What's the velocity difference in a 16 1/2 inch and a 22 inch barrel

O

Outlaw249

New member
I'm looking to buy a Ruger American in .223 and there ranch model has a 16 1/2 inch barrel but the predator has a 22 inch barrel and I'm wanting to know about how much velocity is lost with the shorter barrel

I'm thinking 250 to 300 yards max anything over that I'll get out a bigger gun or should I just scratch the .223 and get a 22-250 predator and yes I roll my own if it matters
 
Each barrel varies, but the general consensus is 25-25 fps/inch.

At only 300 yards, it should't make a huge difference on game. You just need to know the drop at distance...shoot on targets out to and beyond what you plan to shoot coyotes at.
 
I'm sure there are thousands of variables including bore diameter but I can tell you for positive that I lost 160 fps when I cut a 17Rem barrel down from 24" to 22"....that's just one example but it's my real world experience and probably worth exactly what you paid for it......
 
I researched this a lot before getting into .223s and it's about 200 fps or so depending on load. Doesn't matter so much within 300 yards but if you don't have any pressing reason to get the 16 1/2 I'd go for the 22 for velocity especially for distance and varmint round speeds.
 
Originally Posted By: CountryWildcatMy question is how much does 200 fps matter to trajectory and "knock down"?

Got Google?

There's hundreds of balistics charts out there.....look it up...
 
Thanks for the info and links I looked at them was some good reading
I went to my dealer to order one in .223 but he had one in 22-250 that he just got in I looked it over and liked it so i beat him down to my normal price $50.00 over what he has in it plus tax I go pick it up today
I figure that I can load it down a little so it's a little bit more than a. 223
 
I tend to see about 40fps (43 on average) per inch.

It does make a difference, when you're talking about 3200fps out of a long tube and 2900fps out of a short tube... Only if you're reaching out there a long ways... But it does make a difference. Knocking 300fps off of a ~3000fps load is 10% velocity, 21% loss in energy.
 
Last edited:
Where are you using the rifle? Big difference in length of the barrel so they are going to handle very different. Personally I want as short as I can get away with but am generally in thick trees/brush. If I was always out in the open/fields I would use the longest I could find.

Probably wont notice the velocity difference at those ranges but I know I would notice the difference in barrel lengths walking through brush.
 
Originally Posted By: zerowolfWhere are you using the rifle? Big difference in length of the barrel so they are going to handle very different. Personally I want as short as I can get away with but am generally in thick trees/brush. If I was always out in the open/fields I would use the longest I could find.

Probably wont notice the velocity difference at those ranges but I know I would

notice the difference in barrel lengths walking through brush.

No reason to bring common sense into this...
lol.gif


Welcome to PM,btw.
 
Just go 18" and call it done. I have never killed anything and thought "man I wish that bullet was traveling faster". IME most people's comfort level (and maybe ability) of shooting at (and hopefully killing) an animal gives out before the gun/ammo capabilities do.
 
300 yards is no problem for the .223 with a shorter than standard barrel. [beeep] some of us were shooting M4's at the Far East Division Matches, that's a 14.5" barrel, iron sights and out to 500 meters.
Wouldn't want to have to do that on a coyote though
crazy.gif
 
I don't understand why people want such a short barrel. I drag my shotgun with a 48" OAL through the briars and over mountains and use it to kill game that is always running or flying. I never have a problem with the gun being too long even when the brush is chest high. A rifle with a 22 or 24 inch barrel is substantially shorter, the chance of taking it for miles through chest high brush is zero, and the targets are stationary most of the time. I have had rifles from 18 to 24 inches and the only difference I can tell is shorter guns are louder. I prefer to keep my hearing and velocity...
 
I have several short bbl rigs. For a 308 or 223 you don't see the loss like you would a 243 or big 7mm. They are tolerant. My 4 223 have 16 to 24" bbls. I for the short ones more. The majority of my compitition rifles have longer bbls (24 avg). For predator hunting the shorts do fine for me and I can still pop a dog farther than most people care to even think about shooting. I hint suppresed mostly and that's one reason. The shorties are very tolerant of loads and accurate as well.
 
I personally will never own a .223 under 20". That's the sweet spot of .223 from my research. Unless you really want a carbine AR rifle or something no need to consider less. I personally like utmost ballistics from my rounds and guns but that's more just me. 16 1/2 does have significant performance drops though in .223. 14.5 even more so. 14.5 is 300-400 fps or so. Literally cannot shoot much past 3-400 500 is a stretch in a carbine length. Match ammo loads or target loads other than FMJ very limited under 20". Yes those distances aren't for most shooters but you want to mess around test the limits at long range why limit yourself? Even the small possibility of doing such? .223 can be used a lot longer range than people think so why not get a long enough barrel.

Varminting also lower than a 20-22 is a no no. You want velocity there and just wasting potential. Anything under a 20 like I said is more for casual plinking or non serious shooting in a .223.
 
Last edited:


Write your reply...
Back
Top