Author Topic: To cut or not... (Read 7587 times)

sethk · « **Reply #30 on:** February 24, 2014, 10:16:17 AM »

To reinforce what others have said, there is demonstrable benefit to shortening a 357 mag rifle barrel. In facts, here some data that show the optimal length to be arround 16 inches.[/size]

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html
[/size]
[/size]However, if you end up "maximizing" this barrel, the same may not apply. Has anybody seen quantitative evidence that a 357 maximum cartridge does benefit from being longer than the 357 mag sweet-spot?

petemi · « **Reply #31 on:** February 24, 2014, 10:31:57 AM »

The Maxi, .445, .454 etc. are all still pistol calibers using fast burning powder. They all do as well in a 16.5 in Handi as they do in a 7 inch revolver or a 14 inch Encore or Contender.

I spent more years than many of our younger members have been alive carrying long barreled, heavy traditional muzzle loaders. I'm now 73. I don't do it any more. Short and light is sweet. I'm way beyond macho or ego. Ask Tim what he hunts with.

Pete

sethk · « **Reply #32 on:** February 24, 2014, 11:16:44 AM »

Quote from: petemi on February 24, 2014, 10:31:57 AM

The Maxi, .445, .454 etc. are all still pistol calibers using fast burning powder. They all do as well in a 16.5 in Handi as they do in a 7 inch revolver or a 14 inch Encore or Contender.

I spent more years than many of our younger members have been alive carrying long barreled, heavy traditional muzzle loaders. I'm now 73. I don't do it any more. Short and light is sweet. I'm way beyond macho or ego. Ask Tim what he hunts with.

Pete

Pete,

That makes perfect sense. I know I'm likely splitting hairs here. My thought is that, technically, a maximum cartridge containing more powder (however fast-buning) may benefit (however little) from some amount of extra barrel length. Certainly, a 357 magnum coming out of a 16" barrel will do as well as one from a 7" barrel (it actually gains about 200 fps from the added 9 inches). I'm just hesitant to make the claim that nothing is lost by taking a 357 max barrel down to 16.5". Perhaps a 16.87" inch barrel is the optimal length for a particular (or average) 357 max load. I don't know, and I've never seen any direct evidence for any particular load/length pairing (though I'm guessing it's not much longer than 16.5"). I personally plan on taking my future maxi barrel to its legal/practical limits. I've even gone so far as to consider a Contender carbine with a 14" T/C barrel and permanent 2.X" muzzle brake in order to maximize handling within an expectable performance range. If I were to put together a "perfect" rifle, It would indeed be one that I would alway be happy to pick up and shoot, regardless of whether its tomorrow or 50 years from now.

gcrank1 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 24, 2014, 11:26:52 AM »

I carry a small belt axe with a shortened handle and lightened head rather than a full size........must be my ego

.
Mike, I know youve been down the river and around the mountain, but psychoanalysis here is pointless

.

Spanky · « **Reply #34 on:** February 24, 2014, 12:37:25 PM »

I've had shorty Handi's in the past. They're too loud, too butt heavy, too short for open sights, etc.
A Handi with a 22" barrel is still shorter than most levers or bolt guns and they balance well. If you read back through my old posts you'll see where I cut down my 38-55 barrel to 21.25 inches. I took my time and stopped cutting when it was balanced at the front of the trigger guard. Any shorter and it would have been butt heavy, any longer and it was muzzle heavy. I used to have a 44 mag. Handi and I cut it down to 17"... it instantly went from a good handling rifle to a butt heavy, loud nuisance and I quickly got rid of it. I do however like short barrels on Pardners... 20 inches seems just about perfect to me. I just think it's silly to just chop a Handi barrel off at 16 or 16.5 just for the sake of chopping something up. I don't buy into the shorter, lighter, easier to carry bit either. How much weight do you actually lose by chopping up the barrel? Not enough to notice. I've spent many many long days in the woods carrying a 22" Handi rifle and not once did I fall over from exhaustion. Even my 26" Handi's are a pleasure to carry all day long. Maybe I'm just more concerned with hunting than the few extra ounces of my full length barrel. I also don't buy into the short truck gun thing... if you can't fit a 22" barrel in your truck you need a bigger truck. If you're the type of guy who sits in your truck and shoots game out the window you need a new hobby. Get out of your truck or take up knitting. I do agree with a shorter rifle being nice in a blind or treestand... by shorter I mean a standard length 22" Handi as compared to a 26" or the way too long BC barrel.
Anyhow... in the end it all boils down to personal preference. I like one thing and some of you like another... no harm no foul.

Spanky

jsm88011 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 24, 2014, 01:11:35 PM »

My recently purchased Handi (357) with what amounts to a 22" "bull" barrel with synthetic stock is not so well balanced as I could wish. With a small Tasco scope it clocks in at +7.5 lbs, and the muzzle always wants to point WAY down... I was intrigued by the suggestion to take it down to 16.5-17". I prefer the classic long and lean look of a traditional rifle, but honestly I think I'd rather cut it and choose function and convenience over form. I might switch it over to wood furniture before I make a final decision.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

petemi · « **Reply #36 on:** February 24, 2014, 05:06:21 PM »

My Maxis and .445 are on synthetic stocks and balance just fine. To each his own.

Pete

jeepmann1948 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 24, 2014, 08:14:24 PM »

psychoanalysis here is pointless

This is a topic for a lengthy discussion however to keep this on topic:
Short or long, its the owners choice so is thin or fat .
Just like ones choices in women, they all have a place!
George

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #38 on:** February 24, 2014, 09:16:46 PM »

I agree with George The choice is up to the shooter. I like my long barrel and I don't care enuff about the outcome to try and shorten it one inch at a time to see if it gains or loses any. I own several .22lr that are way longer than the optimum 18.5" but they aren't getting cut neither, they shoot to well as is and I like them.that is all that matters To Me.

BTW I don't use slow pistol powders in my Max,IMR4227 is a rifle powder and is # 41 on the chart and AA1680 is #44 on there I don't use 2400 but it is still #35 which is halfway on the list, That tells me there is a good chance they are still using that extra 5.5 inches of barrel.

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #39 on:** February 25, 2014, 12:45:04 AM »

No Pete. You are not rude. Simply incorrect. I appreciate the invitation, but I've seen them and handled them. They make no sense. I'm an old dude, but I'm still strong enough to tote a whole gun around. Maybe that's MY ego showing, but to saw off a perfectly good barrel is silliness in the extreme.

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 25, 2014, 04:41:53 AM »

A Handi with a 22" barrel is still shorter and Handier than just about everything else out there so I've never bothered to cut one. I like my hearing so I don't appreciate additional muzzle blast when I don't need it. I hunt THICK New England old growth forest and have never had any issues with barrel length getting in the way even with my 28" Topper 16 gauge during turkey season. To each his own.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

AtlLaw · « **Reply #41 on:** February 25, 2014, 05:39:15 AM »

Quote from: sethk on February 24, 2014, 11:16:44 AM

a maximum cartridge containing more powder (however fast-buning) may benefit (however little) from some amount of extra barrel length. Certainly, a 357 magnum coming out of a 16" barrel will do as well as one from a 7" barrel (it actually gains about 200 fps from the added 9 inches). I'm just hesitant to make the claim that nothing is lost by taking a 357 max barrel down to 16.5". Perhaps a 16.87" inch barrel

Okay, this got me thinking...

As I understand it, and this is in very basic terms for my very basic mind, at some point down the barrel the pressure of the gas that is pushing the bullet will decrease to a point that is less then the amount of drag (friction) that is trying to slow the bullet down. lessee here... is that right? $:-\$

If there were no forces to slow the bullet down, once inertia was overcome the bullet would keep accelerating until the gas was no longer expanding. $:-\$ Right, but we are not living in a vacuum so there is such a force...

And, if we accept that inertia is overcome at the peak of chamber pressure and from that point the gas pressure decreases for a number of reasons, even though powder is still being converted to gas until all the powder that can be consumed has been consumed... $:-\$

Then, given that there is a force attempting to slow the projectile down during it's travel down the bore of the barrel, there must be some point along the length of the barrel when all the gas that can be created has been created and the volume of the space in which the gas is contained (the barrel) has increase to a point where the gas pressure is reduced to less then the amount necessary to overcome the force(s) that resist an increase in bullet's velocity and in fact these forces try to stop the bullet's movement, then that point is where the velocity of the bullet not only ceases to increase, but in fact starts to slow down!

So, the thing is to find out where that point on a given barrel is!

Okay, got through that with only a minor headache!

Am I on track so far?

I'm thinking another meaningless and statistically insignificant 'speriment here!

Gotta think about the assumptions though... $:-\$

nanuk-O-dah-Nort · « **Reply #42 on:** February 25, 2014, 06:13:03 AM »

Quote from: Mike in Virginia on February 25, 2014, 12:45:04 AM

.... but to saw off a perfectly good barrel is silliness in the extreme.

have you noticed the trend in the last 25 years with most rifles?

shorter and shorter....

Ruger makes one with 16.5" barrel. Try to find a bolt gun with a 26" Barrel nowadays

so say it is silliness is being ignorant... To YOU it may seem so, but to many others... well, let me just say I expec tvery few are toting around 10-12" handgun barrels in their belts. is it silliness to shorten them too, and lose all that extra effectiveness???

also, note that many long range shooters are opting for 27" or more.

I think the main point is, with many hunting rifles you lose nothing with a shorter barrel.

so what is the difference??? Looks? I hate the look of the new camaro.... but I"m sure SOMEONE likes 'em

petemi · « **Reply #43 on:** February 25, 2014, 06:39:52 AM »

I think the only way to find out for sure what happens, would be to take a 22 inch Maxi, load up four each of say eight or ten loads, including .38 and mags. Fire two of each load thru the chrony. Cut and crown the barrel to 16.5 inches and repeat. It would have to be the same rifle to be at least fairly accurate. Perhaps a larger sample would be better. A half dozen rounds of each load in both short and long mode.

Pete

cudatruck · « **Reply #44 on:** February 25, 2014, 12:07:27 PM »

I read somewhere, I think a magazine, a couple of guys did this with a 38 special and started with a barrel measured in FEET. they found the optimum length but it was way to long to carry around. So I concluded that every barrel on everyone of my firearms was already shorter than optimum so cutting one a little shorter to make it more appealing to me made no real difference in performance.

sethk · « **Reply #45 on:** February 25, 2014, 03:03:30 PM »

Quote from: cudatruck on February 25, 2014, 12:07:27 PM

I read somewhere, I think a magazine, a couple of guys did this with a 38 special and started with a barrel measured in FEET. they found the optimum length but it was way to long to carry around. So I concluded that every barrel on everyone of my firearms was already shorter than optimum so cutting one a little shorter to make it more appealing to me made no real difference in performance.

I'd be interested to see that study (not being

facetious).

The only one I've seen is by some folks that started with an 18" (T/C Contender) barrel and cut it back an inch at a time. This experiment found that a 16" barrel produced higher velocities than the same barrel T 15", 17", or any other tested length. The fact that the 16" length is (from the same source) the ideal for .357 magnum length, tends to support the notion that a 16-16.5" .357 max barrel can't be beat in terms of length vs. FPS.

To be fair, the only empirical test for 357 max loads at differing barrel lengths has been a comparison of 10" and 22" inch barrels with a particular rifle powder (Accurate 1680). But all that test shows is that, perhaps, a 22 inch barrel with that powder beats a 10 inch barrel with the same load by about 210 FPS.

I'd be happy to settle this once and for all. All that needs to happen is for someone to send me a 22" 357 barrel. If someone does that I will ream it to 357 max and then test it with factory .38 spl and .357 mag loads and hand loaded 357 max cartridges (as requested by experienced and interested parties) at 22" and at half inch increments down to 16.5".

jeepmann1948 · « **Reply #46 on:** February 25, 2014, 08:06:06 PM »

Check out this link to see an actual independent test of velocity on the same firearm with the same barrel cut to different lengths

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

George

petemi · « **Reply #47 on:** February 25, 2014, 09:24:15 PM »

Geeze George, It seems the 16 inch barrel just might be a slight tad more efficient

What a total surprise

I'd have never thought it. I was trying to slow mine down when I cut them

I keep trying to tell folks loss of velocity in pistol calibers works the opposite of rifle calibers. A longer or shorter barrel in a pistol caliber is slower. I believe they all peak at about 16 inches. It appears the .44 Mag. does its best at 17. Take that, Anti-Choppers.

Pete

cwlongshot · « **Reply #48 on:** February 25, 2014, 11:26:52 PM »

Quote from: petemi on February 25, 2014, 09:24:15 PM

Geeze George, It seems the 16 inch barrel just might be a slight tad more efficient What a total surprise I'd have never thought it. I was trying to slow mine down when I cut them I keep trying to tell folks loss of velocity in pistol calibers works the opposite of rifle calibers. A longer or shorter barrel in a pistol caliber is slower. I believe they all peak at about 16 inches. It appears the .44 Mag. does its best at 17. Take that, Anti-Choppers.

Pete

Peter,

As the old saying goes you can lead them to the water but cannot make them drink... Another favorite of my father. You send them to school and what do they do? Eat the book covers..

It's what makes the world go round.

CW

AtlLaw · « **Reply #49 on:** February 26, 2014, 01:27:25 AM »

Thanks George!!!

That's good enuf fur me. You've saved me from a lota cuttin and a crownin and a loadin and a shootin and a cuttin and a crownin and a loadin and a shootin!

So Pete... 'cordin to that chart I think I'll go with 17.5 inches on the 445 . $:-\$ Might loose about 5 fps if I went up to 18!

And I'll have 4.5 inches of 44 barrel all in one piece left over to make a BP pistol outa!

jackddavis · « **Reply #50 on:** February 26, 2014, 03:19:34 AM »

Quote from: Spanky on February 24, 2014, 09:31:40 AM

It's a real shame that all these good barrels are getting chopped up... just for the sake of chopping them up.

Spanky

Makes a good barrel even better. Improves balance, handling without losing performance (perhaps even gaining velocity over a 22"). What's not to like? Mine's 16.5" with an overall length of 31".

sethk · « **Reply #51 on:** February 26, 2014, 03:23:58 AM »

Quote from: jeepmann1948 on February 25, 2014, 08:06:06 PM

Check out this link to see an actual independent test of velocity on the same firearm with the same barrel cut to different lengths

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

George

Yeah, that's a great site and where I got the info for my second paragraph above.

petemi · « **Reply #52 on:** February 26, 2014, 05:29:33 AM »

For Richard or any of you out there. I have a 5.5 inch piece of standard contour Handi .44 barrel if anyone wants. You can have it and I will ship it free. First come. It's a paper weight on my bench. I don't need it now, George got me a nicer one

Pete

ceadersavage2 · « **Reply #53 on:** February 26, 2014, 05:46:40 AM »

There is a Wood stock set on e bay right now today

gcrank1 · « **Reply #54 on:** February 26, 2014, 05:48:47 AM »

Pete, I'll take you up on that if Richard bows out.

petemi · « **Reply #55 on:** February 26, 2014, 06:04:03 AM »

gcrank1, Richard's got a barrel piece, I guess you don't so it is yours. PM me your shipping info and I'll get it to you asap. It's gonna storm tonight and tomorrow so I don't know when that will be. It's not even snowing yet and I was gone for 45 minutes and in that time my driveway was completely plugged with blowing and drifting snow. I barely made it in with the Silverado in 4 wheel low. It's about zero with thirty mile an hour winds. It's a fun place to be. Y'all come, get naked and sunbathe on the back deck

Don't forget the suntan oil. Oh yeah, bring some squeezins.

Pete

jeepmann1948 · « **Reply #56 on:** February 26, 2014, 06:44:14 AM »

Pete since you got the "short "stock why not make a real Shirty out of the barrel?It would be ok as long as it is nonfunctional.
George

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #57 on:** February 26, 2014, 07:03:46 AM »

That chart doesn't list a Max. I will without a doubt in my mind say that a Max burning rifle powder will gain velocity in a 22" barrel over a 16.5" barrel. And it really doesn't matter to me that much, I shoot hard cast, you get much over 2000 fps and your leading your barrel.

The way I hunt, A 16.5 would be fine. I don't like them as much. so mine will stay at 22".

I really believe that short or long is purely ergonomic and looks.

If ya like it short cut it, If ya like'em long leave it alone. The performance difference is minor at the most, And a moot point.

Spanky · « **Reply #58 on:** February 26, 2014, 07:25:16 AM »

Don't start high fiving each other just yet. Unless you are shooting the factory ammo that's listed on the chart those numbers don't mean a thing. What are the numbers for YOUR loads in YOUR gun? Don't know do you?? Didn't think so. Different brass, different powder, different bullet, different primer.... What are your Mag or Maxi loads and how do they compare to those factory loads listed? Are we to think that because some factory fodder performs a certain way that YOUR loads in YOUR gun will do the same?? Absolutely not and it's foolish to think so.

Some website said their test barrels shot best at 16 inches with a factory 125gr. Corbon load so naturally your completely different 180gr. handload Max (or mag) ammo will do the same.... Seriously guys??

Spanky

petemi · « **Reply #59 on:** February 26, 2014, 07:40:12 AM »

Geeze Spanky, I regulate my powder load and type, primer and bullet to my barrel length to get the performance I want out of it. And yes, I have a chrony and can do the math. My Shorties with my loads all out perform factory length barrels with factory loads......can you buy .38-55 off the shelf ammo running a 213 gr. bullet 2275 fps? I listed all the chronyed velocities for my favorite loads in all my shorties earlier...and yes, I know exactly what they do because I've tested them all. You're assuming we're all a group of idiots.

Pete