Thread: Why shorten?

Originally Posted by Old_School

I dont see any real benefits of cutting it down, other than keeping it the same length with a suppressor added, unless it serves its purpose (i.e pig hunting, or other close range shooting situations) you will always loose accuracy and/or range when cutting it down, if that tradeoff doesnt bother you for your situation then go ahead, just hate seeing it done to a valuable or rare rifle.
Even better is to shop around and look for a rifle designed with a short barrel from factory.
Take a look at a marlin model 70 for instance, they have quite a short barrel on those for a .22lr, the first one I saw I thought was cut down at first until I looked up the factory specs and discovered they are all able to be produced short due to their microgroove rifling. Those things are dead accurate too.

I'm not sure that is true unless using open sights. What will reduce accuracy is a bad chop job.

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.

But what you're saying Tahr is that if you do an apples to apples comparison and chuck those same handloads through 24" barrels is that you'd get even better performance than you could get with factory ammo. So you've still given up performance versus what you could have had.

Depends how you look at it as to whether it's glass half full or empty.

You loose too much performance....with tiny case it just won't work. Triple two would be hopeless,couldn't kill a hare,let alone a big solid stag via shoulder shot....oh hang on a minute

Originally Posted by Pommy

But what you're saying Tahr is that if you do an apples to apples comparison and chuck those same handloads through 24" barrels is that you'd get even better performance than you could get with factory ammo. So you've still given up performance versus what you could have had.

Depends how you look at it as to whether it's glass half full or empty.

I look at it from a "good enough" perspective, albeit that I push the margins a bit with some of my loads. Mainly because I wouldn't use a rifle without a suppressor now.

I get that for proper bush hunting a chopped barrel makes stalking and shooting so much easier especially when most shots will be well under 100m, so whilst accuracy/speed may be reduced it doesn't make any real world difference when hunting in that environment. For more open country, I don't get it. In reality how much weight are you really saving by chopping 6"? If weight reduction is your holy grail then surely you'd be better off getting an ultralight so you get the best of both worlds? I don't see the point in reducing a rifles performance then trying to claw it back with load development etc (but I do understand the desire to rise to that challenge) lastly...I don't know much but I do know that there has been more than one .270 for sale on here and elsewhere that I've passed on because they've been chopped down.

Originally Posted by Tahr

I look at it from a "good enough" perspective, albeit that I push the margins a bit with some of my loads. Mainly because I wouldn't use a rifle without a suppressor now.

Theres no right or wrong in this discussion, just different perspectives. I nearly posted last night that I suspect theres a lot of what you just described going on when people shorten, subconsciously they dont like to think they have lost velocity and so will push limits a bit more.

I dont use a suppressor or shortened barrels, and My thinking is this, Most of what people describe as the handiness of a short rifle, actually comes from weight reduction. My short Grendel is not any easier to carry bush hunting than my 24 inch barrelled 270 of the same weight both being around 2.5-2.7kg scoped.

The reality is most hunters are going to fire no more than a couple of shots a day while hunting, and 90% of those occasions you have time to put on hearing protection. The 10% you dont I can live with.

Because of my preferred way of using a rifle, I want velocity, but also I want it easily and dont want to be pushing limits, and barrel length is the easiest way to achieve that, with the side advantage that I dont need to search out premium or very sort after powders.

The reasons I use a suppressor are first it removes the location factor from firing a shot. The target animal hears the supersonic crack but not the "detonation" (yes I know its burn but sounds to us like detonation). The crack does not disclose location of the shot so the animal does not know which direction to run from. Not guaranteed but may give the necessary time for a second shot on same or another animal (goat culling) is they either and circle.

I don't hunt with a dog, havn't found one that likes me enough.

Secondly, an unsuppressed centre-fire on a firing line at the range is bloody unsociable. Out with NZDA on Sunday with my 30-06 learning to shoot 100, 200, 300m. 9 of us on the line. A chopped unsuppressed 223 sounded like a ship mounted 50 cal in the right ear...concussion too.

Thirdly, the configuration of hunting rifle I shoot on the range has to be the same as I take to the field..

Yes, I chopped the 30-06. From 24in to 23.25 in to allow for recrowning and threading. Here's my amateurish group at 300m - the first time Ive ever shot on paper, or at anything, at that distance. Rifle is the 30 yr old Zero-pak one I bought off the forum here. DPT suppressor with their muzzle break fitted (awesome).. 150gn handloads at around 2800fps. Shooting prone (not my favourite or practiced position) off bipod. Scope is the Burris Fullfield II it came with, 3-9x40. Yes I allowed tpo much for the light cross wind and not enough extra elevation for distance. I hope to improve..

Well I run a Howa 1500 in 223 with a 16” barrel and suppressor. I originally shortened the barrel because it felt too muzzle heavy with standard length barrel and suppressor fitted. Also I was used to a shorter barrel after my AR15. This rifle is my main rifle these days and I primarily use it in bush hunting situation but have no hesitation using it out to about 600 metres if the wind isn’t too boisterous. Certainly didn’t lose any noticeable accuracy at normal hunting ranges and is good enough to use out to 600 yards on local NRA range and hold it’s own with competition. In short, I don’t feel disadvantaged by having a shorter barrel on this rifle. The same can be said for some of my other rifles. I have three 308’s with barrels ranging from 16”, 18” to I think 22” and they all shoot well enough for my needs. As an aside. At the range on the weekend, switching tailwinds all afternoon. I shot first round of 10 shots at 300 yards with 223 and did better with this than my 24” Sig Cross 6.5 CM in second round although third round the Sig did sort it’s shit out. So again I don’t feel particularly disadvantaged running shot barrels and I don’t load for maximum velocity but for accuracy. Run what you like and suits you. Also, maybe throw your chronograph away. Especially since the Garmin has come on the scene, they have ruined many a load that has worked perfectly well until the shooter has seen the velocity wasn’t what they expected. You still have to check drops the old fashioned way anyway. Just my thoughts this rainy day.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Theres no right or wrong in this discussion, just different perspectives. I nearly posted last night that I suspect theres a lot of what you just described going on when people shorten, subconsciously they dont like to think they have lost velocity and so will push limits a bit more.

I dont use a suppressor or shortened barrels, and My thinking is this, Most of what people describe as the handiness of a short rifle, actually comes from weight reduction. My short Grendel is not any easier to carry bush hunting than my 24 inch barrelled 270 of the same weight both being around 2.5-2.7kg scoped.

The reality is most hunters are going to fire no more than a couple of shots a day while hunting, and 90% of those occasions you have time to put on hearing protection. The 10% you dont I can live with.

Because of my preferred way of using a rifle, I want velocity, but also I want it easily and dont want to be pushing limits, and barrel length is the easiest way to achieve that, with the side advantage that I dont need to search out premium or very sort after powders.

That.

Originally Posted by Ingrid 51

Guess I’m into older stuff like this 1916 CG presented as a shooting prize in Sweden in 1947. No way would I shorten this, nor any of my other old ones.Attachment 288891

I wouldnt shorten anything classic or collectable either. It was a joke about your very definitive statement that you couldnt see "any" reason to do it.

Short barrels and suppressors are great and work wonderfully for all practical uses, dunno why you wouldn't

Ignoring the looks of classic rifles which I respect and those running open sights wanting longer sight radius.

People worried about lost velocity. How much are you losing and how much does that take of your effective range really? My guess is your losing less than 100 -150yards going from the normal 20-22 inch barrels to a 16" in most cases. And if your not using the total range of either then did you really lose any effective range.

Yes its louder but even long barrels and suppressors are not hearing safe in terms of long term exposure. Wear hearing protection whenever possible regardless.

If you shoot a 308 sized case with a 308 or smaller projectile and are not shooting 500m then barrel length is not limiting your terminal range and If your not running a comparatively high bc bullet that expands at low impact velocity your also losing more performance than any extra barrel length.

Anyone saying you lose accuracy has no idea what they are on about. (I imagine this comes from all the traditional target rifles have long barrels).

Most people worried about performance loss on the magnums is so far out of touch with reality as to what it takes to kill animals.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Theres no right or wrong in this discussion, just different perspectives. I nearly posted last night that I suspect theres a lot of what you just described going on when people shorten, subconsciously they dont like to think they have lost velocity and so will push limits a bit more.

I dont use a suppressor or shortened barrels, and My thinking is this, Most of what people describe as the handiness of a short rifle, actually comes from weight reduction. My short Grendel is not any easier to carry bush hunting than my 24 inch barrelled 270 of the same weight both being around 2.5-2.7kg scoped.

The reality is most hunters are going to fire no more than a couple of shots a day while hunting, and 90% of those occasions you have time to put on hearing protection. The 10% you dont I can live with.

Because of my preferred way of using a rifle, I want velocity, but also I want it easily and dont want to be pushing limits, and barrel length is the easiest way to achieve that, with the side advantage that I dont need to search out premium or very sort after powders.

Isn't just using a larger or more overbore chambering the easiest way for more velocity.

Originally Posted by Stocky

Ignoring the looks of classic rifles which I respect and those running open sights wanting longer sight radius.

People worried about lost velocity. How much are you losing and how much does that take of your effective range really? My guess is your losing less than 100 -150yards going from the normal 20-22 inch barrels to a 16" in most cases. And if your not using the total range of either then did you really lose any effective range.

Yes its louder but even long barrels and suppressors are not hearing safe in terms of long term exposure. Wear hearing protection whenever possible regardless.

If you shoot a 308 sized case with a 308 or smaller projectile and are not shooting 500m then barrel length is not limiting your terminal range and If your not running a comparatively high bc bullet that expands at low impact velocity your also losing more performance than any extra barrel length.

Anyone saying you lose accuracy has no idea what they are on about. (I imagine this comes from all the traditional target rifles have long barrels).

Most people worried about performance loss on the magnums is so far out of touch with reality as to what it takes to kill animals.

This is all correct. But...

This thinking relies on spending on modern tech or extra gear. Rangefinders, ballistic turrets, hand loading equipment, the moderator itself, When if you run a standard barrel at achievable velocities and keep within those ranges, you dont need any of it.

Factory 7mmrem mag looses about 300fps from 24 inch down to 18 inch. You have lost all the advantage of such a rifle in that scenario while retaining the powder burn and recoil. And still 90% of animals are shot under 500 yards.

My 270 with G4 drop reticle only "needs" the first stadia out too 400 meters with factory 140gr Winchester ballistic silver tip. And within that distance all of the last 100 rounds except one have been fired.