Why are people cutting barrels off

[justin davis]

Short barrels with suppressor sound really nice. But with that said my body action hunting rifles are 22”, 24”, and 26”. I just deal with it. And I like the added velocity

 

[wapitibob]

My first suppressor will get screwed onto a 26" barrel. If it sucks, the barrel will get cut down. I rifle hunt the sage country of WY where packing a long barrel has been a non issue.

 

[jimh406]

Correct, old fudds demand the finest, most technologically advanced cartridges, from the 1950's.....if it doesn't say Weatherby and have a 30" barrel, just how in the world are you gonna sight it in at 400yds for MPBR shooting?!

Hipsters and their low recoiling efficient cartridges are just sissies.

Nope, it's the younguns that don't understand that there hasn't been a meaningful advance since the mid 1900s. There have always been the caliber of the year, and yet they still aren't significantly better than those calibers from over 100 years ago.

Seriously though, it has nothing to do with age. There have always been people who think they have a better way but don't understand firearms. Some really are enlightened like P.O. Ackley, Roy Weatherby, and Jonathan Browning, but we will likely see nobody like them again.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Look man if my entire body doesn't tense up like I'm being electrocuted before a shot in anticipation of recoil, then my rifle is basically a BB gun.

 

[Drenalin]

Why would a discussion about barrel length turn into such a display of douchbaggery? Maybe cut all the fudd-this fudd-that nonsense, and everyone who’s testosterone level or sexual orientation is tied to anything involving an inanimate object seek some kind of counseling. Or, just stop being pricks to strangers on the internet (both sides). Merry frickin Christmas.

 

[Marbles]

Velocity isn't quite over rated as it's the most important component to Energy. Energy equals mass (off the bullet in this case) x velocity squared. So losses in velocity have much more impact on energy. Cutting your barrel reduces velocity typically by 50 ft/sec per inch. So by losing that velocity, the bullet energy drops more than linearly...hence the need for better bullet construction

Well, specifically, kinetic energy (KE). Energy is a much broader term and described by many different equations based on the form in question. Yes, I am nit picking, but physics is about details, ignoring the details converts it into mysticism.

The problem is KE does not translate directly into energy transferred to the target, much less how that energy is transferred. Only energy transferred counts, and efficiency of that transfer for destruction of tissue counts even more. A rubber bullet will transfer more of its KE into a flesh target than an FMJ, but I would much rather be hit with the rubber bullet if I had to pick. A sharp broadhead transfers less of its energy into a target than a dull broadhead, but the sharp head kills better.

The KE of a projectile only predicts potential, in the way the horsepower of an engine only predicts potential speed. Much like the actual speed of the vehicle is influenced by more than the engine HP, the actual killing potential of a bullet is influenced by many things other than KE. Just like if you put bald summer tires on a Porsche 911 and race it against my Corolla with premium winter tires on this sub 0 day with ice and snow covered roads, my Corolla will win because even though it is the inferior vehicle in every way, it can put more power to the pavement (both acceleration and breaking) due to the interface. So, to with KE vs bullet selection.

To extend the example further, yes a simple tire swap will put the Porsche stomping the Corolla, however the Corolla gets me to work in a timely and reliable manner without fail, what practical functionality do I gain if I go out and buy a 911? The same applies to barrel length, velocity, and cartridge selection. Put differently, nothing about the Porsche obviates the need for proper tire selection, so too nothing about increased velocity obviates the need for proper bullet selection.

Theory, used in a bottom up fashion, frequently fails to explain realty because of how complex the world is. Theory generated in a top down fashion, then applied to similar circumstances to predict an outcome tends to be more accurate because while we may not fully understand the phenomena, what we don't understand is still accounted for through the testing that generated the theory.

 

[fwafwow]

Well, specifically, kinetic energy (KE). Energy is a much broader term and described by many different equations based on the form in question. Yes, I am nit picking, but physics is about details, ignoring the details converts it into mysticism.

The problem is KE does not translate directly into energy transferred to the target, much less how that energy is transferred. Only energy transferred counts, and efficiency of that transfer for destruction of tissue counts even more. A rubber bullet will transfer more of its KE into a flesh target than an FMJ, but I would much rather be hit with the rubber bullet if I had to pick. A sharp broadhead transfers less of its energy into a target than a dull broadhead, but the sharp head kills better.

The KE of a projectile only predicts potential, in the way the horsepower of an engine only predicts potential speed. Much like the actual speed of the vehicle is influenced by more than the engine HP, the actual killing potential of a bullet is influenced by many things other than KE. Just like if you put bald summer tires on a Porsche 911 and race it against my Corolla with premium winter tires on this sub 0 day with ice and snow covered roads, my Corolla will win because even though it is the inferior vehicle in every way, it can put more power to the pavement (both acceleration and breaking) due to the interface. So, to with KE vs bullet selection.

To extend the example further, yes a simple tire swap will put the Porsche stomping the Corolla, however the Corolla gets me to work in a timely and reliable manner without fail, what practical functionality do I gain if I go out and by a 911? The same applies to barrel length, velocity, and cartridge selection. Put differently, nothing about the Porsche obviates the need for proper tire selection, so to nothing about increased velocity obviates the need for proper bullet selection.

Theory, used in a bottom up fashion, frequently fails to explain realty because of how complex the world is. Theory generated in a top down fashion, then applied to similar circumstances to predict an outcome tends to be more accurate because while we may not fully understand the phenomena, what we don't understand is still accounted for through the testing that generated the theory.

Golf

 

[Lowg08]

The only testing I’ve found in relation to a .308 is it loses 22.7 feet per second for each inch of barrel. Im pretty sure 100 fps loss ain’t going make that big of difference

 

[mtwarden]

^ .243 is roughly 35-40 fps/inch of barrel loss; I believe it's the same guy that did the .308 article

 

[Stalker69]

It's crazy the differences in posts. This post " it don't matter, 2-4 inches off and 100 or so fps, ain't going to matter one bit". Then go to another post, and guys are worried about a minute amount of BC, 100 fps is huge. Trying a faster powder to try and squeeze the last 20fps out of the highest bc bullet avalible, out of a 26 inch barrel as possible. And to think there are guys that kill the same things with bows. It's kinda crazy, to read all this, from differant sides.

 

[Lowg08]

^ .243 is roughly 35-40 fps/inch of barrel loss; I believe it's the same guy that did the .308 article

That is correct. The charting he does is pretty interesting

 

[Lowg08]

It's crazy the differences in posts. This post " it don't matter, 2-4 inches off and 100 or so fps, ain't going to matter one bit". Then go to another post, and guys are worried about a minute amount of BC, 100 fps is huge. Trying a faster powder to try and squeeze the last 20fps out of the highest bc bullet avalible, out of a 26 inch barrel as possible. And to think there are guys that kill the same things with bows. It's kinda crazy, to read all this, from differant sides.

I also noticed that. I bow hunt 80% of the season so I’m in the camp of it don’t matter. My gunsmith doesn’t seem to think it matters either. At least not for 308/30-06 calibers. That’s all We discussed

 

[Stalker69]

Yea iam a bowhunter at hart also, and when I get within 100-200 yards with a gun, I always feel I can get closer. And usually have no problem. Of course that's a pretty easy poke, but I just like getting as close as I can, even if I blow the stock, I ain't going hungry. Now targets I like to try and stretch it out and see what I can do.

 

[czgunner]

18" suppressed is tremendously less recoil and muzzle blast than bare muzzle 26"

When you know, you know.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[czgunner]

Yes sir. That's why I have a safe full of guns! LOL!
What am I hunting and what do I want to use!
Personally? I don't do:
1) magnums
2) suppressors
3) SBR's
or
4) thousand yard shot
My OFS won't let me do that!
(OFS - Old Fart Syndrome)

If that's what you want to do and can do, go for it!

Yes sir!
I do reload.
In my younger day, the faster I could get a bullet to move, the better I liked it! If 3000 fps was good, 3100 was better! LOL!
These days, out of my AR, I like to run 90 grain Gold Dots around 2800 fps for my 6.8mm Rem SPC.

I love my 6.8 SPC. I run a suppressed 12.5".

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Sled]

It's not the size of the barrel, it's how you use it. At least that's what the ladies always told me.

 

[9.1]

Shorter, stiffer barrels tend to vibrate more consistently and are more accurate on average.

 

[wyosam]

I started putting shorter barrels on rifles assuming at some point I’d get a suppressor. My longest hunting rifle is now 22”. Thing is, now I really like them short at 20-22”, and don’t really want to go even shorter to make room for a can and still finish at that length.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[onlybrowning]

I’ve had one cut down because I spent tons of time and money trying to get the gun to shoot. Then, I decided it can’t be worse, guess I’ll try cutting it down. It shoots now.

It also doesn’t snag on branches and crap. There’s something to be said about a rifle not sticking up over your head walking to a stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wrench]

I want to kick it. Not to argue about it. But ask questions about. I have a 300RUM and a 308win. The 300 shoots great but I hate shooting it. It has a brake on it. Even with plugs and muffs to stop the sound, it feels like you get a concussion from the blowback. I am either going to cut it off or sell the gun. Thinking about selling the gun anyway and spending the money on another 308 and getting a nice scope on it. If I do that I would like to be able to effectively kill an elk at longer range. How far would you shoot an elk with a 308 if you could pick your bullet. And before anyone goes to railing on me. I try to get as close as I can. But sometimes the right shot is present at the right time and place.

The answer to your question requires a bit of homework. If you look at the necessary velocity for bullet upsets and factor the velocity scrub taking place based on the BC and velocity....you can answer the question pretty simply.

The 165/8 does seem to be the sweet spot for the 308. Sierra game changer shows acceptable upset to 500yds. Some thinner skinned bullets may stretch that out. I know of more than one elk tipped over in the 8's with a 308.