Is it possible to have a very accurate, long(24" - 26")barrel in the lighter weight sporter contours or is this phoenomenon only reserved for the heavier contours?

"Possible"??

Yes, but much more rare.

The longer it is the more distance the barrel maker had to mess up.

A lot of mistakes are dampened out with extra thickness.

Short and fat is more accurate.

Jack is completely right again. At the Montana Rifleman we try to encourage people not to put little tiny barrels on any cartridge in order to give them the accuracy they need or want. The lighter the barrel is the worse the harmonics are on it and therefore the tougher it is to get to shoot consistently accurately. I believe a good rule of thumb is to maintain about .300" over the bore size for good accuracy. I.E. 300 bore equals a .600" muzzle diameter.

It is the same thing with columns, short and fat wins the day, there is a formula that gives the stiffness of a column in structures that is called the stiffness ratio. Okay get your minds back where they are supposed to be. But in summary, short and fat is what you are looking for. So there is hope for me if I am reincarnated as a barrel, wherein Jack will be a 5 foot 16 inch loser and I will be a stubby little winner. There is hope for me yet.

[ 05-19-2003, 18:57: Message edited by: Customstox ]

archer4,

check out this thread on 24HourCampfire for another experienced gunsmith's opinion on barrel contour vs. length. I have found this information almost as explicit as any I have run into (you'll have to scroll a bit to read the entire thread, sorry don't know how the URL works in details).

[URL=hhttp://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Custom&Number=148487&Forum=Custom&Words=barrel%20contour&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allp osts&Main=108639&Search=true#Post148487]Chalie Sisk on Barrel Length and Contour[/URL]

I once read an article by John Barnsness (sp?), who suggested that for a sporter barrel "wall thickness" at muzzle should be at least .18" to be "sure" of good accuracy. Not quite sure whether the 2x0.18" is to be added to groove or land diameter of barrel, though??
- mike

[ 05-19-2003, 19:00: Message edited by: mho ]

Hmmm, looks like the regular URL insertion mechanism is out of order. If you don't see a link on the post above,
try clicking on this link:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Custom&Number=148487&Forum=Custom&Words=barrel%20contour&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&M ain=108639&Search=true#Post148487

Hope it works
- mike

[ 05-19-2003, 19:05: Message edited by: mho ]

Most of my sporter barrels have a .125 to .130 per side wall thickness at the muzzle. We have just finished 3 Legends that are free floated from the action face forward. All three of these rifles are 300 magnums and will shoot consistent groups at 1/2" mark with Nosler Partitions. They will all shoot slightly smaller groups with Sierra Match Kings. One is a 300 Wtby with a 26" barrel that is .560 at the muzzle. It will shoot the the new Nosler Accu-bond 200gr into .400 with boring regularity. I will agree that a heavy, short barrel will be certainly be more forgiving but to say a light sporter barrel as a rule "will not shoot exceptably" is hogwash. First of all how many of us can hold minute of angle in the field? I'm sure I can't unless I'm prone, haven't mainlined the coffee and got plenty of sleep the night before. How accurate does your rifle have to be to kill a deer size animal to 300 yards or beyond for that matter. My reply to this post is not done to brag about those 3 Legends, rather to illistrate that with modern barrel steels, current gunsmithing techniques, advancements in bullet design, etc that the installation of a light weight barrel is not as big a gamble as it may have been in the past.

Over the years I have owned a large number of custom built rifles, some were lots more accurate than others. The interesting thing is, the level of accuracy displayed didn't correlate with how large a barrel the rifles wore. These rifles were built by several of the "name" makers in the beanfield and custom rifleranks.
In general, I think the larger barrels do better when lots of shooting is being done. They heat up more slowly and that is important if you're shooting p'dogs or targets. In a hunting rifle that doesn't usually happen so accuracy for the first two or three shots is what is important. I don't know what kind of technique Darcy employs but the rifles he builds for me are simply the most consistently accurate rifles I've owned. They all wear very slim contoured Krieger barrels and they shoot very little groups, every time. After hunting with them for a few seasons now I don't feel the need to have a larger contour barrel on any of my hunting rifles.

[ 05-20-2003, 01:48: Message edited by: John S ]

I am glad to see this topic discussed because I want to rebarrel my .264WM with a light contour 26" barrel. My hunting is done on foot, in rough country and often carrying a backpack so excess weight is not wanted. Just how light can you go for a .264? Is it reasonable to expect the first 3 shots to go into 1" or less from a barrel as small as .520" at the muzzle? I had planned on ordering a Krieger barrel but since browsing this forum I am strongly considering a Lothar Walther barrel. Any recommendations?

I've owned quite a few rifles with fairly light barrel contours that were real shooters. Many of these were pre-64 Model 70 Featherweights and Remington 700s (ADLs, BDLs, Classics) plus a few Browning Safaris ("pencil" barrel versions) and old Sakos Vixens and Foresters.

The trouble with selecting a barrel contour is that punching paper is one thing, but hauling the rifle up a mountain is quite another. So some sort of practical compromise must be reached between portability, balance, and practical hunting accuracy.

There is a trend which I don't care for today to turn every rifle into some sort of varmint, "tactical" (I loath that term) or "beanfield" rifle, complete with a barrel that's simply too blooming heavy to haul around and that does not lend itself to proper balance or quick handling. Too much preoccupation with theoretical accuracy requirements maybe!

Anyhow, there are so many variables that go into good hunting accuracy (besides a heavy barrel) and we know so much more about those factors these days, that you simple don't have to burden yourself with a too-heavy barrel contour if you require a finely accurate rifle, and I do.

I've tested and/or owned a couple of Ultra-Light Arms rifles plus Remington 700 KS Mountain Rifles that were tackdrivers, and of course these had extemely light barrel profiles. I had a Milliron custom .270 on a Mauser action with a #2 contour Douglas that was also a tackdriver and weighed just under 7 3/4 lbs. complete.

I'm not quite sure I understand all of what D'Arcy does to make his "Legend" custom rifles shoot with such consistent precision, but all of the ones he's built for me are accurate enough to hunt varmints with, plus zero never changes, balance is superb, and they are not burdensome at all to carry anywhere. Barrel contour is just right for a hunting rifle in my opinion......

AD

My prairie dog rifle wears a 24" #7 Shilen, but my deer rifle wears a 22" #2 Shilen. One was built for shooting and the other was made for hunting. The 7-08AI I use as my primary deer rifle will push 140gr Partitions out a little over 3000fps and shoot all day under 1/2" off a bench unless the wind outsmarts me. Of course that means allowing a little more time for the lightweight barrel to cool between shots at the range, but I normally have several rifles at the range with me, so that doesn't matter. What matters in the field is having a good shooting rifle that handles easily, and with the McMillan stock and Leupold 2.5-8 Vari-X III scope, weighs exactly 8 pounds ready to shoot. It's extremely unusual for me to fire more than one shot at any one deer when hunting, so who cares about the barrel heating up on long volleys? Build a rifle that balances and handles well, that you won't mind carrying all day if necessary.

I have a question for Mr. Echols arising from his post. Firstly, in the .300 Magnum rifles you described, what bedding techniques did you use (and, particularly, did you bed their forends)? My second question arises from the first: How commonly do you use forend bedding if at all?

I have a Remington 700 Stainless Synthetic Mountain Rifle in .30-06 (with one of those Tupperware stocks) that improved greatly with a little bit of bedding compound covered by a layer of electrical tape at the forend.

As one of the most respected stock-makers and gunsmiths, your impressions and comments would carry considerable weight.