What downsides are there to reducing barrel length?

[maximus83]

I've been researching this issue a bit on my .308 rifle, which currently has a 24" barrel and is a half MOA rifle. From what I've seen, there's really no loss in accuracy to cut your barrel down to 20", even 18" or less. In fact, sometimes reducing barrel length IMPROVES accuracy. Apparently what you lose is mainly velocity, plus you get greater muzzle blast.

Any other downsides to shortening a barrel to 20" or less? If it doesn't affect accuracy or lethality within say 800 yards, the weight savings and improved handling would make it worthwhile to me.

Couple of articles on this subject:

http://www.tacticaloperations.com/SWATbarrel/
http://www.sniperschool.com/sniper-rifle-barrel-length

[elephantrider]

You pretty much summed it up.
Pros:
- increased barrel rigidity
- potential increase in accuracy because of the rigidity increase
- less weight/easier handling

Cons:
- marginal velocity loss
- increased muzzle blast

[maximus83]

I hear you. But I am still wondering more about the muzzle blast factor. When people talk about "increased muzzle blast" when you cut a barrel say from 24" to 20", how much difference are we talking about? Has some test been done that has measured this?

I only ask because, until yesterday (when I sold my SPS Tactical), I had two .308 rifles, one a 20", the other a 24", and I could not really tell a huge difference with ear pro on (and I sure ain't gonna test with it OFF). If there is a difference, it must not be huge. To me, any large centerfire caliber rifle is just plain LOUD, and any discussion about "degrees of loudness" and the like seems mainly theoretical.

[Gutshot John]

Much of the "muzzle blast" complaint has more to do with the "blast" being closer to your face than any real significance to increased unburnt powder.

It's really a relative concern, i.e. the difference between an 18" and 16" barrel is pretty marginal, the difference between a 24" and 22" barrel is marginal but you'll notice a huge difference between a 24" and 16".

Muzzle velocity loss is going to vary from 15 to 25 fps between 24" and 16" but this is only a functional accuracy concern when shooting beyond 600 yards. Inside of that distance, it's pretty much irrelevant, beyond that distance the increased muzzle velocity is going to pay dividends when the bullet loses velocity at a slower rate.

[sjc3081]

Why not test without ear pro. Millions of large game animals are shot annually by hunters with no ear pro with no hearing damage.

[Gutshot John]

Why not test without ear pro. Millions of large game animals are shot annually by hunters with no ear pro with no hearing damage.

Really? Based on what?

Sure and lots of shooters have gone to hearing doctors to have hearing tests done and have had their doctors look at their results and say "oh I guess you're a shooter aren't you?"

Ask me how I know.

You might as well test the effectiveness of glasses by pouring sand into your eye.

[orkan]

I'm with John here.

After a lifetime of shooting, I have constant ringing in my ears. I didn't start long strings of fire and long(all day) sessions until about 5 years ago, and my ears were damaged long before that and I'm certain it was due to hunting without ear protection.

I love that I can hunt suppressed in South Dakota. My unsuppressed rifles rarely see action these days. Thus, I won't really be able to help you much with the specifics on how much louder shorter barrels are... but I can tell you that you can tell... even when suppressed.

Barrel length should be determined by the mission at hand.

If you intend to shoot as far as possible, you'll need as much barrel as possible.

If you intend to shoot as far as possible, but must have a light and portable package, then your barrel may need to be shorter.

If you intend to run suppressors, you'll clearly find how a 26" barrel with an 8" suppressor hanging off the end is very cumbersome.

Questions and threads like these are what lead to the development of the Desert Tactical Arms SRS, and what continues to lead to advancements in bullpup style rifles.

[sjc3081]

Ok dont take two shots outdoors without ear pro if you are so inclined.

[Alaskapopo]

Why not test without ear pro. Millions of large game animals are shot annually by hunters with no ear pro with no hearing damage.

As one who has had to shoot plenty of bears without ear protection I can tell you it sucks and each time my ears were ringing for the rest of the shift. I also don't hear as well as I used to. Its not a good idea.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Really? Based on what?

Sure and lots of shooters have gone to hearing doctors to have hearing tests done and have had their doctors look at their results and say "oh I guess you're a shooter aren't you?"

Ask me how I know.

You might as well test the effectiveness of glasses by pouring sand into your eye.

Now that was funny. You bastard I almost spit my drink up on the computer screen.