long barrel vs shorter

[mushka]

Barrel length is a personal thing I believe. There are benefits and draw backs to both and one just have to think about what he wants to deal with, with a gun. I'm a short guy and find long barrels inconvenient to load and most are barrel heavy for me so I tend to stick with medium to short barrel rifles. My Garner 62-20 fowler is long but pretty light weight so I get along with it ok.

 

[buckheart]

The man isn't vertically challenged, he's of average height. It's his gun that is long and he's loading it the proper way. If you look closely you'll see he is actually a step down from where the rifle butt is.
I load that Hudson Valley fowling gun pictured above the same way.
This isn't hard concept to grasp .
.

Exactly. Count the rows of beveled siding next to him. He's somewhere maybe 5'10" -6'

 

[longcruise]

Black powder does take a bit of time to burn. It's not instantaneous, and is slower than smokeless. A longer barrel allows for a more complete burn. With today's cleaner powders, it's less of an issue, but still is a factor.

Maybe you can provide some authentic testing and information to support that

 

[longcruise]

The man isn't vertically challenged, he's of average height

I see that now. When I saw the pic I concluded that he was short rather than that the rifle was long.

 

[longcruise]

In Theory every extra inch adds about 40 FPS to the ball. There is diminishing returns on to much powder, a old Dixie catalog said to shoot over snow, ot a white sheet, load until you saw unburned powder. That was your max charge.

The Dixie catalog has always been full of interesting and useful information, but also some old wives tales of unknown origination. Shooting over snow is one of them. When BP burns it produces approximately 40% of it's original weight in ash. It doesn't all remain in the barrel as fouling. It's blown out the Muzzle. I personally have never seen this accumulate on snow and I've fired many shots in snow conditions. But, OTOH, it would typically be a shot at game and the game would be the point of focus.

I think there is a diminishing return on increasing powder charges but wonder how far one would need to go to reach a point of no further increase in velocity and beyond that point to a point of diminishing velocity? As previously stated, I was unable to get there with 120 grains in a 45. I'll leave it to others to shoot heavier charges and show us their results.

 

[Tenring]

The longer the barrel the more time the projectile has to hang around in side going down the rifling slowing it and causing even mor slow me down DRAG, This is the key word that’s why you don’t normally see a .22 with barrels over 22” because of drag it’s not going to get any faster and by the time it leaves the crown those gases that are pushing it are almost petered out. Just my two cents…

 

[longcruise]

The longer the barrel the more time the projectile has to hang around in side going down the rifling slowing it and causing even mor slow me down DRAG, This is the key word that’s why you don’t normally see a .22 with barrels over 22” because of drag it’s not going to get any faster and by the time it leaves the crown those gases that are pushing it are almost petered out. Just my two cents…

So if we assume that description is correct, then a 12" barrel should, all else being equal, shoot faster than a 20"??

Drag! So the resistance to movement (drag) slows the velocity as it moves toward the Muzzle. The only reference I have to that is the effect of that is actual testing I did that showed, all else being equal, that a tighter patch (greater resistance or drag) produced higher velocity. One might conclude that tighter prevented blowby but the patches from neither showed any such indication.

 

[Freedom]

Maybe you can provide some authentic testing and information to support that

Black powder is very slow. I'm surprised at how many challenges we face on this forum alone,...just to get a little truth spread as fact.
Let's look at the 204 Ruger, 220swift etc.. almost 5,000 ft per second(!) with a tiny pinch of smokeless powder and a little 18" to 24 inch barrel. We can't even get close those speeds with black powder even using 500 or a 1000 grains of black powder,.. in a 50 inch barrel.

There's a fun ballistics roundball table that's been circulating lately. We can enter all the parameters of powder and barrel length and it gives a pretty accurate result when I compare it to my personal testing with a chronograph.
Here it is.....
https://www.p-max.uk/cgi-bin/black_powder.cgi

 

[HSmithTX]

Any velocity vs length discussion is anecdotal at best without a chronograph or penetration testing in a controlled medium.

 

[longcruise]

Let's look at the 204 Ruger.. over 5,000 ft per second(!) with a tiny pinch of smokeless powder and a little 18" to 24 inch barrel.

Let's look at that a little more closely .

smokeless powders do in fact burn much slower than BP. Smokeless is produced in various compounds by all the makers with a broad range of burn speeds. Even the faster burning such as 231 burn slower than BP. The key to smokeless efficiency is in fact the slower burn rate. Peak pressure of smokeless is delayed by its slower burn rate . BP burn rate is much quicker. The pressure curve is near instant. However, it is not an efficient propellant. That's what allows us to use such a broad range of BP loads in our guns. Smokeless on the other hand has a much higher efficiency but due to its slower burn rate it doesn't release its gasses as quickly. However, the burn rate of smokeless increases as pressure increases. That's why one must carefully scale smokeless and not go beyond established limits. It doesn't take much over those limits to result in destruction of the gun.

We can't even get close those speeds with black powder even using 500 or a 1000 grains of black powder,.. in a 50 inch barrel.

I don't know who has done that testing but I'd like to have seen it.....from a distance.

I'm surprised at how many challenges we face on this forum alone,...just to get a little truth spread as fact.

Yeah, I was thinking that exact same thing

 

[büchsenmacher64]

Let's look at that a little more closely .

smokeless powders do in fact burn much slower than BP. Smokeless is produced in various compounds by all the makers with a broad range of burn speeds. Even the faster burning such as 231 burn slower than BP. The key to smokeless efficiency is in fact the slower burn rate. Peak pressure of smokeless is delayed by its slower burn rate . BP burn rate is much quicker. The pressure curve is near instant. However, it is not an efficient propellant. That's what allows us to use such a broad range of BP loads in our guns. Smokeless on the other hand has a much higher efficiency but due to its slower burn rate it doesn't release its gasses as quickly. However, the burn rate of smokeless increases as pressure increases. That's why one must carefully scale smokeless and not go beyond established limits. It doesn't take much over those limits to result in destruction of the gun.

I don't know who has done that testing but I'd like to have seen it.....from a distance.

Yeah, I was thinking that exact same thing

Well said Longcruise.

 

[BuffaloSoldier]

Dreging up an old memory here. Remember watching episode of "Daniel Boone", he was at gunsmith's shop, ordering a Rifle. Showing the 'smith how long he wanted the barrel. Not sure what weapon he was holding, but remember that he wanted that barrel about 2 feet longer in the finished rifle!! But that was Hollywood, so who really knows??

 

[1:66 twisted]

Barrel length, Hunting, for me short or long doesn't matter. Shooting at the range, for me short or long doesn't matter. Like them all.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Thingamajiggy]

I have and still shoot both long and short barreled guns but another positive for me with the longer guns are my aging eyes. Can see the sights a little better on a long gun with the longer gap between front and rear sights. With the shorter barreled guns, like my 24" deerstalker, if I focus on the front sight, the back sight about disappears where as on a longer 40ish inch barrel, I can still see the back, maybe a little blurry but usable.

 

[longcruise]

That eye sight thing is more and more a problem for me. On a good day with good light it's less problem. I'm told I have cataracts that will only get worse...so...

My present guns are all 28" and 32" but I'm in the process of upgrading to a 42" 40 cal and next will be a 42 or 44 inch 54 or 58. Might get me a few more years

 

[Relic shooter]

BEWARE OF THE FELLOW WHO SHOOTS ONE RIFLE FOR COMPETITION & HUNTING

During my younger shooting days I was 6' 3" tall & weighed 210 lbs. with back issues.
Over the past 60 years I collected all styles of ML rifles & pistols.
Long heavy fullstocks were fun to shoot with X-stick or bench matches but mostly adorned my walls.

When it came to spending full days competing in matches or hunting in mountains nothing fit all of my requirements better than a lightweight short barreled big bore rifle with deeper fast twist rifling & preferably with swamped or tapered barrels, or my French style .20ga. smoothbore or trade gun.

For long range competition & hunting big game my orig. .70 cal Jaeger that weighed in at just 7.25 lbs. became my all-round favorite & a light halfstock .58 cal. English sporting rifle was a close 2nd.
The barrels on both of these original rifles had deep fast twist rifling averaging one turn in length of their barrels & rifling between .012-.014 deep. The deeper fast twist rifling was commonly used during the 17-1800s by mostly European gunmakers because it enabled tack driving accuracy with both light & heavy hunting loads.
Quality American gunmakers like the Hawken brothers also used this style of rifling.

All depends on what style & weight of rifle fits your particular needs..

 

[tenngun]

Do you even know what it is?

Looks like a Hudson valley fowler, cr 1650-1700

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

Looks like a Hudson valley fowler, cr 1650-1700

DING DING DING DING! We have a winner! Ben Coogle 72" 11 bore barrel 1 3/8" at the breech. English dog lock, curly maple stock. Weighs 11 lbs.

 

[tenngun]

Any velocity vs length discussion is anecdotal at best without a chronograph or penetration testing in a controlled medium.

Lyman did extensive testing with different charges on different barrel lengths, and different calibers.
There is no hard and fast rule, but on average about ten feet per second per inch. With longer barrels getting better performance hrom larger powder charges. Moderate charges can loose velocity in longer barrels, and large charges can gain 20 fps per inch, but even at 42” some charges can loose velocity in longer vs shorter
In terms of performance a particular charge in a 42” barrel gun can give the same velocity as a bigger charge in a short gun

 

[tenngun]

Let's look at that a little more closely .

smokeless powders do in fact burn much slower than BP. Smokeless is produced in various compounds by all the makers with a broad range of burn speeds. Even the faster burning such as 231 burn slower than BP. The key to smokeless efficiency is in fact the slower burn rate. Peak pressure of smokeless is delayed by its slower burn rate . BP burn rate is much quicker. The pressure curve is near instant. However, it is not an efficient propellant. That's what allows us to use such a broad range of BP loads in our guns. Smokeless on the other hand has a much higher efficiency but due to its slower burn rate it doesn't release its gasses as quickly. However, the burn rate of smokeless increases as pressure increases. That's why one must carefully scale smokeless and not go beyond established limits. It doesn't take much over those limits to result in destruction of the gun.

I don't know who has done that testing but I'd like to have seen it.....from a distance.

Yeah, I was thinking that exact same thing

Black does seem to top out at about 2600 fps. Back in the 60s Dixie tried long barrels in .40 caliber 1” barrel and that was the top they could get