Please help a noob (moron)

[ballman 0]

Please help me out. I know that there are several postings on this subject, but I have been unable to find the answer I am looking for. I am looking to purchase a saiga .308 and am not sure what barrel length to get. I have a couple of .223 already and one of the reasons that I am looking at .308 is for the longer range capability. I realize that I should not expect PSG accuracy from a $400 rifle, but was wondering if any one has done any comparison shooting past 300 yards. It seems that the 16'' is the most accurate at 100 yards and if the accuracy of the 22'' is not better over distance I really see no reason for a longer barrel. I would really appreciate any info anyone can provide.

 

 

Thank you,

[BobAsh 582]

There's a lot of discussion on the subject, but you'll probably never get a definitive answer.

 

Personally I prefer the 16" at any range.

[Wyatt 0]

Well, I am new to the Saiga but a longer barrel will offer slightly more range just for the added length of the tube. I would think a longer barrel be slightly more accurate shooting off hand because of the increased sight radius too.

I like the shorter barrel for portability.

[BobAsh 582]

...a longer barrel will offer slightly more range just for the added length of the tube.

Well, the sight radius issue would be valid if you're not going to use a glass sight, but you probably are, right?

 

As I said, this is hotly debated, but I don't think the extra length is worth it. Here's a link to a good Guns Magazine article on the subject:The Long and the Short of it.

 

 

For those who don't want to read it, here are the results: (I tried to edit this to be readable but it won't work for some reason)

 

Date Barrel Temp. 100 Yards 200 Yards

 

4-10-'03 24" 73F 5/8" 1 1/4"

5-6-'03 22" 78F 1/2" 1 1/4"

6-16-'03 20" 78F 1" 1 1/8"

6-28-'03 18" 79F 3/4" 1 1/4"

7-6-'03 16" 77F 1/2" 2 1/8"

 

Date 300 Yards Velocity Velocity Lost

 

4-10-'03 2 3/8" 3,014 fps n/a

5-6-'03 1 1/16" 2,937 fps 77 fps

6-16-'03 2 3/16" 2,827 fps 110 fps

6-28-'03 2 3/16" 2,709 fps 118 fps

7-6-'03 2 1/4" 2,667 fps 42 fps

 

There are many theories about why the shorter barrel performs so well- the most likely is based on harmonic vibration; the longer the barrel the lower the period. Low freqencies have more area under the curve for a given magnitude, therefore the barrel will be more affected.

Edited October 31, 2007 by BobAsh

[ballman 0]

Yes, I plan to scope it. Thanks for the really good info. I appreciate it. I guess that pretty much answers my question.

[loki0629 55]

My theory as to why the shorter barrel performs so well is that it is less affected by the piston traveling backwards in the gas tube. With the longer barrel the projectile is in there a split second longer whereas in the shorter barrel it is already airborne.

 

I am the furthest thing from a mechanical engineer and it has been a very long time since I took physics in high school. So basically there is a high probability that I know nothing about this topic at all.

 

That being said, I opted for the 16" barrel also and am very happy with it.

[BobAsh 582]

Well, I am a mechanical engineer- but it all boils down to observation and theory.

 

The "barrel contact with the bullet" theory you mention is another popular one and probably has some merit.

[Bvamp 604]

the main benefit of a longer barrel is twofold, from how ive understood it, and only two fold from how ive understood it.

 

heavier barrel, more inertia to cause upward/recoil travel, thus less human error

longer barrel and less wasted unburnt powder, therefore higher velocity, longer range.

 

other than that? I have never heard another arguement that held any salt that favored a longer barrel. (i think I said that right)

[shaneman153a 39]

I chopped my 22 to 16" and I'm certain it's more accurate. I never documented any type of comparison (bench shooter I am NOT) but it seems more accurate. Definately more sexy.

 

Bvamp - Changing your avatar back to an old one doesn't count as new

Edited October 31, 2007 by shaneman153a

[BobAsh 582]

Bvamp is correct, the increased mass of the longer gun will reduce recoil.

 

But as you can see from the data, the 16" barrel was only 42 fps slower than the 24", whereas the 20" and 18" were over 100 fps slower. Something is going on there.

[BobAsh 582]

Definately more sexy.

 

Yeah, I hate a really long gun.

[ballman 0]

Thanks for the input. Looks like I will be going with the 16. I like the way it looks and will probably handle so I'm happy that it should perform about the same as the 22.

 

I'm wouldn't pass for a sniper even on Halloween.

[gunnysmith 4]

Bvamp is correct, the increased mass of the longer gun will reduce recoil.

 

But as you can see from the data, the 16" barrel was only 42 fps slower than the 24", whereas the 20" and 18" were over 100 fps slower. Something is going on there.

 

 

4-10-'03 2 3/8" 3,014 fps n/a

5-6-'03 1 1/16" 2,937 fps 77 fps

6-16-'03 2 3/16" 2,827 fps 110 fps

6-28-'03 2 3/16" 2,709 fps 118 fps

7-6-'03 2 1/4" 2,667 fps 42 fps

 

 

3014

2667

347 fps slower

Group sizing is not that much different

4-10-'03 24" 73F 5/8" 1 1/4"

5-6-'03 22" 78F 1/2" 1 1/4"

6-16-'03 20" 78F 1" 1 1/8"

6-28-'03 18" 79F 3/4" 1 1/4"

7-6-'03 16" 77F 1/2" 2 1/8"

Think I'll stick with the 21.8" barrel

Edited November 1, 2007 by gunnysmith

[BobAsh 582]

Yeah I see your point, I wonder why their math is so off. Maybe it's temperature-compensated.

 

Still, grouping is good for the shorty.

[ballman 0]

I think that the drop in fps was from each previous barrel length so that the 16 was only 42fps slower than the 18.

[ballman 0]

Thats still just a shade under what Hornady posts for .308 velocity on their ballistics tables. Not sure what barrel lenght they were using but I bet it wasn't a 16.

[BobAsh 582]

I think that the drop in fps was from each previous barrel length so that the 16 was only 42fps slower than the 18.

 

Correct! I didn't notice that when I skimmed it the first time. The cumulative velocity drop is 347 fps as the Gunny attested.

[Voodoods 0]

Hi - I'm new here, but I've seen these discussions before and I thought I would weigh in - its not about accuracy - the biggest difference is going to be ENERGY - the M4 (.223 platform) is considered underpowered in its current configuration because it simply doesn't carry that round to the same energy levels the old 20inch gun provided... hence you had Blackhawk down where targets were getting hit several times by our guys and getting back up - and this feedback continues to come in.

 

So much so that, the military is looking for a beefier round to put the smack back into that shorty config.

 

So, IMHO, stopping power, not accuracy is the deciding factor on whether to go short.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

i'm sure the stopping power of the .308 isn't going to suffer at sub 300 yrds with a 16 vs 21.8" barrel.

 

On the army issue, i agree, they need to find a beefier round, how about a 7.62x39 on an AK platform? No, no no, we couldn't do that, the AK is teh Suck in accuracy.