16" barreled 30-06?
- Thread starter Rmart30
- Start date
- Status
I tend to prefer barrels a little shorter, but 16" in that caliber is just too much of a good thing. About 20" is as short as I like to go with 30-06, about 18" with 308.
Ruger made their model 77 in 30-06 with an 18" barrel, my brother had one for a while. It was before I owned a chronograph so I can't say about speed, but it was loud. I've owned a couple of 20" rifles. There is some velocity loss from the shorter barrel, but not nearly as much as some folks will claim on the internet. At 20" it was pretty loud, but much more tolerable than the 18" gun.
Ruger made their model 77 in 30-06 with an 18" barrel, my brother had one for a while. It was before I owned a chronograph so I can't say about speed, but it was loud. I've owned a couple of 20" rifles. There is some velocity loss from the shorter barrel, but not nearly as much as some folks will claim on the internet. At 20" it was pretty loud, but much more tolerable than the 18" gun.
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
Those doing so. Its shooter will see a reduction in bullet speed. Around 50 to 100 fps per inch of barrel cut is the usual speed drop encountered.
My {1968-30-06} Remington model 742 Carbine model has a factory 18 1/2 barrel. Its barrel has a abundant amount of muzzle noise, flash, and too barrel lift. So much so, I purposely retired my Carbine from use a year after its purchasing. I may someday get the erg to shoot it. But I highly doubt that will take place anytime soon.
I do have a friend who took his rifle to a (professional store front gunsmith) had his Remington model 700 270 cal ADL cut to 16".
He has told me more than once his rifle lost some of its accuracy and especially so on distant targets. When asked if it was worth it (cut his barrel shorter to carbine length for his convenience)_ "absolutely not!!!" was his response.
My {1968-30-06} Remington model 742 Carbine model has a factory 18 1/2 barrel. Its barrel has a abundant amount of muzzle noise, flash, and too barrel lift. So much so, I purposely retired my Carbine from use a year after its purchasing. I may someday get the erg to shoot it. But I highly doubt that will take place anytime soon.
I do have a friend who took his rifle to a (professional store front gunsmith) had his Remington model 700 270 cal ADL cut to 16".
He has told me more than once his rifle lost some of its accuracy and especially so on distant targets. When asked if it was worth it (cut his barrel shorter to carbine length for his convenience)_ "absolutely not!!!" was his response.
Fla_dogman
New member
I have a Remy 7600 with an 18" it's handy to carry but brutal to shoot. And yes it's impressive to see the fireball that comes out at night
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk
Internet nonsense.
There have been multiple tests proving otherwise for those who will do a little research. Velocity loss is not linear. A 30-06 class cartridge is pretty efficient with around 22-24" of barrel. Between 20" up to about 24" you'll see 20-25 fps difference/inch on average. As the barrel length gets longer the speeds increase in smaller and smaller increments. By the time you get to 26"+ barrel lengths the differences will often be in single digits per inch.
But as you get shorter than 20" you'll often see velocity drops in larger and larger increments. You might actually see 30-40 fps difference between 17" and 16".
Here are the test results of several big game cartridges that had the barrels cut from 27" down to 21". Most of them just barely lost 100 fps after having 6" removed from the barrels. Granted none of these went to 16". But the average is no where near 50-100 fps.
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/short-barrel-magnum-velocity-19346/
I have a Remington 7600 Police Model in .308 with a 16 1/2" bbl. Also a .357 Maximum with 16" bbl. Either will blow chronographs away two lanes on each side of my bench when fired.
Any deer killed under 50 yards is medium rare by the time you get to it.
I would pass on a 30-06 with that short a barrel unless you only intended to shoot cast loads at cast load speeds.
Any deer killed under 50 yards is medium rare by the time you get to it.
I would pass on a 30-06 with that short a barrel unless you only intended to shoot cast loads at cast load speeds.
Pathfinder45
New member
If the rifle is cheap, cheap enough where the cost of rebarrelling will still be a good deal, then fine. Otherwise, it's ridiculous. There's got to be half a million Remington 700's in 30-06 or 270 sitting on the used gun racks of all the buy-sell-trade shops and gun-shows across the country, waiting for someone to buy them. To me, a 30-'06 ought to have about 22" to 24" of barrel. I'd sooner consider longer than shorter. With a 30-30, it's OK to go down to 20" for a carbine, but no shorter. If a shorter barrel is called for, it's time for a revolver.
Back to the OP; if the rifle was only $200 and it had a nice Walnut stock, I might be tempted a little, but would probably pass. But then, I like even a cheap, post-64 Winchester, better than a Remington 700.
Back to the OP; if the rifle was only $200 and it had a nice Walnut stock, I might be tempted a little, but would probably pass. But then, I like even a cheap, post-64 Winchester, better than a Remington 700.
FrankenMauser
New member
The "general rules" and 'rules of thumb' for velocity loss are not very good guides. I've chopped a few barrels, and read many reports from people that have chronographed before and after a chop.
More often than not, even a 4" loss in barrel length is only worth 60-80 fps for many cartridges.
My hybrid/custom .444 Marlin, for example, is running faster with its 19" barrel, than most people get from the factory 20", 22", and even some 24" barrels.
My velocity loss from chopping 3 inches? .... Less than 40 fps.
I just chopped a Marlin 336 to 16.25" thinking I'd do a Marauder-esque build with it. The project went sideways and took another path, but I chronographed some loads before and after the barrel chop.
Overall, I only lost about 100 fps. One of the more extreme examples:
Win 170 gr factory load: 2252 fps @ 20"; 2110 fps @ 16".
I really don't have a problem with "slow" bullets in almost any cartridge, though. Most of my recent acquisitions and rifle builds have been 'big and slow', or 'big enough and slow'. (.30-30, .444 Marlin, .458 SOCOM [really slow], .475 Tremor [slight edge on the SOCOM], .35 Whelen, and in the non-rifle realm, .480 Ruger.)
As long as the bullet still has enough velocity for a clean kill, it's good enough for me. And if that comes paired with a rifle that's ridiculously short and nice to pack through the trees... even better!
More often than not, even a 4" loss in barrel length is only worth 60-80 fps for many cartridges.
My hybrid/custom .444 Marlin, for example, is running faster with its 19" barrel, than most people get from the factory 20", 22", and even some 24" barrels.
My velocity loss from chopping 3 inches? .... Less than 40 fps.
Cut your Saddle Ring Carbine to 16" and they'll be back in their own classes, again.
I just chopped a Marlin 336 to 16.25" thinking I'd do a Marauder-esque build with it. The project went sideways and took another path, but I chronographed some loads before and after the barrel chop.
Overall, I only lost about 100 fps. One of the more extreme examples:
Win 170 gr factory load: 2252 fps @ 20"; 2110 fps @ 16".
I really don't have a problem with "slow" bullets in almost any cartridge, though. Most of my recent acquisitions and rifle builds have been 'big and slow', or 'big enough and slow'. (.30-30, .444 Marlin, .458 SOCOM [really slow], .475 Tremor [slight edge on the SOCOM], .35 Whelen, and in the non-rifle realm, .480 Ruger.)
As long as the bullet still has enough velocity for a clean kill, it's good enough for me. And if that comes paired with a rifle that's ridiculously short and nice to pack through the trees... even better!
Last edited:
- Status