Thread: Why shorten?

How many people are dialing scopes anyway? My problem with short barrels is performance and its got nothing to do with clicks on a scope. It's about the bullet does when it gets there. I want full velocity.
If you want to know what lowering your performance by chopping barrels does in the real world try shooting something out of a .30-30 that been chopped to 14 inches. Your better off hitting it with the gun.

Why you would want to muzzle (get it?) the abilities of a high performance round like the 270 baffles me. I have met people who have cut the barrels down to 20 inches on 7mm Rem Mags!

Ive always regarded it as a passing technology fad to do with suppressors. People who have short barrels and suppressors are often those who just like new gizmos. If I lived in the UK and only had access to a small property with whinging neighbours, I might have a suppressor (In fact, I do have a rifle suppressed that is used for exactly that) or are shooting over a dog, but otherwise I see no point to them. Even the reduced recoil doesnt hold much water for me.

And yeah, Jhons right, this fad has destroyed the value of so many good sporting rifles.

Originally Posted by John Duxbury

How many people are dialing scopes anyway? My problem with short barrels is performance and its got nothing to do with clicks on a scope. It's about the bullet does when it gets there. I want full velocity.
If you want to know what lowering your performance by chopping barrels does in the real world try shooting something out of a .30-30 that been chopped to 14 inches. Your better off hitting it with the gun.

Why you would want to muzzle (get it?) the abilities of a high performance round like the 270 baffles me. I have met people who have cut the barrels down to 20 inches on 7mm Rem Mags!

Ive always regarded it as a passing technology fad to do with suppressors. People who have short barrels and suppressors are often those who just like new gizmos. If I lived in the UK and only had access to a small property with whinging neighbours, I might have a suppressor (In fact, I do have a rifle suppressed that is used for exactly that) or are shooting over a dog, but otherwise I see no point to them. Even the reduced recoil doesnt hold much water for me.

And yeah, Jhons right, this fad has destroyed the value of so many good sporting rifles.

I don't see anything wrong with a rem mag shooting a 162 at 2950-3000fps which is what you get from a 20" one.

Sent from my CPH2531 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by John Duxbury

How many people are dialing scopes anyway? [B]The majority[B]My problem with short barrels is performance and it's got nothing to do with clicks on a scope. It's about the bullet does when it gets there. I want full velocity. You hand load the performance back up
If you want to know what lowering your performance by chopping barrels does in the real world try shooting something out of a .30-30 that been chopped to 14 inches. You're better off hitting it with the gun. No one would cut one to 14" would they? Its a pathetic cartridge anyway

Why you would want to muzzle (get it?) the abilities of a high performance round like the 270 baffles me. I have met people who have cut the barrels down to 20 inches on 7mm Rem Mags! A 20" 270 hand loaded will out perform a 24" with factory ammo

Ive always regarded it as a passing technology fad to do with suppressors. People who have short barrels and suppressors are often those who just like new gizmos. If I lived in the UK you came from Wales didnt you John?and only had access to a small property with whinging neighbours, I might have a suppressor (In fact, I do have a rifle suppressed that is used for exactly that) or are shooting over a dog or value your hearing, but otherwise I see no point to them. Even the reduced recoil doesnt hold much water for me.

And yeah, Jhons right, this fad has destroyed the value of so many good sporting rifles. That I agree with

As above.