Thread: Why shorten?

A redundant question obviously. Or a comment posed as a question. Take your pick. Not aimed at anyone either.

The thing that has been bugging me forever it seems is what amounts to, in my unhumble opinion, a fetish, a fad, an obsession with "chopping" the barrel on a perfectly good firearm. Someone offers a classic BSA, a BRNO, or Winchester, a beautiful Sako, a Vixen, a Tikka 3xLite, a Savage 99, a CZ 537 Ebony Edition...and as I pounce in anticipation I read "barrel chopped to...". Sod me sideways. A rifle destroyed. And they're still asking top dollar for it. Like somehow chopping 2, 6, even 8 bloody inches off the poor thing somehow makes it worth more. Those are inches some of us would be pleased have, but I digress.

I understand folk wanting less weight. I understand fast pointing in bush. That's what a carbine is designed for, right? If you're in the bush any carbine length centre fire rifle on the market will do the biz, right? 30-30, 7.62x39, lever actions in 44-40, 45-70 45 colt, hell, even 357mag will do the job. And if you must chop something down for 50 metre fast shots in heavy cover why not a filthy old 303B battle axe? As to less weight, that's what gymns and barbells are for, correct? When men were...well...all that good stuff.

But no. We take a 22 to 24in barrel, open field, medium to long range rifle and destroy everything decent and good about it then try and pass the bloody thing on as somehow "improved". Why?

(Ducking 'n Diving)