Weight reduction through barrel elimination.

[GlennGTR1]

I currently own a Ruger Hawkeye Predator in 223, I love the way this rifle shoots but hate how it packs. Its pretty durn heavy. It has a 24 inch, magnum contoured barrel. I was wondering about how much weight I would loose if I had it cut back to 20 inches?

[GlennGTR1]

Thought it was a simple question.

[ryutzy]

I'm not sure that taking 4 inches off your barrel will be worth the very small difference in weight for what you could potentially lose in accuracy/velocity. I would recommend a sporter style gun for packing around in the field. A standard weight barrel would be much better for a packing gun in the field verses lopping off the end of a heavy barrel. I'm assuming your gun has the heavier laminated wood stock also? Synthetic stocks are often lighter than wood stocks. I pack around a heavy gun in the field and mountains for varmints, but I'm young and very physically fit, so I choose my favorite rifles even if they're heavy. I do use a lighter gun for big game though. I guess what I'm saying is you have a target/varmint gun. Leave it that way. If you need lighter try a sporter weight gun. I think you will be happier that way instead of modifying a target style gun. Just my thoughts

[NESHOOTER]

Here is a couple of compromises http://www.blackhawk.com/product/Long-G ... 8,1396.htm and this http://www.blackhawk.com/product/CQD-We ... 3,1071.htm.

[RowdyYates]

You also might look at barrel fluting; there's always the chance of warpage, though. Sometimes you can save a few oz. with a scope/ring change. Also, if that is a laminated stock, you might look at cutting some lightening holes or slots in it; TC Icons in lam. have some small holes drilled vertically underneath the barrel, more for cooling than weight-saving, though. I once bought a "Safari Sling" that carried the rifle upright and horizontally under the arm; unfortunately my stainless heavy-barreled 26 in. Remington SPS Varmint tended to nose-dive with it, but maybe a rifle with a little shorter barrel and a little better balance might work better...

[pslyke]

totally a late reply but...I have the same issue with a 26" 22-250...a big part of the issue is the weight with the longer barrel is hanging way out over the stock making it feel even heavier. The shorter barrel would lighten it up a little bit and would pull the balance point back making it a more managable/lighter rifle.

[K22]

That's the very reason I got rid of a Ruger in 204 and it had a 20" barrel. The best you can do is a lighter scope and a carbon fiber stock. You could always do what I did, sell the Ruger and get a Kimber Montana.
6lbs. 4oz as you see it in the picture. I made another scope and bolt handle change and it lost another 3.5oz.

[TONK]

I feel your pain of lugging a heavy rifle around all day! The only thing with taking off say 4 inches and making it a 20 inch barrel is simply this: You may loose as much as 50 feet per second in velocity for every inch cut off the barrel. This could mean a 200 foot per second reduction in velocity....not good.
The other thing is the muzzle blast that will come from your 20 inch barrel.............LOUD! I would look for a lighter stock and also perhaps a lighter barrel that is flutted. Say keep the barrel at 23 inches.

[Trent]

Nobody ever addressed the original question on this, and I recently came across this neat pipe weight calculator when trying to decide on what contour of barrel I wanted for a custom barrel. http://www.matweb.com/tools/weightcalculator.aspx

I guessed you barrel diameter at .750" and entered .224" as the inner diameter. With those figures you would shed about .45 pounds by cutting off 4 inches of barrel.

[TONK]

Trent you will most likely lose around 35 to 45 feet per second for every inch of barrel loss! In a fast caliber like the 22-250 it is no big thing other than more muzzle blast but in a much larger caliber it will really effect your kinetic energy at the muzzlel.

[Trent]

Trent you will most likely lose around 35 to 45 feet per second for every inch of barrel loss! In a fast caliber like the 22-250 it is no big thing other than more muzzle blast but in a much larger caliber it will really effect your kinetic energy at the muzzlel.

I like 24 and 26 inch barrels. I was just answering the OP's question on how much weight he would shed by cutting it down. However, there are a lot of tactical .308 cal rifles out there with 18 and 20 inch tubes that are still shooting out to 1,000 yards quite accurately.