Best caliber for a 16" deer rifle

[Varminterror]

Because that was the powder gave the fastest velocity in that barrel length. See post 28

Usually QL isn’t that far off, but I’ll say from direct experience, that doesn’t align with reality. H4350 ballpark burn rate, like RL16 instead of 26, would be a much better choice. I notice the same odd choice for the 6 ARC by QL also - they have RL16 as the fastest velocity, not quite as misaligned as 26 for the 243, but definitely too slow.

But a very interesting trend - in both cases (double entendre) the software recommended SLOWER burning powders than anybody shoots in long barrels, which also does support that the old wive’s tale of using faster powders in shorter barrels is pure BS.

 

[someguy2800]

Usually QL isn’t that far off, but I’ll say from direct experience, that doesn’t align with reality. H4350 ballpark burn rate, like RL16 instead of 26, would be a much better choice. I notice the same odd choice for the 6 ARC by QL also - they have RL16 as the fastest velocity, not quite as misaligned as 26 for the 243, but definitely too slow.

But a very interesting trend - in both cases (double entendre) the software recommended SLOWER burning powders than anybody shoots in long barrels, which also does support that the old wive’s tale of using faster powders in shorter barrels is pure BS.

What powders would you like to see compared in both?

 

[mavracer]

You may pick up some velocity via free bore boost, but it probably won’t be much. Pure guess…. 10 to 20 fps.

Remember, every barrel is a law unto itself. You’d need to chrono before and after suppression to really know for certain.

An issue is gonna be that most ammunition will have a standard deviation over 10 so you're gonna need to shoot quite a few rounds both ways to assure the results are an accurate representation of what the suppressor is doing.

 

[mavracer]

I guess, but if the point of getting a 10” barrel is to get a short OAL then the most reasonable comparison would be to compare the length from the back of the action to the muzzle. A 243 will already have a half inch longer action so a 10.5” 243 will be 1” longer than a 10” 6mm arc or more in some actions. If we want to know what gets us the most out of the same total length we should be comparing a 10.5” arc to a 10” 243

Agree 1000% the ARC would make a better choice in a SBR, and it's not even a very good one IMHO.

 

[tdbmd]

I’m hearing good things from hunters who are required to use it in their states.

We have been using it for about 3 years now for Iowa deer hunting.

 

[md7]

An issue is gonna be that most ammunition will have a standard deviation over 10 so you're gonna need to shoot quite a few rounds both ways to assure the results are an accurate representation of what the suppressor is doing.

Yep. That’s true

 

[brewer12345]

Digging through my notes, I see that I got right about 2000 FPS out of a 10.5 inch 350 legend barrel using factory 170 grain Hornady American Whitetail ammo. That should be fine for deer to 150 yards.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Neither of these are true. It’s exceptionally sad that so many folks seem to enjoy kicking this red herring down the road. What a waste.

I’m out.

Hopefully to a basic Physics class.

As the area of the piston increases, the expansion ratio of the chamber increases, requiring faster powder but allowing for a shorter stroke.

Fast or slow powder, long or short barrel?

​

​

 

[Varminterror]

As the area of the piston increases, the expansion ratio of the chamber increases, requiring faster powder but allowing for a shorter stroke.

This is terrible pseudoscience being regurgitated by someone who doesn’t even understand what they are saying. The wive’s tale you are selling here might sound great to someone who doesn’t understand that they are false. But the statement copied here is pure fantasy. Even the quickload predictions above disagree with your fairy tale.

Shorter barrels do NOT benefit from faster powders for a given cartridge.

 

[Varminterror]

It’s threads like this online which are full of pseudoscience and mythology which either convince folks to NOT buy specialty pistols or short barreled rifles, or worse, to buy the WRONG gear, which ends up letting them down. It’s a cheap picture of the popular trend of folks which haven’t actually done something to argue against folks which have. Quite literally, I OWN a 10” 243win… it’s easier for that pistol to reach farther than I could with the 308win it replaced. I have a 10.5” 223rem, it’s easier to reach farther with it than with my 10.5” 458socom - and frankly, easier to reach farther with either of these than even my 20” 44mag or 18.5” 45-70… big and slow sounds great when guys complain online about velocity losses of smaller bore rounds… until you have to own it, and you find out that big and slow bullets comparatively drive like a lumber wagon.

 

[someguy2800]

It’s threads like this online which are full of pseudoscience and mythology which either convince folks to NOT buy specialty pistols or short barreled rifles, or worse, to buy the WRONG gear, which ends up letting them down. It’s a cheap picture of the popular trend of folks which haven’t actually done something to argue against folks which have. Quite literally, I OWN a 10” 243win… it’s easier for that pistol to reach farther than I could with the 308win it replaced. I have a 10.5” 223rem, it’s easier to reach farther with it than with my 10.5” 458socom - and frankly, easier to reach farther with either of these than even my 20” 44mag or 18.5” 45-70… big and slow sounds great when guys complain online about velocity losses of smaller bore rounds… until you have to own it, and you find out that big and slow bullets comparatively drive like a lumber wagon.

Nobody is arguing that for a given cartridge you need to use a faster powder with shorter barrels. Even going back to the post you originally quoted in this thread on the first page, I take his meaning to be that cartridges that have case capacities suited to faster burning powders will reach their velocity potential at a shorter length as will large expansion ratio cartridges, both of which are true. I don’t really understand what you are so upset about. The top of this thread is about internal ballistics and now you are construing it to be about external ballistics and you are misinterpreting peoples factual statements to be about what you are thinking about.

 

[Varminterror]

Nobody is arguing that for a given cartridge you need to use a faster powder with shorter barrels.

To the contrary, the person to which I responded clearly does:

The shorter the barrel - the faster the powder

 

[someguy2800]

To the contrary, the person to which I responded clearly does:

It would appear that way if you ignore the rest of the sentence. I take his meaning to be that cartridges which use faster burning powders will loose less velocity in a shorter barrel, which is a factual statement. Not that a given cartridge with a shorter barrel should use faster burning powder than would be used in a longer barrel. Perhaps he can clarify his meaning.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

If all common deer rifle calibers experience a decline in muzzle velocity when moving from a longer to shorter barrel, is there any caliber in particular that is more suited for a short barrel like 16"? Which cartridge may experience the least amount of velocity loss when moving from say a 22 or 24" barrel to a 16" barrel? or do they all lose about the same amount of velocity?

While I haven't read every response, and I know I'm late to the game here, but I'll never understand why people are always trying to reinvent the wheel.

If you want or need to hunt white tails with a compact rifle, why not just grab any 20" barreled lever gun in 30-30? 30-30 lever guns have been bagging deer for well past a century now.But if you must do something else, my thought would be a pistol caliber. 44 magnum most likely. Possibly 357 if all shots are under 50 yards. Just watch the twist rate in the rifling in the 44. Most older guns are 1:38 and won't stabilize anything heavier than about 180 grains. I really wouldn't bother with 6.5 whatever bla bla bla caliber or whatever is popular with the cool kids these days.

In fact, about the only down side of hunting with a 30-30 is that those same cool kids will call you a fudd. When they call me a fudd, I just tell them to be quiet; I'm hunting rabbits.

 

[someguy2800]

The

While I haven't read every response, and I know I'm late to the game here, but I'll never understand why people are always trying to reinvent the wheel.

If you want or need to hunt white tails with a compact rifle, why not just grab any 20" barreled lever gun in 30-30? 30-30 lever guns have been bagging deer for well past a century now.But if you must do something else, my thought would be a pistol caliber. 44 magnum most likely. Possibly 357 if all shots are under 50 yards. Just watch the twist rate in the rifling in the 44. Most older guns are 1:38 and won't stabilize anything heavier than about 180 grains. I really wouldn't bother with 6.5 whatever bla bla bla caliber or whatever is popular with the cool kids these days.

In fact, about the only down side of hunting with a 30-30 is that those same cool kids will call you a fudd. When they call me a fudd, I just tell them to be quiet; I'm hunting rabbits.

I hear you. My favorite deer rifles are a 444 single shot and an AR in a cartridge that is basically duplicating 35 remington. My next one I am planning to build is another AR that basically duplicates 375 winchester. However some people have the need, or maybe just the desire, to shoot deer at 300, 400, 500 yards and still want to use a compact rifle. Such things are rendered rather ineffective at those ranges compared to 6.5 blah blahs.

 

[P Flados]

I found the velocity drop in 6.5 Grendel to be pretty modest. A handload with a 123 grain bullet that did 2400 FPS out of a 20 inch barrel did about 2300 out of a 16 inch barrel. Very modest muzzle blast out of both.

For 16" vs. 22", Quickload says:

123 gr 6.5 Grendel: ~ 165 fps

 

[luv2safari]

Bob a 99 Savage in 358 Win to 16.25".


(ducks for cover)

 

[someguy2800]

Usually QL isn’t that far off, but I’ll say from direct experience, that doesn’t align with reality. H4350 ballpark burn rate, like RL16 instead of 26, would be a much better choice. I notice the same odd choice for the 6 ARC by QL also - they have RL16 as the fastest velocity, not quite as misaligned as 26 for the 243, but definitely too slow.

But a very interesting trend - in both cases (double entendre) the software recommended SLOWER burning powders than anybody shoots in long barrels, which also does support that the old wive’s tale of using faster powders in shorter barrels is pure BS.

Here is the same comparison with Reloader 16 and CFE223 which were #3 on both lists.

 

[brewer12345]

For 16" vs. 22", Quickload says:

123 gr 6.5 Grendel: ~ 165 fps

Broadly consistent with my chronograph data.

 

[FL-NC]

I have heard most deer are shot at less than 100 yards, so decreased MV isn't going to be much of a factor if these closer ranges apply to you with most center fire calibers. 300 blackout is a proven performer on deer, and that caliber isn't typically seen in anything longer than a 16" barrel. I have seen some pretty amazing work done with 16" 308 AR10 carbines, both in the range and in the real world. That said, a bolt action LW 308 in a short barrel (like the RAR predator I owned) is just obnoxious.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

The


I hear you. My favorite deer rifles are a 444 single shot and an AR in a cartridge that is basically duplicating 35 remington. My next one I am planning to build is another AR that basically duplicates 375 winchester. However some people have the need, or maybe just the desire, to shoot deer at 300, 400, 500 yards and still want to use a compact rifle. Such things are rendered rather ineffective at those ranges compared to 6.5 blah blahs.

Certainly, but that wasn't the question. A person needing to shoot out beyond 300 (I hunt caribou at that range) isn't going to do that with a 16" barrel rifle. (Or at least they probably shouldn't be.)

Respectfully, you obviously did not "hear me." Why are you reinventing the wheel to put a modernized 35 Rem or 375 into an AR to shoot longer distances when you can just hunt with any bolt gun in 35 Rem or 375. There's no shortage of those guns. My earlier post was entirely to the point of going with tried and true.

 

[OS/N]

My ears prefer 357M, 45Colt, and 44M in 16" but they like it even better in an 18 or 20. One of those or a 20" 30-30 would be my preference for a woods hunting rifle.

The 9mm sounds like a pop gun out of a 16" but it doesn't have enough horse power for deer hunting. Basically it's equal to a 38spl when both are fired from a carbine.

 

[Oldschool shooter]

Some years ago I had a Savage Stryker pistol. It had a 14" barrel and was chambered in 300WSM. Ballistically, it was about the same as a .308 at 100 yards shot from a rifle. Fairly significant loss.

 

[someguy2800]

Certainly, but that wasn't the question. A person needing to shoot out beyond 300 (I hunt caribou at that range) isn't going to do that with a 16" barrel rifle. (Or at least they probably shouldn't be.)

Respectfully, you obviously did not "hear me." Why are you reinventing the wheel to put a modernized 35 Rem or 375 into an AR to shoot longer distances when you can just hunt with any bolt gun in 35 Rem or 375. There's no shortage of those guns. My earlier post was entirely to the point of going with tried and true.

Your miss understanding me, my purposes for those two guns are deer hunting in the woods typically at 100 yards or less. I was just pointing out that other people have different use cases for a deer rifle which would make my 2 AR builds or a 30/30 lever action a questionable choice. Why an AR? Because I like them more. Why would someone want a 400 yard capable deer rifle with a 16” barrel? Because they want too.

 

[dfish1247]

You’ll lose velocity going shorter on barrel length given the exact same load is used for comparison. The quick and dirty way to see it is the size of the fireball out of the muzzle.Fireball is wasted energy. Now I’m talking about comparing a 24” barrel vs a 16” barrel, not a 17” vs a 16” or 3.5” vs a 2.5”. Case in point, 7-08 24” mdl 700 vs 7-08 xp100 16”. Same loads in either, the xp makes a huge fireball, the 700 doesn’t. Only meaningful difference, barrel length. Encore owners will tell you the same thing.

Reason something like 300BO doesn’t suffer terribly from this is it’s a small case using magnum pistol powder which is nothing but real fast rifle powder. The powder has given its all in the shorter barrel length vs something commonly used in 308 or 30-06.