Tikka 6cm - Preorder - EuroOptic

[EuroOptic]

That east coast, and I see it in the south too, trend of short barrels not being as accurate is pretty funny. Unfortunately it’s a wide spread belief and it’s perpetuated by fudds that may have never shot a deer over 125 yards.

The best thing you can do is find them at a range and let them shoot your shortest suppressed rifle with a scope at something over 200 yards. Minds will be blown.

My 12" 8.6 blackout Q Fix breaks many a brain every year, it is quite enjoyable to watch their brains register that my rifle that barely clears 6lbs, that folds, holds 10rd, and is short af is more practical in Central PA than a 26" 300 win mag with a big ass Leupold on it.

I chatted with a guy on a backcountry ridge a few years ago. He was all excited to give me the specs on his "custom" rifle. 28" barrel with an Ultra 7 on it. Had to have been miserable to hike in with given 3+ miles of dense deadfall and new growth. Especially with it strapped to the pack.

Thought he was calling in an airstrike when I first spotted him...

Beggars can't be choosers I guess. New tikka 6CM + chop and thread is still gonna be cheaper than a donor action and PBB.

He's planning on lobbing artillery into the next county!

 

[HairyScandinavian]

Obviously some of these folks are stuck in their head with velocity wallup. I still have a buddy that thinks 6.5 PRC is minimum for Elk and my 6.5 CM isn't enough gun at any yardage, doesn't matter how much I try to reason with him. Lots of folks want to shoot monos which require decent velocity so I can see some reason there.

Thought he was calling in an airstrike when I first spotted him...

Lmao... Saw a similar rig a few years ago when wife and I rounded a corner in Wyoming to see one of the locals sitting in a buggy pointing a rifle at me. We chatted for a while they were super nice, custom rifle he was pretty excited about. I don't remember specifics but it was a boat paddle for sure, had to be a 26" at least with a 10" suppressor on it.

 

[EuroOptic]

Post updated with links

 

[Dave Thomas]

Not everyone uses a suppressor and wants a short barrel. 22" to 24" works fine without a suppressor.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Not everyone uses a suppressor and wants a short barrel. 22" to 24" works fine without a suppressor.

No one said they should only offer 16-20”options.

 

[N2TRKYS]

That east coast, and I see it in the south too, trend of short barrels not being as accurate is pretty funny. Unfortunately it’s a wide spread belief and it’s perpetuated by fudds that may have never shot a deer over 125 yards.

The best thing you can do is find them at a range and let them shoot your shortest suppressed rifle with a scope at something over 200 yards. Minds will be blown.

Having lived in the South all my life, I’ve never heard anybody say a short barrel was less accurate. What I do hear is how handy a short barrel is in a shooting house or in a tree stand. That’s why the Remington Model Seven rifles were so popular.

 

[Stud Duck]

Having lived in the South all my life, I’ve never heard anybody say a short barrel was less accurate. What I do hear is how handy a short barrel is in a shooting house or in a tree stand. That’s why the Remington Model Seven rifles were so popular.

Yep, or if you're trekking through laurel or brush. A 22" barrel is my limit on length.

East Coast here as well.

 

[Stud Duck]

There is a lot of companies missing the shorter barrel movement. I follow other forums too and have the sense that Rokslide is @ the front of that. It is not even in the discussion for the majority of hunters out there I would bet. And the rifle companies are not pushing it in their marketing for the most part. Rokslide are the early adopters which is about 10%-15% of the pie.

Same with shotgun manufacturers. Most want to hang a 26"- 30" tube on one. I guess that's fine if the only thing you do is bust clays or shoot birds in fields, but some of us actually beat the brush with ours and a 21" shotgun barrel sure is nice.

 

[PistolPete]

I realize I'm in the minority (by far!), but I can say I would rather hunt with a 22" barrel than 16" barrel + 6" suppressor. I'll still practice with the can, but hunt without the extra weight, and the report from a 22" is so much less offensive for those few shots in the field, weighs less than the 16+can, and the extra velocity might mean using a 6 ARC instead of a Creed or somesuch...

 

[thinhorn_AK]

That east coast, and I see it in the south too, trend of short barrels not being as accurate is pretty funny. Unfortunately it’s a wide spread belief and it’s perpetuated by fudds that may have never shot a deer over 125 yards.

The best thing you can do is find them at a range and let them shoot your shortest suppressed rifle with a scope at something over 200 yards. Minds will be blown.

It’s everywhere, I see it in Alaska too. I work with a guy who wanted to go shooting a few months ago, at the range he was like “wait until you see this”….”THIS is THE Alaska rifle”…..he pulled out some heavy barrels Remington 700 in 300 ultra mag, the barrel must have been 30” and had a massive built in brake on it, heavy laminate stock and a leupold 4-14 scope. The gun must have weighed 15lbs. He was convinced that he was covered for shots out to 1000yds and was ready for a bear charge.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I realize I'm in the minority (by far!), but I can say I would rather hunt with a 22" barrel than 16" barrel + 6" suppressor. I'll still practice with the can, but hunt without the extra weight, and the report from a 22" is so much less offensive for those few shots in the field, weighs less than the 16+can, and the extra velocity might mean using a 6 ARC instead of a Creed or somesuch...

Silencers are so light these days, I’d never in a million years not use one in the name of weight savings. That’s just ridiculous. I’ll just take an extra dump that morning and that will cancel out the additional 4 ounces on my gun that protects my hearing and helps me shoot better.

I figure take away 3-4oz for the cut barrel then add an 8oz silencer. For the benefit it brings, silencers are off the table when it comes to cutting weight. I’ll lose the 4oz elsewhere. Besides, most guys talking like that could drop 30lbs off their waist line.

 

[peaceful_ruler]

Silencers are so light these days, I’d never in a million years not use one in the name of weight savings. That’s just ridiculous. I’ll just take an extra dump that morning and that will cancel out the additional 4 ounces on my gun that protects my hearing and helps me shoot better.

I figure take away 3-4oz for the cut barrel then add an 8oz silencer. For the benefit it brings, silencers are off the table when it comes to cutting weight. I’ll lose the 4oz elsewhere. Besides, most guys talking like that could drop 30lbs off their waist line.

This makes sense if you are shooting multiple rounds in the field, but in my experience big game hunting is less about shooting and more about getting into position and range of the quarry. Do you really have to shoot your animal more than once or twice? Even if you do, like my first deer that I shot-when I was 14 years old-5 times at 20 yards with my 30-30 lever gun(in fact a carbine, so a short barrel with probably more muzzle blast than most)…my hearing is still excellent. I’m not saying suppressors don’t help with hearing protection but unless you are shooting with shorter barrels and/or magnums it’s not like you will lose your hearing over 1 or 3 shots in the field. The irony is that a 22”+ barrel in most cartridges has reasonable decibels but by chopping it to add a suppressor you greatly increase muzzle pressure and unburned gases.

It’s not just the weight penalty that comes with using a suppressor but also…

1) worse balance
2) -25 fps/in velocity/+1” barrel length w/ suppressor; pick your poison
3) more mirage, tough to get through a 10 shot group unless you do it really fast or really slow

Suppressors certainly have their place but there are obvious cons to them as well.

At the end of the day it’s a free country and whatever floats your boat. In the field hunting game, I’ll take my 24” naked 6.5 CM over an 18” suppressed 6.5 PRC with nearly the same ballistics all day.

 

[glock233]

Hunting with suppressors is unbelievably better than without. The noise and recoil reduction make you more accurate. And they increase your shot spotting ability by an enormous margin.

The velocity penalty of going with a 4” shorter barrel barely does anything—-the only practical effect is shortening range by 75-100 yards—and suppressors gain some of that velocity back.

Mirage isn’t even a secondary consideration for field use by hunters.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

This makes sense if you are shooting multiple rounds in the field, but in my experience big game hunting is less about shooting and more about getting into position and range of the quarry. Do you really have to shoot your animal more than once or twice? Even if you do, like my first deer that I shot-when I was 14 years old-5 times at 20 yards with my 30-30 lever gun(in fact a carbine, so a short barrel with probably more muzzle blast than most)…my hearing is still excellent. I’m not saying suppressors don’t help with hearing protection but unless you are shooting with shorter barrels and/or magnums it’s not like you will lose your hearing over 1 or 3 shots in the field. The irony is that a 22”+ barrel in most cartridges has reasonable decibels but by chopping it to add a suppressor you greatly increase muzzle pressure and unburned gases.

It’s not just the weight penalty that comes with using a suppressor but also…

1) worse balance
2) -25 fps/in velocity/+1” barrel length w/ suppressor; pick your poison
3) more mirage, tough to get through a 10 shot group unless you do it really fast or really slow

Suppressors certainly have their place but there are obvious cons to them as well.

At the end of the day it’s a free country and whatever floats your boat. In the field hunting game, I’ll take my 24” naked 6.5 CM over an 18” suppressed 6.5 PRC with nearly the same ballistics all day.

Of all the opinions out there, this is certainly one of them...

Reminds me of the opinions of people who have never hunted and shot an animal with one.