Ultimate barrel lengths

rascal1

rascal1

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
GunNutz
Rating - 100%
172   0   0
Location
Secret
I was considering a bit of a project lately. It's been a long winter and have been suffering a bit of cabin fever. I was thinking of cutting down a barrel on one of my rifles. I want something shorter for ease of carying in heavy brush but of course don't want to give up too much performance in the process. Hopefully there are a few guys on here that have some experience in the field and have done some successful experimenting. Yes I expect the noise level to increase.

I have a Remington semi auto 30-06, was thinking keeping the barrel length around 20 inches or so although they are produced in 18.5 in lenghts. Also, considering cutting down a Bar 300 winmag. Curious to know what the ideal lenght is for that beast that wont sacrifice too much performance for the handling aspect.


Looking forward to some feedback.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a fun project, from my understanding you loose 100 fps for every inch lost, not only will you see an increase in noise youre going to increase in felt recoil for sure.
 
Here's an article I read that is online. ht tp://rifleshooter.com/2013/12/300-winchester-magnum-how-does-barrel-length-change-velocity-a-16-300-win-mag/
 
Short rifles are a joy to carry, transport, and store. But ......

A couple of inches makes a lot of difference in both easy handling, and also in all the things that make a gun not fun. I have a .300 WM and I would never want it shorter simply due to loss of hearing that would occur every time I shot it without hearing protection, and I have no desire to increase the recoil at the bench by losing weight. I really don't like to shoot it much without hearing protection, even at 24". No one who has been close by when I shot it wants it louder either. I really like it as a hunting round, but I would not shorten any .300 WM to 20 inches. Shortening it would only subtract from the rounds advantages (like ballistics for .30 Cal bullets) while increasing all the disadvantages except for making it easier to carry around. I'm just going to suck it up and carry it if I think I need the ballistics it produces, and try to save my hearing.

The .30-06 has fewer disadvantages to shortening, and the loss in velocity will certainly not be 100fps/inch, more like less than half that. It is not as loud, but it will get louder. It is already capable of causing hearing loss (as are almost all gun shots) so you will have to measure that against making it more "agile".

I don't want to shoot many guns with less than abut 22 inches of barrel, and I think that length is a good compromise between handling and ballistic goals.
 
Lots of good advice on this post, so I will just add mine.
Optimum barrel length for hunting with a 243, 308, 270 or 30-06 class is 22 inches.
Magnums, min of 24 inches.
That's my opinion.
 
Lots of knowledge here so far.

I do own a couple of short rifles, and they are great, but I see them as specialty items.

Personally I prefer 24" for non-magnums and 26" for magnums for general use.
 
Interesting read there on the 300 mag experiment. It appears that a 22 in barrel saw minor reductions on velocity & bullet drop but it actually shot a tighter grouping than the stock 24in length. It would be a bit less ponderous at 22 inches that the standard 24. in on the Bar. As far a an increase in felt recoil, the Bar being a semi, is already quite a bit tamer than my Abolt with 26 in barrel. I think the remington cut down to 19or 20 inches would work good. They have pretty light recoiling allready. Gonna do some more research before I bust out the saw. I mainly wanted a fast handling quick shooting deer gun and with a modified 300mag, I would be buying common ammo etc as my 300.Winmag Abolt.

Thanks for the input.
 
Last edited:
The longest bbl rifle I have at the moment is 22". Bunch of 20" and a 18.5".
I doubt I will ever toat around a 24-26" bbl again.
For my hunting where 300yrds is a long poke 2-4" dosnt make a lick of differance.

Short and handy. When carrying on the shoulder it's below my head so it don't get caught on branches. Just packs around better in all aspects.
 
Many words of wisdom already made here. I do not care for barrels shorter than 22" in standard chamberings.
[The 30-30 is an exception.]
Magnums need 24" minimum. Shorten a 300 Win Mag to 20" and you end up with a loud 30-06.
Regards, Dave.
 
I don't understand the current fad towards shorter and shorter barrels. Lighter, yes, but most handle poorly - muzzle light, whippy, hard to settle on a target. Much more muzzle blast, really obnoxious in some chamberings, and far more likely to permanently damage your hearing. Reduced ballistic performance. But they are "handy" Perhaps they are for people who carry rifles but don't shoot them? ;-)
 
Longwalker said:
I don't understand the current fad towards shorter and shorter barrels...

But they are "handy" Perhaps they are for people who carry rifles but don't shoot them?
Click to expand...

I would say quite the opposite... The ones likely to gravitate to "handier" rifles are the ones in the field intent on something other than paper and knowing that 2-4" won't make a bit of ballistic difference on target, but could very well mean the difference between squeezing the trigger or not.

I saw this thread start up and held back for awhile to see if the typical tone would emerge...

I will counter point the general consensus...

What follows is only my opinion... I have bobbed several dozen rifle barrels in addition to owning several dozen more factory configured short barrel rifles... I have tested barrels before and after bobbing with "same batch" loads. I have also tested incrementally on three different rifles. My observations are these.

1. Velocity loss/inch is usually exagerated
2. Handloads can often close the velocity gap pre/post bob
3. Heavier/slower cartridges (larger bore) loose less velocity/inch than lighter/faster (small bore) cartridges (on a percentage of initial velocity basis)
4. Perceived noise (volume) is not the issue that many believe, as noise is an issue regardless of barrel length
5. Balance and wieldiness are often greatly improved with 2"+ removed (purely subjective)
6. Accuracy is not affected by shortening the barrel (not subjective)


I like shorter barrel lengths for many field applications, and for specific applications, such as a truck or quad rifle. Handling and carrying on stand or in tight cover can be greatly improved... the noise in open air environments/or in range environments should receive the same care whether the barrel is 18" or 26". Some cartridges lend themselves to shorter lengths... I enjoy pistol cartridges, medium bore cartridges (8mm - .375") and straight"ish" wall cartridges (.38/55 & .45/70 etc...) with shorter barrel lengths.

O.P - where a short barrel is chosen for the sake of wieldiness, I would recommend reconciling yourself to embracing the handling characteristics and not the pure ballistic (velocity) characteristics of the given platform... ie. load heavy for caliber bullets in appropriate cartridges. It would hardly make sense to choose a .220 Swift and then Bob the barrel from 26" to 18", as one chooses the Swift for its ballistic performance. So of the two choices you provided, I would bob the .30/06 over the .300 WM.
 
I've got rifles in barrel lengths from a 16.5" Ruger Frontier to a 26 " LAW in 28 Nosler along with all various lengths in between and I like them all.
The most obnoxious of the bunch is probably my 18.5 " 600 Rem in 6.5 Rem. Mag., but like the others it has put meat in the freezer when called on.
The other day I was shooting my braked 28 Nosler and a 20" Howa in 6.5 CRM and only one other shooter using the range at the far end of the long shack.
After I shot a group with the 6.5 he came over and remarked how loud it was but yet he never noticed my braked rifle when I used it.
As for balance my short-barreled Howa is probably the best of any rifle in my safes..
 
hoytcanon said:
I would say quite the opposite... The ones likely to gravitate to "handier" rifles are the ones in the field intent on something other than paper and knowing that 2-4" won't make a bit of ballistic difference on target, but could very well mean the difference between squeezing the trigger or not.

I saw this thread start up and held back for awhile to see if the typical tone would emerge...

I will counter point the general consensus...

1. Velocity loss/inch is usually exagerated
2. Handloads can often close the velocity gap pre/post bob
3. Heavier/slower cartridges (larger bore) loose less velocity/inch than lighter/faster (small bore) cartridges (on a percentage of initial velocity basis)
4. Perceived noise (volume) is not the issue that many believe, as noise is an issue regardless of barrel length
5. Balance and wieldiness are often greatly improved with 2"+ removed (purely subjective)
6. Accuracy is not affected by shortening the barrel (not subjective)
Click to expand...

I will comment as per my own observations, hoyt. :)
1. This is true in most cases.
2. The same handloads will still be faster in the longer barrel.
3. This is quite true, in my experience.
4. Because the muzzle is closer to the shooters face, the noise is perceptibly louder. [Agree that all guns are too loud for hearing preservation.]
5. In most cases, this is true.
6. In fact, accuracy may actually improve slightly with the shorter [and now stiffer] tube.

Regards, Dave.
 
hoytcanon said:
I would say quite the opposite... The ones likely to gravitate to "handier" rifles are the ones in the field intent on something other than paper and knowing that 2-4" won't make a bit of ballistic difference on target, but could very well mean the difference between squeezing the trigger or not.

I saw this thread start up and held back for awhile to see if the typical tone would emerge...

I will counter point the general consensus...

What follows is only my opinion... I have bobbed several dozen rifle barrels in addition to owning several dozen more factory configured short barrel rifles... I have tested barrels before and after bobbing with "same batch" loads. I have also tested incrementally on three different rifles. My observations are these.

1. Velocity loss/inch is usually exagerated
2. Handloads can often close the velocity gap pre/post bob
3. Heavier/slower cartridges (larger bore) loose less velocity/inch than lighter/faster (small bore) cartridges (on a percentage of initial velocity basis)
4. Perceived noise (volume) is not the issue that many believe, as noise is an issue regardless of barrel length
5. Balance and wieldiness are often greatly improved with 2"+ removed (purely subjective)
6. Accuracy is not affected by shortening the barrel (not subjective)


I like shorter barrel lengths for many field applications, and for specific applications, such as a truck or quad rifle. Handling and carrying on stand or in tight cover can be greatly improved... the noise in open air environments/or in range environments should receive the same care whether the barrel is 18" or 26". Some cartridges lend themselves to shorter lengths... I enjoy pistol cartridges, medium bore cartridges (8mm - .375") and straight"ish" wall cartridges (.38/55 & .45/70 etc...) with shorter barrel lengths.

O.P - where a short barrel is chosen for the sake of wieldiness, I would recommend reconciling yourself to embracing the handling characteristics and not the pure ballistic (velocity) characteristics of the given platform... ie. load heavy for caliber bullets in appropriate cartridges. It would hardly make sense to choose a .220 Swift and then Bob the barrel from 26" to 18", as one chooses the Swift for its ballistic performance. So of the two choices you provided, I would bob the .30/06 over the .300 WM.
Click to expand...

Thx for that. As someone who spends a far bit of his hunting time on foot in the bush split between the back of a quad or truck cab, the shorter barrel appeals to me for practicality purposes. I anticipate a slight loss in performance of course buy will adjust the range at which I shoot at game accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Given that I have a 16" barreled CZ 452 .22lr, a 18.5" .308 Ruger Scout, and now a 20" .375 Ruger Alaskan I guess my preference is fairly obvious. I also own a 26" Model 70 Extreme Weather 7mmRM that I also like quite a lot, but I much prefer the others for any type of carry or hunting scenarios where thick brush or shots limited to 300 yards and under would be expected, I just find them more comfortable and handy to carry, and personally have not found them to be less stable or not front heavy enough when shooting either (though none of my rifles are "light weight"). Essentially my 7mm is likely going to be my alpine hunting rifle where potential for longer shots is more likely(and there are no trees or branches to hang my barrel up in) and the other guns will be used for everything else.

I'd say shoot whatever floats your boat or blows your skirt up, pluses and minuses to both longer and shorter barrels, I'm happy to have both so I can cover pretty much all the bases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom