. They are a heavy rifle, and this definitely helps in the recoil department.
R.
Shoot at dusk, or in the dark for best fireball noticeability, and film it... it will surprise you.
R.
SAKO fibreclass stocks from AV etc series guns are basically the same weight as the wood stocks aren’t they?
Heavy receivers and barrels though; even with a modern mcmillan edge fill SAKO stock my gun weighs 7 lbs (not that that’s especially heavy, but throw a modern rifle from the majority of manufacturers in that stock and I’d bet it would weigh a lot less.)
Heavy receivers and barrels though; even with a modern mcmillan edge fill SAKO stock my gun weighs 7 lbs (not that that’s especially heavy, but throw a modern rifle from the majority of manufacturers in that stock and I’d bet it would weigh a lot less.)
The Fibreclass class stocks are a bit lighter than the wood ones. It is noticeable, but not by a whole bunch. The McMillan was the way to go for any kind of weight savings. As you said, they are a heavy rifle.
R.
