Why so few short barreled bolt action hunting rifles??

My milsurp and tribute rifle to our heritage is a 303 No.5. It is a dandy to shoot but the noise is loud and the flash is incredible late day. The issue of barrel length is really an issue of personal choice and the guns mission. My 35 year old moose rifle is a 444 with a 22" tube. It is handy and powerful on a cutline or willow swamp. It is also a boomer and any shorter it would be too much noise for me.

To the OP it seems the new Ruger Gunsite, Ar's, and numerous other carbines seem to suggest your question is a little of target. Short barreled rifles have been available in reasonable numbers for years. Thr Ruger No.1 International is both short barreled and really short overall. Oddly enough I would like a long barrel 300 H&H Ruger No.1 and an International in 7X57 if I was a bunch richer.

Please take hearing loss from shooting seriously. The loudest rifle I have fired is a 105 Howitzer and the Forces take hearing protection very seriously. My family had quite a few combat vets from WW2 and all of them had hearing loss. I have it from shooting a lot of 12 gauge as a kid. There are folks who can smoke three packs a day in an asbestos factory and never get cancer. That doesn't mean it should be standard practice.
 
Yup you should take the hearing thing seriously, my ears ring constantly and i`m quite sensitive to loud noises now. Even working in the shop if somebody starts hammering steel on the anvil it will send me running for muffs. c-fbmi your right about not feeling recoil when shooting at game but the noise gets to me, likely cause i have extensive damage already. I don`t see it as a big issue in a short barrel long barrel debate,they all cause damage to hearing just at a different rate. Barrel lenght is more of a handleing thing as well as appeal to the owner, that`s my .02 worth.
 
So I hear you like short barrels?



I picked up a butchered P14 for 125$ shipped, and had it rebarreled with an 18.5" and reworked to feed 45-70. Current load pushes a Speer 400gr JSP over a chronograph at 2050ft/s and hits 3.75" high at 100 yards, 3.75" low at 200. Not a bad MPBR for a 3800ft-lbs brush rifle, considering it has 100ft-lbs more power at 100 yards compared to a 308 Winchester at the muzzle! Good for any and every medium to large game within 200 yards and a bit more. Even when going really slow, these big heavy bullets will wallop a world of hurt on what they fall on.

7.5lbs for the whole rifle, really nice and handy to walk around with.

It's not that bad in terms of accuracy with the rather simple rear peep, front post and crude trigger.

 
Barrel length will differ for certain applications and preferances but there are obvious performance issues. Short, mid-caliber silhouette cartridges have small case capacity and so, barrels under 18" develop the highest velocity with a powder that burns at a quick to medium speed. Standard, time tested calibers like 30-06, 270 winchester achieve highest velocities with slower burning powder in barrels over 18". An old 40 caliber Sharps rifle, with slow burning black powder (slow when considering some of the many options available today) required a very long barrel to extract the greatest energy from the burning powder, to develop the velocity to push the +300 grain lead slug 1300-1500 fps required to reach out and kill that buffalo. I wish I could dig up the test that was done in a Guns & Ammo article in the early '90s where the author had specially made to test the results of barrels several feet long: I cannot remember test caliber, but at the longest length (before machining off another foot) the bullet would not come out: I cannot recall the length at which the specific caliber developed the highest velocity but it was somewhere between 18-26 " (sorry, the ambiguity leaves much to be argued) :redface: Since the dawn of the rifle, man has sought higher velocity for this equals greater range and energy. When is it enough? Never, but obviously a 30 caliber 180 grain bullet travelling at the same speed of a 40 grain in 220 Swift isn't needed to kill a deer at 100 yards.

I like them all, and they have different purposes often overlapping.
 
I bought two Ruger Scout rifles this year, one for each the wife and I. I used mine for most of deer season and loved it. More than accurate enough (I was pleasantly surprised with the accuracy) and the improved handling was much appreciated in the forest.

My new Sako 375HH is getting its barrel cut as well (down to 20") as soon as I can get my butt up to AB Tac Rifle.
 
FME shorter barrels seem to be louder than longer barrels. There is not a meaningful difference in accuracy or velocity.

I do not like the handling of rifles shorter than 22". Just feels awkward and they don't seem to point right - for me. I find the 22 through 26 just point better both with a scope and iron sights.

I have never had an issue with 22 to 26 inch barrels hanging up in thick brush I'm not sure how one would have trouble with a 22" barrel hanging up on bushes and a 20 inch barrel not hanging up. I can understand how someone might prefer one over another due to stature and/or strength limitations, or just liking it more.
 
RUPZUK said:
Good thread.
Personally the barrel length has been dictated by the rifle manufacturer for me.
I've never considered a 24" tube an issue.
I added a few inches to one (muzzle brake) and never found an issue with it either.
I do have an opinion on the noise of shorter barrels- reload and choose a powder that burns in the tube. Factory hunting loads are designed to maximize velocity out of 22 to 24" tubes in standard calibers.
As for the light concept, sorry but a rifle needs to weight 7+ pounds, if you can't pack it you can't haul the animal out either so go hit the gym. Light rifles kick, the heavier the caliber the uglier it gets and not many people shoot heavy calibers in light rifles well or often.
My current lock up is mostly longer but my eye seems to be fixating on several shorter options;
A Marlin ss guide gun is one, the Ruger Compact is another.
In the end what makes you confident?
That is the one
Click to expand...

A muzzle brake on a 24" barreled rifle will most likely make it much louder than any 18-20" one btw...
 
I sometimes take my Swedish 94 carbine out for deer and its a blast quite literally if you are near the muzzle when it goes bang and it is a sweet little rifle to lug around.
 
dead meat said:
Yup you should take the hearing thing seriously, my ears ring constantly and i`m quite sensitive to loud noises now. Even working in the shop if somebody starts hammering steel on the anvil it will send me running for muffs. c-fbmi your right about not feeling recoil when shooting at game but the noise gets to me, likely cause i have extensive damage already. I don`t see it as a big issue in a short barrel long barrel debate,they all cause damage to hearing just at a different rate. Barrel lenght is more of a handleing thing as well as appeal to the owner, that`s my .02 worth.
Click to expand...

The one decent bit of H&S legislation for shooters over here has been the permission to use sound moderators on our stalking rifles. They are also permitted on hand guns for humane dispatch under certain circumstances.
I'll let you know how I get on!
 
Its all about lowering the Db reading to a level that the Health and safety Nazis can live with. I vaguely recall a reduction of 25 to 30 Db (at an agreed distance) from the average 110 Db is desired! I seem to recall the pain threshold being 90 to 95!
 
philthygeezer said:
A 24" barrel will have lower muzzle blast than an 18" barrel.

12 Gauge
28" barrel 151.50dB
26" barrel 156.10dB
18" barrel 161.50dB

.30-06
.30-06 in 24" barrel 158.5dB
.30-06 in 18" barrel 163.2dB

http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml

Every 3 db is a doubling of acoustic power.

http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/2004-About-dB/
Click to expand...

i understand that dB are logarithmic, not linear.

what i dont understand is all this talk about how 'short barrels are too loud'. :confused:
how the hell would you know? why are you firing rifles without hearing protection?
ALL of the volumes posted are well into mandatory hearing protection ranges, so what on earth difference does it make? my 16.5" .308 and 22" .308 sound the same through my peltors or earpros.
 
Milsparro said:
philthygeezer said:
12 Gauge
28" barrel 151.50dB
26" barrel 156.10dB
18" barrel 161.50dB
Click to expand...
8.5"?
Click to expand...

kerblooey2.jpg



LOL
 
Heh. Light your game on fire and save on cooking time.

I think barrel length makes a difference even with hearing protection because the muffs are only rated for a certain Db reduction. Shorter barrels may still exert twice as much force on your ears and be further into the danger zone. Longer barrels may allow your hearing protection to bring your ears into a safer level of sound.

The fact that sound moderators are banned in Canada is shear stupidity. Even England allows them.
 
Gary D said:
Which is why the 30-30 has been so successful for so long. Handy and easy shouldering and not the punishment from recoil or muzzle jump of the big cartridges in a light rifle.
Click to expand...

And some of the savage 1899's.
IMHO 20" barrels are quite nice to walk around the woods with.
 
some very good info on here recently, here in the UK the NRA decided that damage could be transferred to your inner ear through vibrations from the stock transmitted during firing which ruined a few people cheek weld for a while until it was rubbished (albeit only partly). I have to admit that I dont use protection away from the range unless I have time to pop plugs in. Its a hazard with woodland deer stalking which we work around by using moderators. Its very effective and although it extends barrel length you can shorten the barrels before threading and the mods seem in some cases to act as barrel extensions reducing the drop in MV (I know this through testing a 6.5 Grendel when the mod was fitted to a 20 inch barrel we gained 30 fps) and also take the harshness out of the report.
Using rifles at a range is totally different and is only any good for testing purposes, the real proof of the pudding is the hunting rifle with the short barrel being used without protection in the woods. I use my 1907 Swede 94 carbine with what must be an 18 inch barrel and it feels tremendously loud and blasty (is there such a word?) compared to my 22 inch cz 550 FS in the same calibre.
 
testing the grendel, yes its windy but the noise with the mod fitted is so reduced that we shoot without any hearing protection, compare that to the first few shots where cans are worn.
http://bashingbambi.########.com/2012/03/testing-65-grendel.html
 
I have several short barrel guns14-20", I have tennitis and hearing loss as measured in a hearing lab.
-I am rethinking my short barreled rifles/shotguns
-no ringing in your ears after shooting, does this mean you have had no damage? get it measured in a lab - free at many commerical businesses, at least then you have a base line to compare loss over time
-why no hearing protection while shooting - anyone here wear protection while hunting?
-wearing hearing protection at a range - are you protected? by 26 db if it is worn correctly, is that enough? no, can you double up by wearing ear plugs and muffs? it would be nice to see data
-shooters should start to lobby for the same noise reduction for rifles common in Europe - in their own self interest: hearing loss and loss of ranges due to noise as in the Gulf Island fight over the future of the range there this year
 
anyone here wear protection while hunting?
Click to expand...

always. at least plugs/earpros but when shooting varmints ill usually have my peltors on. hell, in winter they keep my ears warm.

then again i am super protective of my hearing. if im hammering something, using the grinder, circular saw, reciprocating saw, etc - basically everything but a cordless drill - ill usually have my peltors on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom