Quote:
Originally Posted by miclo18d
Turning someone's head into a canoe, you don't need the round to tumble, but when you're stabbing someone with an ice pick in the heart.... well, I've heard enough anecdotally that when I built mine, it was a 16 inch barrel with polygonal rifling to get a little extra speed. I wondered if I should have gone to 18"...
When I was in, I wanted to be part of the 10in crew, but WTF did I know? I was an 18D. It took me several years of research after retirement to understand internal, external, and terminal ballistics (I knew the effects of terminal). I get the vehicle thing, but the second you step out with your high speed maneuverability, you have pigeonholed yourself. The 77gr BH was designed originally for the SPR, but was found to work well with shorter barrels and leaves the barrel right at around 2500fps out of a 14" barrel, probably will tumble only out to 50-100m.
The accuracy of short barrels is not in question. Barrel length has little do do with accuracy but muzzle velocity has a lot to do with external and terminal ballistics. When using standard supplied ammunition, the main factor is barrel length and then it's the law of diminishing returns as you go past 20"-22". Heavy barrels tighter twist rates better BC projectiles, accuracy hand loads.... it goes on forever.
|
Yes, I agree with you on the pigeonholing thing.....
was in a couple of situations that made me think of the practicality of the short barrel. External and terminal ballistics are very important. I was quite impressed with the SMK 77 gr that was made for the SPR......Years later my build and carry is now an 18" .223 Wylde chamber, which is what the SPR was. Not only do you have the accuracy but you also have the ballistics to go with it.