shorter barrel?

[younghunter12]

Hi. I'm looking at a ruger m77 mark II compact or the ruger m77 mark II ultra light. I heard that the shorter barrel makes the fps lower. It's only 4 inches shorter but is that going to effect  the fps very much? If it would be 500 fps I would get the ultra light. If it would only take off say 100 fps I'd take the compact. Thanks. Younghunter12.

[victorcharlie]

The wife's gun is a Ruger 77 ultra lite in .243 Winchester and a Nikon fixed 4X scope.  It's not a mark II, but the old style tang saftey model.  I hunt it more than she does.....an average group is about an inch with 100 grain winchester silver tips.

I'm not sure I understand your question, but usually you can subtract 25 to 50 feet per second for each inch removed from the published stats.  So, if your load is listed with a 22" barrel and you go to a 20" barrel which the ultra lite has you could expect a loss of 50 to 100 fps.  This loss is insignificant.  

Don't get caught up in the velocity hype......if a fellow needs more power, then the thing to do is go up in caliber and make a bigger hole.  Velocity extends the range of the caliber.  Hit where you need to and things work out well.  No caliber, at any velocity can cure a poor hit, so get something that you can learn to shoot well and 99% of your problems are solved.

I think the ultra light is an excellent choice.  Her's has a limbsaver recoil pad and the felt recoil is tamed to the level of a .223.

You may need to have the stock cut down a little depending on how the gun fits......with the rifle resting in the crook of your elbow, the trigger finger should curl around the trigger.......If it doesn't it's to long......this is a general statement, and over simplifies stock fit greatly.  Felt recoil is greatly reduced if the gun fits the shooter properly.

[Slamfire]

The reason moderate velocity cartridges kill all out of proportion to their size is that the bullets don't expand as fast and actually get inside before the violence occurs, where at ultra velocities the expansion takes place on the surface. That last fact is the reason for all the premium bullets everybody is so enamored with.
With a .260 or 7mm-08 the 16.5 inch Ruger compact barrel shoots plenty fast enough to kill the same game they'll kill with longer barrels, just not as far away.  :wink:

[Doe]

You need to pick up (shooting Times ) September/06 and read about ruger Scout Style bolt gun. it 16.5" barrel  still retain it nominal velocity by 95.5% out of the 7-08 compared to the 22". With today new gun powder and better bullets you don't have to worry too much.

[ScoutMan]

Young,

I have the Compact in 308. My load is the 165 gr. Nosler Partition behind 42 gr. of 3031. I guestimate that I am getting about 2500 fps. Figure a loss of  about 25 fps over the manuals and their test barrel length. If you stay with the fast burning powders the velocity loss is minimal.

For a thoughtful treatise on this, get a repriint of Jeff Cooper's article "The Carbine Compromise". It was first published in the 10/66 Issue of Guns and Ammo.

Hope that helps.


SM

[dw06]

I also have a compact 308 remington 600.My load is 150gr nosler partition with 43.5 grs 3031,best load I've found in that rifle and has killed many deer over the years.Get a good load and shoot it allot,and you will forget about velocity as you will be too busy dragging deer.

[Don Fischer]

With a .260 or 7mm-08 the 16.5 inch Ruger compact barrel shoots plenty fast enough to kill the same game they'll kill with longer barrels, just not as far away

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


I think that they will still kill as far away as you can hit them! The theory is that longer barrel's give more velocity making hitting at long range easier. That's not entirely true. Higher velocity flattens trajectory and give's higher energy level but when you get to where you have to hold over the target it becomes a matter of how well you shoot. At normal game hunting ranges, 200yds and less, a loss of 200fps isn't going to effect the outcome much in modern high intensity cartridges.

I don't have a 260 and have never shot one. Nosler claims over 2900fps with their 125gr bullet from a 24" barrel. Take off 5 1/2" and call it 50 fps per inch of lost barrel and you'll still have 2625 fps. That'll work out to about 1900 ft lbs energy. At 2600 fps mv you'll still have right at 1100 ft lbs energy at 300 yds at 2044 fps remaining velocity. That is more than enough to kill a deer at even 300 yds, which it doesn't sound like your ready to shoot at yet.

The thing I find most important about barrel length is the handling quality the length of barrel account's for. Shorter barrels seem to handle quicker but don't swing as well. Longer barrels swing better and hold a bit better with the extra weight they put out front of the balance point of the rifle. A comparisson between the two might be, the longer barrel would make a good open country rifle while the short barrel a better brush country rifle. I like barrels between 20" and 24" in hunting rifles and generally 22" barrels.

Another thing to concider is that the shorter barrel gun is likely going to weigh less and as a result transmit more felt recoil.The difference in weight saving going to the lighter rifle is not that great. The difference in handling qualities is.