20", 24", or 26"

#51
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

Lowlight, my point was simply that I notice a difference between my 20 inch and 26 inch. I shoot better with the 26 inch barrel which I attribute to less perceived muzzle blast. In previous post I have said that shorter is superior for urban settings. The majority of my rifles are short barrels. For me the 26 inch barrel is anything but worthless because I shoot better with it on a particular rifle. Its just a practical matter at that point. I never claimed to be an expert or know more than you or as much as you. I simply go by my personal experiences which are anything but scientific. I say shoot with what you shoot with best. I have enjoyed the conversation.
 
#54
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

frown.gif
sick.gif
too much ego all over this post!
 
#57
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

TDECK, we are lucky to be able to consult with these guys who are actually out there running these weapons doing the things that we just dont have the time or the money to experiment with. Listen to them, try it out! how do you know you dont love short precision rigs until you try one out?? From all the time and effort LL has spent trying to trim the fat and create the ideal working rifle, we get unbiased results...for free!!! he gets nothing out of it?!?!? I would have never guessed that a 16inch ar10 could be a SOLID minute gun at 800yds. BTW the blast is nothing. Ive seen it first hand LL does not make shit up about shooting if anything he is downplaying the results of these short rifles.



LL how far were those 12.5" POFS good to?
 
#58
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

The FN FAL has a barrel length of 533MM, that's just shy of 21 inches. That length was determined to be optimal for velocity, etc. Granted it is not a bolt gun (or particularity accurate) but it put's it very close to the 21 3/4 mentioned earlier. For the 308 it seems the 20-22 inch range is optimal.
 
#59
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

I mostly agree with you on their knowledge. I dont personally know anyone on this board and therefore it is difficult for me to verify anyones credentials. I was trying to give a different side to the story and reply to the original question. I didnt realize this forum was only for a handful of hard core shooters and that the rest of us should only read and not reply unless we agree with the most dominate people on this forum. It seems some people are border line fanatical about what they prefer. I like it all. Believe it or not there are some people who prefer a 24, 26, or even a 30 inch barrel, other wise the firearms companies would not make them. Most of my rifles are short barrels. I just happen to prefer the 26 inch barrel on my AI AW vs my 20 inch barrel for my AI AW for the reasons I already mentioned. I never said a shorter barrel wasnt shootable, what I said is that I perceive less muzzle blast from the 26 inch barrel because it is 6 inches further away from my face. This is just my experience and it may be subjective. I have read other members of the Hide say the same thing. I guess were confused. For some reason it really set some people off. By the way were really just splitting hairs. If you dont like the 24 or 26 you can allways cut it down and make it shorter. Now doesnt that sound reasonable?
 
#61
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: thumper49802</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TDECK - just stop man, your digging a bigger hole. Just move on and enjoy the forum.</div></div>

See and people wonder why their opinion holds less weight...

Unfortunately someone else needs to explain to him why his opinion was questioned, or should I say dismissed. Cause he doesn't understand the fundamentals of marksmanship, and that "felt" recoil with a rifle of the same caliber yet different barrel length is a result of poor position and improper recoil management.

He just doesn't get that the muzzle blast, regardless, is shot forward and in no way comes back at the shooter, it may appear to sound louder, but it can't be felt as being closer because it never approaches that direction. Even looking at the picture above with the 12.5" barrel, the blast is clearly controlled in a line well in front of the shooter, its very clear and easy to see. Notice the shooter is not even close to be disturbed by the muzzle blast and with a barrel without a brake even less blast is directed to the sides, instead they come out like a cone forward.

In situations with inexperienced shooters, they feel they gain an advantage by such things like increased weight, or longer barrels, simply because they don't know any better. To them, these factor effect the shooter, or the shot when what is happening is, the shooter, do to poor fundamentals is causing the differences on themselves. When done incorrectly the added weight will absorb some of the recoil... which is why his opinion is dismissed and was jumped on.

As the saying goes, it's the Indian and not the bow.

 
#63
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

They hammer at 600 yards, start to fall apart after that. If you're patient you can get hits on steel at 800 yards, but they're not very good, nor are they consistent by any stretch of the imagination.

But it's definitely doable to 600 yards.
 
#64
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

I shoot better with a longer barrel on my AW AI platform for whatever reason. I prefer shorter barrels but shoot better with the longer barrel on this platform. I wasnt going to pipe in with a lie and state otherwise. I contributed this to perceived muzzle blast and perceived recoil. Your point is well taken about shooting form and posture. A extreme example on how perceived muzzle blast effects accuracy is when shooting a snub nose 357 vs a six inch 357 while shooting full house 125 grain cartridges. I have never heard of anyone claiming that the longer barrel 357 was not easier to shoot than the snub nose. Sight radius would have little to do with this when close in shooting. I shoot both and have no doubt that the snub nose has dramatically more perceived muzzle blast and recoil. I took this experience and related it to my AI AW muzzle blast experience. Maybe its an apples and oranges comparison but its what I related it to. What really perplexed me is seeing people go with short barrels for all their advantages then screwing on a long bulky can and losing those advantages. I realize it can be screwed off but really cant see that happening during the heat of battle. This would be more stressful than simply folding the stock on a longer barrel rifle to make it more portable. I have 0 experience with suppressors and am only giving you a observation. The advantages of a suppressor must far out weigh the undesirable effects of added rifle length and bulk. The best info comes from Lowlight when he is questioned. Much more info came out of this because of it. I will continue with differing opinions when warranted while not crossing the line as this seems to bring forward the best info. Having everybody go along without questioning anything sucks!
 
#68
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So, if an 20" has more blast, where does the 26" barrel hide the rest of its blast ? Does the extra 6" absorb it or does the muzzle blast fairy remove it before it reaches the end of the barrel.

</div></div>

LL,

You have probably forgotten more than I'll ever know about this stuff but...

My understanding of how that works is that the pressure released when the bullet exits the muzzle is lower on longer barrels, which results in slightly less muzzle blast (e.g. 10,000 psi for a 20 inch - 8,000 psi for a 24 inch... <span style="text-decoration: underline">those are not actual pressures...just numbers I pulled out of my head as an example of what I mean</span>)

Now, I can see how powder selection (burn rate) can figure into this to a degree...but I still think my 20" is louder than my 22" with the same loads. (both 308's...one is a factory SPS Tactical, the other had a 22" Shilen barrel, it is waiting on a new barrel...probably going to be a 20" Shilen)

If I'm wrong on that...please educate me.

That said...I agree 100% with everything else you've said in this thread.
I'm also finding that more can be done with 20" barrels than most people believe...the more I shoot them, the more I like them
 
#69
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TDECK</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What really perplexed me is seeing people go with short barrels for all their advantages then screwing on a long bulky can and losing those advantages. I realize it can be screwed off but really cant see that happening during the heat of battle.</div></div>

An 18" barrel with an extra 8" of suppressor offers many advantages over a 26" barrel even if you don't remove it. If you DO, then you end up with increased maneuverability and reduced weight.

Removing a can is usually NOT done during the "heat of battle". They get mighty hot.

I feel it will continue to be hard for you to really grasp the advantages of a suppressor until you actually hear/feel for yourself.
 
#70
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

If I were a professional sniper such as yourself, I would seek the advantages of a suppressor. I already have my hands full with precision rifle basics. I cant imagine throwing another variable into the mix. This is not a knock on suppressors, its just that I dont use my rifle to make a living like some on this forum and cant justify the use of one in a civilian role. I do find certain choices to be odd by some of the Hide members who are trying to make their rifles more portable and easier to conceal then turn around and mount a huge hubble size scope on their rifles. Its to the point that some scopes are touching the barrel or will be when the rifle flexes as its fired. I have noticed a trend towards short barreled rifles with giant sized scopes. Smaller objective scopes would seem the logical choice on a short barreled compact rifle. Please do not flame me if you have this combo, it is just a curious observation and there may be a good reason for this combo that I am not aware of. Sorry for straying from the original topic.
 
#71
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

Suppressors reduce recoil, which includes muzzle jump. That makes it easier to spot the impact of your bullet, which is useful unless all of your shooting is on ranges with targets which are pulled and marked each shot.

Muzzle brakes produce essentially the same effect, although they do increase the noise and pressure from the muzzle blast by redirecting it toward the shooter.
 
#72
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

TDECK, no problem.

I will tell you the suppressors are addictive. Once you start shooting suppressed weapons you will want to suppress everything.

It actually allows you to remove variables and concentrate on the fundamentals, much like when you shoot a .22LR instead of a larger caliber.

I can't wait until I am done paying for my glass and I can put a can on the .308. I love shooting my AR's with the suppressor attached.
 
#73
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

my 308 can is the best purchase I made on my rifle, second only to good glass. Recoil is reduced, cross hairs stay on target throughout the entire recoil duration, there's no blink or flinch. The sound suppression is the lowest priority positive aspect of a suppressor.

I cut my 24" barrel to 20" and I still get 2700fps with 44.4 grains of Varget. With the suppressor I get closer to 2750. I wish I had chrono'd prior to chopping, but I'd hedge my bets that the suppressor puts me back into the same velocity range that my 24" had without a suppressor. Plus its much lighter, balanced, and easier to lug around.

The whole reason i cut my barrel from 24 to 20 was so that I didn't have a 32" long barrel with suppressor.

YMMV

 
#74
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

TDECK,

No one I know has a scope touching the barrel, again, something else I am not sure where you picked up. The idea is to get it close, but touching isn't the idea. I'd like to see a picture of one touching the barrel, or at least tell us where this idea came from ?

I will agree most go over board with scope sizes, mostly with the 5-25X56, but otherwise, its usually a 50mm objective which is pretty standard. Very few make a scope of quality with the necessary features important to a tactical shooter that are smaller. You can get a 42mm from S&B, but otherwise it's pretty stand to be around 50mm. And barrel length has nothing to do with scope size, features do. A lot of it has to do with optical design, length, + object, + tube = gets you X results.

You seem to be the A-Typical myth pusher, which may not be your fault, its what passes for normal in a lot of places. The stories from the 60's & 70's die hard.

As far as pressure at the muzzle, it is a closed system, a longer barrel will increase some velocity so if the bullet is going one direction faster it has to go the other way too, remember physics class, equal and opposite. The trade off with a longer barrel has more to do with weight than pressure reduction, it all has to go somewhere. As far as numbers, it doesn't matter, like I said, if you see a person who knows how to shoot the barrel length is irrelevant to driving the gun correctly. What most people feel is sound and not pressure, the pressure is filled in by the brain based on the sound. Plus if you're doing it incorrectly the rifle will jump more because it weighs less, so you'll feel more bark, but really its no different.

 
#76
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

Well I've definitely learned something here, great discussion!
Anytime you can make something easier to handle in tight quarters and still be effective at range, it's a good thing.
Someone mentioned the FAL having the almost ideal barrel length, the big problem, at least with the ones I carried, was that in addition you had a 4" or 5" flash suppressor on the end of that, while velocity might be optimal, it sure wasn't easy to manuver in either room clearing or trenches. I would have given anything to have an SMG or pistol in those circumstances. Giving up some power would be worth it to get it on target faster. To have something easy to get around with AND still engage targets effectively at distance....win/win
 
#77
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

I was wrong about the scope touching the barrel. Someone posted a picture on the optics board of a scope that was so big that it almost touched the barrel. I think his concern was that the barrel would flex during shooting and damage his scope. I believe that the solution was to purchase some custom rings. I am just kind of surprised to see some of the new German scopes being imported with 72 objectives. These scopes look gigantic in the pics. I have never uploaded a photo online but will in the near future and upload a picture of my rifles when I figure it out. As much as I respect my AI AW it is somewhat generic in that it is a production rifle and if you have seen one you have kind of seem them all. I find the pics of custom sticks such as a GAP much more interesting. These sticks have much more variation which make them more interesting to me.
 
#79
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

Some food for thought.

1ft of 4130 Round bar .875" diameter weighs 2.026 lb. (Figure 1" as an average diameter for barrel that would be cut off)

1ft of 4130 round bar .3125 diameter weighs .266 lb, call it .25 lb for .30 diameter.

Subtract and you get 1.75 lb for 12" of barrel. Divide by two and you get .875 lb per 6" of barrel.

I dont know how sensitive some people are to weight, but I dont think I can notice .875 lb difference between something. At least not extremely noticeable.

The main component of a gun that makes up its weight is the the barrel still, but not the end of the barrel, its the chamber area. And also the stock/glass/accessories make up the rest of the bulk weight.


If you want to make a gun lighter, cutting the end off is not the solution, though it does make it lighter, its not the best way.

IMO the velocity gained with 6" more barrel is more usable than the lost weight. Someone said they got almost xxxxfps with 170gr whatever bullets and 20" barrel. I bet you could get almost 150fps more with a 26" barrel of the same quality.

150fps at 1000yds is roughly 3-4moa elevation gain, and 1-1.5 windage gain. That sounds way better to me than losing .875 lbs off the gun.

Now this doesnt matter for people who NEED a short gun, but who NEEDS a short gun? LE snipers length is an issue. But if you are a normal person, even shooting tactical competitions, youre gun is on your back from one position to the next, probably in a bag that is longer than your gun anyway.


Just my .02 on weight vs barrel length. I dont see it as a viable argument. Now I wont comment any more on length of gun for moveability issues since some may like having a short gun for reasons other than weight savings.

Dont want to get into a big argument over it either, still just an opinion.
 
#80
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jonaddis84</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some food for thought.

1ft of 4130 Round bar .875" diameter weighs 2.026 lb. (Figure 1" as an average diameter for barrel that would be cut off)

1ft of 4130 round bar .3125 diameter weighs .266 lb, call it .25 lb for .30 diameter.

Subtract and you get 1.75 lb for 12" of barrel. Divide by two and you get .875 lb per 6" of barrel.
</div></div>

I did a similar calculation, but did it differently. A #7 (MTU contour) 26" Bartlein barrel weighs 7 pounds (source: Bartlein Barrel website). (20"/26") * 7 pounds = 5.4 pounds. The difference is over 1.5 pounds. That is significant. It is not the end of the world, but it is significant.

I guess the bigger deal is that you don't really give anything up in terms of velocity (in 308) and you get better rigidity, which tends to improve accuracy. It is not often that you have tradeoffs with almost all upside. This is one of those times. The only other argument that I see is this muzzle signature argument. It is not a big deal to me because I am not an operator, nor has that theory really been proven to my satisfaction.

This is why we see Lowlight and others argue so vigorously for shorter barrels.

It is like this... in Ancient Egypt, the Pharoah used to wake up early and perform a religious ceremony every day for a couple of hours to make the sun rise. He feared if he did not do it, the sun would not rise. Would you argue against that practice? After all, it is only costing one man and a couple of servants a couple of hours a day... but why do it if they don't have to?

I would argue pretty vigorously that the Pharoah doesn't need to wake up and do this every day.
 
#81
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

As soon as someone starts to use math to debunk handling of a rifle you know you have to look out because you're dealing with someone who's a fair weather shooter at best, used to moving his gear from the car to the firing line and back. So really, why would you want a shorter rifle when the farthest you have to walk with it is from the driveway to your house.

However, millions of dollars are spent in stripping away ounces from clothing, backpacks, shoes, etc when you consider something as leisurely as hiking. However consider what difference 1.5lbs would have on your hiking when you're moving vertically, several hundred yards each hour and you have about 80lbs on your back. Which would you rather haul, a 15lbs rifle or 12lbs rifle ?

As well, consider vehicles, hallways, buildings, alleys, culverts, etc when moving. Would you rather negotiate your movement house to house with a 26' barrel or 20" one ?

For those who think the intellectual arguments outs weighs the practical one, I offer you one event to test your theory. Make you way to Rifles Only, you only have to move through one event, it'll only take you 9 minutes to do so and is only 300 yards long. What we can do it run it once your way, and once my way, then at the end you can post your findings. If you're still not sure, consider this website is called Sniper's Hide - For the serious tactical marksman, and not Square Range Gurus .com
 
#82
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

You mean which would you rather haul? A 15 lb rifle or a 14.125 lb rifle.

I shoot tactical competitions at a range in Southern Ohio that has 4 positions scattered through the "mountains", probably 2 miles worth of walking with my drag bag on my back.

And I still decided to have my barrel threaded for my suppressor at 26" when I couldve had it cut down.

Im not denying weight savings are key...but cutting 6" off the end of a barrel is not the way to do it.

I dont negotiate halls and vehicles with a "sniper" rifle so I dont worry about that....isnt that what the AR15 and sidearm are for?

Carter, how do you figure you dont lose velocity by cutting a barrel shorter?

I wouldnt mind having another rifle in 20", but since I only have one right now the tradeoff velocity for weight/length is not worth it to me.
 
#83
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

Maybe you better weigh a rifle and not figure your number of an 8th of a pound is correct... cause someone posted 1.5lbe based off a barrel makers site. And it's easy to get 12lbs over 15lbs, shortening the barrel is the first step.

As well, what is the best weapon to use, maybe the one in your hand. You're trying to say, no one would consider having to get "up" in a building by going through a hall, or getting "too" a building using a vehicle ?

If you're carrying it a drag bag I assume you have another weapon in your hand, right because a weapon in a bag does you no good especially if its the only one you have. I'm sure the tactical match you attend pushes you and gear cause it sounds like it.

20" will get you all the distance you need, if you need more carry a bigger rifle... but frankly, more a relative, and not very practical, the percentage of a first round hit beyond 800 yards is "what" less than 5%, maybe closer to 3% based on Army statistics.

Like I said, come down I'll comp you a spot bring your long gun and run the course twice, then let me know. An across the field course is one thing, an alternate position urban engagement scenario is something completely different. Look at the trends, short 308, semi-auto shorter 308s and then stuff in 300WM and 338LM for everything else, the writing is on the wall, you just have to see it.

No one needs a 308 over 24" except Palma people and F Class people, everyone else can do it all from 18.5" to 24" without batting an eye.

 
#84
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jonaddis84</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Carter, how do you figure you dont lose velocity by cutting a barrel shorter?
</div></div>

I know that conventional wisdom says that longer barrels = higher velocity. I also know that when you perform computer simulations, you get more velocity with more barrel length, but with every article that I have ever read where they shortened the barrel length of the same gun from 26" to 20", velocity loss was either marginal or non-existant (in .308 only). There is some velocity loss from 20" to 18", but not that much to be upset about. If you are concerned with velocity loss, stick with 20".

Sources:

Shooting Times

SWAT

Gladius

GPS Sniper School

If you have some [real life] counter-examples where someone shortened a .308 barrel from 26" to 20" and experienced significant velocity loss, I would love to read them. I did a crap-load of research before spec-ing my 308, and decided that shorter was better. I know that many people have die-hard beliefs about this, but people also held die hard belief that the sun revolved around the earth at one point.

And BTW- I am not meaning to put you out on a rhetorical limb here, either. I believed like you did up until recently. Heck, most people did. We converts are like folks that quit smoking who see someone light up in a restaurant and get all bent out of shape. We aren't Kool-aid drinkers. We are the ones who stopped drinking the Kool-aid.
 
#85
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

LowLight,

I think you misunderstood what I meant (not sure...but I think so)

Let me put it this way...

Lets say, at peak pressure shortly after firing its running right around 62K psi in ANY barrel, no matter the length...as the bullet travels down the barrel the pressure decreases because the gases are occupying more space as the bullet moves down the bore.

In a 20 inch barrel the pressure does not get to decrease as much before being released as the bullet exits the barrel...resulting in a little more muzzle blast (maybe)

Thats why I said 10K psi for a 20" and only 8K psi for the 24"

Again...I'm not saying I'm right, but that's the theory I've had for quite some time.
 
#86
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

Even if there is a slight difference in psi coming out it has absolutely no effect if your position is right and you shoot the rifle correctly. Doesn't matter if you shoot a .223 or 300WM if you're straight behind the rifle, driving the gun correctly they will all recoil the same, there is no difference and any perceived differences are minor at best and shouldn't effect the shooter. If you're using the excuse a shorter barrel 308 has more recoil, its simply because you are doing it wrong.

Sign up for the Online Training and you can see a video of recoil management, a 22" barrel with and without a suppressor and there are absolutely no difference at the muzzle when shot correctly. We focus on the muzzle and it doesn't move. Clearly if psi was the case the rifle would show the difference when compared against a suppressor on the same rifle.

I suppose the guys who believe they need a 26" also believe in a cold bore shot too... LOL
 
#87
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

Agreed...and I wasn't implying that it affected my shooting, just that there may be a slight difference in muzzle blast between the two.

Oh...I think those guys that have to have the longer barrels are just trying to make up for their other "shortcomings" (you know...this is my rifle, this is my gun...this ones for fightin, this ones for fun)
 
#88
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

You know....the truly funny part is that the target has no idea if it was hit with bullet from a 18", 20" or 36" barrel.

Most working snipers probably can't tell you what the ACTUAL muzzle velocity of the load they are issued is (other than the anecdotal data they were forced to memorize or what's printed on the box).

Sometimes in the argument we loose track of the mission. Before I found the glory of the internet I was handed a rifle and a box of ammo. We zeroed and shot and noted the results.

Sometimes it really is that simple. Shoot and note the results.
 
#90
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

some of the best accuracy I have ever had has come from a short, thick barrel. Roughly speaking it's a 21.5" straight contour barrel. Short enough to make it very easy to handle and still long enough to get good muzzle velocity. Fat enough so "barrel whip" is "eliminated".

Here are some links regarding barrel whip analysis and barrel length optimization.

Chris Long's barrel whip paper

Chris Long's Acoustics page

RSI - barrel whip link


Jense_Precision_260_Remington_Tactical_02_BIG-963x469.jpg



Jense_Precision_260_Remington_Tactical_03_BIG-965x796.jpg


 
#91
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

I own a 26" bbl Rem 700, just got back from Rifles Only.

I don't give a shit what everyone is saying about velocity, fps and etc out to 800 yds or not. I shot side by side with a few gents who were shooting Frank's Harbinger, Werewolf, and Jacob's AIAW, the longest of which was 22" I think?

These guys hit everything I did with no trouble and got to carry a lighter rifle, and when it came time to move through obstacles they definitely had the advantage. If it were not for that fact I have a GAP coming in 22" i'd be chopping 4" off my 700 after that experience.

Anyone wanna buy a rem 700 26"?

Frank is right, if your carrying from the car to the line carry 30" or whatever makes ya happy. If you are on the move, shorter is better period, and honestly I see no noticeable difference in performance to 800. I didn't shoot to 1k so I can not speak with any authority on that, but I'll take Frank's word for it.

 
#93
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

Wow, I don't see how you could think you had a prayer of schooling Lowlight on anything rifle related. That doesn't mean I am revering every word he says (well, maybe a little bit), I too usually question everything I hear and investigate claims. But sometimes you have to consider the source and it's safe to assume that it's factual enough. Why would he lie, wouldn't that ding his rep? I for one thought at first that there might be more blast with a short barrel, but I assume he knows what he's talking about. Hearing him explain, I now realize how equal/opposite reaction would cause the blast energy to change accordingly. I learn something new every day, and I'm grateful to be able to. You'll become a wiser man if you do the same. I just don't get how you could challenge him to your test, where he can learn something new from you. It's possible, but unless you were a career shooter, unlikely. Do you even feel corrected, or do you just feel like it's a difference of opinion and he doesn't get your complex theories? You should consider apologizing and saying thanks for the free knowledge, not trying to embarrass and challenge the instructor. BTW, my .308 was deliberately chosen to be 20", after studying its comparison to longer barrels.
 
#94
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

This type of thread cracks me up.

20-26" barrel means jack with a 308 velocity wise, maybe 75 fps.

Real ballistic gains with the 308 are made by carefully choosing the bullet and powder to maximize velocity/BC. In other words, a 20" shooting 155 Scenar or 190-210 VLDs will smoke a 26" shooting 168 FGMM. There are other good combo's out there, but just named these to illustrate a point.
 
#95
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

I wasnt trying to start a flame war. I was just giving my opinion on my experience with the two different barrel lengths. For what ever reason, I shoot better with the 26 inch barrel on the AI AW platform. I attributed it to less perceived muzzle blast. I still shoot it better than my 20 inch barrel regardless of this thread. I was trying to get Lowlight to aknowledge that we were in some ways splitting hairs, and that what really matters is that a shooter is seved best with what he shoots best. I dont think a 26 inch barrel is obsolete because Lowlight prefers 22 inch barrel. I respect his technical research and practical experience but am pragmatic when choosing what works best for me. Not one person piped in and asked Lowlight why most of his 308 rifles have 22 inch barrels instead of the superior 20 inch barrels. I assume he went with a 22 inch barrel on most of his 308 rifles because they work best for him. Most of his barrels are custom made and therefore he could have had them in any barrel length he wanted. Maybe its asking to much for some Hide members to be objective instead of getting all worked up because someone challenged Lonewolf USMC and Lowlight. More was learned from this thread because at least one member wasnt afraid to get schooled.
 
#96
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

Great thread guys and Tdeck there aint nothin wrong with throwing your opinion out there -right or wrong cause youll usually end up with a whole bunch of good stuff comin back at ya to reconsider!
I shoot a 28 inch fat bastard of a barrel on an AICS stock with a Barnard action from New Zealand.I am mostly shooting F class and love the 1000 yard range when available,.Problem I cant hold my rifle when standing when in the feild to shoot as its a tank!! 22 inches or less sounds great .My question is will 22 inch barrel burn most if not all my powder and will I retain most of my velocity or is it the case of 20-35fps less speed per barrel inch lost -I shoot 260ai
 
#97
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jonaddis84</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How slow are those rounds travelling? 3s flight time at 1000yds is pretty long, my flight time at 1200yds is only 2.1s and 2750fps.

Not saying its not an accurate rifle, but that is a pretty bigass target too. </div></div>

Give me a break, dude. Most people would have a hard time hitting the berm at that distance. and the smaller target he hit was about the size of a shoebox, pretty fuckin good for 1000, IMNSHO.

I never get tired of watching that video.
 
#100
Re: 20", 24", or 26"

Great Article. I've been looking for this answer and I didn't think I would have to look far. I am planning a new rifle build and your opinion on this topic can make you friends or get your ass kicked. I think there is a lot to say thought for those us us who run and gun "at the same time" for the shorter barrels and there mobility. Awsome video. I haven't ever even seen an 18" 308. Pretty Bad ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Nrl hunter cal and config?
Replies
21
Views
1K
BassNbrass
B
PEWPEWPEW
Firearms MPA CDG Elite Action & Barrel .223 Wylde 26" for 6 ARC or 6CM
Replies
6
Views
1K
PEWPEWPEW
PEWPEWPEW
C
MDT ACC Elite vs ACC Premier Gen2 chassis in 20-22" barrel
Replies
9
Views
889
LuvDog
LuvDog
S
SOLD Stuteville Precision 6.5 Creedmoor barrel 26" Bartlien 1:8 twist threaded 5/8-24
Replies
3
Views
369
Spd37
S
LRshooter6mm
Who hunts with a 14-16lb rifle?
Replies
32
Views
1K
wvfarrier
wvfarrier
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts