Judd, have you ever run one fast enough with enough spin that the bullet came apart in the air before reaching the target. First time I did was with Speer TNT bullets and I mixed up a few loading for a 24 inch barreled 22-250, nice little blue trail. the other time I did it was with a 15gr Berger 17 bullet from a 17 Remington cooking along at about 4500fps oops the blue vaporized lead vapor trail was no longer visible to us but the time it was about 50 yards down range. I have read that early Berger target bullets had that problem occasionally in competition not reaching the target or would off the mark a bit with some splatter.

My main load for the 17 Remington is a 25gr Hornady at 4250fps. Nice to have one that you can have 1.25 hich at 100 yards and aim on fur out to 300 yards shooting coyotes.

I spotted for a guy on my range early last year. 1:7 twist 6mm running 105's fast!

Shots 1-3, maybe to 4 would hold. Get a little heat in the barrel, and abut 70 yards down range, puff! Jacket spun off, mid-air.

Yep, that's why it's a *twist* *rate*. So simple to understand yet so misunderstood.

There's no denying the fact that barrel length impacts accuracy, with longer barrels being more accurate than shorter ones. The longer barreled handgun is considered more accurate than one with a shorter barrel, even though both have the same twist rate. So then, wouldn't common sense dictate that bullets fired through a longer barrel are given a more consistent spin because they are in contact with rifling for a longer period of time.

It's definitely a topic where the need to try different load and bullet combinations is a must if you want to find that sweet spot in rifle performance. And while it points to another topic for another day, that will never happen when someone fires just a few shots before the season opener just to check their zero. Based on what I learned first-hand about Stingers, I would never want to take them to hunt bushy tails.

Of course those with more money than time can always go to one of the experts and ask them to build them a tack driver and let them know what bullets to push through it.

You are wrong once again.

Barrel length has zero to do with accuracy, it pertains to velocity. Your long barrel more accurate only applies of using irons. Some of the most consistent shooting rifles in existence have 16" barrels. And some 28" barrels aren't running the right load, heat up early, and start to string shots.

No on the spin. 1:7, 1:8, 1:9, ect doesn't even mean the bullet has to travel 7, 8, or 9" it is just a ratio, nothing more. By your statement you would assume a 2" long pistol barrel wouldn't stabilize a bullet, but they do.

I think your seeing my comments as being all inclusive. It's not that a 2" barrel is unable to create at least some level of bullet stabilization, but that a longer barrel produces more consistent stabilization. More consistent stabilization equates to greater accuracy. If it were not so, soldiers would never have a need to carry a rifle.

I understand some shooting experts refer to the time it takes a bullet to travel down a rifle barrel as "touch time", and that specific calibers have a specific barrel length and twist rate in which bullets achieve optimum stabilization. Of course bullet construction would seem critical as well. The earlier comments concerning bullets that break apart at optimum stabilization was new to me and I'm sure others.

"Each rifle caliber has an optimal barrel length for performance, sniper rifles tend to be a little longer to build up maximum speed and touch time with the rifling of the barrel to ensure accuracy. For example, a 308win generates near maximum speed and bullet spin at 20in, with any additional barrel length only increasing the a few hundred feet per second. So, many shooters today choose the shorter barrels because they are easier to handle and weighs less."

Granted, it's hard to find a rifle that can't perform well enough to harvest wild game. However, our discussion that started with my observations on the poor performance of Stingers has made clear the need to determine what your rifle shoots best.

I think I'll take my AR to the range the next time and try to find out what loads it shoots best.

I still disagree the longer barrel produces more stabilization. Use the .308 you mentioned as an example. Many of them have a 1:10 twist. So 10" from the chamber, the bullet has made a full revolution, and if the barrel quit right there, the bullet is still stable, just as it would be from a barrel twice as long. But then you get into powder burn rates. My usual go-to for bolt action .308 is H-Varget. But on the SBR, I would use a powder with a faster burn rate, to create more velocity. Same as the 7" barreled .223 AR I have. Chad and i did some research and chose a pistol powder, for technically a rifle cartridge. That was virgin ground to plow. And I got it to work beautifully, shooting a 68 gr bullet at 2100 fps, and it is plenty stable, having hit steel to 300 yards, sure enough 300 yard pistol. A change in optics, and I could go even farther.

What kind of Sniper rifle are you referring to? PD Snipers need a 1 MOA at 100 yard capable rifle. The longest hit made by a PD Sniper in America was 440 yards, to date. That could easily be done with a barrel less than 16", much less 20". The 20" .308, is going to make a higher muzzle velocity, as was stated before, which would help at the end of the range the .308 was designed to achieve, which was 800 yards. In 1952, less than 800 yards was "Danger Close" for artillery, so they needed to fill the gap with a rifle round.

Again, the speed can be increased with a change in powder. You are probably getting your information from a source that is having to use M-118 7.62mm ammo, and the powder that it has. Hand loaders can make the ammo do, much better, even in a shorter barrel. Let's say there is long barrel powder for .308, and short barrel powder for .308. The same holds true for most any cartridge. Put s long barrel powder, in a short barrel, and you'll see the major muzzle flash. Whereas had you loaded a more appropriate powder for the short barrel, the powder will have been burned prior to reaching the muzzle, therefore creating more velocity. Again, via burn rates.

A short barrel is a stiff barrel, therefore there is a higher probability of having a wider powder range that shoots well. Ok, the speed is lower, but often that does not matter, because the rifle and ammo shoot very consistently.

Holy crap. So now anchor points, gun weight, sight radius, etc. are irrelevant factors of accuracy?

Dan can’t seem to get one right.

Longer barrels on pistols are more accurate because the shooter has a longer sighting plane, making the shooter more accurate. Generally, shorter barrels, are more accurate, to a point, because they’re stiffer. This may not include extremes, like a 2” barrel, but generally holds true in rifle length barrels.

Dan, I would recommend picking up some books about ammo and shooting. Then read them. I'm not talking about getting your information off the internet in a forum. There's about 5 comments you've made I could go off on about why it's incorrect. Not only are the statements incorrect, the reasoning leading to other statements is incorrect.

And the 120 grain bullets in your 25-06 can easily be made to shoot just as good as the lighter 100 grain bullets with the right load. If you want to shoot the heavier 120 grain bullets, bring the rifle to me and I'll dial it in for you.

Well articulated.

Boy you do like to argue.

I can only speculate based on my limited knowledge of Physics (and having seen several of the formulas for calculating twist rates) that a longer "touch time" provides greater and more consistent rotational energy or inertia, which in turn produces a more consistent trajectory. The comment quoted appears to indicate this inertia, combined with optimum velocity, is best achieved with barrels of a given length and twist rate. Too short a barrel and velocity and inertia are not reached, while longer barrels provide little additional performance.

The simplest analogy that I can think of is that of a kid's top. Spin it with the fingers just once and it will easily fall over. Apply several spins to it, or better yet, wrap a string around it several times to apply force to it longer and it stands and spins like a top. Also, given the mass of the top, there is a point where spinning it longer doesn't make it stand and spin any longer.

San I had to skip a lot because I’m at work so this may have been covered. Pistols and rifles are not related. Longer barrel pistols are more accurate because of sight radius. A 2” and an 8” barrel with both scoped can be equally accurate. It’s an iron sights vs scope issue.

The longer the barrel on a rifle the more harmonics. Consequently identical rifles with different barrel lengths will shoot different from each other. Typically the shorter barrel will be more accurate or at the least have a larger window for accurate loads. Longer barrels require more tuning and typically have a greater temperature spread from one end to the other causing a different type of accuracy issue than harmonics alone.

As with everything I say I’m speaking my views but they are well studied and practiced.

The top is not a good comparison in my opinion.

It's a perfect comparison because Physics applies to all objects equally.

"Energy is defined as the ability to do work on an object; for example, the work required to lift a one-pound weight, one foot against the pull of gravity defines a foot-pound of energy (One joule is equal to the energy needed to move a body over a distance of one meter using one newton of force). If we were to modify the graph to reflect force (the pressure exerted on the base of the bullet multiplied by the area of the base of the bullet) as a function of distance, the area under that curve would be the total energy imparted to the bullet. Increasing the energy of the bullet requires increasing the area under that curve, either by raising the average pressure, or increasing the distance the bullet travels under pressure. Pressure is limited by the strength of the firearm, and duration is limited by barrel length."

Source

I don't think so. But I might be wrong. I think it spins longer when you spin it longer because your are applying a greater force/spinning it faster. Given the same linear velocity of the bullet it is always turning the same rotation, not true with the top in your example at least in my opinion.

^^Same here.

And yes Dan, I will argue. I have a pet peeve of mis-information being spread, and that is what you are doing. It only confuses those that are on-lookers, trying to learn.

All I'm touting is that a rifle is more accurate for taking wild game than using a handgun. Also, it's best to try several different loads of ammo in your rifle to determine what it shoots best. Anything else is just an argument as to why this is so.

That is, unless to goal is to sell more scoped handguns.

Yes, you applied a greater force but also over a much longer period of time resulting in greater rotational energy/enertia. Like the top, a bullet achieves greater rotational energy the longer pressure is applied to it. However, based on the mass of the bullet, there is a point where additional rotational energy no longer provides benefits. And as others have stated, spin it too hard and it can begin to fall apart.

"Increasing the energy of the bullet requires increasing the area under that curve, either by raising the average pressure, or increasing the distance the bullet travels under pressure. Pressure is limited by the strength of the firearm, and duration is limited by barrel length."


Now after everything that has been shared and debated, I suspect someone else was spot on with the reason my Remington doesn't like Stingers. They are simply are too short in length (projectile only), and have too much pressure behind them to be a good match with the rifling in my Remington barrel. It seems to shoot any standard length LR cartridge just fine.

Or maybe I should just blame CCI for putting a .22 Short bullet on a LR casing.

Dan I hate to over simplify (I love to) but if a tire spinning 100 mph comes off a car it doesn’t matter how long it’s been on the car. The results will be exactly the same for the tire. Same energy, same inertia, etc

x2

I can even wrap my simple mind around that example....doesn't matter the size of the tire....length of the car....100 mph is still mph.....the size and weight of the tire will effect how long it travels and what damage is done to what it hits....bicycle tire vs. 18-wheeler tire for example......

Agreed.

The Wikipedia article really does a good job of describing the math and physics that determine ballistic performance, starting with the following parameters, which are all interrelated once you add in bullet construction, barrel length, twist rate, and barrel construction.

I would suggest more focus on the sections entitled The Role of Inertia and Peak vs Area.

There are five general equations used in interior ballistics:

1.The equation of state of the propellant
2.The equation of energy
3.The equation of motion
4.The burning rate equation
5.The equation of the form function

So that is what all the fuss is really about, how dare someone challenge your knowledge.

Or do you really believe accuracy is not impacted by the length of a barrel?