short barrel accuracy

[Robocop1051]

By now, many of you are aware that I am a HUGE proponent of short barreled rifles. My target rifle, in .308 win, having only a 17" barrel, shoots amazingly at every distance I've attempted.

Once again, someone with more money and time than I have, has printed an article saying the same thing I've been preaching for years.

Get ready to cut your barrels.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/daniel-zimmerman/the-truth-about-barrel-length-muzzle-velocity-and-accuracy/

[Rsquared]

I'm all in with SBR's. I love em.

[washguy]

Robo Yep sent that to my friend a while back that just has to have a long heavy barrel......he just got his 16" barrel/parts for me to assemble him a short good shooter Wash

[survivalshop]

interesting .

[D.R.D.]

Awesome. These guys all seem to agree:

http://www.accuracy1stdg.com/content/docs/Binder7.pdf

http://www.tacticaloperations.com/SWATbarrel/

http://sniperschool.com/sniper-rifles-2/

Makes me wonder if these combos are actually better for longer distances with .308:

22" 1:11

20" 1:10

18" 1:9

16" 1:8

I even saw this in 1:7

http://www.rrarms.com/remington-700sps-tactical-308-win-16-5-ghille-green.html

DRD

Edited November 3, 2013 by D.R.D.

[98Z5V]

That's a whole lot like the discussion here:

 

[Robocop1051]

Awesome. These guys all seem to agree:

http://www.accuracy1stdg.com/content/docs/Binder7.pdf

http://www.tacticaloperations.com/SWATbarrel/

http://sniperschool.com/sniper-rifles-2/

Makes me wonder if these combos are actually better for longer distances with .308:

22" 1:11

20" 1:10

18" 1:9

16" 1:8

I even saw this in 1:7

http://www.rrarms.com/remington-700sps-tactical-308-win-16-5-ghille-green.html

DRD

 

Those super tight twist rifles are all designed to shoot really heavy (205gr-220gr) subsonic/suppressed rounds. They need that twist to stabilize those fatty proj's. If you started shooting the 147gr mil surp out of those, you'd burn the rifling out with all the extra pressure.

 

They'll still print at long range though. I watched a video of Travis Haley shooting a 9" suppressed 300Blk at 750m... using a red dot!

 

fast forward to 07:15 for the long range shooting

[D.R.D.]

Seems like a viable option since they still seem to claim no appreciable change in shorter range groups. If you can shoot both near and far with a tight twist & heavy round, all out of a shorter barrel, then why not?

The discussion below the article is quite interesting...kinda debunking half the research, though.

Edited November 3, 2013 by D.R.D.

[briflemn762]

I'm new to the the forum and so this post is kinda late.  Did anybody but me notice that in all of the writer's discussion of variables, there was no mention of light direction, wind velocity/direction/variability, or mirage?  While he said that a "Shilen match barrel" was used, he didn't mention barrel contour either. Any match shooter knows these factors can have a huge impact on group size.  I've seen mirage make the bullseye seem to dance even as close as three hundred yards.  High power scopes seem to amplify this issue

 

Not hat I disagree with his conclusions. It's been my experience that shorter, stiffer barrels shoot more accurately than the long thin barrels such as are found on most hunting rifles. JMHO

[D.R.D.]

briflemn762 - I'm with you.  It was a nice little comparison, but far from and engineered academic study. 

[briflemn762]

What interested me most about it was the velocity comparisons.  It showed that the loads were still gaining velocity at 26".  A lot of people have told me that the .308 reaches the "point of diminishing returns" (whatever that is) at about 20".  I guess that depends on what you mean by returns.  I personally like a short barrel (16" - 18") for it's handling ability and the fact that it's a lot easier to maneuver thru brush with safely.  It still holds enough velocity to humanely take deer sized game out to 500+ yards - not that I advocate shooting game at distances like that in most situations. 

[392heminut]

What interested me most about it was the velocity comparisons.  It showed that the loads were still gaining velocity at 26".  A lot of people have told me that the .308 reaches the "point of diminishing returns" (whatever that is) at about 20".  I guess that depends on what you mean by returns.

I would think that the burning rate of the powder being used would have an effect on that, and maybe the bullet weight to a lesser extent.

[briflemn762]

I would think that the burning rate of the powder being used would have an effect on that, and maybe the bullet weight to a lesser extent.

I'm sure you're right.  All the variables are probably why reloading seem to be as much art as science. LOL

[crimsonfalcon07]

It looks to me like the article was more about "most everyone sucks too much to really wring the advantage out of their longer barrels, and will likely never have the opportunity to shoot at extreme ranges anyways, so why waste the money" than it was about shorter barrels actually being better.  Which is fine, and from a practical sense, it's interesting to think about.

Now, I'm a complete novice at this stuff, but there's still a few things I'm curious about.  First, in that article, and the followup, he spends some time talking about how velocity is abstract, which seemed to depend on the notion that most shooters will base their accuracy on small groups, which may include powder outside of the actual group average, and will disregard fliers.  Okay, but what if you set your zero with a good lead sled and you do sling enough rounds down range to set a more accurate data point for that ammunition type, and you refine it as you get more data, because you're still paying attention to your range cards?  Won't you, over time, be able to keep your groups more consistently where you expect them, and more consistently the size you expect?  Even if you don't sling a whole bunch of lead down-range, if you randomly select cartridges from the lot, the odds of you getting the oddballs out from the average seem lower than the odds of getting a set that WILL accurately reflect the average.

More, I noticed from his graphs that were intended to prove that temperature has a huge effect on accuracy, not only that point, but also that the variance across temperatures was noticeably lower for longer barreled guns.  Perhaps this is a novice view, but scientifically, don't we want to try to mitigate the potential negative effects to accuracy from as many variables as possible?

 

As I see it, there are MANY variables involved in what we consider accuracy, barrel length being only one of them.  He mitigates some of the ammunition-related ones by handloading, for instance.  And if he's right about the powder burning differently across different powders, that just speaks to the need to refine that technology further to create more consistency in powder life, not to the need to utterly disregard everything we know about velocity.  If a shorter barrel is "better" accuracy-wise because it reduces flex, shouldn't someone who is seriously interested in accuracy be investing in something like the Straightjacket system, which reduces flex even for longer barrels, and also wicks heat away, thus mitigating that factor as well?  Oh, and they're much lighter to boot.  For those who want a really precise weapon system, regardless of whether or not their wants are materially effective, or if they currently have the skill level to wreak every bit of potential out of it, it strikes me that he's said very little that really proves that shorter barrels are actually better.  All he really says is that they're not worse enough to matter--to him--to outweigh the advantages in maneuverability and weight that can be gleaned from a shorter barrel.  Well, there's cost too, and for a college student, that's no doubt a significant concern.  But how is it enough to say that just because you can easily (if you're a very skilled shooter), correct for the errors introduced at long range by your shorter barrel, that somehow the shorter barrel is functionally similar accuracy-wise to the longer barrel.  I'm not sure I see that information in his data.

 

Perhaps one of you short barrel aficionados can help me better understand these points, as I still have yet to order the barrel for my build... :)

[briflemn762]

Depends on what you plan to use it for.  I've done a LOT of long range shooting over the years - at targets.  I don't like shooting at game at long range for a variety of reasons.  Mostly because I don't think it's ethical to risk wounding a animal to prove how well I can shoot.  The question there is not how accurately I can place a shot at whatever distance, but what the animal will do between the time I tell my finger to break the shot and the time the bullet gets to where the animal was at that point.  At 500 yards, with a .308, that's slightly over a half a second. That's not much time, but it's enough to allow the animal to move enough to change the POI from the intended heart/lung area into the belly.  No thanks.  For my purposes a short barrel is accurate enough and retains enough velocity at the ranges I will shoot that any practical differences between it and a longer barrel are negligible. If I were a sniper or doing long range target work, it could be a different story.  

 

BTW, I never use a sled for sighting in.  I try to sight in from either prone over a backpack or sitting with a bipod because that's what I'll be using in the field.  I don't shoot from a stand, but from whatever position I can get into - in the field - to get the shot off.  I often use a monopod because I use it as a hiking stick and have it with me when I'm hunting.

[edgecrusher]

BTW, I never use a sled for sighting in. I try to sight in from either prone over a backpack or sitting with a bipod because that's what I'll be using in the field. I don't shoot from a stand, but from whatever position I can get into - in the field - to get the shot off. I often use a monopod because I use it as a hiking stick and have it with me when I'm hunting.

This here is good advice.

[Robocop1051]

Using a sled should reduce the operator error to nil. If your rifle is shooting jagged holes from a sled, but buck shot patterns when in hand, you know the err is not in the rifle.

[survivalshop]

   Yes , but unless you are going to use a lead sled for all shooting , you lose the human factor , which is one of the most important factors in shooting any Firearm. Not saying there is no use for a lead sled , but the differences in recoil & trigger control & there effects on shot placement , all change when fired with out a lead sled . Regardless of the firearms potential problems or the effects from it  .

Edited October 27, 2014 by survivalshop

[98Z5V]

Nothing can beat a lead sled for the testing of the mechanical accuracy of a rifle.  Nothing.  It's extremely helpful when you're trying to determine the differences between loads - because it removes the "human factor." 

 

Shoot your group through a lead sled.  When you can shoot that same group without the lead sled, you've perfected yourself.  <thumbsup>

[Robocop1051]

Or do what I do and get yourself a Bubba... They're like a lead sled, but they reload and being beer.

[briflemn762]

A lead sled is great for load development, testing mods to see how they affect accuracy, etc.  I just wanted to point out that a lead sled doesn't tell you much about your own capabilities or help you sight in for hunting - unless you're gonna carry the darn thing along.  Seems to me that would kinda eliminate the handiness of the short barrel tho'.

[98Z5V]

 I just wanted to point out that a lead sled doesn't tell you much about your own capabilities or help you sight in for hunting - unless you're gonna carry the darn thing along.  Seems to me that would kinda eliminate the handiness of the short barrel tho'.

 

That's not even what a lead sled is for... 

 

Definitely helps you sight in for hunting - it sets the zero of the rifle, of it's own merits, and optic (if used), and it does it well.  The rest is up to the hunter.  You won't achieve a better zero by hand, than you will with the rifle in a rest. You have to do the rest, after that...

[crimsonfalcon07]

Thanks for the thoughts.  There's some interesting ideas here, and I've been giving it some thought.  With regards to the lead sled, I'm still not getting it though.

 

I had figured that it would be best to eliminate the human element for the sighting in.  If you have the human element involved, you're opening up your margin of error by that much more.  When sighting in, I always try to eliminate as much as possible, because when I shoot, I don't want to have to worry about the margin of error from having set up my scope wrong, in addition to any other shooting technique errors and other difficulties.  I confess I don't see the advantage to doing it any other way, unless maybe you just never practice after you've sighted it in?

Edited October 27, 2014 by crimsonfalcon07

[briflemn762]

I'm not knocking the merits of the lead sled.  It's just that I shoot to a different point of impact off a bipod or over my pack than off the sled.  Just my experience with my guns.  Not saying it won't work for others.  

 

The group shown in my avatar is a three round group of Hornady 265 gr soft points from a Marlin 444P shot prone over a sandbag rest.  It's a 3 round group because I know (from testing on a sled) that as the barrel heats up on that gun, the 4th round will print somewhere high and right (roughly 2" out of the group and the 5th would impact somewhere around the upper right bull.  Fortunately, I've never needed even one follow-up shot with that gun.  The point is, I can shoot decent groups without a sled.  That same gun, shot using a sled with the same load, impacts almost 3" lower because the sled controls the recoil better than my shoulder does.  When I get ready to hunt, I want to know where my gun impacts from positions I'll use in the field and I know from experience that that's different from the POI I get with  sled.

 

That said. I'm not knocking a sled.  The sled is a great tool for testing groups - in part because it does soak up recoil much better than my shoulder does.  I use one any time I'm working up new loads or checking a scope - anytime I want to take me out of the equation as much as possible.