What's too long?

[jon lynn]

When does a barrel get too long?

What is the maximum before it becomes silly, or counter productive? I mean for a varmiter, or long range shooter.

Let's stick with some basic cartriges for my question:

.223 Remingtom with 55g bullets

.308 Winchester with 150 grainers

and a .30-06 with 200 grains for the old 'bean field' mentality.

Jon

[Ol` Joe]

As long as I didn`t have to tote it around I`d go 30"-32" on any of them if max velocity was the goal. Longer likely wouldn`t hurt.

[jon lynn]

But I guess what I am asking is, when does it no longer serve a purpose?

When does it (lenght)become unnecessary?

[L. Cooper]

I don't think there is an answer that is meaningful in the real world. I suspect that with the right powder choice, any of those rounds can benefit from a barrel length that is absolutely ridiculous for any real field uses.

I am fully aware that every rifle I own would "benefit" from more length in terms of pure velocity, but I have limits to what is practical.

The game too poses more limits to my barrel length. I won't carry a 26 inch barrel into the bush after white tails, for example. (Actually, I won't carry anything longer than 24 inches for any reason other than pole vaulting. I want to enjoy carrying my rifles.) The longest barrels I own are 24 inches, and the shortest is 18.

So, truth is, I don't know how long you have to make a .30-06 barrel to get the absolute maximum velocity out of the cartridge, and, with all those powders out there with varying rates, I'm not sure there is a definitive answer.

I'll be interested to see if anyone does know.

[Catfish]

Silly is subjective, but counter porductive can be measured. The lenth at which barrel lenth becomes counter productive is that lenth at which bullet friction is slowing the bullet down more than the chamber presure is speeding it up. That distance would depent on the burn rate of the powder and the amount of it. The max. effectant barrel would be shorter for a .223 than is would for a .22-250 for 2 reasons. 1. The 250 case is larger 2. To make the 250 shoot to it`s max you use slower powders in it and slower powders need longer barrels. I`m not sure were the breaking point is, but I do know that once you get to 26 inches the gain per inch in a .223 is not much and I would guess that some where around 30 inches, plus or minus depending on the powder, would be the breaking point.

[gumpokc]

I vaguely remember reading an older article on this, i believe back in the late 1980's.

In general ( remember i have slept once or twice since then), I _think_ they determined that for _any_ caliber, a barrel whose length was more than 100 times the width of the cartridge in question was losing more than it was gaining.

( the above is also reffered to as another defination of "caliber" of large cannon, like the IOWA class BB's 16 iinch, caliber 50 cannons)

We've learned alot since then, and we all know there's people out there who will put WAAAAYYY to much effort into something, simply to prove it's possible, no matter whether it's PRACTICAL or not.

So i guess i'd say this Jon, you could setup a special purpose, specific use rifle with special loads, and haul it in pieces to be assembled onsite with a 50 inch barrel if you wanted,but....personally, under most circumstances i'd say 24-26 is more than enough, and i'd be fine with 22 damn near always

take the above with two grains of salt, a lime and tequila, then post response in the morning :P

[Evan03]

depends my #1 has 26" tube and is about the same overal lenght as my 22' barreld bolt actions.

as a general for packn rifle i wouldnt want to go over 24" 22" seem to be about rifght for al around hunting anyways. a few inches of barrel realy doesnt gain or lose that much velocity. but difrent internal bor dimisions can vary and decrease or increase velocity by a measurable amount. wich we have no control over.