Why are people cutting barrels off

[Shortschaf]

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.

The thing that bothers me the most (with suppressed standard length barrels) is carrying the rifle slung. Haven't found a good way to do that yet. System won't stay upright.

Dropping weight is slight benefit to shorties too, but if it all magically carried nice and upright on a sling I could run a 30" barrel plus a can if you figure it out let me know

 

[hereinaz]

The thing that bothers me the most (with suppressed standard length barrels) is carrying the rifle slung. Haven't found a good way to do that yet. System won't stay upright.

Dropping weight is slight benefit to shorties too, but if it all magically carried nice and upright on a sling I could run a 30" barrel plus a can if you figure it out let me know

I put tape on the muzzle of the can and ran my rifle muzzle down in my sling.

 

[z987k]

The thing that bothers me the most (with suppressed standard length barrels) is carrying the rifle slung. Haven't found a good way to do that yet. System won't stay upright.

Dropping weight is slight benefit to shorties too, but if it all magically carried nice and upright on a sling I could run a 30" barrel plus a can if you figure it out let me know

I'd like to get my hands on an MK machine chassis and see how that carries with a 26in barrel plus can.

 

[Shortschaf]

I put tape on the muzzle of the can and ran my rifle muzzle down in my sling.

Nice. only recently found out how well muzzle-down works, but was worried about burying the muzzle in stuff. Thanks for the tape tip. Forums are awesome.

I'd like to get my hands on an MK machine chassis and see how that carries with a 26in barrel plus can.

agreed on the bullpup stuff. intrigues me a lot. Buy one and try it please, then tell me how you like it! Ha

Sorry to the OP. We digressed.

 

[KsRancher]

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.

Thanks. That's what I was after

 

[Wrench]

Another interesting thing is bullets often penetrate less when driven faster. There's a perfect velocity for every bullet and the key is finding one that is optimal for your velocity.

 

[Stalker69]

Then there's argument about if the bullet is not traveling fast enough it won't expand to its potential, or at all,or get enough penetration, or exit the animal. So there's the perfect velocity for that too. Plus you need to know at what range that velocity and that impact are going be in perfect seink and shoot accordingly. Then there's the humidity and altitude and barometric pressure and and and. You can read as much into this as you like.

 

[pirogue]

Wonder how many of these armchair rifle designers on here could walk in and get a top job at a top rifle manufacturer, by a resume stating, “I chopped my barrel down for a can, because:
1) I wanted a rifle a little lighter,
2) Velocity didn’t need to be what it was,
3) I sacrificed optimal performance, so I didn’t have to duck under a limb, while carrying in the shouldered position, even though in a thicket, I should have been carrying in the Ready position, but I’m lazy.
4) I road hunt, so I want to be able to stand a shorter rifle up between my legs, while seated in the front seat, and be ready to quickly shoot out the window.
5) blah, blah,blah

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Wonder how many of these armchair rifle designers on here could walk in and get a top job at a top rifle manufacturer, by a resume stating, “I chopped my barrel down for a can, because:
1) I wanted a rifle a little lighter,
2) Velocity didn’t need to be what it was,
3) I sacrificed optimal performance, so I didn’t have to duck under a limb, while carrying in the shouldered position, even though in a thicket, I should have been carrying in the Ready position, but I’m lazy.
4) I road hunt, so I want to be able to stand a shorter rifle up between my legs, while seated in the front seat, and be ready to quickly shoot out the window.
5) blah, blah,blah

You ever see a Remington 710?....they probably actually have a legitimate shot at the job.

 

[9.1]

Wonder how many of these armchair rifle designers on here could walk in and get a top job at a top rifle manufacturer, by a resume stating, “I chopped my barrel down for a can, because:
1) I wanted a rifle a little lighter,
2) Velocity didn’t need to be what it was,
3) I sacrificed optimal performance, so I didn’t have to duck under a limb, while carrying in the shouldered position, even though in a thicket, I should have been carrying in the Ready position, but I’m lazy.
4) I road hunt, so I want to be able to stand a shorter rifle up between my legs, while seated in the front seat, and be ready to quickly shoot out the window.
5) blah, blah,blah

I wonder who could walk in and get the job by saying "let's ignore what customers are buying and just offer long barrels for maximum velocities."

 

[jimh406]

Wonder how many of these armchair rifle designers on here could walk in and get a top job at a top rifle manufacturer, by a resume stating, “I chopped my barrel down for a can, because:

I don't think most would want the job, so they'd never apply.

 

[pirogue]

You ever see a Remington 710?....they probably actually have a legitimate shot at the job.

A low end cheapo, that wins the most criticism award?

 

[hereinaz]

Wonder how many of these armchair rifle designers on here could walk in and get a top job at a top rifle manufacturer, by a resume stating, “I chopped my barrel down for a can, because:
1) I wanted a rifle a little lighter,
2) Velocity didn’t need to be what it was,
3) I sacrificed optimal performance, so I didn’t have to duck under a limb, while carrying in the shouldered position, even though in a thicket, I should have been carrying in the Ready position, but I’m lazy.
4) I road hunt, so I want to be able to stand a shorter rifle up between my legs, while seated in the front seat, and be ready to quickly shoot out the window.
5) blah, blah,blah

Lol, why would I want that job?

Optimal performance? Why don’t you run a 32” barrel and a cartridge that burns 15% more powder?

 

[Stalker69]

Because a 16 inch barrel, with a faster twist, to stabilize the projectile, in a shorter space in time, and a powder that has a much faster burn rate ( not as much powder needed to obtain maximum velocity, also in a much shorter space) and a large rifle magnum primer, is where the optimal performce reaches its highest peak, on the optimum performance chart on just about any caliber weapon Come on man, have you not been following this thread.

 

[Marbles]

3) I sacrificed optimal performance, so I didn’t have to duck under a limb, while carrying in the shouldered position, even though in a thicket, I should have been carrying in the Ready position, but I’m lazy.

Seriously, "optimal performance" for what?

Saying those two words, and not defining the use case, is meaningless.

Also, do you carry high ready or low ready in the thicket that is located in a no hunting area you have to cross to get to where you hunt? Side point, in both positions, a shorter barrel is easier to maneuver.

 

[Lowg08]

Wonder how many of these armchair rifle designers on here could walk in and get a top job at a top rifle manufacturer, by a resume stating, “I chopped my barrel down for a can, because:
1) I wanted a rifle a little lighter,
2) Velocity didn’t need to be what it was,
3) I sacrificed optimal performance, so I didn’t have to duck under a limb, while carrying in the shouldered position, even though in a thicket, I should have been carrying in the Ready position, but I’m lazy.
4) I road hunt, so I want to be able to stand a shorter rifle up between my legs, while seated in the front seat, and be ready to quickly shoot out the window.
5) blah, blah,blah

Well you don’t carry a rifle in the ready position in a thicket when it’s dark and steep enough you have to crawl. It’s in the rifle sling on my pack. If I could address one concern. Not going to drag my rifle though the leaves and dirt for no reason.

 

[DisplacedHusky]

So the short barrel is producing less energy at the muzzle but is somehow sending more energy back into your shoulder via recoil?

I think Newtons 3rd law of motion would prove that false.

Or is all that unburned powder causing the rifle to be propelled back into your shoulder like a rocket?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m pretty sure Panther is right unless physics change for these situations. I was just running numbers for a buddy considering cutting down a 300WM. You do lose velocity but if the other factors are constant, you are also losing recoil energy.

 

[Wrench]

Guys here are building what works for them. When I couldn't find what I wanted, I bought a machine shop and spun up my own.

20 years ago I was called every name in the book because I had great success with my 6.5's. I heard that I needed a minimum 300 magnum to kill an elk and 1500ft/lbs at a minimum.

Oddly enough, my 6.5-06 and 260ai were killing the shit out of them. I was running 26" tubes and started scratching my head when I thought about how a bullet from 1k is like lightning then one leaving 150fps slower should be a hammer at 6ish.....and it was.

So now why do I need 26" when a 22 will do the same to any distance I need? Balance was the answer.....but now with our stock choices, we can balance a #1 contour at 20# near the front screw.

I still have some long barrels, my edge is over 30.....but for the work I do, with the skills I have, in the places I hunt.....I will pick the one that carries best and shoots good enough.

 

[Wrench]

I’m pretty sure Panther is right unless physics change for these situations. I was just running numbers for a buddy considering cutting down a 300WM. You do lose velocity but if the other factors are constant, you are also losing recoil energy.

There's also recoil velocity which is dependent upon weight. High recoil velocities with even moderate recoil energies are tough to eat.

 

[luke moffat]

Growing up all I shot was a 20" barrel 308. Shortly after college I hunted with a 24" 338. Found out I didn't need the recoil or the barrel length for what I do. Half my hunting rifles are cut at 16" and none of the remaining are longer than 24".

I do find it funny when someone says "my 300 WM is good to kill out to 1K yards" with such and such bullet. Then when asked if a 308 win would kill at 700 yards they say no way no how. Not realizing the impact velocity (as well as the meaningless ft/lbs) are exactly the same in both scenarios.

I prefer short barrel rifles and have been cutting my barrels down for the past 12 years and hunting suppressed the last 6 years. Doesn't mean its the only way to fly, just means I prefer shorter handier rifles that still work for my needs.