Ruger Ranch predator vs Ranch 223 opinion?

I think it is very likely that the Predator will be more accurate, but not because of the barrel length. But every gun is an individual, there are no guarantees and I wouldn't expect a huge difference either way. At least not at 200 yards. Get out to longer ranges and you reach a point where the extra speed from the longer barrel matters.

Between myself and 2 friends we own five Predators in 308, 6.5 CM, and 223. We also own several standard and Ranch rifles in 223, 5.56, and 308. The Predators as a rule shoot better.
 
I have the Ranch in .300 BLK, and I like the shorter overall length of the rifle. My Ranch rifle has proven to be a 1.5 MOA rifle at 300 yards with several different factory loads 115-220 grains. What kind of accuracy standard are you looking for?

The rifles both have the same potential for accuracy, as they use the same action, trigger, stock, and manufacturing process. The Predator will be slightly heavier because of the longer and slightly thicker barrel profile. Being slightly heavier overall and the heavier barrel profile not heating up as fast probably gives a slight accuracy advantage.
 
Like Bfglowkey says(differently. snicker.), barrel length has nothing to do with accuracy.
The only difference between a Ranch Predator and Ranch is the barrel length. Weight difference is 1/2 a pound.
 
clear

Just so we're all on the same page, there's the Ruger American Ranch, and the Ruger American Predator.

As far as I know, there is not an American Ranch Predator.
 
I've been finding that shorter barrels are more accurate, but when you go from 22 inches to 16 inches with .223... you lose a lot of velocity and therefore energy.

If all you're looking at shooting is varmints, nbd, if you're looking for this as an anti-personnel rifle, it's been well noted that 18 inch and longer barrels are most effective for .223.

I think the Predator is the better choice, it's a very accurate rifle. A 16 inch bolt action just doesn't make sense to me unless you live in less than free states.
 
TruthTellers said:
but when you go from 22 inches to 16 inches with .223... you lose a lot of velocity and therefore energy.
Click to expand...
.223/5.56 test 26" to 6" barrel velocity loss. You'll loose an average 30 fps per inch with 55 grain bullets, and it'll cost you around 100 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle.

I don't think I'd worry about it too much, but some things bother other people more than me. Of course I'm willing to give up some velocity for better handling characteristics. Plus it sounds like the OP made his choice.
 
"You'll loose an average 30 fps per inch with 55 grain bullets,"

In the test I ran, the diff was closer to 50 fps/inch between 20" and 16" using an average velocity of the 20" barrels compared to the average from 16" barrels.
 
What powder used could factor in explaining the difference lost from round to round testing. If Mobuck used Varget and Taylor used Win 748 for example. Shorter barrels USUALLY require faster burning powders. I am sure some obscure rifle/round exists that will make me look the fool :)
 
Mobuck said:
In the test I ran, the diff was closer to 50 fps/inch between 20" and 16" using an average velocity of the 20" barrels compared to the average from 16" barrels.
Click to expand...

Still only talking around 150 ft-lbs of energy difference at the muzzle from your results. Again not enough to worry about IMO. It also proves that everyone's barrel is different, and overall results will vary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top