Barrel length vs caliber question

[rjohns94]

In 45-70, and in 30-30, looking for your opinions on 16.5" vs 18" vs 20" barrel length. I'm thinking out loud that velocity and stabilization are a result of many factors, not just barrel length. And I am assuming that with fast burning powders, max velocity can be obtained in even the shortest barrel length. Thanks for your opinions. Blessings

[jeepnik]

Obviously you'll gain a bit more velocity and a bit less muzzle blast from a longer barrel. And likely a bit less "felt" recoil (though that really a subjective thing). But, with modern ammo (especially if you role your own) the velocity loss is minimal, and the muzzle blast can be reduced somewhat (as you said faster burning powders).

Personally, I feel that the handling (again very subjective) is more important that an extra inch or two of barrel. Using the Marlin 1895 as an example, I've fired (and own as a result) the GS (18.5"), a standard length (22") 1895, and the Cowboy (26") models. For me the GS handled better, especially when compared to the Cowboy when it's full length tube was fully loaded.

So, there's my take, for what it's worth.

[COSteve]

Not going with that line of thinking. With modern powders, barrel length can mean a great deal. A 16" carbine barrel is significantly shorter than say a 24" rifle barrel and that shorter distance doesn't give modern powders a chance to fully burn. An established powder like H110 has shown to give higher velocities in a 24" vs 20" barrel. Therefore, the velocity difference in a 16" vs a 24" barrel is significantly greater.

[Terry Murbach]

THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR VELOCITY AND THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR BARREL LENGTH TO GET IT.

[BigSky56]

Sometimes its just eye appeal, a M64 or a M71 with a 20" bbl just doesnt look right to me but I prefer a 94 20" 30-30 for a saddle gun and a 20 on my 99 for hunting, with the new powders a 20 can stay up with a 24 for my style of hunting dark timber and out to 200 yds in a meadow. Too short of a bbl on rifle makes them look unbalanced to me, some cartridges need a longer bbl to perform but a 30wcf will shine with a 20 and makes for a dandy brush gun. danny

[TedH]

I believe it has also been shown that the powder that gives the highest velocity in the longer barrel will also give the highest velocity in shorter barrels, not a faster powder in a short barrel like you would think.

[Malamute]

You may have less loss with a faster powder compared to a slower powder in the shorter barrel, but the faster still can't do what a slower one can, without the pressure penalty to get there.

Ask William Iorg about his work with various loads in different barrel lengths of 30-30's. I believe he is a fan of the 26" barrels for the velocity they can achieve compared to the 20" guns. He's done fairly extensive load work with all common barrel lengths and many loads. He posts on shooters forum mostly, but stops in here from time to time. You can search his posts there and find some interesting things, and interesting threads.

I have 16" and 20" 30-30's, the 16" guns are noticably louder to me, I simply don't enjoy shooting them as much as the 20" guns. The 26" rifles are more pleasant yet.

[El Chivo]

since they are both long cartridges they will use the longer barrel well. As was explained to me by the people at Hodgjjjdon, it's a matter of the cartridge length. Pistol cartridges are what are not helped by the long barrel.

[Old Savage]

I don't get the shortu craze so I like the standard 22" inthe 1895 and I have tried the others up to 30". In 30-30 I like to have a 20, 24 and 26 inch.

[tman]

20" for both

[gundownunder]

What feels right has a lot to do with the right barrel length.
I've got a 357 20" Cowboy and I know that the 24" cowboy in 357 is not to my liking as the weight out front is just too heavy. The 357 with factory ammo is also very loud, and in the case of 125 gr bullets, very sharp and that would make it extremely unpleasant in a barrel shorter than 20".
As has already been said, velocity with slower powders is better even with shorter barrels. 2400 will give better velocity from a 6" revolver barrel than one of the quick pistol powders does even though it is a rifle powder.

[Tycer]

since they are both long cartridges they will use the longer barrel well. As was explained to me by the people at Hodgjjjdon, it's a matter of the cartridge length. Pistol cartridges are what are not helped by the long barrel.

I was given the same info and Barrel-by-the-inch seems to corroborate this. http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com

[86er]

In 45-70 a shorter barrel will usually have more muzzle jump. The closer the sights ate together the less precise under less than ideal conditions and more so w less then perfect eyesight. To me, balance is very important in a rifle I am going to carry. Whatever bbl length balances the rifle could be the determining factor of which I'd choose. I tend to use some pretty stout loads in 45-70 and they are always faster in the 26" rifle than the 22" one.

[Don McDowell]

Going under 20 inch barrel in a 30-30 is I believe will not gain you any handling quality, but will seriously detract from velocity, and to some extent accuracy, because of the muzzle flash and blast. For a real good example of velocity loss take a look at the Contender data for the 30-30.
Sticking with the trapdoor loads in a barrel under 22 inches in the 45-70 you might get away with not alot of velocity loss and probably not increase the muzzle flash/report, but then one has to wonder why bother with that when you could simply carry a 92 winchester or 94 marlin in 45 colt stoked with 300 gr bullets and have a much smaller framed rifle to wrestle around.

[gak]

There is a reason so very few 94 (and 92) Trappers were originally (Pre War) made. Aside from the mentioned velocity losses, the sturm und drang component is really accentuated in the shorties, and those negative marks outweigh(ed) any handiness factor. My ca 1979 94 Trapper is a lovely and handy thing but pretty obnoxious to shoot--flash and bang--compared to its 20" carbine brethren. I'll +1 the superior balance aspect as well - in hand and visually - of the 20" over the 16". That said, one of my dream guns (yet realized) is a Pre War .30-30 94 in round barreled 24-26." Helped a friend buy one a few years back after a long search for the right one and it's "just so"...and I bug him all the time to part with it! Kinda defines the quintessential "do all/take to the hills/if only one" rifle to me--all the goodness boxes checked--and I'm a carbine guy.

Re the .45-70, my 22" '86 SRC is just right, but I'd not want it much shorter--for the "boom!" factor (though the 18.5" Marlin seems like.a great "guide gun"). A friend's '86 26" is a bit of a hunk--strictly sight in over the withers Jeremiah Johnson style (or or tree craw more like!)gun. Carrying that octagonal very far is a daunting prospect.

[COSteve]

since they are both long cartridges they will use the longer barrel well. As was explained to me by the people at Hodgjjjdon, it's a matter of the cartridge length. Pistol cartridges are what are not helped by the long barrel.

I was given the same info and Barrel-by-the-inch seems to corroborate this. http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com

Actually, it depends. The barrel by the inch data for pistol caliber cartridges compares commercial ammo specifically developed for use in a short barreled weapon, a pistol. I've found that if you handload those calibers with a full charge of slow powder such as H110, the longer barrels actually help. For example, I loaded some 158grn, Zero JSP warm 38spl and hot 38spl+p loads with H110 (I know, not recommended for 38spl but I used some Quickload data to keep the peak psi reasonable) and some 158grn, Zero JSP hot and super hot (not Elmer Keith level but over Hodgdon's max level) 357mag loads with a full charge of H110 and tried them in both my 20" Rossi carbine and 24" Rossi rifle. I think the data is interesting.

20" Carbine:
38spl: . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,421fps
38spl+p: . . . . . . . . . . . 1,551fps
357mag hot: . . . . . . . . 1,789fps
357mag super hot: . . . . 1,941fps

24" Rifle:
38spl: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,356fps
38spl+p: . . . . . . . . . . . 1,521fps
357mag hot: . . . . . . . . 1,822fps
357mag super hot: . . . . 1,977fps

The data clearly shows that both the 38spl and 38spl+P loads reached higher velocities from the 20" carbine than the 24" rifle even using a slow burning powder like H110. However, in both the 357mag hot and 357mag super hot loads, the rifle length barrel produced higher velocities than the shorter 20" carbine. I believe that this shows that a lower charge weight 'runs out of gas' in a long barrel. Bare in mind, these loads are all using slow burning H110 powders which should work well in rifle barrels. Consider commercial ammo produced with faster burning powder designed for shorter barrels. Those loads would be biased to run out of gas earlier because they weren't designed to be fired through a long barrel. That's why the Barrel-by-the-inch data shows the pistol calibers not producing velocity increases after say 16" to 18".

[FWiedner]

Just asking a neophyte question, but aren't velocity and stabilization kinda dependent on bullet length and rate of twist?

Not as a contributing factor to velocity per se but on the stabilization issue.

[COSteve]

Rate of twist affects stabilization of the bullets of different weights (lengths) rather than barrel length as long as the bullet is traveling in the region of it's intended velocity. It doesn't take much rifling for the bullet to be spinning at the twist rate.

[Blaine]

Back before Bestlever shot my chrony , I recall that the same loads in my 26" Cowboy 45-70 shot about 200-250fps more than the same loads in the 1895GS with ports.....

[Old Savage]

That sounds about right, have some data like that around from dimilar tests

[El Chivo]

I noticed the new Marlin guide gun is a 45-70 with an 18.5" barrel. Guys love their flash and bang.

[Canuck Bob]

I have carried a stock 444S, 22" if memory serves me correctly, from the 70's in all manner of hunting country from the Rockies to the nastiest muskeg and never found the rifle too long. My little No.5 Jungle Carbine really puts on a show of flame and noise compared to a No.4. It is hard for me to imagine a handier rifle than a 20" Win 94 with a peep sight. I find the No.5 too compact for ideal handling. To me a carbine is 20" and a high powered rifle 24" barrel as a good compromise.

Handloader recently did a nice article on the 223 and compared barrel lengths. I read it on their Load-data site. They showed 20" as ideal for the 223 and the loss from the 16" was staggering, the difference was often well over 200fps.. Interestingly for the 223 they found barrel length had very little effect on consistency and velocity spreads in a group regardless of powder speed used. Many folks do report good accuracy from the shorties.

[jeepnik]

Back before Bestlever shot my chrony , I recall that the same loads in my 26" Cowboy 45-70 shot about 200-250fps more than the same loads in the 1895GS with ports.....

Darn, I almost forgot about that. Thanks for bringing up a good chuckle from the past. And as our friend always said "Life is good".