Author Topic: long vs short  (Read 2082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nodlenor

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
  • Gender: Male
long vs short
« on: July 09, 2008, 04:00:38 AM »
I read about how barrel length effects bullet speed and was wondering if it effects long actions more or less than short actions or if there is any difference. I would think that because of the extra powder that the long action would benifit more from the extra barrel length. What do you think?
Self government without self discipline will not work; Paul Harvey

Offline Freezer

  • Trade Count: (14)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
Re: long vs short
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2008, 01:15:26 PM »
     Large capacity cases need the longer barrels to burn the powder efficiently and completely.  This is the case with the 25-06 and 6.5-284(long action cartridges).  To put either in a short barrel is a waste.  I contend the same with many magnums including the short magnums.  If the cartridge is not designed for short barrels, like the new Ruger cartridge is, your wasting the cartridges potential.  The action only holds the cartridge in place so it shouldn't have any effect, only the cartridge design and barrel length.  The advantage of the short magnum and/or shot action is weight reduction.  The down side would be the liter the weapon the more the recoil.

Offline AtlLaw

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • A good woman, nice bike and fine guns!
Re: long vs short
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2008, 01:59:38 PM »
Thanks Freeze!  I wrote a reply to the OP last night but got kicked off-line before I could post it.  I'll do that now, I wrote it and by golly I'ma gonna post it!   ;D

Response to OP's question about the effect of action length on... velocity?

Uh, …say what?   ???  Let's see how I can put this... The action is just a machine that houses the cartridge and provides a mechanism for feeding it into, and locking it in, the barrel's chamber.  I think you are trying to make the equation: long action=long cartridge=more powder=more velocity potential, and then barrel length comes into play for optimising velocity.  Now that was probably fairly true, even though a rather unorthodox viewpoint, in days gone by, hence the "magnum" length actions for the really BIG cartridges.  However, for the last 50 years or so the push has been to get the aforesaid magnum velocities out of cartridges that fit in standard length and now short actions.

You would probably do better to consider whatever the "benefit" is you mention (velocity?) based on the interior ballistics of a particular load and with that information attempt to predict the optimum barrel length for that load and proceed from there.  But, swapping out and testing barrels in say, one inch increments to get the last few fps out of a load can get pretty pricey!   ;)

Or, you can grab whatever rifle-gun you got, load up some ammo, shoot it and see what you get.  If you don't like it, load up some more based on what the loading manual tells you will get you closer to the "benefit" you want!  Forget action length when you are talking exterior ballistics, you be trying to kiss the wrong end of that sheep!   ;D
Richard
Former Captain of Horse, keeper of the peace and interpreter of statute.  Currently a Gentleman of leisure.
Nemo me impune lacessit

                      
Support your local US Military Vets Motorcycle Club

Offline AtlLaw

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • A good woman, nice bike and fine guns!
Re: long vs short
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2008, 02:36:17 PM »
Hey Nod,
Check out this post by Lone Star dealing with the effect of barrel length on velocity.  I remember one of the articles he cites and it was very well done!

http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,147511.msg1098609149.html#msg1098609149
Richard
Former Captain of Horse, keeper of the peace and interpreter of statute.  Currently a Gentleman of leisure.
Nemo me impune lacessit

                      
Support your local US Military Vets Motorcycle Club

Offline Freezer

  • Trade Count: (14)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
Re: long vs short
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2008, 03:29:30 PM »
    Well said Atlaw,  I generally try to keep things simple.  The new short mags have a larger diameter cases and a harsh shoulder angle (PO Ackley's idea).  Though the case burns powder more efficiently you still need at least a 22" barrel to develop the velocity potential of the cartridge. There is a new short mag from Ruger my son and I read about but I have a mental block on it right now.  It is a short Mag that was designed specifically for short action short barreled rifles.  The data was quite impressive.  The only thing missing was recoil data!  I don't like heavy recoil, it makes me flinch!  And I'll say it again, the liter the weapon the heavier the recoil.
     As for short mags I have a wait and see attitude.  Which one will last?  I believe a 325 wsm is going to take off.  Other than that I'd hope the new Ruger does well.  A short action, short barreled efficient mag would be the guides dream gun for their clients if it doesn't kick too bad and cause his clients to flinch and miss or wound animals.  Many hunters of larger or tuffer game (pigs and Black Bear) would like it too but too.
     The other advantage of the short action is a short bolt throw.  This is good for fast second shots but I don't have any experience in that subject, I've never needed the second shot.  I'm not bragging I just wait and pick the shot or pass questionable on shots.

Offline deltecs

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Gender: Male
Re: long vs short
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2008, 04:23:27 PM »
     Large capacity cases need the longer barrels to burn the powder efficiently and completely.  This is the case with the 25-06 and 6.5-284(long action cartridges).  To put either in a short barrel is a waste.  I contend the same with many magnums including the short magnums.  If the cartridge is not designed for short barrels, like the new Ruger cartridge is, your wasting the cartridges potential.  The action only holds the cartridge in place so it shouldn't have any effect, only the cartridge design and barrel length.  The advantage of the short magnum and/or shot action is weight reduction.  The down side would be the liter the weapon the more the recoil.

I disagree with the 6.5x.284 as a long action case, it is not.  The 6.5x.284 can and is chambered in actions lengths of 2.850 OAL instead of standard length actions of 3.340.  I agree that both rounds having a large powder capacity get higher velocities with longer barrels regardless of action length.
Greg lost his battle with cancer last week on April 2nd 2009. RIP Greg. We miss you.

Greg
deltecs
Detente: An armed citizenry versus a liberal society
Opinion(s) are expressly mine alone and do not necessarily agree with those of GB or GBO mgmt.

Offline Brithunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2538
Re: long vs short
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2008, 12:42:04 AM »
I find this rather amusing  :D the whole short/long action thing is nothing more than a fad. Well in manually operated systems IMHO  ;) Same as Short barrels  ::) the same folks who insist on stumpy barrels in a rifle then happily go a-field with a shotgun after Pheasent/Quail with a gun that is far longer than their rifle which in unmanagably long  ;D

The funniest part of all of course is that the "old" guns in meduim powered cartridges, i.e 6.5x53R, 7x57, 303, 300 Savage etc all mild in recoil and modest in velocity have barrels of 25" and greater in length. Oh we are not talking about saddle carbines but rifles and mainly hunting rifles as target rifles of that period often had barrels 30" long. Now high intensity cartridges have 20" & 22" is a long one  ::) ....................................... Oh well I suppose a shorter barrel is cheaper to make and has less metal in it.

Offline roper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
Re: long vs short
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2008, 01:35:37 AM »
     Large capacity cases need the longer barrels to burn the powder efficiently and completely.  This is the case with the 25-06 and 6.5-284(long action cartridges).  To put either in a short barrel is a waste.  I contend the same with many magnums including the short magnums.  If the cartridge is not designed for short barrels, like the new Ruger cartridge is, your wasting the cartridges potential.  The action only holds the cartridge in place so it shouldn't have any effect, only the cartridge design and barrel length.  The advantage of the short magnum and/or shot action is weight reduction.  The down side would be the liter the weapon the more the recoil.

I disagree with the 6.5x.284 as a long action case, it is not.  The 6.5x.284 can and is chambered in actions lengths of 2.850 OAL instead of standard length actions of 3.340.  I agree that both rounds having a large powder capacity get higher velocities with longer barrels regardless of action length.


If you check Nosler # 6 reloading manual  SAAMI OAL for the 6.5x284 Norma is 3.310".  I build my 6.5x284 for the 142/140gr bullets  the Sierra 142gr is 1.970" long and my OAL is 3.200" it's build on a Win long action.  Problem you run into with the 284 case on a short action is you take needed case capacity to seat the bullet deeper.


Offline nodlenor

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
  • Gender: Male
Re: long vs short
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2008, 02:02:47 AM »
I didn't intend to discuss the merits of the long vs short action, I was just wondering if the larger capacity case would benifit more from a longer barrel than the case that used less powder. It would seem logical that the longer case would benifit more but things don't always follow logical thinking. I have both 270 win and 25-06 rem both having 22" bbls. and was wondering if they would benifit more, as far as velocity goes, than say a 308 win. by going to a 24" or 26" bbl. To make things more even I guess we should compare a 30-06 against a 308. I think it would be interesting to be able to compare different barrel lengths on cartriges to find the optimum barrel length for each, again speaking of velocity only.

Thanks AtlLaw; That throws a little light on the subject
Self government without self discipline will not work; Paul Harvey

Offline K.K

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 533
Re: long vs short
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2008, 02:41:44 AM »
I think that it also important to consider what, exactly you expect to do with the rifle. Here in the Northeast, shots are often short range, and in thick cover. Also, tracking is a very popular means to hunt. For this type of hunting, a short, handy rifle is of much more importance than long-range performance. Lots of people in my neck of the woods hunt with Remington pumps in .270-.30/06 and have the barrels lopped to 18 1/2 inches. These are obviously long-action cartridges, and they, of course lose some velocity, but the deer never know the difference.

As you guys already know, weight and handling trump long barrels and velocity when you are humping that rifle up the Adirondacks and your shots are quick and close. Just my 2 pennies.

K.K

Offline Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27106
  • Gender: Male
Re: long vs short
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2008, 04:18:07 AM »
Quote
As you guys already know, weight and handling trump long barrels and velocity when you are humping that rifle up the Adirondacks and your shots are quick and close. Just my 2 pennies.

While I won't argue with that as a general statement I will say that far too much is made of the long versus short action. The difference in say a Remington 700 long vs. short action is at most 1/2" and if you think that 1/2" in length makes a difference I say you're not thinking logically. The weight difference is equally tiny. How much can 1/2" of action really weight? An ounce or two at most which is nothing compared to the over all weight of either rifle.

Barrel length not action length is what makes a rifle handy or not in tight quarters. I'm one who really doesn't care for a barrel longer than 22" on a hunting rifle and have no problems at all stopping it at 20" and yeah we've got even shorter here like the old M7 with its 18.5" barrel.

I'm not one to feel I must milk every possible fps from my rifles. I'm of the mind set that even 200 fps is of little real value on the shots I make so action length and barrel length both are not determine for me by performance so much as whether I like that particular rifle and if so I'll get it regardless of barrel length, action length or cartridge length.

If you were blindfolded and handed a long action and short action Remington Model 700 you'd have absolutely no clue which you were holding when you held and shouldered them.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline MGMorden

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2093
  • Gender: Male
Re: long vs short
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2008, 06:35:38 AM »
I find this rather amusing  :D the whole short/long action thing is nothing more than a fad.

I think it's had more than enough staying power to move past the fad stage ;).

Anyways, as said, the action length doesn't really correspond to how long the rifle barrel needs to be optimally.  It's all about case capacity.  While short action catridges generally mean lower capacity, that's not always the case.

Either way though, I personally don't have a preference on action length.  Don't get me wrong if I have a short action cartridge I'd like it to be in a short action length rifle.  for short cartridges (of which there are naturally good ones), it's only natural for the action to not be any longer than it needs to be.  It'll feed better, it'll look better, and it'll weight just a smidge less.  Even if they're not high priorities (at least for me), those certainly aren't negatives.  But  truth be told, I don't actually OWN any short action cartridges :).  The closest I'd have is the .257 Roberts, which is just a little too long to be short action.

We all have our battles we want to fight though.  I know for example that TONS of dog drivers around here (where deer are hunted with buckshot) absolutely can't stand vent ribs on shotgun barrels.   Not sure why, as I don' t mind them at all.  Even though the market as a whole seems to have embraced them, these guys will pay a premium for any old gun that leaves off the vent rib.

I know one guy who has actually talked about buying a new Remington 870 and taking it to a gunsmith to see if the rib can just be removed and the barrel reblued.

Offline banen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: long vs short
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2008, 01:56:14 PM »
Same as Short barrels  ::) the same folks who insist on stumpy barrels in a rifle then happily go a-field with a shotgun after Pheasent/Quail with a gun that is far longer than their rifle which in unmanagably long  ;D


The difference in length is about how the two guns are used, not about handiness.  One you are swinging and pointing the other you are aiming.  A shotgun should be longer because you are swinging on a rapidly moving target. This is also why specially designed slug barrels are shorter than barrels designed for shot there is just no need for the extra length. 

Offline Brithunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2538
Re: long vs short
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2008, 10:21:02 PM »
Same as Short barrels  ::) the same folks who insist on stumpy barrels in a rifle then happily go a-field with a shotgun after Pheasent/Quail with a gun that is far longer than their rifle which in unmanagably long  ;D


The difference in length is about how the two guns are used, not about handiness.  One you are swinging and pointing the other you are aiming.  A shotgun should be longer because you are swinging on a rapidly moving target. This is also why specially designed slug barrels are shorter than barrels designed for shot there is just no need for the extra length. 

Please explain Robert Churchill's (the gun makers) "25" then. When most other makers were advising the use of 30" 12 bore shotgun barrels, Churchill developed his 25" gun with 25" barrels and the "Churchill Rib". Later 20" barresl became popular in the English gun trade that is until Shotguns needed to be licenced and the law put a minimum barrel length of 24" on a shotgun otherwise it's a firearm and requires a stricter licence. So a lot of fine English guuns became illegal overnight  ::).

Our forebears shot game and running game with long barrels rifles and developed " Battaue" sights for doing just that. Battaue sights are badckawards in that the sight is a pyramid  and not a vee, still popular in France where Roe Deer and Boar are shot "Battaue style" as they use driven techniques for both. I first encoutered them when I brought a Swinburns Patent Martini sporting rifle in 577/450 that was used in South Africa for shooting runing game. This had express sights, a stand for 100 yards then two leaves for 200 & 300 yards. Longer range was covered by a ladder marked to 800 yards of the Battaue style with ivory inserts to make them visable in low light. The front sight was an ivory bead, made of solid ivory not just ivory faced.

Offline banen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: long vs short
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2008, 04:17:39 PM »
Brithunter,
I admit that is some interesting history, but it is hard to argue with the current, predominant convention of longer shotguns.  You don't see too many world class trap and skeet shooters with 20" shotgun barrels.  I am sure there is someone out there that does it but they would be the exception not the norm.  There are certainly circumstances where short barrels are warrented on a shotgun, I 've used a 24" side-by-side (pretty short overall leanght for a shotgun) in the thick grouse woods and find it very effective but given a choice on things like ducks, pheasants, or doves I would prefer something more like 28" for a break action gun. 

As far as rifles go again I think the convention is pretty practical. 

Offline Brithunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2538
Re: long vs short
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2008, 12:07:38 AM »
Ahhh now we have part of the problem, targets verses quarry  ;),.

Now lets face it target shooting is about as real as soem celebreties in places like Hollywood  ::). Even Sporting is clay shooting has been ruined/perverted from it's original idea. Fortunately we still have some proper Sporting layouts to learn and practice real game practice  ;D. trap guns are pretty useless in the game fields same as a bench rest rifle is not much use for stalking deer with. Same goes for a Palma Match rifle.

Now my English SxS has 30" barrels as that was the fashion at the time it was made ( about the 1920's) my Baikal model 27 O/U has 28 barrels which is a good compromise for general purpose work and although it's only a 2 3/4" chambered gun I have used it for Wildfowl (Geese) whilsy  a friend who used to shoot a lot of clays and competively used a 32" barreled Browning B25 however for Pheasnent and Pigeon shooting he used a browning B25 with 28" barrels of his Berretta 20 bore Silver Pigeon. Although he could use the trap gun it was not teh right tool for the job as the stocking was wrong for live quarry but perfect for carefully planned clays.

Offline jro45

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: long vs short
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2008, 04:29:32 AM »
An inch shorter or longer can mean from 30 to 50 FPS. I've found this in my different lenght barrels on my rifles.
Like I be shooting a 24" barrel and I shoot it out and have another barrel put on that is 26".

Offline IOWA DON

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
Re: long vs short
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2008, 03:14:47 AM »
I've found it much easier to shoot well with a rifle with a more forward balance, so prefer longer heavier barrels for that reason alone. In addition, especially with cartridges with a lot of powder, there is some velocity gain. I was going to have a 7MM Weatherby rebarreled as it had some throat erosion and lost some accuracy. I figured why waste the opportunity to use the old barrel to do some experimenting. With a handload it chronographed around 3,100 fps (with a 160-grain bullet) with the barrel at its original 26-inch length. Hacksawing it down to 22 inches I found a velocity loss of about 40 fps per inch. And I don't like short actions. I prefer scope sights with long eye relief and like them positioned far forward, so the back of the scope is as far forward as the rear edge of the rifle's trigger guard. Using Leupold scopes it is generally possible to get the scope almost this far forward with a rifle with a long action. The limiting factor is that the front mounting ring is not far enough ahead. With a rifle with a short action, the front scope mounting ring is farther back and for me scope position is too far back. I have used 12-ga double barrel shotguns with 26-inch or 25-1/2-inch barrels for more than 30 years. A few years ago I got a 10-ga magnum double barrel shotgun (Ithaca NID). It has 28-inch barrels and a farther forward ballance because of the heavy barrels. I can hit better with it than with my 12-ga guns, and now wish they had 28-inch barrels.

Offline tuck2

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
Re: long vs short
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2008, 08:27:12 AM »
I start working the bolt action while the rifle is still recoiling. A one half or inch difference in the bolt length  is all sales hipe.  When I was a kid and got my first center fire 270 Win bolt action back in 1952  I tried to see how fast I could get a new round into the chamber and then make a aimed shot.  Later when I got a Sako  short  bolt action 222 Rem I tried the same thing.  When taking a second shot at a running jack rabbit or pronghorn the time  differences meaningless.  I have a pump Rem 22 LR and a bolt action Anschutz 22 LR.  It seams that I can get off a second shot with the pump rifle faster with a bolt action rifle.  --- Some rounds like the Winchester 264 Mag needs a 26 inch barrel to get any  140 Gr bullet velocity , cut the barrel down to 22 inches and  then a 270 Winchester shooting a 140 Gr bullet from a 24 inch barrel will have more velocity.  When loading a 165 Gr bullet into a 308 Win case to shoot in my Savage 99 lever action rifle I never am concerend about bullet velocity . When my kids went hunting with the rifle I loaded up a mild velocity round and it killed deer out to where they could hit them.  I at times I  have let others use the rifle and they still get deer with the mild load.  I have rifles with 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26 inch barrels.  The short barrels are handy in the woods and I use the longer barreled rifles in the wide open country.  The difference in velocity between  a 18 inch and 26 inch barrel in the 308 is meaning less.

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: long vs short
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2008, 10:41:29 AM »
volume of powder , burn rate and bore size all effect the optimum bbl length . action length effects it if a larger dia. and longer cart. can be used in the long action where it cannot be used in the short action because it won't fit !
IE: if ya have 2 rifles and one a short action and one a long action and the both are chambered to hold the same vol. of the same powder and both are the same bore size shooting the same bullet and primer . Note one a long thin case the other short and fat . you might find they like the same length bbl. , so action type wouldn't matter would it ?
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline Brithunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2538
Re: long vs short
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2008, 09:14:12 PM »
Ahhh Tuck,

    You getting into the realms of bore capacity  ;) 270 and 264 Win Mag are actually over bore and as such really quite inefficient  ::) and I like the 270 Win cartridge too  ;D The Bore cpacity is the amount of gas the bore can handle and it's why the 8x57 Mauser cartridge can run easily with the larger case capacity of the 30-06. The extra 0.015" of bore diameter makes it more efficient and yes I know the US makers down load ths cartridge  ::) but the original Spitzer (8x57JS) load had a 154 grain bullet at 2900fps whilst the 30-06 had a 150 grain bullet at 2700fps. Of course powders have improved since 1906  ;D.

    The original question was about barrel lengths not action lengths.

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: long vs short
« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2008, 01:25:22 AM »
YEA !bbl length was the org. ? 
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline AtlLaw

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • A good woman, nice bike and fine guns!
Re: long vs short
« Reply #22 on: July 17, 2008, 07:51:00 AM »
The original question was about barrel lengths not action lengths.

YEA !bbl length was the org. ?

My dear friends...
The OP's original post can be paraphrased as:

(paraphrased)
...because of the extra powder (qualifier), does the long action benefit more from the extra barrel length

So the subject is action length and the qualifier is based on the assumption that long action length = extra powder.  It was this invalid assumption that I addressed in my first post.  The question of the validity of that assumption being resolved, and the fact that an action cannot receive a benefit understood, the OP could have rephrased his query if his curiosity wasn't satisfied.  But let us return to the matter of the subject of the thread.

Note the title of this thread; long vs short.  The only time the OP uses these terms is with regard to actions.

Note also, as previously stated, that the OP applies the "benefit" he speaks of but does not define, to the action.

Finally, the OP prefaces his question with:
Quote from: nodlenor
I read about how barrel length effects bullet speed and was wondering if it effects long actions more or less than short actions

This indicates that he accepts as fact the statement that barrel length effects bullet speed.  His concern seems to be with the effect a given barrel length on different action lengths has on "bullet speed."  I grant you however, that it appears he makes the assumption in this phrase that barrel length DOES effect long actions and the post could be viewed as a compound guestion.  Fortunately the second sentence narrows the scope of the question by starting with the OP's position: "I think," and he ends it with: "what do you think?"

Be that as it may, there can be little doubt that the object of the thread was action length, not barrel length.

Now, let's consider his question, in one of its many possible permutations, concerning the effect upon "bullet speed" of the action length in conjunction with a given barrel length.  Since the OP didn't include parameters in his post certain assumptions must be made.  As an example, let us say I have a 22" barrel on a short action that gives me 2700 fps with my preferred load;  I want to use that load only; I also want a 20" barrel.  His question then ends up being: can I cut my short actioned rifle's 22" barrel to 20" and install it on a long action, add extra powder to the cartridge it is chambered for and expect to keep my 2700 fps?

This example was the basis for my suggestions, express or implied, to the OP that he quit "kissing the wrong end of that sheep," forget action length with regard to velocity (if indeed his question concerned velocity), consider the performance of specific cartridges with regard to the velocity/barrel length question and handload that cartridge to the performance level he desires; staying within published limits.

Of course, I could have just left it with ... say what!?  ???

 ;) ;D
Richard
Former Captain of Horse, keeper of the peace and interpreter of statute.  Currently a Gentleman of leisure.
Nemo me impune lacessit

                      
Support your local US Military Vets Motorcycle Club

Offline AtlLaw

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • A good woman, nice bike and fine guns!
Re: long vs short
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2008, 07:59:29 AM »
BTW, Nod's second post cleared this all up and introduced a subject I'd love to explore with y'all, but I'm to tired after being a smart a#@ in my last post!   ;D
Richard
Former Captain of Horse, keeper of the peace and interpreter of statute.  Currently a Gentleman of leisure.
Nemo me impune lacessit

                      
Support your local US Military Vets Motorcycle Club

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: long vs short
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2008, 08:08:44 AM »
atllaw , then size (length ) does matter in your opinion ?
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline AtlLaw

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • A good woman, nice bike and fine guns!
Re: long vs short
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2008, 08:59:22 AM »
atllaw , then size (length ) does matter in your opinion ?

Depends... what's the question!   ;D
Richard
Former Captain of Horse, keeper of the peace and interpreter of statute.  Currently a Gentleman of leisure.
Nemo me impune lacessit

                      
Support your local US Military Vets Motorcycle Club

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: long vs short
« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2008, 09:02:28 AM »
rifle bbls !
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline AtlLaw

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • A good woman, nice bike and fine guns!
Re: long vs short
« Reply #27 on: July 17, 2008, 09:14:45 AM »
I thought we were talking about rifle actions?  I know the size thing had somethig to do with some kinda action...  :P
Richard
Former Captain of Horse, keeper of the peace and interpreter of statute.  Currently a Gentleman of leisure.
Nemo me impune lacessit

                      
Support your local US Military Vets Motorcycle Club

Offline beemanbeme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2587
Re: long vs short
« Reply #28 on: July 17, 2008, 01:45:46 PM »
Since it has been decided that a longer barrel is benificial to velocity (at what point does deminishing returns kick in?? ), various writers have suggested that certain cartridges benefit from being loaded in a long action even though they work handily through a short action. --the .257Rbts & 7x57 come to mind-- The idea is the bullet can be set out long giving more powder room making, in essense, a larger cartridge. IMO, another variation of the AI craze and IMO giving about as much increase in results.  Whether or not it's worth the trouble would be something each shooter would have to decide for himself. 

Or has all this already been said?

Offline MGMorden

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2093
  • Gender: Male
Re: long vs short
« Reply #29 on: July 17, 2008, 04:12:41 PM »
Since it has been decided that a longer barrel is benificial to velocity (at what point does deminishing returns kick in?? ), various writers have suggested that certain cartridges benefit from being loaded in a long action even though they work handily through a short action. --the .257Rbts & 7x57 come to mind-- The idea is the bullet can be set out long giving more powder room making, in essense, a larger cartridge. IMO, another variation of the AI craze and IMO giving about as much increase in results.  Whether or not it's worth the trouble would be something each shooter would have to decide for himself. 

Or has all this already been said?

Not sure what you mean there.  Setting a bullet out "long" is generally only beneficial if you're got some throat erosion or a chamber cut a little too deep.  On a properly working rifle, setting a bullet out too far will cause it to engage the rifling before it's fired, which is a bad thing (it can cause dangerous pressure spikes as there's too much initial friction on the bullet at ignition).

Besides, .256 and 7x57 are both 57mm cartridges whereas a short action is generally based around a .308 Winchester (at 51mm) being the longest cartridge it will reliably feed.  That actually puts those two squarely between a .30-06 case (63mm) and a true short action.