PDA

View Full Version : The Truth About Barrel Lengths


janus408
10-01-2013, 12:06 PM
I highly recommend viewing the original article found here. (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/daniel-zimmerman/the-truth-about-barrel-length-muzzle-velocity-and-accuracy/)

Below I copied just some of the highlights.

The Truth About Guns
The Truth About Barrel Length, Muzzle Velocity and Accuracy
October 1, 2013 at 09:00
Written by Dan Zimmerman


By Josh Wayner

Abstract: This is an independent scientific study that has been conducted in western Michigan. This study addresses the misunderstanding of the concepts related to barrel length, muzzle velocity, and accuracy in a rifle . . .

The platform used for this is a Shilen match barrel which began at 26 inches in length and ended at 13.5 inches. The chamber is of standard SAAMI specification in 308 Winchester and the barrel features a 1:10 right hand twist. The ammunition used for this test is of several types, all of which are of corresponding lot numbers. At each range, handloads were used to seek out advantages given the barrel length by modifying the bullet and powder. This data is included gratis and represents the abilities of the weapon system when tuned ammunition is available.

For this test, the barrel was attached to a Savage short action target receiver in a Scally Hill Systems MK4 Mod7 folding chassis. This test measured all three variables at the same time in the most similar conditions available. Testing was conducted at Southkent Sportsman’s Club in Dorr, Michigan and Chick-Owa Sportsman’s Club in Zeeland, Michigan. Firing was conducted at a distance minimum of 100 yards and a maximum of 540 yards. Informal ‘field’ shooting was conducted on private land at safe targets out to a distance of 900 yards, accurately measured by satellite using Google Earth.

Ambient conditions were on average 70-75 degrees Fahrenheit with 40-50% humidity at an elevation average of 670 feet. Shooting was conducted with a 16x SWFA SS optic, a piece well noted for its durability and ruggedness. Velocities were obtained using a chronograph and extrapolation of shooting results. Group size was measured with a micrometer. Five shot groups were used to measure accuracy. Firing was conducted on standard IPSC silhouette targets at all ranges.


Findings:

This section is included here as a semi-abstract to address commonly held beliefs regarding barrel length, muzzle velocity, and accuracy. These results are backed by the data collected below.

Explaining Barrel Length:

Belief: a long barrel is required for accuracy when shooting at long distance.

Fact: In no part of our testing was barrel length a determining factor in accuracy. At a distance of 100-540 yards, there was no discernible difference in accuracy between various barrel lengths. This performance translated over to unknown distance shooting with all barrel lengths at ranges out to 900 yards. At no point in the testing was a short barrel a hindrance once marksmanship fundamentals were observed and proper flight data was applied.

Explaining Velocity:

Belief: Now that we know that accuracy is pretty much the same, short barreled rifles lose too much velocity be effective at long ranges.

Fact: This is a double-edged sword. The 13.5-inch length could propel a 168 grain Hornady TAP round at an average velocity of 2390 fps, which is hardly slow. That is only a decrease of around 315 fps from the 26 inch length (25.2 fps/in), and vindicates many researchers who pioneered velocity discussions. There was no noticeable critical difference in accuracy at any range. There is a downside to longer ranges and reduced velocities, that being increased susceptibility to wind as range increases. Increased drift is not the end of the world, though, and if measured properly, can be overcome with ease.


This test obliterated what was previously thought to be fact. Not only was it determined that short barreled rifles are easily as accurate a those with long barrels, but we also discovered what we see as a key to viewing accuracy in a practical sense. In an age of misinformation, hard fact can be hard to come by. The internet is full of armchair know-it-alls and trolls a plenty, but for the most part, these can be ignored. Mental preconceptions of the researched concepts are still deeply entrenched in a more or less Napoleonic era of the theory of arms. Most of what is commonly argued about small arms is false and based on opinion. A quick look online reveals hundreds of arguments on topics like 9mm vs. 40 S&W vs. 45ACP or AR-15 vs. AK-47, none of which are based on fact or on the need of the individual in their realistic circumstances.

If anything is to be learned from bullet selection, it is that match quality bullets have a distinct edge in accuracy over military and hunting bullets. The match bullets tested produced significantly greater accuracy than their military or hunting-type counterparts.

http://truthaboutguns.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/3.png

Ninask
10-01-2013, 12:15 PM
315 fps seems very significant in long range shooting

janus408
10-01-2013, 12:35 PM
315 fps seems very significant in long range shooting

Agreed. But that is a 13.5" barrel vs a 26", which is a huge difference. Bump it to 16-20" and if the drop is only 100fps or less, going from a 26" to 18" might make sense for the sacrifice.

Average FPS per inch of barrel length with 175gr FMK SMK HPBT is 15.6. So going from 26" to 18" is a 8" difference, which makes about a 124.8 FPS difference. 26" to 20" makes it a 93.6 FPS difference.

Now it all depends on your shooting discipline, but for tactical matches where a longer unwieldy rifle will seriously hamper your maneuverability, it is worth dropping a from 26" to 18-20" even with a 100fps loss.

And look at this, which I found to be the most revealing of all the charts:

http://truthaboutguns.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/6.png

So FGMM with 175gr SMK HPBT is more accurate out of a 13.5" barrel than a 26" up to about 350 yards. It makes some sense due to barrel rigidity, but I wouldn't have thought it would extend to that range. The real shocker was the 16" and 18" barrels were more accurate than the 26" at everything beyond 250 yards. So the 16" barrel was more accurate than the 26" at 900 yards. And velocity wouldn't matter much if the accuracy was higher. So you have more projectile drop, but it is manageable because you know, accurately, where it is dropping to. So what, a few more clicks on the scope, or a little more hold, as long as you have the elevation it doesn't make a difference.

Projectiles going sub-sonic can matter, but I dont think these projectiles did at 900yards out of the 16" or 18" otherwise it would have been reflected by worse accuracy numbers. Also, keep in mind this is Federal Gold Metal Match they are firing. If you are doing your own 175gr SMK HPBT loads, you are going to make them much hotter than FGMM, so the velocity would be greater over every distance compared to the FGMM.

OutlawDon
10-01-2013, 12:39 PM
Your mission will drive your equipment choice.

Plain and simple.

If you plan on hunting or taking out bad people at 500-1000+ yards, every inch counts.

If you are just plinking or playing mall ninja at 100-300 yards, keep it short, keep it simple.

tacticalcity
10-01-2013, 12:41 PM
Makes the Remington 700 SPS Tactical with the 20" barrel more appealing as a base rifle to build a budget precision rifle. Critics have always balked at the barrel length and insisted that if going the SPS route one should go with the Varmint Heavy Barrel version with the 26" barrel. But since the velocity loss between the two is so minimal, and there is no loss in accuracy, I think the 20" barrelled tactical model starts to look pretty sexy.

janus408
10-01-2013, 1:09 PM
Makes the Remington 700 SPS Tactical with the 20" barrel more appealing as a base rifle to build a budget precision rifle. Critics have always balked at the barrel length and insisted that if going the SPS route one should go with the Varmint Heavy Barrel version with the 26" barrel. But since the velocity loss between the two is so minimal, and there is no loss in accuracy, I think the 20" barrelled tactical model starts to look pretty sexy.

Even more vindication for the AAC-SD with its 20" barrel and the 1-10 twist for 175gr SMKs.

janus408
10-01-2013, 1:12 PM
Your mission will drive your equipment choice.

Plain and simple.

If you plan on hunting or taking out bad people at 500-1000+ yards, every inch counts.

If you are just plinking and playing mall ninja at 100-300 yards, keep it short, keep it simple.

Not everyone has access or the need to shoot over 300 yards. I have to drive 4 hours to get to a 1k yard range. And only get to shoot 500y once a month. If there were a 1k range within 2 hours of me I would be there a couple times a month, but the drive to the Sac range is killer, especially considering cutting the bill for gas and time = more ammo.

Also, I have friends that solely shoot 100-200 yards because they hunt and thats all (more) than they need. So limiting yourself to that does not make you a mall ninja.

RuggedJay
10-01-2013, 1:23 PM
.308 is one of the most forgiving calibers when it comes to chopping the barrel. I think 18" would be the perfect length for a "covert precision" rifle, which could shoot out to 600+. yup shorter=more precise groups, usually because less barrel whip and less picky about powder charge as well.

Merc1138
10-01-2013, 1:45 PM
Your mission will drive your equipment choice.

Plain and simple.

If you plan on hunting or taking out bad people at 500-1000+ yards, every inch counts.

If you are just plinking or playing mall ninja at 100-300 yards, keep it short, keep it simple.

Umm, you might be forgetting something there.

milotrain
10-01-2013, 1:46 PM
Fact: This is a double-edged sword. The 13.5-inch length could propel a 168 grain Hornady TAP round at an average velocity of 2390 fps, which is hardly slow. That is only a decrease of around 315 fps from the 26 inch length (25.2 fps/in), and vindicates many researchers who pioneered velocity discussions. There was no noticeable critical difference in accuracy at any range. There is a downside to longer ranges and reduced velocities, that being increased susceptibility to wind as range increases. Increased drift is not the end of the world, though, and if measured properly, can be overcome with ease.

This is a bit confusing. You go transonic at 600yards with a 13.5" barrel and a 168 A-Max, going 2390fps. I think it would be hard to keep no noticeable accuracy difference to 900 yards if you went transonic at 600.

Estimating your graph the 18" barrel gets you supersonic out to 800 yards, just barely (you are in atmospheric conditions here, you may be supersonic you may be going transonic).

The simple math is you want to stay above Mach 1.2 at whatever range you are shooting. The 26" or 28" barrel therefore gives you the most flexibility at 1k. The math will tell you what you need to run, and you want to run the shortest barrel you can afford to unless you are using barrel weight to counteract recoil.

Cypriss32
10-01-2013, 2:02 PM
Everyone swears by different lengths ..... I like 18" in my ar10. My 308 bolt gun has a tight bore and twist but a 22" barrel. My bet is I get some really good velocities with the 178gr amax, and 185gr Berger hybrids. I see people with18 or 20 do a lot of 1000yd shooting.

HK Dave
10-01-2013, 2:17 PM
They tested at a max of 540 yards.

They should try this test again at distances of 500 to 1000 and I bet they'd be changing their tune.

russ69
10-01-2013, 2:46 PM
Thanks for posting but there is no new information in the "test". The benchrest community has been collecting mass amounts of data since the 1900s and before. OutlawDan has it right, the right barrel length is the one that does the best at the job it's asked to do.
The thing that most people get wrong is that the stiffer the barrel the better. That's an easy calculation of the barrel's moment of inertia. The rest is balancing the total weight with the required velocity. When you do this you might be surprised on how short a barrel you can get by with. This is news for some people but it's not news.

Rock6.3
10-01-2013, 2:58 PM
.01 MOA at 100 yards for the 13.5" barrel? I suspect a database error. There is no way that round can be 10 times more accurate by shortening a barrel.

Lifeon2whls
10-01-2013, 3:21 PM
They tested at a max of 540 yards.

They should try this test again at distances of 500 to 1000 and I bet they'd be changing their tune.

Incorrect, the test was done out to 900 yds - the article clearly states this.

.01 MOA at 100 yards for the 13.5" barrel? I suspect a database error. There is no way that round can be 10 times more accurate by shortening a barrel.

I thought the same thing but they discuss that in the article/comments and if you look at the data charts for the different ammo selections, etc...the short barrel is the most accurate at 100 yds.

I need to take the AR Pistol out for a day :)

milotrain
10-01-2013, 4:04 PM
So going through the original article the fundamental claim that surprises me is that the 13.5" barrel shooting the 168gr hand-load is going 2380fps and has an average radial MOA of .36 at 900 yards. The slug is flying at mach .937 (1046.3 fps) at 900 yards, well below the transonic threshold.

The writer is clearly a talented shooter who is successful in the national matches so I wouldn't tend to question his methods. However it surprises me that in every case his rounds from the 13.5" gun have well crossed the transonic threshold at 900 yards and yet the numbers would suggest that they are no less accurate (and even more accurate) than rounds that are still supersonic at the same range. This would disagree with almost all experimentation up to this date, even that done by very good shooters in very scientific ways.

Uriah02
10-01-2013, 4:37 PM
Almost makes me wish I got 18" rifles instead of 16" /w the muzzle break... That and I really want to put a different break on them.

russ69
10-01-2013, 4:46 PM
... However it surprises me that in every case his rounds from the 13.5" gun have well crossed the transonic threshold at 900 yards and yet the numbers would suggest that they are no less accurate (and even more accurate) than rounds that are still supersonic at the same range. This would disagree with almost all experimentation up to this date, even that done by very good shooters in very scientific ways.

Well that last 100 yards is important to 1000 yard match shooters. For 1000 yard shooting we know we NEED a longer barrel to keep the velocity up. All the top finishers are using long barrels. We also know that the military shooters are stuck with 20 inch barrels and they do reasonable well but they are a notch behind the match rifle shooters with longer barrels and better cartridges.
The basic test presumption is flawed. If you are testing pure barrel length accuracy you would shoot barrels with the same exact deflection (stiffness) and not the same barrel shortened. What he is testing is a combination of barrel length and improvement in deflection from shortening the cantilevered beam (barrel). But like I said, this issue is resolved already and the real answer is barrel length is dependent on reasonable barrel weight and the required velocity for the competition under consideration.

milotrain
10-01-2013, 4:54 PM
That's my understanding, but I'm still shocked that a hornady HPBT 168gr is stable (to the tune of SUB MOA!!!) while moving through the transonic threshold. Its 13* boat tail should cause it to keyhole while going that slow according to everything I've ever read about it. His experiments claim differently, which is exciting if true.

killshot44
10-01-2013, 5:08 PM
http://truthaboutguns.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/6.png

Nice chart - shame it's complete nonsense.

CobraRed
10-01-2013, 5:17 PM
http://truthaboutguns.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/11.png

Learning so much here, cut off 8 inches and increase accuracy by 100%

... where did I put my haxsaw, again?

russ69
10-01-2013, 5:19 PM
That's my understanding, but I'm still shocked that a hornady HPBT 168gr is stable (to the tune of SUB MOA!!!) while moving through the transonic threshold.

It takes a certain rpm to keep the bullet stable. It doesn't just go haywire because it hits a magic speed, it starts to produce a yaw instability and that starts it's vectoring off it's intended path. If that yaw is early in it's flight, it will be way off target but at the end of it's flight it's not going to veer way off course. For a 308, the last 100 yards is important to match shooters because it is starting to have a yaw instability and the results on the target can be less predictable.

Justintoxicated
10-01-2013, 5:27 PM
So that's why CA the governemnt does not want us to have short barrels. it is because they are super accurate.

CobraRed
10-01-2013, 5:29 PM
@ 900 yards a 168 TAP from a 13.5" barrel is going to move over 1 MOA per mph of crosswind.

Sounds fun when shooting in a vacuum, maybe. Read muzzle wind, target/range wind average that all out and if you're off a couple mph that's 19" left or right.

LynnJr
10-01-2013, 5:37 PM
This study was conducted with what the author and fellow researchers determined to be the most precise materials and methods available gathered from expert input and other existing studies.

They used the most precise materials and methods available and after getting expert input they used a Savage action:D.

Sunday
10-01-2013, 5:45 PM
Common sense.

calshipbuilder
10-01-2013, 6:12 PM
@ 900 yards a 168 TAP from a 13.5" barrel is going to move over 1 MOA per mph of crosswind.

Sounds fun when shooting in a vacuum, maybe. Read muzzle wind, target/range wind average that all out and if you're off a couple mph that's 19" left or right.

my concern exactly, unless you have dead accurate wind calls, you need sufficient velocity (and BC) to prevent wind call errors from taking you off target.

BradleyAbrams
10-01-2013, 6:23 PM
I thought the same thing but they discuss that in the article/comments and if you look at the data charts for the different ammo selections, etc...the short barrel is the most accurate at 100 yds.

I need to take the AR Pistol out for a day :)

FWIW, this Test Data runs mostly parallel to a similar barrel length comparison which I had read a couple of years ago.

That particular Barrel Comparison Test had been done to AKM Platforms (7.62 X 29 ), with Barrel lengths ranging from 12.5" AMD65 to 16", 18" and 20" barreled AK-Type Rifles..

Ammo, Marksman, Weather Conditions, Shooting Range were identical in all test cases. I do not recall if Rifling Twist Ratio was considered similarly...

IIRC, the tests showed that the difference in barrel length on bullet drop up to 100 meters was practically identical; and that it took 175 - 200 meters before a repeatable difference was noted.

After 300 Meters, there was a considerable drop in performance between the minimal and max barrel length examples.

Beyond the 400 meters mark, the AMD65 fired bullets virtually had hit the Wall; and the Test engineers opined that this was mostly due to the particular ballistic characteristics of the 7.62 X 39 military round; which when combined with the shortest barrel, seemed to exhibit an almost exponential loss of velocity beyond that last distance.


I remember thinking at the time that for my intended purposes, this would make it acceptable ( and cool ) to build an AMD65 kit with a 12.5" barrel < with a pinned and welded barrel extension; in order to meet the "Sweet 16" barrel length mandated by the FUUDs >


I will try to find the site which displayed this AKM Barrel Test data, but it has been quite some time ago since I saw it last, and I cannot assure that I will be able to reproduce it here.


However, having said this, I will state that the OP's referenced Test Results shown in this particular thread do not surprise me. Especially because they parallel to an extent those barrel length Test results with the AKMs.

And Yes, I had found those short-barreled AMND65 Test Results counter-Intuitive, too; at first.


YMMV, and all that... :cool2:




-






---

Sheepdog1968
10-01-2013, 6:44 PM
What this means for me is that for home defense and hunting I prefer barrels in the 16-18" range as they are handy. If I ever got into really long distance shooting such as 800+ yards I'd probably want a longer barrel to eek out the increased FPS.

I really wish I could get the paperwork in CA to have a short barreled 45-70 lever action for hunting.

toby
10-01-2013, 6:54 PM
What this means for me is that for home defense and hunting I prefer barrels in the 16-18" range as they are handy. If I ever got into really long distance shooting such as 800+ yards I'd probably want a longer barrel to eek out the increased FPS.

I really wish I could get the paperwork in CA to have a short barreled 45-70 lever action for hunting.


How short do you want it?
There is always a T/C contender or Encore with any length you want as long as it's in a handgun form.

phish
10-01-2013, 6:56 PM
Nice chart - shame it's complete nonsense.
Excel's for n00bs, Matlab or gtfo:43:

That's my understanding, but I'm still shocked that a hornady HPBT 168gr is stable (to the tune of SUB MOA!!!) while moving through the transonic threshold. Its 13* boat tail should cause it to keyhole while going that slow according to everything I've ever read about it. His experiments claim differently, which is exciting if true.
I looked at the dimensions of the Hornady vs. Sierra bullets in Litz's book. The Hornady is slightly longer. I'm no fluid dynamicist, but it might explain why the Hornadys went pointy end first. It's all about bullet configuration.

In the long run, I wonder how many times that article will be linked compared to Lowlight's infamous youtube clip when the subject of barrel length comes up. :facepalm:

Shovel
10-02-2013, 8:44 AM
I still plan on running my 26' R700 Police. I like the extra velocity. The one line that struck me in the article was:

"There is a downside to longer ranges and reduced velocities, that being increased susceptibility to wind as range increases. Increased drift is not the end of the world, though, and if measured properly, can be overcome with ease."

Maybe I'm just a hack, but I usually don't adjust my scope for wind with every shot. I do wait for the wind to die down but that's it. I buy into the shorter barrel being stiffer but a heavier barrel is also stiffer and also more accurate (if barrel quality is equal).

I did find the article very interesting and a good red but not mind blowing. I would like to see some on the groups that they shot with the short barrel to get .1-.2 MOA accuracy.

postal
10-02-2013, 11:21 AM
^^The trade off of long barrels is muzzle heavy and too much total weight which makes any kind of positional shooting REALLY difficult.

I started with a 26" had it cut to 20" and the positional shooting is night and day difference.

And to the "heavier barrel is also stiffer" is true. I'd suggest you try positional shooting with my brothers 'truck axle' 243 to see first hand just how unwieldly it is.

Epaphroditus
10-02-2013, 11:59 AM
Raw data is important ... where are the error bars? No error bars = not science. No raw data = not science. Where is the discussion of systematic errors? Lots of room for improvement.

Either way, keep your hacksaw away from my stuff. I'm happy to redo the experiment but I'm going to need funding and guns, lots of guns. And plenty ammo.

smittty
10-02-2013, 4:06 PM
16"-18" length barrels are my preference.

ar15barrels
10-02-2013, 11:30 PM
The trade off of long barrels is muzzle heavy and too much total weight which makes any kind of positional shooting REALLY difficult.

I started with a 26" had it cut to 20" and the positional shooting is night and day difference.

Balance is more important than weight.
If you have a lightweight stock, a 20" barrel blances better.
If you have a chassis system or a fiberglass stock with adjustable cheek hardware and spacer system, a 26" barrel balances better.

If you put a 26" long 1.25" diameter barrel on the gun, no amount of stock will make the gun balance correctly.

russ69
10-03-2013, 9:16 AM
As barrels get longer and bigger in diameter you run into the problem of excess weight. It's pretty easy to make a rifle that is too heavy to be practical. The Remington varmint weight contour barrel is darn near the upper limit, although others may have their favorites.

Sheepdog1968
10-03-2013, 10:46 AM
How short do you want it?
There is always a T/C contender or Encore with any length you want as long as it's in a handgun form.

If I could get the tax stamps and paperwork in ca, I'd probably get a 30-30 or 45-70 with a barrel length somewhere between 12-14". The LOP would be about 12.5". This would be a great little hunting rifle.

As to the TCs, they are great. However, I prefer the extra points of bodily contact given when shooting a rifle.

MongooseV8
10-03-2013, 1:47 PM
If I could get the tax stamps and paperwork in ca, I'd probably get a 30-30 or 45-70 with a barrel length somewhere between 12-14". The LOP would be about 12.5". This would be a great little hunting rifle.

As to the TCs, they are great. However, I prefer the extra points of bodily contact given when shooting a rifle.

An 16-18" Encore rifle isnt very long and you can contact it bodily all you want lol.

CobraRed
10-03-2013, 3:45 PM
What does overall weight and balance in the hand have anything to do with accuracy? One variable at a time, people.

And i highly doubt they were even successful isolating and showing the causation of one variable.

Merc1138
10-03-2013, 4:29 PM
What does overall weight and balance in the hand have anything to do with accuracy? One variable at a time, people.

And i highly doubt they were even successful isolating and showing the causation of one variable.

Because if you can't pick up the rifle due to the barrel being 6" in diameter, it doesn't matter how stiff it is at 14" or 30".

LynnJr
10-03-2013, 4:49 PM
Weight is not an issue on these rifles.
If you look closely two of them have barrel blocks holding the barrels.On the heavy gun the barrel block is 9 inches long and it sits 0.5 inches in front of the receiver with a 1 inch tenon.The part of the barrel not clamped is essentially 20.5 inches long even though the barrel is 32 inches long.

On shortrange Benchrest rifles weight is always a major concern and you won't find many barrels shorter than 20 inches.If shorter was more accurate they would all be using 18 inch barrels and they don't

bubbapug1
10-03-2013, 5:16 PM
That's my understanding, but I'm still shocked that a hornady HPBT 168gr is stable (to the tune of SUB MOA!!!) while moving through the transonic threshold. Its 13* boat tail should cause it to keyhole while going that slow according to everything I've ever read about it. His experiments claim differently, which is exciting if true.

My experiance is the 168 grain HPBT becomes extremally unstable and key holes at the transition velocity. There is no way that bullet could get to 900 yards leaving the barrel at less than 2400 and still fly staight. Its common knowledge that the 168 grain bullets range is around 800 yards loaded to leave the barrel at 2700 fps.

I think the best book on these kind of tests is Rifle Accuracy by Harold Vaughn. Its a little pricey, and its a little math heavy, but its all there, from barrel length, to moly coating, to crimp pressures....truly one book to clear ones head of all the fud about guns....like my AR does 0.5" moa with russion steel cased 55 grain ammo.

The best test of your rifle is at local high power matches.

milotrain
10-03-2013, 5:23 PM
I don't have experience with them but your experience aligns with what I've heard from every reputable shooter I know. It casts a whole lot of doubt on the test, plenty of things about the data and it's collection do as well but that one specifically red-flagged me.

janus408
10-03-2013, 5:28 PM
This study was conducted with what the author and fellow researchers determined to be the most precise materials and methods available gathered from expert input and other existing studies.

They used the most precise materials and methods available and after getting expert input they used a Savage action:D.

It kind of makes sense you would want to be able to use the same action but be able to swap various barrels with different lengths in, easily.

Agree though, there are many better action choices.

CobraRed
10-03-2013, 5:56 PM
Because if you can't pick up the rifle due to the barrel being 6" in diameter, it doesn't matter how stiff it is at 14" or 30".

What does that have to do with accuracy?

Or did I misread the article and it was comparing versatility and ease of use?

RotaryRevn
10-03-2013, 6:08 PM
So that's why CA the governemnt does not want us to have short barrels. it is because they are super accurate.

I remember reading a test of Noveske CHF barrels. The 14.5 was more accurate than the 16 incher. I was surprised for sure.

milotrain
10-03-2013, 6:21 PM
How many did they test? One 14.5" barrel being more accurate than one 16" barrel is not surprising. 100 14.5" barrels averaging greater accuracy than 100 16" barrels with the same rifling, material, chambering and crowning job would indeed be interesting.

Merc1138
10-03-2013, 6:41 PM
What does that have to do with accuracy?

Or did I misread the article and it was comparing versatility and ease of use?

A shorter barrel is stiffer than a longer barrel of the same diameter. You can make a longer barrel stiffer by increasing it's diameter. Increase the diameter too much and you end up with something impractically heavy.

That would be why people aren't using super light weight skinny profile barrels(they need the velocity, so the barrel length is already a given) for much of anything. But you still have to find a balance(literally a balance sometimes) between weight and practicality(also depending on whether or not there are weight restrictions in whatever match you happen to be shooting in), or you can end up with a 50-100 pound rifle that might be amazingly accurate, from a rest, and completely impractical for anything else.

milotrain
10-03-2013, 6:58 PM
Practicality? What does that have to do with accuracy?

http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/railgun1x835.jpg

Merc1138
10-03-2013, 6:59 PM
Practicality? What does that have to do with accuracy?

http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/railgun1x835.jpg

lol, absolutely nothing if you're not concerned with ever having to move the thing.
(+1 for the photoshopped leupold. I'm guessing an april fools joke that probably convinced more people than it should have?)

postal
10-03-2013, 7:53 PM
If you cant shoot it standing, kneeling, sitting, prone....

It isnt a **USEFULL** rifle.

I dont give a flying lynn about what blah blah blah can do... that cant be shouldered and fired. It may as well be a cannon with wheels on it at that point.

Sheepdog1968
10-03-2013, 10:04 PM
An 16-18" Encore rifle isnt very long and you can contact it bodily all you want lol.

Good point.

LynnJr
10-03-2013, 10:26 PM
If you cant shoot it standing, kneeling, sitting, prone....

It isnt a **USEFULL** rifle.

I dont give a flying lynn about what blah blah blah can do... that cant be shouldered and fired. It may as well be a cannon with wheels on it at that point.

Postal
The testing said shorter barrels were more accurate and even someone with your limited shooting experience knows Benchrest rifles are the most accurate rifles on the planet and they don't use really short barrels.
The test data said nothing about portability and it is nothing more than internet lore.
Mike Stinnett just shot the smallest group in history at 0.007 inches and it was with a benchrest rifle using a tuner.You can hate benchrest all you want it won't change any of the facts.
His barrel was not 18 inches long and if shorter barrels were more accurate Benchrest shooters would be using them.

milotrain
10-03-2013, 10:37 PM
Holy sh*tstack! Boys and girls that right there is some shooting!

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/?s=Mike+Stinnett&submit=Search
http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/miketarg01.jpg

Justintoxicated
10-03-2013, 10:41 PM
So basically to sum it up, this data shows Girth > Length. But I would say it is a matter of balance between the two extremes, but would side on Length + Girth being ideal, and it also of course depends on how you use it :)

Merc1138
10-03-2013, 11:10 PM
Postal
The testing said shorter barrels were more accurate and even someone with your limited shooting experience knows Benchrest rifles are the most accurate rifles on the planet and they don't use really short barrels.
The test data said nothing about portability and it is nothing more than internet lore.
Mike Stinnett just shot the smallest group in history at 0.007 inches and it was with a benchrest rifle using a tuner.You can hate benchrest all you want it won't change any of the facts.
His barrel was not 18 inches long and if shorter barrels were more accurate Benchrest shooters would be using them.

Correct, the data said nothing about portability. However, outside of your benchrest microcosm, people actually move their rifles. Even if I were to ignore the random guys who shoot on their own on BLM land, have no regard for the various match formats, or even the folks that go hunting, last I checked there were more people shooting rifles in matches that actually required them to weigh an amount that one could actually shoulder, yet still demand accuracy.

I respect benchrest shooting from the same standpoint that I respect extreme CPU and GPU overclocking done with insulated boards and liquid nitrogen. But the same still applies to shooting and overclocking, there is a point where it becomes completely impractical.

Seriously, that first image you posted, the tuner weighs what, 2-3 pounds? How wide is the forend on that? 12"? 18"? How much does the rifle as a whole weigh, 70 pounds? If you still cannot understand why it's an oddity in the world of shooting sports that garners the passing interest of many, yet so few actually bother with it, you're delusional. Nevermind the dozens of match formats that even if the weight, size, action type, and any other restrictions on the rifle itself were ignored, you still couldn't even participate with that benchrest gun to get last place.

Now while I'm sure you have other rifles that could actually have a use outside of some unlimited class benchrest competition format, the world does not revolve around benchrest and I'd seriously doubt even 90% of seriously competitive shooters have an interest in such a rifle other than a passing interest reading an article on a website or magazine about an oddity.

Don't understand my comments about overclocking? I don't blame you, it's not something a lot of people get into let alone the extremes. How about this. That benchrest rifle in comparison to pretty much every other shooting sport, is about the equivalent of this compared to any other form of auto racing:
http://www.advancedmanufacturing.co.uk/files/instore/News/Bloodhound.jpg

Shovel
10-04-2013, 6:55 AM
+1^ I believe the conclusion that a shorter barrel in inherently more accurate because it is stiffer. However the extra velocity gained from a longer barrel does make it more forgiving in windy conditions.

TMB 1
10-04-2013, 7:59 AM
Holy sh*tstack! Boys and girls that right there is some shooting!

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/?s=Mike+Stinnett&submit=Search
http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/miketarg01.jpg

What I wonder is how this rifle/cartridge/shooter combo does at 500+ yards?

russ69
10-04-2013, 9:13 AM
....How about this. That benchrest rifle in comparison to pretty much every other shooting sport, is about the equivalent of this compared to any other form of auto racing...
Bench rest is the research lab. But we have learned a lot about how rifles work from this research. We then take what we know and put it into a practical application. The Light Weight Varmint class is a very practical rifle and shows what can be done and still be a very useable rifle.
What I wonder is how this rifle/cartridge/shooter combo does at 500+ yards?
These "short" range bench guns are tuned for 100-300 yards. They shoot flat base bullets with a very slow twist. There is another class for 600 and 1000 yard shooting. In all cases they are the worlds most accurate rifles.

Merc1138
10-04-2013, 9:37 AM
Bench rest is the research lab. But we have learned a lot about how rifles work from this research. We then take what we know and put it into a practical application. The Light Weight Varmint class is a very practical rifle and shows what can be done and still be a very useable rifle.

These "short" range bench guns are tuned for 100-300 yards. They shoot flat base bullets with a very slow twist. There is another class for 600 and 1000 yard shooting. In all cases they are the worlds most accurate rifles.

Sure. We learn alot with land speed record cars and LN2 cooling for overclocked computers as well. Still doesn't make it practical. Also, I'm aware that there are multiple classes of benchrest, however I was specifically referring to the heavy gun that Lynn posted, which has no practicality outside of benchrest at all.

Since he uploaded the pics but didn't actually link them, I meant this one:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=269848&d=1380846932

There is no question that those guns are accurate, and those shooters are great shooters. But no one is ever going to be doing anything with that behemoth other than benchrest.

LynnJr
10-04-2013, 9:56 AM
Merc1138
As Russ has pointed out this is not about Benchrest shooting it is about barrel length.Benchrest was brought up because they shoot the most accurate rifles on the planet and there is no restrictions on the barrel other than 18 inch minimum.
The guys shooting these rifles are only interested in accuracy and if shorter barrels produced better accuracy they would use them.
There is no form of extreme accuracy that I am aware of were shorter barrels are the preferred choice of the best shooters.
This goes from 22 rimfire to 50 bmg.
I shoot many different disciplines except tacticool and nobody winning is using short barrels.
Silhouette shooters,Palma,F-Class,FTR,Highpower,3 position,4 position,Benchrest,Running Boar,Creedmore,Olympic,Biathlon you take your pick short barrels are not used by the winners.

Merc1138
10-04-2013, 10:00 AM
Merc1138
As Russ has pointed out this is not about Benchrest shooting it is about barrel length.Benchrest was brought up because they shoot the most accurate rifles on the planet and there is no restrictions on the barrel other than 18 inch minimum.
The guys shooting these rifles are only interested in accuracy and if shorter barrels produced better accuracy they would use them.
There is no form of extreme accuracy that I am aware of were shorter barrels are the preferred choice of the best shooters.
This goes from 22 rimfire to 50 bmg.
I shoot many different disciplines except tacticool and nobody winning is using short barrels.
Silhouette shooters,Palma,F-Class,FTR,Highpower,3 position,4 position,Benchrest,Running Boar,Creedmore,Olympic,Biathlon you take your pick short barrels are not used by the winners.

Still not sure what you're trying to argue, since I never said a short barrel was more accurate. I specifically pointed out what the article should have stated, was that a stiffer barrel is more accurate. If you go back and read my post, I specifically pointed out that there are two ways to gain stiffness, and since the length is needed to get velocity you can't just shorten barrels.

Now since we actually seem to be having a discussion for once, care to confirm my guesses about the weight of that rifle and it's dimensions?

FMJBT
10-04-2013, 10:03 AM
^^^
Is that using a mailbox as a buttstock?

SOAR79
10-04-2013, 10:06 AM
great data

postal
10-04-2013, 1:12 PM
Got riser???? LOLOLOLLLLLL

The 'hover' cheekweld.... No wonder they're only interested in group size and not shot placement.... the parallax from that hovering cheekweld is killing him!!!!

russ69
10-04-2013, 1:26 PM
...I shoot many different disciplines except tacticool and nobody winning is using short barrels....you take your pick short barrels are not used by the winners.

Olympic- Oops, they use 16 inch back-bored barreled rifles, same for the air rifles. The idea is to have a short barrel time so the sights stay on target before the barrel moves. Light weight bench guns are also shorter than most but they need some length for velocity. These represent the worlds finest shooters and the most accurate guns. Read through the posts, you'll learn that barrel length is related to the need for velocity, not accuracy.

LynnJr
10-04-2013, 8:21 PM
Merc1138
The stock weighs 44 pounds the tuner weighs 51 ounces and the forend is 6 inches wide.The rifle weighs 67 pounds.
The point I was trying to make is shorter may be stiffer but the worlds most accurate rifles don't use barrels as short as those used in that article

Postal
There is no such thing as cheek weld in benchrest shooting.If your tight against your gun your losing matches.In the unlimited classes we shoot heads up.The scope is on a cantilevered beam so it doesn't give us vertical stringing when the barrel heats up and the action moves.The barrel block scope and muzzle stay in one plane and the action moves due to expansion from heat build up.

Russ69
I know of no back-bored barrels to 16 inches in Olympic shooting.My 2013 and 1827 both exceed 16 inches by a large amount and are not back bored for 10 inches.
These are position and biathlon rifles not air rifles however.
On the benchrest rifles the barrels are not generally over 25 inches on a 13.5 pound gun or 22 inches on a 10.5 pound rifle but you never see one below 20 inches.

russ69
10-04-2013, 8:49 PM
...I know of no back-bored barrels to 16 inches in Olympic shooting...

Here's the specs from Anschutz's newest rifle per Anschutz. You'll see the rifled length is 420mm (about 16.5 inches and the barrel is 690mm long). You might have been out of the sport for a while?

Barreled Action
Name: 1913-U2
Item No.: 202.0990
Identifier: 000179
Barrel: ANSCHÜTZ Precision barrel
Caliber: .22 l.r.
Version: right
Rifling (cm): 69
Rifling length (mm): 420
Number of discharges: 8
Barrel length (cm): 69.0
Length of aiming (cm): 81-84
Length of barreled action (cm): 85
Weight approx. (kg): 3.1

Merc1138
10-04-2013, 9:02 PM
Merc1138
The stock weighs 44 pounds the tuner weighs 51 ounces and the forend is 6 inches wide.The rifle weighs 67 pounds.
The point I was trying to make is shorter may be stiffer but the worlds most accurate rifles don't use barrels as short as those used in that article


Well I guess I wasn't too far off guessing the total weight.

I'm still not sure what it is you're trying to argue. The barrels in the 3 images you posted obviously aren't sporter contours. What I have said(repeatedly now) is that because you cannot stiffen the barrel by making it shorter, you have to increase it's diameter. As a result you have a rifle that without the stock weighs 23 pounds.

For anyone not interested in such an impractical configuration, they can run a shorter barrel, without the additional mass and still have a rifle accurate enough to get the job done(and even most factory rifles, except for the bottom of the barrel stuff, seem to be more capable than probably 90% or more of the shooters out there). Now if you've got a video of a person shooting such a behemoth of a rifle(heck, even half that 67 pounds) in something other than a benchrest competition(anything really), I'd love to see it for a chuckle(or see a modern day Hercules). What you don't seem to get, is that most people aren't interested in getting the worlds most accurate rifle, they're interested in getting the most accurate rifle they can do "something" with. That "something" might be a high power match, it might be a hunting trip. But I'd be willing to be most people aren't interested in spending their own money on a rifle they have to shoot off of bags or a rest.

postal
10-04-2013, 9:40 PM
Postal
There is no such thing as cheek weld in benchrest shooting.If your tight against your gun your losing matches.In the unlimited classes we shoot heads up.The scope is on a cantilevered beam so it doesn't give us vertical stringing when the barrel heats up and the action moves.The barrel block scope and muzzle stay in one plane and the action moves due to expansion from heat build up.


I'll take your word on that.

I'll also point out however, that probably due to this 'hovering cheekweld' where parallax is an obvious problem....

If I'm reading that target right... (and I actually researched a few minutes on BR targets and didnt find an actual page that explained it-- I *ASSUME* that lower target with the "S" on both sides is for "sighter" and the upper target is for score....)

...Why is it the worlds most accurate shooter, and the worlds most accurate rifle only scored a 45 of 50-0X... all in the 9 ring..... His sighter was probably a bull (cant tell in the pic if it broke the line)... and tanked from X to 9 ring?

And this is the most accurate rifle/shooter in the world? Five 9's? People would think the most accurate rifle and shooter would be in the bull or at least 10 ring? No?
http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/miketarg01.jpg


And of course to people that compete in benchrest would see the target and be impressed.... But ***ANYONE*** NOT INTO BENCHREST see's that target and goes.... Dude.... You missed the bull....

So... *the worlds most accurate rifle".... cant even be *AIMED* accurately..... EVEN WITH SIGHTERS! Tell me again how this is useful and practical? And "accurate"? if it cant be aimed precisely?

phish
10-04-2013, 10:10 PM
270215

russ69
10-04-2013, 10:11 PM
...And of course to people that compete in benchrest would see the target and be impressed.... But ***ANYONE*** NOT INTO BENCHREST see's that target and goes.... Dude.... You missed the bull...

There is group shooting and score shooting. In score shooting you have to hit the center of the target. Score shooting is very popular. Scores are often a perfect 50 out of 50.

morthrane
10-04-2013, 10:25 PM
Merc1138
As Russ has pointed out this is not about Benchrest shooting it is about barrel length.Benchrest was brought up because they shoot the most accurate rifles on the planet and there is no restrictions on the barrel other than 18 inch minimum.
The guys shooting these rifles are only interested in accuracy and if shorter barrels produced better accuracy they would use them.
There is no form of extreme accuracy that I am aware of were shorter barrels are the preferred choice of the best shooters.
This goes from 22 rimfire to 50 bmg.
I shoot many different disciplines except tacticool and nobody winning is using short barrels.
Silhouette shooters,Palma,F-Class,FTR,Highpower,3 position,4 position,Benchrest,Running Boar,Creedmore,Olympic,Biathlon you take your pick short barrels are not used by the winners.

I'm surprised with all that competition shooting that you haven't understood the basic premise: a shorter barrel of comparable mass is inherently more accurate, but velocity overcomes wind. Wind is more problematic than mechanical accuracy.

If those competition were being held in sterile lab controlled atmosphere, you might see a change in barrel length tendencies. :D

milotrain
10-04-2013, 10:40 PM
I think the whole point that LynnJr is making is that shorter barrels are inherently more accurate only to a point and then they start loosing accuracy. This is supported by the Secrets of the Houston Warehouse (http://www.angelfire.com/ma3/max357/houston.html). In such things, when talking about absolute maximum efficiency or accuracy in any thing you start investigating materials, fluid dynamics, and other variables that begin to get too chaotic to really account for. At that point a good scientist says "I can't explain why this is the case but experiment shows that it is."

ar15barrels
10-05-2013, 12:16 AM
So... *the worlds most accurate rifle".... cant even be *AIMED* accurately..... EVEN WITH SIGHTERS! Tell me again how this is useful and practical? And "accurate"? if it cant be aimed precisely?

Rail guns usually have a lever that moves the gun a preset amount for sighters.
Then, they flip the lever and go back to the scoring target.
The calibration of the "sighter shift" is not always accurate to the targets.

Since, they are not scored by bullet impact location on the target, they are really only using the target as an aiming point.

phish
10-05-2013, 12:30 AM
At that point a good scientist says "I can't explain why this is the case but experiment shows that it is."

That's not a good scientist, that's a hack job.

postal
10-05-2013, 11:15 AM
Rail guns usually have a lever that moves the gun a preset amount for sighters.
Then, they flip the lever and go back to the scoring target.
The calibration of the "sighter shift" is not always accurate to the targets.

Since, they are not scored by bullet impact location on the target, they are really only using the target as an aiming point.

And that is stupid and impractical and NOT ACCURATE!:D Cant hit what you're *SUPPOSED TO BE AIMING AT* but cant aim it accurately to begin with..

russ69
10-05-2013, 12:11 PM
And that is stupid and impractical and NOT ACCURATE!:D Cant hit what you're *SUPPOSED TO BE AIMING AT* but cant aim it accurately to begin with..

Are people really this slow? You don't shoot away your aiming reference. This is group shooting, where the group is on the paper doesn't mater but you wouldn't ever shoot at your aiming reference point. In fact most use the square to aim with and make sure the hits are down in the rings. This concept can't be over peoples head, can it?

postal
10-05-2013, 12:52 PM
No I get it... Just the concept is STOOPUD. Most accurate whatever that cant even be aimed precisely.... STOOOOO PUHD.

But he scared the heck out of that 10 ring.....

Seriously... How can someone *CLAIM* to be accurate... if they cant even aim the stupid thing? "Worlds most accurate rifle that cant be aimed....." Kinda contradicts itself.... you'd have to admit....

russ69
10-05-2013, 1:24 PM
No I get it... Just the concept is STOOPUD...

If you had read my other posts it would have explained that there is another competition called score shooting, where hitting the center of the target is the required part of the game. They shoot at 50 separate targets so they can keep an aiming reference.
If you don't understand group shooting, how important it is, and why it is done a particular way, then it's because you are not interested in accuracy. Keep shooting your surplus ammo and have fun but when you really want to know how a rifle works you'll know where to go and find real information.
Oh, by the way, I don't shoot benchrest, I shoot highpower where you have to hit what you are aiming at. I count on the benchrest guys to move rifle accuracy further and that is information I can use.

postal
10-05-2013, 1:37 PM
Russ I read all your posts because you know what you're talking about. I did get that there are 2 types of BR.

And still, the concept of not being able to accurately *AIM* a rifle, and claiming it's "accuracy" is a contradiction.

What the heck good is it for? Nothing pretty much. Sure- a test bed of what works to make a rifle more accurate, but in ways that are completely impractical in most any REAL WORLD *USABLE* RIFLE. Sure- the stuff they figure out that are *practical* trickle down to REAL usable rifles which is great. (you know... rifles that can actually be AIMED? Or *carried*, or *shouldered and fired*?)

Pthfndr
10-05-2013, 4:54 PM
And still, the concept of not being able to accurately *AIM* a rifle, and claiming it's "accuracy" is a contradiction.

The same sort of thing could be said of people who use a bipod, or a scope, or custom made stock claiming to be a good marksman. You should only need a air rifle and iron sights :rolleyes:

Really Postal, your arguing about what good a benchrest rifle is makes as much sense as an anti gunner spouting off asking why we need certain types of guns.

Prejudice like this is what would lead to all our guns being banned. Especially your precious "Sniper" rifle (as the gun banners view it).

Get over yourself.

707electrician
10-05-2013, 5:58 PM
Russ I read all your posts because you know what you're talking about. I did get that there are 2 types of BR.

And still, the concept of not being able to accurately *AIM* a rifle, and claiming it's "accuracy" is a contradiction.

What the heck good is it for? Nothing pretty much. Sure- a test bed of what works to make a rifle more accurate, but in ways that are completely impractical in most any REAL WORLD *USABLE* RIFLE. Sure- the stuff they figure out that are *practical* trickle down to REAL usable rifles which is great. (you know... rifles that can actually be AIMED? Or *carried*, or *shouldered and fired*?)

I would think that someone who can put 5 shots in a .008" group knows how to aim their rifle

vliberatore
10-05-2013, 6:42 PM
I would think that someone who can put 5 shots in a .008" group knows how to aim their rifle

They would know how to be consistent with their rifle.

707electrician
10-05-2013, 7:48 PM
They would know how to be consistent with their rifle.

Yeah, you have to consistently aim it at the same point

postal
10-05-2013, 8:22 PM
Yeah, you have to consistently aim it at the same point

Because its a 70+ pound rifle in a sled that is NEVER touched besides a finger on the trigger, and cycling the action carefully so as not to disturb the sled... Aint no aiming going on between shots on those. You're the only guy on this thread that knows less about br than I do.:D

The weight, the aiming, the usability, portability.... is why I said before it may as well be a cannon with wheels on it. They're fired in the same way.

LynnJr
10-05-2013, 10:02 PM
Postal
The gun that shot the 0.0077 group weighed less than 10.5 pounds.The picture I posted was of a unlimited heavygun which must shoot 10 shot groups at 600 or 1000 yards.
The 10.5 pound guns can be used for varmint hunting or in some situations deer hunting.
The 3 inch wide stock is cumbersome so it wouldn't be my first choice for stalking live game but if your in a stand like most of the eastern states use you can make it work.
The point was that these guns use barrels in the 21 inch range and that going down to 18 inches hasn't shown an accuracy increase.Many of the top dogs have tunnels at there homes so they can test without conditions and at any time plus with high quality fixed chronographs.
Many of them do there own machining on barrels so they can install one and be shooting in a matter of minutes in a controlled environment.
The testing is getting better and better is the point and so is the accuracy but the barrel length isn't shrinking.
Forget that its benchrest and just consider it as testing.
The longer barrels make the rifle front end heavy and I can see cutting one back and getting an easier to handle rifle.
The accuracy they reported might be do to the gun being easier to shoot in there particular set-up rather than due to its shorter barrel.
In days gone by if your new barrel didn't shoot well your gunsmith would shorten it a little at a time to see if he could turn a pigs ear into a silk purse.

707electrician
10-05-2013, 10:11 PM
Because its a 70+ pound rifle in a sled that is NEVER touched besides a finger on the trigger, and cycling the action carefully so as not to disturb the sled... Aint no aiming going on between shots on those. You're the only guy on this thread that knows less about br than I do.:D

The weight, the aiming, the usability, portability.... is why I said before it may as well be a cannon with wheels on it. They're fired in the same way.

I know how bench rest works. I shoot with bench rest guys all the time. What I do know is that a rifles practicality has less to do with accuracy than barrel length and stiffness

milotrain
10-06-2013, 3:17 PM
That's not a good scientist, that's a hack job.

Please to explain: Why gravity functions the way we observe that it does.

postal
10-06-2013, 3:17 PM
Postal
The gun that shot the 0.0077 group weighed less than 10.5 pounds.The picture I posted was of a unlimited heavygun which must shoot 10 shot groups at 600 or 1000 yards.
The 10.5 pound guns can be used for varmint hunting or in some situations deer hunting.
The 3 inch wide stock is cumbersome so it wouldn't be my first choice for stalking live game but if your in a stand like most of the eastern states use you can make it work.


Interesting.... Okay- so can I *assume* that this particular rifle doesnt have that insanely high scope riser? Since it must be aimed every shot? And very well, like 707 pointed out... And under 10.5lbs.... sheesh! my rifle is heavier than that... Makes me wonder how to loose more weight...

desert dog
10-06-2013, 10:30 PM
Not going to get into the benchrest vs tacticool vs hunter vs weekend warrior pissing match. We all care about accuracy, right?

I will say that I consistently do good at 1000 yards with a 20" barrel. My best group ever at 500 yards was with a 17" barrel. These are all light rifles than I have to carry to my FFP with my gear after setting up my steel plate and lay prone in the dirt with to shoot, not 20# bench rifles. As mentioned earlier by another poster, I have found that .308 is extremely forgiving to short barrels, particularly when you combine the 175 grainers with a 1:10 or 1:11 twist. I have some friends that have been experiencing fantastic accuracy at 500 yards with 16" varmint contour barrels and 1:10 twists.

We wouldn't even be having this conversation 10 years ago, but the fact that precision shooters are bucking "common knowledge" and exploring different things is good for all of us. In recent years, we learned to "ignore the chronograph and trust the bullet". We learned that the conventional wisdom of the G1 BC was flawed. Perhaps we are now learning something about barrel length?

I really appreciate what people do in a lab environment to study such things. Taking away environmental factors and human err to get raw repeatable data is indispensable to further our understanding of shooting. I also appreciate the hard work that smart folks do in real-world environments to help us find what works to combat wind and how to more accurately calculate bullet behavior in different conditions.

Personally, I welcome studies like this and the resulting rebuttals.

Merc1138
10-06-2013, 10:41 PM
Interesting.... Okay- so can I *assume* that this particular rifle doesnt have that insanely high scope riser? Since it must be aimed every shot? And very well, like 707 pointed out... And under 10.5lbs.... sheesh! my rifle is heavier than that... Makes me wonder how to loose more weight...

Well it's not exactly difficult to find via google considering you already know the guy's name, but here's some info anyway:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/08/inside-look-at-world-record-0077-group-the-gun-and-ammo/

Switchbarrel
10-07-2013, 12:09 AM
Well it's not exactly difficult to find via google considering you already know the guy's name, but here's some info anyway:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/08/inside-look-at-world-record-0077-group-the-gun-and-ammo/

All you guys see how high the scope is on the rifle..? Kinda fly's in the face of what I see posted here so often. Maybe all of your groups would improve if you'd raise your darn scopes up off the barrels so you wouldn't have to smash your faces down on your stocks to look the the scope.
















This thread is so far off track, I just figured I'd point that out to screw with
those that say you need the scope so low because of parallax issues. :D
Short barrels and high scopes...what sacred cow will be next? (Consider that a rhetorical question, I don't need an answer).

beretta929mm
10-08-2013, 5:30 PM
"In reality, the man had a rifle that was not shooting .75 MOA, but rather he was printing groups and ignoring his most important ally, his fliers. These are critical to rifle accuracy and are not mistakes."

Very well said. So much for cherry picked groups people like to show off with.

LynnJr
10-08-2013, 6:01 PM
"In reality, the man had a rifle that was not shooting .75 MOA, but rather he was printing groups and ignoring his most important ally, his fliers. These are critical to rifle accuracy and are not mistakes."

Very well said. So much for cherry picked groups people like to show off with.


Most benchrest matches are won with what is called aggregates.They shoot 25 rounds in 5 5 shot groups and the aggregate is better than most single targets shot here.

67goat
10-09-2013, 8:59 AM
While I am not disputing the findings, the article, itself, leaves a lot to be desired.

First, the author's claim that this is a scientific study. It does not even come close. Heck, it does not even meet the bar for a statistical survey, much less a scientific study. Sure, it was carefully recorded and they followed a specific pattern, but that doesn't make it scientific. This group used entirely the wrong methodology to account for the variables. They seem to be of the belief that you account for variables by over-simplifying the study. Yes, you try to isolate as many variables as possible, but you also create various groups to account for those variables. This shows if data holds up across the board.

Problems with this "study":
1) A single barrel was used. If there were a property to that particular barrel (such as a deformation in the rifling) that limited performance gains after 14 inches, this "study" would not account for it. Multiple versions of the same barrel should have been used in conjunction with barrels from other manufacturers (along with various twist rates and rifling types).
2) A single caliber was used. Some rounds are designed with specific ballistics in mind, and some of their ballistics are coincidence. Is it a strange property of the 308 design that accounts for this, or is it something that occurs across the board? (That was rhetorical, BTW). I know that there is already lots of BR data out there, but while the article mentions it exists, it isn't used anywhere that I see. By neither incorporating existing data sets, nor creating data sets outside of the 308, the author invalidates this experiment as a study.
3) The author states that the rounds, barrel, action, and caliber were chosen because they would provide the best results. While there is certainly equipment selection in science, the way the author puts it (without much further explanation) makes it sound more like, "we picked the equipment we thought most likely to produce the results we already had preconceived notions about."
4) For the 900 yard shots, the author describes it being accurately measured by Google Earth. Problem with that is Google Earth is not that accurate. Elevation is +/-30m. Distance accuracy is also off by quite a bit. Scientists do use Google Earth to look for things and make estimates, but there are much better solutions they use for accurate measurements.
5) The author and I do not share the same definition of accuracy. Where the author uses the term accuracy, I would use the term consistency. The author freely admits they did not consider drop rates or drift. He also states that after shortening the barrel, they might have had to do larger adjustments for windage. To me, the bigger corrections that you have to make, the less precise it is (which, by definition is less accurate). His own words indicate to me that while groupings were not affected as much as some might think, POA had to be moved significantly. (I realize this is the one point many of you will disagree with, but to me, consistency and accuracy may be related, they are not equivalent).
6) The author says things like, "we proved" and "this test obliterated".... First off, the author never even demonstrated that these "myths" are actually wide spread and considered to be fact. Sort of makes it difficult to obliterate something that doesn't exist. Maybe these are wide spread beliefs, but the author does not demonstrate it. Secondly, science does not prove anything. At best, science tells us that under specific variables result X is the most probable outcome.

The premise of the article is interesting, though as others have pointed out, the data is already out there. But the article itself is a hack job of sensationalism.

CK_32
10-09-2013, 9:08 AM
This was posted a long time ago and discussed thourouly.


It came down to the misconception longer barrels = accuracy. Wrong.

Longer barrels = higher velocity which does help with longer range performance. Which is true.

Also the factor of improved powder, bullets and ballistics along with gun design changed the need of needing a 26" barrel to achieve those velocities.

It's almost like compairing a musket to a garand. Either way it was a great project with useful info to most. But there was some info and other variables missed which would help further explain the common misconception.