I know I'm probably not exactly in the right place here. I am looking to get a rifle, would like it in .308/7.62 NATO. I realize that for accuracy purposes, the longer the barrel the further out you can reach. My question here is, I know I am not a long range shooter. My body can no longer hold steady enough for me to be comfortable shooting beyond say 500m. So, for a .308 rifle shooting between 100m and 500m, do I really need a long barrel. Would a carbine length (16.5-18Inches) suffice? I ask this because I have found I am more accurate with reflexive shooting than when I try to take my time and a steady shot. I am afraid a 24"barrle might add to that problem.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Barrel length
- Thread starter Vancleave
- Start date
I have a 18" 308 bolt gun that I've pushed out to 1200 yards. There are plenty of guys on here with 18" barrels and a few with 16"s. If your only shooting to 500 you should consider 223/5.56. I have a MK12 recce 16" that I really enjoy shooting out to 700 yards.
I believe that most if not all of the LR Precision shooters here shoot their rifles supported. That alone should be enough to deal with unsteadiness.
Target shooters put a lot more rounds through their rifles than hunters, in general. The longer barrel allows the same velocities as the shorter barrels, and more. But if the same velocities work, then the longer barrel can achieve them with less heat and pressure. This suggests the longer barrel's true advantage may be in the potential for a longer bore life.
Greg
Target shooters put a lot more rounds through their rifles than hunters, in general. The longer barrel allows the same velocities as the shorter barrels, and more. But if the same velocities work, then the longer barrel can achieve them with less heat and pressure. This suggests the longer barrel's true advantage may be in the potential for a longer bore life.
Greg
Welcome.
There is a large following for the max load/highest velocity available approach. I suspect that such enthusiasm may be misplaced. The term 'best' is a relative term, and many meanings can be assigned.
For me, the term 'adequate', has more meaning. My goal is based on the bullet's being above transonic at the target distance, working toward a velocity at target of about 1300fps. Comparing the temp/pressures needed to reach that goal with a .308, .30-'06, .260, or .280, one sees that chamberings can be chosen that achieve the same goal with rather more or less mayhem in the engine room. Combine this with barrel lengths ranging from 20" to 28", and you can see that 'adequate' can be achieved a lot more easily with the longer barrel, and that doing so can add to bore/throat life by a rather big margin.
This is why I prefer to use short barrels for short distances, with lighter bullets out of smaller chamberings, like 125gr in .30BR or 7.62x39 at distances at or below 250yd; and high BC bullets out of .30-'06, .260, and .280 in barrels from 24" to 28". The .223 is my most versatile chambering, running 50/55gr in 16", and 62, 64, 69, and 75gr in a 24"; each depending on the application.
The overall outcome of any load development project, for me, is to find accuracy while keeping pressure signs on the mild side. IMHO, flat primers equate with fried bores and throats.
When bores and throats give up the ghost, it's due more to checkering and flaking than to friction or erosion.
Greg
There is a large following for the max load/highest velocity available approach. I suspect that such enthusiasm may be misplaced. The term 'best' is a relative term, and many meanings can be assigned.
For me, the term 'adequate', has more meaning. My goal is based on the bullet's being above transonic at the target distance, working toward a velocity at target of about 1300fps. Comparing the temp/pressures needed to reach that goal with a .308, .30-'06, .260, or .280, one sees that chamberings can be chosen that achieve the same goal with rather more or less mayhem in the engine room. Combine this with barrel lengths ranging from 20" to 28", and you can see that 'adequate' can be achieved a lot more easily with the longer barrel, and that doing so can add to bore/throat life by a rather big margin.
This is why I prefer to use short barrels for short distances, with lighter bullets out of smaller chamberings, like 125gr in .30BR or 7.62x39 at distances at or below 250yd; and high BC bullets out of .30-'06, .260, and .280 in barrels from 24" to 28". The .223 is my most versatile chambering, running 50/55gr in 16", and 62, 64, 69, and 75gr in a 24"; each depending on the application.
The overall outcome of any load development project, for me, is to find accuracy while keeping pressure signs on the mild side. IMHO, flat primers equate with fried bores and throats.
When bores and throats give up the ghost, it's due more to checkering and flaking than to friction or erosion.
Greg
Last edited:
We have found that 22.5" of rifled barrel in the .308Win/7.62 running the 175gr SMK's with a 1 in 10 twist is about as optimal as you can get (when shooting the 175gr bullets). I'm with Greg on the velocity issue, you don't need the fastest bullet to be accurate, and if barrel life is an issue than the .308Win is an excellent choice. However, if you are considering another caliber like the .260 Rem or another flat fast 6.5mm, 6mm, ect. than barrel life becomes a major consideration.
One of our instructors runs a 20" (total barrel length) 1 in 10 twist on his .308 and it's a solid 1000 yard rifle with the 175 SMKs @ 2640 fps, given the atmospheric conditions are cooperative. The rifle has well over 5000 rounds down the tube and it's still shooting lights out. I think this is fairly good evidence that you don't need a 30" tube on your rifle to hit at distance. If you are going to be humping your rifle over long ranges and up mountains than weight may be a consideration for you. You might consider an 18" barreled rifle with a med-heavy contour. There seems to be good evidence supporting the idea that short stiff (medium to heavy) barrels tend to be very accurate, and for the ranges you indicated (100 to 500 meters) you may get the best of both worlds with a fairly light but very accurate rifle suited to hunting and paper punching.
One of our instructors runs a 20" (total barrel length) 1 in 10 twist on his .308 and it's a solid 1000 yard rifle with the 175 SMKs @ 2640 fps, given the atmospheric conditions are cooperative. The rifle has well over 5000 rounds down the tube and it's still shooting lights out. I think this is fairly good evidence that you don't need a 30" tube on your rifle to hit at distance. If you are going to be humping your rifle over long ranges and up mountains than weight may be a consideration for you. You might consider an 18" barreled rifle with a med-heavy contour. There seems to be good evidence supporting the idea that short stiff (medium to heavy) barrels tend to be very accurate, and for the ranges you indicated (100 to 500 meters) you may get the best of both worlds with a fairly light but very accurate rifle suited to hunting and paper punching.
Last edited:
To what has been stated about the .308 I would only add the following: you mentioned a max of ~500m. Unless you really have need of the larger caliber for a specific purpose, a .223 might be something to think about. With a 20-22" barrel and 77 gr bullets, 500 m is definitely doable with good accuracy/precision. Further, the minimal recoil might help with your shooting. If you reload, it is also possible to use something like the 80.5 gr Berger Fullbore bullet for even a little more resistance to wind deflection.
