Thread: Why shorten?

Because we can..... And suppressors make them ok on hearing whereas the old shorties were deafening

Some of the plac s I hunt a 150 yard shot would be seldom had,most under hundy so short isn't an issue,or slow...

I took a 22" Tikka 7mm08 and cut it to 17" and rechambered it to 284 win. I added a suppressor put a 2-16 scope on it and I now have a rifle with the same performance and length as a 22" 7mm08, but it has a suppressor, so I can hunt without hearing protection. I think it's the perfect general purpose rifle for pretty much everything in NZ. I have shot goats at 2m in the bush and deer out to around 500m. It's light enough to carry in the bush all day in one hand without needing a sling, but when I get an opportunity for a long shot, it's no problem.

One big thing many people overlook with long barrels is the muzzle height above your pack when it's strapped on. It's a real pain if it's above your head.

I personally just think short barrels look neat.

I won’t cut up a good classic though.

But anything modern?
Cut.

Running an 18” 300wsm right now. Neat gun. Can shoot out to 600 with it and it’s handy in the bush and when it’s on my pack I don’t have it sticking out past my head to tangle up on crap.

Originally Posted by Basenjiboy

I understand shortening barrels of efficient cartridges, especially with the added length of suppressors.
however, I don't see the point of cutting down a cartridge designed for a long barrel, and adding extra powder just to get the same velocity of a smaller cartridge in the same calibre (e.g 280AI or 7mm RM ending up at 7-08 speed).

Well that's why I have a 16" 7-08 Bushpig for the scrub and a 26" 280AI for the long stuff. Once or twice, I was forced to drag the Ackley into thick stuff and was instantly reminded why I should have had the Pig handy.

Short compact rifles is my fetish, love the look,weight and ballance i will never own anything longer than 20"

Mind your own business Jhon

They don't come much shorter (legally anyway!).

I can appreciate a blued and wooded classic with a 22" sporter barrel, but any more than that is unneccessary in my book.

And if it ain't a classic, then I like my barrels like I like my punk rock music - short fast and loud.

Originally Posted by Jhon

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)

Don't look at my rifles on Sunday at the shoot as all mine are chopped to 20".
My rem mag was 21" and still pushed a 162 grn at over 3000 fps.
20" with a can is way more usable.

Sent from my CPH2531 using Tapatalk

i've shortened or bought already shortened rifles for using a suppressor and not needing a pilot vehicle to move around, and they're tools for deleting pests not long range target shooting.

My favourite rifle has a 29” barrel. 6.5x55 of course. I’m with @Jhon and see no real reason to shorten a firearm. Must be getting really old!

There isn't an animal that cant be killed readily inside of 400m in NZ with a 16 inch 223 so maybe people trim them because theres no practical gain to them being longer in terms of killing at the ranges most shoot. You might gain 100-300fps going from a 16 inch barrel to a 24 inch barrel in most chamberings but most chamberings lose 100-300fps in the first 100m anyway so why make it worse in terms of weight and handling. My question is outside of looks for classics rifles why would manufacturers make so many shit rifles that arent already trimmed?

Originally Posted by Ingrid 51

My favourite rifle has a 29” barrel. 6.5x55 of course. I’m with @Jhon and see no real reason to shorten a firearm. Must be getting really old!

I dont understand how do you type if your blind?

If you have seen a short .270 unsupressed in full swing youll know why.FLAME THROWER!