In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

best barrel length for 243?

bean_loverbean_lover Member Posts: 48 ✭✭
edited July 2008 in Perry Shooter Competition Shooting and Reloading Forum
I just put a .243 barrel on a Mauser action. It is 24" long. I would like for the rifle to be a little handier, so I was thinking about shortening the barrel to either 22" or maybe even 20". Does anybody know about how much velocity I could lose if I do that?

Thanks!
Paul
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • mrbrucemrbruce Member Posts: 3,374
    edited November -1
    In most cases you can expect to loose about 20 to 40 FPS for each inch of barrel, it's not carved in stone but will be pretty close.
    The 243 shoots very well with a short barrel........
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    bean_lover,

    Welcome to the GB forums!

    I'm not a fan of shortening barrels especially since most of these ideas about 'handiness' stem from articles written by under-informed gunwriters.

    The amount of velocity lost is hard to pin down because there are several factors that affect the potential loss, not just the barrel length. In fact the barrel length can be the least of the factors in a few cases or the most significant in others.

    Generally, shortening a barrel to make it 'handier' will have a significant affect on the barrel harmonics, the way the barrel vibrates and how it affects the accuracy of the system. You could be taking a reasonably accurate rifle and diminish the accuracy or maybe just the opposite.

    The two most noticeable effects of shortening barrels are the increase in muzzle flash and noise. Shorter barrels are closer to your face and ears so the noise is a significant factor. They get LOUD. The muzzle flash is the hot plasma (gas) produced by the burning powder which has not had the added barrel length to cool slightly which would reduce the flash. Some powder/bullet combinations can help with this but it won't be eliminated. The greatest hazard is in the early morning or later in the day obviously.

    Think this through carefully because you can't put the barrel length back without an expensive replacement.

    Best.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Hawk CarseHawk Carse Member Posts: 4,381 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Agreed. I once had a (factory) 20 inch 6mm Remington. It was handy, I guess, but it was LOUD, no doubt about it.

    Where are you going that two or four inches off the barrel affect the "handiness?" .243 is not exactly a brush gun.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • crowbeanercrowbeaner Member Posts: 40 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    My kid is shooting a Remington 788 in 243 with a snubnose 18" barrel. It will shamrock 3 shots at 100 but the blast will unnerve you. WAH! THAT THING IS LOUD! I wish it had 4 to 6 more inches! I'd leave the 24" barrel alone if it shoots well. One thing to remember is the barrel harmonics change when you shorten them and the recrowning is crucial.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bean_loverbean_lover Member Posts: 48 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks to everyone for your clear & thoughtful point of view. Lots to think about here. I live in upstate SC, and about the only deer hunting I ever do is up in the mountains where brush often snags at your boots, your hat, the buttons on your coat, and your rifle. Plus, I like carbine-length rifles and always have, and I didn't even know gun writers recommend them - all I knew is that they seem fond of ultra-lightweights that I can't imagine shooting for the recoil. Anyhow, I was looking in the direction of trying something I heard from a guy I met deer hunting. He was carrying a .243, and I asked him why (since it's not really famous as a brush gun). He said he used tough lightweight bullets (like the 85 gr. Barnes X), which the manuals say get over 3200 fps, which made the 243, if not a beanfield rifle, at least a decent long-range deer rifle. Don't ask me why, since I mostly hunt mountain terrain, but it's an idea I got into my head while trying to build this Mauser, and it stuck there. Anyhow, from what mrbruce estimates, I could lose 160 fps down to roughly 3050 if I shorten down to 20 inches, and do so at the cost of greatly increased muzzle blast.

    I think I like my 24-incher. :) Thanks, guys - I appreciate it.

    Thanks for the friendly welcome too, nononsense.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    bean_lover,

    I had a short barreled .243 as my first rifle that I owned when I was a kid. It was a Remington 700. I was accurate no doubt. But it was, as noted above, LOUD! Because of that rifle, and the fact that I discovered Winchesters, Rugers and most of all MAUSERS, I gave up on Remington 700's. And .243's. Then I got a Savage 110 PE in .243. It shoots great! I got a Mauser in .243 with a 24" barrel. It only had open sights but still shot great. The advantage to both of them is that neither was as loud as my first .243. And with longer barrels I was getting published velocities quite easily. I didn't used to get that from my short rifle.

    Anyways, there was a miscommunication on my custom Mauser that was supposed to be in 6mm Rem. I ended up with a 25" heavy Shilen barrel in .243. I have to say I'm a fan again of the .243. With the longer barrel I'm getting way better velocities. The accuracy is also something to brag about. (It was really good in my old 700, I just had issues... Being young,I therefore decided to not like it.) Something the .243,in a good barrel, has always been known for. Just go out and shoot and enjoy that that thing. It's a great cartridge.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.