I'm surprised there is so little velocity lost from 24" to 16"...good to know. Makes me want to cut my bolt guns even shorter.

Velocity isn't the end all be all gauge of performance. You can have a 24" 308 that shoots faster than a 16" but if it shoots bigger groups it doesn't perform as well as the 16".

Velocity isn't the end all be all gauge of performance. You can have a 24" 308 that shoots faster than a 16" but if it shoots bigger groups it doesn't perform as well as the 16".

Do it.

Flip...I love that rifle every time you post that pic. How long is it and what caliber?

I have a 20" in .223, a 20" in .308, a 22" in .243, a 22" in 7mm-08. I kinda hate to spend $400 to cut all the barrels down but your rifle makes me want to do it.

I'm not sure I would ever need to shoot over 500 yards in my life, furthest kill shot on anything I've ever taken is about 250.

What say the THF brethren on the barrel lengths for the above mentioned guns to still be able to kill mule deer sized game at 500 yards and in? (Not with the .223 )

Velocity isn't the end all be all gauge of performance. You can have a 24" 308 that shoots faster than a 16" but if it shoots bigger groups it doesn't perform as well as the 16".

EXACTLY!

Here is a neat ballistic test where a guy shot four types of ammo, and cut one inch off his barrel from 28-16"
http://rifleshooter.com/2014/12/308-winc...ity-28-to-16-5/

In my opinion, that loud banging noise of the longer barrel hitting the blind is a bigger issue than the 100 fps velocity you loose from ~20" barrel to 16.5''.

This chart does not agree with the results that I have heard from multiple sources (not just one) - that velocity losses per inch with many cartridges tend to the neighborhood of 100-150 fps per inch. This chart claims that eight inches lopped off only loses you 200 fps.

Was the chart made up by the owner of a short-barreled rifle, by any odd chance? - That would go far in explaining the rather extreme discrepancy there.

Whoever made up the chart should get into contact with the global warming enthusiasts, he'd be very popular with that group.

bud your hung up on velocity as a measure of value... It is arguable the most meaningless measure of a load... You ladder test and your accuracy nodes are what they are with a given round.

Precision is the measure of a rifle PERIOD... In hunting situations or target situations rounds on target is what gets the job done... Less hold over is a bonus yes but it isn't the end all be all of anything... If it was all the precision shooters would shoot belted mags or tiny little burners... they don't, most shoot mid caliber HIGH BC rounds ie: 6.5 creed

Also is speed was THAT big a deal everyone would load the absolute lightest round they could... But you see a leaning for HEAVY for caliber rounds because they carry the energy better...

Pull up kinetic energy charts... cause that is what your arguing... that the change in kinetic energy is dramatically different... it isn't... It is less but not by a meaningful margin.

What artillery are you talking about??? real altery like military uses??? Like a howitzer lets look at the ratio of total OAL of round to length of barrel. you'll be surprised how short they are.

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.

What is more is the differences in velocity across loads and barrel lengths. The issue with barrel length and velocity was also interesting in that, across all bullet weights, the extreme variation is only 31% (110 VMAX @3202 and 208 AMAX @2215). In the most accurate load, the 168gr HPBT handload, the velocity difference between longest and shortest was only slightly more than 15%. The round with the least variation between barrel lengths was the 175gr Federal Gold Medal Match with slightly less than 8% variation.

You are missing the point Charles, the guy isn't shooting long range, 300yds at the most. A shorter barrel in the eyes of the OP will be more handy and still be effective at Its intended use of hunting shorter ranges.

If we were talking long range shooting you would be right, you lose a little effectiveness at 800+. We aren't talking long range shooting.

Practicality changes depending on use.

See page 322 of Hatcher's Notebook.

I intend to do the same thing, for the same reason. I also will not be shooting over 300 yards at game, I never do.

There is a point of diminishing returns though when it comes to paring down the length of a rifle barrel. The power goes down, the unpleasant muzzle blast goes up, so that the rifle is no longer enjoyable to shoot and is not as effective with a given load.

You can remove barrel length fairly easily, but adding some after you've discovered that you removed too much is another story. I think that an 18" barrel is quite handy, and do not see any good reason to go much shorter than that.

I remember being at the range with my M1A Scout Squad with its 18 inch barrel and muzzle brake. - I thought it was loud and obnoxious until a guy with a 16" SOCOM showed up.

That last two inches made an amazing difference in the noise and blast involved. (with a .308) All of that extra noise and blast comes from the powder burning outside of the barrel, instead of pushing the bullet. Remember that it is the bullet that does the work, we are not out there trying to scare the deer to death.

Was the SOCOM more 'handy'? Sure - by about two inches. I felt sorry for the guy. He had to double up on his hearing protection, but I got by just fine with a pair of disposable foam plugs.

It's not exactly rocket science. With shorter barrels, especially shorter than 18" with a .308, you are going to get lower velocity which means (you guessed it!) less useful performance.

I thought everybody understood that much... Whatever you may feel that you have gained with a shorter barrel, in order to get that, you must also give something up.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

See the chart posted above. Note the clear trend it displays.

"Performance" in the shooting world, (especially for hunting weapons) is most often measured by velocity with a given bullet weight - and guess what?

This chart does not agree with the results that I have heard from multiple sources (not just one) - that velocity losses per inch with many cartridges tend to the neighborhood of 100-150 fps per inch. This chart claims that eight inches lopped off only loses you 200 fps.

Was the chart made up by the owner of a short-barreled rifle, by any odd chance? - That would go far in explaining the rather extreme discrepancy there.

Whoever made up the chart should get into contact with the global warming enthusiasts, he'd be very popular with that group.

I've heard 25-50 usually per inch. At 150fps per inch, going from 24" down to 16 would be a loss of 1200 fps.