Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
6.5-.284 Barrel Lengths, Short and Stiff? Powder burn efficiency?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rscott5028" data-source="post: 635530" data-attributes="member: 24624"><p>1st- <strong>accuracy</strong>- The question is simply whether a reasonable load workup is atainable with either one and the answer is.. yes. Both can be accurate. Perhaps one has an advantage from a bench or rail setup? But, not likely under hunting conditions. </p><p> </p><p>2nd- <strong>weight</strong>- all else being equal shorter is lighter and easier to handle. This can sometimes be a problem with a shotgun or carbine as too short can cause one to over-swing. Conversely, extra sight radius is an advantage with iron sights as in Palma. Weight can be your friend when your heart is pounding and you get ready to squeeze the trigger on a long range precision shot.</p><p> </p><p>3rd- <strong>cartridge powder burn efficiency</strong>- I'm not going to debate something Dan Lilja studied. Especially without seeing the study. I think the data is all present in Quick Load to do a pretty thorough study. </p><p> </p><p>4th- <strong>velocity</strong>- Someone asked a while back about 6.5x284 barrel length and another person indicated from their Quick Load calculations that while shorter is possible, 6.5x284 responds well to longer barrels as is often the case in F-class competition. Their conclusion from Quick Load was that if you desired a shorter barrel, you would do well to go with yet an even smaller case. </p><p> </p><p>My 25" Kreiger Palma 6.5x284 hunting rifle pretty much shoots the same velocity as my Savage 12F with a 30" barrel and with slightly less H4831sc powder. Is it the barrel length? Or, the barrel itself? Or, the chamber, etc? Is it optimal or sub-optimal? I don't know or much care. It simply shows that a 25" 6.5x284 can easily get 2900+ fps without pressure. Perhaps 260 Rem or 6.5x47 could do just as well with an even shorter barrel and longer barrel life? Either way, I'm happy with my setup and was able to use dies, brass, etc that I already had on hand. </p><p> </p><p>So, how did I end up at 25"? Well, it wasn't scientific for sure. It needed a setback after 800+ rounds. And, I wanted to cut off the end of the barrel where it had been tapped for palma sights. </p><p> </p><p>Would I recommend shorter? Probably not. </p><p> </p><p>-- richard</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rscott5028, post: 635530, member: 24624"] 1st- [B]accuracy[/B]- The question is simply whether a reasonable load workup is atainable with either one and the answer is.. yes. Both can be accurate. Perhaps one has an advantage from a bench or rail setup? But, not likely under hunting conditions. 2nd- [B]weight[/B]- all else being equal shorter is lighter and easier to handle. This can sometimes be a problem with a shotgun or carbine as too short can cause one to over-swing. Conversely, extra sight radius is an advantage with iron sights as in Palma. Weight can be your friend when your heart is pounding and you get ready to squeeze the trigger on a long range precision shot. 3rd- [B]cartridge powder burn efficiency[/B]- I'm not going to debate something Dan Lilja studied. Especially without seeing the study. I think the data is all present in Quick Load to do a pretty thorough study. 4th- [B]velocity[/B]- Someone asked a while back about 6.5x284 barrel length and another person indicated from their Quick Load calculations that while shorter is possible, 6.5x284 responds well to longer barrels as is often the case in F-class competition. Their conclusion from Quick Load was that if you desired a shorter barrel, you would do well to go with yet an even smaller case. My 25" Kreiger Palma 6.5x284 hunting rifle pretty much shoots the same velocity as my Savage 12F with a 30" barrel and with slightly less H4831sc powder. Is it the barrel length? Or, the barrel itself? Or, the chamber, etc? Is it optimal or sub-optimal? I don't know or much care. It simply shows that a 25" 6.5x284 can easily get 2900+ fps without pressure. Perhaps 260 Rem or 6.5x47 could do just as well with an even shorter barrel and longer barrel life? Either way, I'm happy with my setup and was able to use dies, brass, etc that I already had on hand. So, how did I end up at 25"? Well, it wasn't scientific for sure. It needed a setback after 800+ rounds. And, I wanted to cut off the end of the barrel where it had been tapped for palma sights. Would I recommend shorter? Probably not. -- richard [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
6.5-.284 Barrel Lengths, Short and Stiff? Powder burn efficiency?
Top