Would there be enough difference in performance between a 16in and a 20in to justify the cost for a hunting rifle.
Printable View
Would there be enough difference in performance between a 16in and a 20in to justify the cost for a hunting rifle.
There is about a 150 fps difference between the 16" and 20" barrel with a 140gr bullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by wigenhead
Kind of a loaded question. That 150fps would mean very little at 100 to 200 yards. Stretch that out to 500+ and it gets to be a big deal. What are your intended targets and projected ranges?
I know out to 300 yds its pretty dead on. I was thinking that to strecth that out say 500, I would need more barrel. I have not been on the range enough to know.
It isn't so much that you are going to see any large increase in accuracy with a longer barrel but if you want to minimize drop and above all maintain as much energy as you can down range you'll want those extra few inches. If you are just shooting paper don't worry about it much. You'll suffer more drop and wind drift will be increased but you'll still have a great shooting gun. You are already way below what most people would shoot at 26". It is all in what you intend to shoot and how far that is really going to dictate what you should go with.
Not sure what the OP means by "justify the cost for a hunting rifle", but if you have a .260 in either 16" or 20", the ballistic difference won't make or break its suitability for hunting.
The velocity of a 140 gr .260 bullet at the muzzle of a 16 in barrel will be about the velocity 50-100 yds downrange of a 20 in barrel.
For the same energy, shots from the 16 inch barrel should be taken that much closer.
Keep in mind recoil and muzzle blast will be greater with the 16 in.
Thanks for your input. I will do a little more shooting at some of the longer distances and see where this rifle is hitting, then see if there is really a need.