This is topic Coyote rifle-optimum barrel length in forum Firearms forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000061
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on September 14, 2003, 07:08 PM:
I use rifles with barrels from 18" to over 28" but what do you believe is about right for called coyotes?
Long enough for performance, yet handy? Is it around 22", a little shorter; or a little longer, perhaps?
When I rebarrel that 18½ inch barrel, I think it will be more like 20" this time. But, it depends on your choice of cartridge. A 220 Swift with a twenty inch barrel is not efficient use of the powder capacity, if you get my drift?
Okay, enough qualification, what do you say?
Good hunting. LB
Posted by Az-Hunter (Member # 17) on September 14, 2003, 09:00 PM:
Im with you on this one Leonard, I prefer a barrel of 20" on my rifles used for predator hunting. There's to much hype given to velocity loss when someone talks about lopping inches of their barrel. Many calibers exhibit very little vel.loss per inch than most guys realize.A great article on just this subject is in the latest Rifle Shooter mag. I'll titilate you with just a few sample test results.A 270, cut incrementaly from 27"(3,115fps) to 21"(3,001fps) wow, a difference of 114fps, certainly nothing to loose sleep over is it? Most of the calibers I tinker with usually fall in line with this particular test, you can figure about 15-25fps loss per inch cut below what many think is optimum. One in the test list will surprise many I think, the 340 Weatherby... with a 27"bbl it was spitting out a 250 grain bullet at2,837, when it ended up at 21", it was still smoking out at 2,731, for a loss of 106fps.Ive shot a lot of contender pistols and XP100s over the cronograph, and was always amazed at how much velocity is retained. A 20 inch barrel is a great compromise, easier to handle on your calling stands, and not giving up enough velocity to worry about.
Posted by DAA (Member # 11) on September 15, 2003, 09:07 AM:
I really don't worry too much about length, not for it's own sake, anyway. I personally shy away from short barrels, simply because of the blast. My ears are in bad shape, and overly sensitive. First shot of the morning with my little Model Seven .223 and it's 19.5" barrel, and my ears will be ringing (louder than usual) for days. By shots four or five for the day, I'm fighting a flinch because that muzzle blast HURTS.
What I really care about, is handling. And to me, that's a function of weight and balance, in which length plays a part. I know that short barrels are more "handy", but in most of my calling situations, that kind of "handy" doesn't matter. Fast shouldering, natural point of aim, nice fluid/hydraulic muzzle heavy "swing", is what I care about. I've got several rifles that fit my personal handling tastes to a "T", that happen to have 24" barrels. I've got a couple others, that also fit my tastes very well, that have shorter, but heavier barrels. I tell ya though, the more time goes by, and the worse my ears get, the less I can tolerate those shorter barrels. And yes, I am going to be trying ear protection on stand this year, for the first time.
- DAA
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on September 15, 2003, 04:39 PM:
Good stuff. What it says is such a simple question has many possibilities. Of course you want handling, and certainly, you want performance. How you solve that question is what I really want to know. Consider a 6/250 Ackley in a nice handling contour, and the higher capacity 243W, parted off at the same length. With the correct powder, the 6/250 may surprise us, me. Never know 'til you try it, eh? That's another thing, you remove six inches of barrel, and maybe you need a slightly faster powder? Exciting to contemplate.
Good hunting. LB
PS, I'm stone deaf, but it still smarts. My Dr says wear protection when hunting and I look at him like he is crazy....but he may have a point? Let us know how that works out, Dave!
Posted by DAA (Member # 11) on September 15, 2003, 06:39 PM:
I'll let you know how it goes. Actually, what motivated me to try the muffs while calling, was more what I'm apparently NOT hearing, than trying to save my already beyond saving ears. When I call with a partner, over half of all the coyotes he can hear, I can't. Several times, my partner has been tipped off to a sneaky six by faint sounds, that I'd never hear. Anyway, going to try amplified muffs, see how it goes. Half expecting the wind to drive me crazy and abandon the experiment early...
As far as barrel length vs. performance... I haven't seen the article Vic refers to, and for that matter I'm not familiar with either of those cartridges in different length barrels. No reason to doubt the results quoted. But it sounds like they are approaching the subject just the opposite of how I do. I never think in terms of velocity loss from a shorter barrel, I think in terms of how much I can gain with a longer one. And in the .224 varmint cartridges where I've owned several different length barrels, there is no doubt in my mind that I can indeed get more velocity from a longer barrel. 40 - 50 fps, per inch, has been my experience, with .22 BR's and .22-250AI's. Less for the .223.
Pretty simple, really, the lower the expansion ratio, the more to be gained from a longer barrel. At either extreme, it's easy to make the point. Getting towards the middle, it starts to get muddy.
In designing my current project, I had a decision to make, similar to the 6/.250, .243 situation you just outlined Leonard.
To cut right to the chase, I decided I need to have a rifle built for launching the 6mm 87 gr. Vmax, as fast as I reasonably could, from a barrel no longer than 27". Came down to a choice between the 6/284 and the 6mm Ackley. After talking to several owners of each, my 'smith who has chambered many of each and balisticians from Sierra and Hornady, I chose the 6mm Ackley. Because, from a barrel that short (27"), and using bullets that light (no heavier than 87 gr.), nearly everyone agreed that the 6/284 would not give me much additional performance for the significantly greater powder burned. If I was looking to use a 30" barrel, and especially if I were looking to launch heavier bullets, the 6/284 would have been an easy choice, as the performance gain over the 6AI for that type of application is much greater than what I'm doing.
Just depends on what you want, then it's always the details that make the difference.
- DAA
Posted by Tim Behle (Member # 209) on September 15, 2003, 08:35 PM:
DAA,
At one point, he heard the firing pin drop, the rifle took almost a full second to fire, and he didn't notice the direction of the braked muzzle blast and thought I had another misfire.
I still don't know exactly what brand they are, but I intend to find out next month and order some for myself.
I wear ear plugs now, but still leave with a headache.
Tim
Posted by Tim Behle (Member # 209) on September 15, 2003, 08:41 PM:
Well Hell, I guess I'm not allowed to edit my own post. Part of it got "lost" when I did a cut and paste to do a spell check.
The beginning of the post should have started with :
I've never used the electronic muffs, but after a problem I had last weekend, I am convinced they work.
I was at the range and had a problem with misfires, mixed in with several hang fires. The guy two benches down was working on cleaning his rifle, and used his rod to help me dislodge several bullets that stuck in the lands, and not in the case.
Posted by DAA (Member # 11) on September 16, 2003, 06:08 AM:
Tim, do let me know, if you don't mind. I had some Peltor Tac 6's for awhile, and liked them for range use. One side went "out", so I gave them to my buddy and bought myself a pair of Remington R2000's, which I've decided I don't like nearly as well as the Tac 6's. So, I'll be buying another pair very soon, probably the Peltor's, but I'm interested to know what kind he was using.
- DAA
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on September 16, 2003, 04:46 PM:
Dave, I have been down that road, of which you speak. I agree that the 6MM AI is probably better for you and would be better for me, as well. I'm not very impressed with the heavy bullets we have to choose from, for my purpose; in 6mm. But that's a different project.
Also, I tend to look at adding inches, rather than subtracting them. But, my example centers around a simple concept. A fairly light, handy rifle for moderate range coyote hunting in variable cover, ie: AZ. In this unique situation, I really don't care if I'm losing a little velocity.
Good hunting. LB
PS
Dic Gipson described to me his solution for hearing. He bought two of those Walker Game Ear devices, and adapted them with small holes in regular ear plugs. Claim that they work extremely well, for his situation. A lot cheaper than $3500 digital hearing aids.
Posted by DAA (Member # 11) on September 16, 2003, 04:55 PM:
Yeah, kind of got off the track, with the barrel length/performance stuff. I agree, for most calling, it's right back to handling, and whatever the length ends up, is fine - the velocity difference won't matter. Especially with the smaller stuff.
- DAA
Posted by Terry Hunter (Member # 58) on September 19, 2003, 09:51 AM:
20-22 inches is about right for most calibers in a coyote calling rifle.Some of my groundhog rifles have barrels of over 28 inches they are to long and heavy for a calling rifle.
Posted by Jack Roberts (Member # 13) on September 19, 2003, 10:13 PM:
For offhand shooting, barrel weight helps dampen pulse, and makes for a smoother swing. A short heavy barrel, or a longer, lighter barrel do the same thing.
Jack
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on September 20, 2003, 12:11 PM:
Okay, Jack. What you are saying is it doesn't matter? If the purpose is ballance and swing on running game?
However, does this address the ballistic performance, offset by the pure utility of a more compact rifle?
Just wondered. I see the question as multi faceted, with several decisions affecting the utility of finished piece.
Good hunting. LB
Posted by Jack Roberts (Member # 13) on September 20, 2003, 06:32 PM:
You are right Leonard, what I said has nothing to do with either ballistics or utility, only your hold.
Ballistics improves with length, utility decreases. Choose some middle point you are happy with. Keeping in mind that the larger cases benefit more from barrel length.
Jack
Posted by Purple220 (Member # 173) on September 24, 2003, 10:29 AM:
Leonard, the longest barrel on any of my call guns is 24". That is on the Swift and 22/6mm. Everything else is less. Most of my 223's are 20", the light weight walking gun is 22". I haven't seen any difference in using a short barrel compared to a long one except for weight and ease of handling. As much walking as I do I want the lightest rig I can get away with without sacrificing performance.
Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on September 24, 2003, 03:44 PM:
I like 22-24" barrels for calling rifles.
My .221 fireball has a 22 inch barrel.Same with my .223 Ackley.But I do have a 24 inch barrel for my .22-250.I think anything from 18 1/2 to 24 inch is just fine for calling.GOOD HUNTING CO
UBB.classicTM
6.3.0