[snidely196]

I'm looking at buying a .260 for deer hunting for my wife. I've settled on .260 rem and can find ruger compacts all over the place, but am leary of buying one because of the short barrel. Anybody know exactly how much I would be giving up in performance?

 

[Shawn Crea]

Kind of a rule-of-thumb estimation is 25-50 fps loss, per inch of barrel. 50 fps/inch is more appropriate for the big-cased hot-rod cartridges. For the 260 you're likely closer to 25 fps/inch. The 'base' to compare is usually from a 24" barrel. So, at 8" less barrel, you probably lose 200-250 fps. Not the end of the world if you value the handiness of a shorter barrel over velocity.

 

[mattsbox99]

Its still completely capable of harvesting deer out to 200 yards.

 

[crazydave]

Kind of a rule-of-thumb estimation is 25-50 fps loss, per inch of barrel. 50 fps/inch is more appropriate for the big-cased hot-rod cartridges. For the 260 you're likely closer to 25 fps/inch. The 'base' to compare is usually from a 24" barrel. So, at 8" less barrel, you probably lose 200-250 fps. Not the end of the world if you value the handiness of a shorter barrel over velocity.

This jibes with my experience with this class of cartrige. If you want to know how it'll do, just read about the 6.5x54MS killing LIONS during the 30's & 40's.... About the same velocity you'll be working with....

My Ruger M77 Mountain .308 is set up as a Scout w/17" bbl. Many, many pigs & deer have fallen. MOST read ballistics tables that said they were safe - but, alas, no....

A CAVEAT: "Shortys" are harder to shoot offhand for many people! I'm fortunate to not be one of those people. IF you get a Shorty that is "whippy" as-is, you can drop it in a synthetic stock to shift the balance-point forward - thereby making it easier to connect those "breaking bounces" deer & pigs do at short range....

My brother is stone-cold DEADLY with a standard-length rifle - the 3rd bounce a deer does (7yds, 15yds, 21yds -BANG-BANG!) he goes full-auto with a bolt-rifle! Lucky for me I can swing a carbine to catch one at the 2nd bounce.... FWIW....

 

[Davers]

I'm looking at buying a .260 for deer hunting for my wife. I've settled on .260 rem and can find ruger compacts all over the place, but am leary of buying one because of the short barrel. Anybody know exactly how much I would be giving up in performance?

I'd buy a regular sized barrel. The short light ones are too light and will whip around too much, and won't be very accurate. This is what happened to my Ruger Ultra Light. So my 2-cents worth of advise buy a regular 22" barreled rifle.

 

[Jim H]

i don't know why anyone would think they would not be accurate, might be harder for some folks to shoot due to different balance point as noted earlier above but as far as accurate goes, my 14" barrel 7-08 savage striker is plenty accurate so i don't know why a 16" barrel .260 wouldn't be either.

 

[Jack]

I've fired a couple of the Rugers with the 16" barrel. They are a really light rifle to tote, for sure. Be aware that they BARK! Being as light as they are, they recoil more than you might expect, too.
As to accuracy, barrel length really isn't a determining factor - a 16" can be as accurate as a 24".

 

[ribbonstone2]

Had a professor that liked military rifles, and would come to rough hunts with a cute 6.5X55 Carbine. Military collectors will know the model number (it escapes me) but were issued with something like 17" barrels.

Balistically, the 260 shouldn't lose any more or less than a case of about the same volume and pressure used in a short barrel. Even if you can't find data specific to the .260, could make a pretty good ball-park estimate based on the .308's or .243's vel. loss (and there is a lot more .308 data).

I'd not sweat it... it would be more than enough power for deer at 200-250 yards.

 

[Davers]

I've fired a couple of the Rugers with the 16" barrel. They are a really light rifle to tote, for sure. Be aware that they BARK! Being as light as they are, they recoil more than you might expect, too.
As to accuracy, barrel length really isn't a determining factor - a 16" can be as accurate as a 24".

If the barrel is not too thin and is of regular contour & 16" in length it might be okay then. A barrel that is too thin tends to whip around when shooting full loads.

 

[T.R.]

16 inch barrels are quite loud to my ears. Is there any way your wife can actually handle and shoot this carbine prior to purchase?

TR

 

[Davers]

Might consider buying a Marlin lever action in .30-30 or .35 Remington.

 

[bruceissippi]

or a Remington Mod 7 in 260 - 20" barrel and a VERY sweet-handling rifle
My mother loves hers and I've never shot one that wouldn't put 2 quick shots into a good group - 3 shots heats those light barrels (in any caliber I've tried) to the point that they all start "walking" the group

 

[Davers]

or a Remington Mod 7 in 260 - 20" barrel and a VERY sweet-handling rifle
My mother loves hers and I've never shot one that wouldn't put 2 quick shots into a good group - 3 shots heats those light barrels (in any caliber I've tried) to the point that they all start "walking" the group

I don't know why these firearm companies make 20" VERY light weight barrels for calibers larger than .223's. I remember when MOST bolt action rifles came with either 22" or 24" barrels of heavier weight.

 

[shane256]

My .260 T/C Encore PH with 24" barrel is about 5" overall length shorter than my Browning A-Bolt .30-06. Drop that down to 20"barrel and it'd be about 9" shorter.

 

[crazydave]

Blame bench-resters for shortening bbls....

The harmonic "wavefront" that propagates down a bbl w/bullet passage gets exponentially greater w/bbl length. For example: a 16" bbl of equal diameter to a 26" bbl will provide much less harmonic distortion to the bullet's passage and, therefore, less movement at the muzzle....

The inverse is also true, i.e., a bbl of MUCH LIGHTER WEIGHT but shorter length can be made that reproduces the (acceptable?) harmonics inherent in a sporter-weight bbl....

I've shot "a quick five" many times from my Ruger 77 .308 Mountain rifle that I've shortened to 17" - the "group walking" happens at the bench, to the tune of a .65" group becomes 1.2" between shots 2 and 5....

Pigs, however, only complain that the group NEVER goes beyond "one-minute-of-pig" out to 400yds. The longest string I've fired was 14 shots - 11 pigs down, with 2 "finishers" for the two that got out to 400yds. FWIW....

 

[broom_jm]

I think what some people don't like about shorter barrels is that they don't "swing" well on running shots, but if you consider the physics involved, a short barrel will be stiffer than a longer one of the same contour. I have several 14" Contender barrels that are certainly accurate enough for me, despite being shorter than a rifle. One is even configured as a carbine (with a permanent extension) and while it probably would stink for off-hand shots on running game, it shoots 2" groups at 100 yards with regularity.

 

[Harry Snippe]

Davers
You should redirect folks to you post . Maybe then they realize there is a problem with the ultra lites which does not involve barrel lenght , but how thin the barrels are . AS for cutting down a heavier barrel your just looking a few FPS.

 

[dmsbandit]

If the barrel is not too thin and is of regular contour & 16" in length it might be okay then. A barrel that is too thin tends to whip around when shooting full loads.

Yeh, I can see where light weight wippy barrels on flyweight guns won't shoot accurately. My model 7 with the 18.5" barrel shoots so bad I'm thinking of using it for a tent stake.



If a lightweight gun doesn't shoot, it's more than likely the shooter, and not the gun.

 

[Davers]

Davers
You should redirect folks to you post . Maybe then they realize there is a problem with the ultra lites which does not involve barrel lenght , but how thin the barrels are . AS for cutting down a heavier barrel your just looking a few FPS.

That's true Harry. I believe my thread was closed down though, for some reason. BTW, I took my lighter loads (.300 Savage loads in my .308) & tried them at the 100 yard range. Well the accuracy was still very poor but the groups were a little tighter. I am now going to try .30-30 loads in my .308. I agree with broom_jm in that if the contour is the same as a regular sized barrel then cut down to 20" or less, then not too "Whimpy", it should work fine.

 

[Davers]

Yeh, I can see where light weight wippy barrels on flyweight guns won't shoot accurately. My model 7 with the 18.5" barrel shoots so bad I'm thinking of using it for a tent stake. If a lightweight gun doesn't shoot, it's more than likely the shooter, and not the gun.

Nice looking Remington Model 7 you have there dmsbandit. However the barrel on Ruger's Ultra Light is thinner.