The Accurate Reloading Forums
Re: Barrel length?

This topic can be found at:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3221043/m/588106751

16 December 2004, 09:09
fredj338
Re: Barrel length?
Within reason, bbl. length has little to do w/ accuracy. What you get is better powder combustion, especially w/ the smaller bore dia. like the .300wby. As bore dia. goes up, combustion efficency also goes up. That would be why you would get better perf. out of the 26"/.330wby. vs. a 24"/.338wm. Except for Ruger #1s, I find 26"bbl. too long for me.
16 December 2004, 08:53
Doublegun
A couple of weeks ago I posted a question about the 200 Wby Mag. vs. 338 Win Mag. I got a lot of good information but some of the answer suggested a 24" barrel for a 338 and a 26" barrel for a 300 Wby. My question is why and how does/will the length effect accuracy.

Thanks.
16 December 2004, 10:18
Cold Bore
Quote:

My question is why and how does/will the length effect accuracy.



In theory, a shorter barrel "should" be more accurate. Less flex, etc. Look at the benchresters, with their short fat barrels.

However, on a *hunting* rifle, a few inches of barrel length one way or the other will have no meaningful effect on accuracy.
16 December 2004, 10:40
BBBruce
Quote:

Quote:

My question is why and how does/will the length effect accuracy.



In theory, a shorter barrel "should" be more accurate. Less flex, etc. Look at the benchresters, with their short fat barrels.

However, on a *hunting* rifle, a few inches of barrel length one way or the other will have no meaningful effect on accuracy.



I'd never heard that before. Increased bbl length creates greater velocity, which in turn flattens trajectory?
16 December 2004, 11:42
kutenay
The trajectory arc, actually a parabola has no effect on accuracy within hunting rifle distances. The target rifles developed by the great English inventor, Sir Jos. Whitworth and the fabulous Gibbs-Metford rifles, both of the "high Victorian" era demonstrate that.



The post concerning the performance levels of the .300 Wby. and the .338 Win. is also slightly in error as the "performance" levels in each are relative to the case-bore capacity ratio and one is not "better" than the other, simply different. The .300Wby. certainly performs somewhat better in longer barrels, which is one of several reasons why I much prefer the .338 Win. as it will reach close to it's maximum potential in 23" bbls., with appropriately heavy bullets; I prefer this for larger animals and thickly forested country.



Any accuracy advantage to be found in shorter bbls. is concerned with the variation in barrel flexion when a cartridge is fired; this tends to be lesser in shorter bbls. of a given weight and thus the gross dispersion of shots tends also to be smaller. It is also a tad easier to ream, rifle and lap a shorter bore, thus producing a more accurate bbl, although this is a minor factor.



So, shorter bbls. of a given weight are stiffer, can be a bit more uniform and thus may be a bit more accurate.
16 December 2004, 13:22
Cold Bore
Quote:

Increased bbl length creates greater velocity, which in turn flattens trajectory?



So fast equals accurate?

Heck, I guess I should just go pick up a new 204 Ruger and start outshooting all of the slow old 222 Rem and 6 PPC rifles out there!

OK, I think what you are saying is that a flatter trajectory may make it easier to "hit" on long shots that you may misjudge the distance on, but that actually is no reflection of a rifle's "accuracy" level.

Again, "in theory", the shorter tube should be more accurate, but unless you're using a micrometer to measure very-sub-MOA groups, you'll never notice a 2" difference in a hunting rifle barrel...
16 December 2004, 13:55
fredj338
Cold bore is 100% on this. I have alot of loads that go fast but just a few that go fast & accurate.
16 December 2004, 14:47
Doc
Yep, Cold Bore has it right. A shorter barrel is stiffer and has less 'whip' with the bullet traveling down it. However, you are right with respect to bbl. length. Most of my hunting guns have a longer barrel because I like flat trajectory. I personally have not had an accuracy problem with my guns and their long barrels.

My Ruger .270 has a 25.5" Hart #1 contour barrel on it and I had DIFFICULTY seeing a group with almost any load greater than one inch. Not that I was trying.

My 300 RUM has a 28" #4 contour Shilen barrel on it and I wouldn't have it any other way. Still, no trouble at all working up a good hunting load. Better than 1/2" with 5 shots of a 200 Nos. Accub. over 89.0 Re25.
17 December 2004, 09:08
vapodog
In terms of a good functional and practical hunting gun the barrel length (with-in reason....22"-26") is a purely personal thing. It don't mean squat to accuracy or performance in any way a hunter can measure in the field.

Get the barrel length that you like.......Some (like me) like them short.....some (like Ray Atkinson) likes them long. You're neither me or Ray.....so get the length that you are comfortable with.

Do not allow accuracy or velocity concerns to effect your decision.....they're incredibly miniscule in the end.
17 December 2004, 10:50
<eldeguello>
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

My question is why and how does/will the length effect accuracy.



In theory, a shorter barrel "should" be more accurate. Less flex, etc. Look at the benchresters, with their short fat barrels.

However, on a *hunting* rifle, a few inches of barrel length one way or the other will have no meaningful effect on accuracy.



I'd never heard that before. Increased bbl length creates greater velocity, which in turn flattens trajectory?



Accuracy and trajectory are not related. We all know that the .45/70, and simialr rounds, are extremely accurate long range cartridges. However, a flat trajectory does make hitting easier at uncertain distances because the bullet is not dropping on such a steep curve that hitting a target requires precise knowledge of how far away it is.