Why is it that most of the new rifles I see nowadays have short (i.e. 20", 22", 23") barrels. Even with such calibers as the .300/7mm Ultra Mags, Savage lists most models with 22" barrels. Browning A bolts all have short barrels for the 270, 7mm and 300 WSM cartridges. I know short barreled guns are handier and lighter, but dont you lose alot of velocity from magnum calibers by going shorter than 24" - 26" barrels? Am I missing something?

Maybe some MBA told them could save a few pennies by using the same boxes as the standard cartridges, or they realized that 98% of the gun-buying public doesn't own a chronograph and wouldn't know whether they were getting advertised velocities.

George

Maybe gun companies DO market research and figure out what the majority of their customers want?

Rifle freaks make up a small minority of the buying public.

According to Remington, their rifle cartridges lose an average of 20 fps/inch. Remington uses 24" test barrels to arrive at their published ballistics. If you believe their figures, you are losing 40 fps by reducing barrel length to 22". Not enough for ME to worry about.

Also, last time I checked, the great majority of rifles offered in magnum calibers ARE made with 24" barrels. Some even longer.

Good old CZ's have 23 1/4 on there standard chmaberings and 25 1/4 on there big bangers....

In all seriousness 22" is a pretty handy length for the standard offerings. For magnums etc. longer is desireable, but the m70 .338 ss classic has a 26" if that is any help to you !!

Just my opinion but methinks there are cartridges suitable for short barrels and those that aren't. Any of the large voulume cases like the RUM/Weatherby/Lazzeroni/STW et al in a short barrel is a waste of potential/powder and maybe hearing. You want short, put the appropriate case in the chamber.
Maybe you only lose a few fps/inch but those inches add up, particularly with slow burning powders that everybody seems to adore. Not really trying to change minds here nor do I want to get into a big thing about interior ballistics but there are cartridges out there that do not really start to hum until they get 30" or so of barrel. Practical for hunting? Depends on what kind of hunting you're speaking about. .300 Weatherby in an Encore pistol? Gimme a break.

DigitalDan,

So you are saying that my 14" 470 NE Encore is not "practical"

efryman,

Oh, it's practical, it's just not 'efficient' (At anything except killing game!).

George

[ 01-24-2003, 19:49: Message edited by: GeorgeS ]

Well I guess I just don't get it then. Why on earth would I want to by a 7mm Ultra Mag with a 22" barrel or even 24" for that matter? I guess it would be fun to see and hear the muzzle blast created from alot of slow buring powder burning outside the barrel. I would be better off going with a good old 7 rem. mag. Browning is the worst at this, all of their .223 and .243 WSSM offerings come with 21" barrels, and all of their WSM offerings come with 23 inch barrels. I just don't get it!

[ 01-24-2003, 21:09: Message edited by: Mule Skinner ]

Tempest in a tea cup. I for one sure couldn't look someone in the eye and tell them what a great difference an extra 40 or 50 fps make! I'll take the short rifle any day. The reason the factories make the barrel lengths that they do is because they know two things.
1. It doesn't make a hoot in hell if the barrel is 24 and not 26.
2. They know it's what the vast majority of hunters want.

Gunsmiths see a lot of customers wanting to shorten or lighten their rifles...but not many guys walk in and say, "Boy, I wish this rifle were heavier, more muzzle heavy and a little more awkward to carry around all day!"

Regarding barrel length, I just built a 240 Wby, and yes I got a 26 inch barrel. I am thinking the fps loss per inch varies by caliber, anyone more knowledgeable have info? In general, it was always my impression each inch of barrel could cost you at least 50-70 fps, and up to 100 fps with certain cartridges. In my mind it depends on your application. For instance, the 7mm-08 with a 24 inch barrel offers ballistics right on the heal of the 7mm Rem mag, with the lighter bullets, 150 grain and less. But, most people want a short light rifle especially in the west.

Model 7 in a 260 that gives me 3200 fps with a 110grn GS HV bullet out of a 18.5 inch barrel..I stay with short and light.....

I still love the 26" barrel and all my guns have 26" barrel except one or two....I like a 22 or shorter for saddle carry... I like a Savage 99 lever gun for saddle carry..308, 250 Sav. or 284 and 22" handles those calibers well..

Actually, the factory trend in recent years has swung back toward longer barrels.

From the 30's through the 50's, most standard barrels were 24", and 26" was not uncommon.

In the early '60s, Remington chopped their standard barrels to 20" on their new Model 700's (which replaced the 24" and 26" barrels on the 721-2-5 series). Winchester, which had previous to 1964 only offered barrels of 24" or 26", except in their "Lightweight" model, went to a 22" standard and 24" magnum.

Most companies have, ever since the 60's, offered only 22" standard and 24" magnum. Foreign manufacturers like Sako continued to be an exception with 23 1/2 and 24.4" barrels.

Now, Winchester and others are back to offering 24 inches in many standard calibers and 26 inches in some magnum calibers. And Remington and Savage are also offering longer tubes in their "specialty" long range models.

I don't think it has much to do with demand -- it has more to do with fashion. In addition to more velocity, a longer barrel also has a lesser report, and it is further away from your head.

Everybody seems to consider 24 inch barrels as acceptable in any of the 2.5" magnums or the 300 winchester mag.
By the same token, there should not be anything wrong with Browning's 23 inches in the short magnums, since powder charge is notably lower.
Being a shorter chamber, the rifled legth of a 23 inch tube of a 300 wsm is probably the same as that of a 24 inch tube in 300 win mag.
or is it not?
montero

All things being equal, shorter barrels will be more accurate than longer barrels. The stiffness of a barrel (or anything else) will grow exponentially the shorter it is, making it less susceptible to vibration and the barrel harmonics.

Oldfart, ummm perhaps. up to a point. but you'd have to be one helluva shot to prove your position. Is that why pistols are more accurate than rifles?

Oldfart's correct. Dan Lilja did a comprehensive analysis on the subject:

http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/barrel_making/rigidity_benchrest_rifles.htm

My limited personal experience confirms this.

Regards, Bill

I like long barrels because they balance better, have less muzzle blast and have less muzzle rise.

I prefer 22 inches for std cal and 24 inches for Magnums. I also like light rifles considering the cartridges and recoil.
If I were to have a rifle built today in .270 for instance I would have it weigh no more than 7 lbs with scope and mount, sling, and loaded if I could get such. I think I could today.

When it gets down to it, One carries a hunting rifle more than he shoots it. A 26 inch barrel, 9.5 lb rifle with a 50MM obj lens scope is clumsy and tiring to carry. I would not hunt with such a rifle.

Jerry