Nonetheless, the barrel length on the vz.58 does still affect velocity - perhaps not to the point where accuracy at distance is greatly diminished, but perhaps in penetration effectiveness.Ĭertainly with 7.62x39 chambered thin wall barrels - barrel whip is also a consideration for accuracy, esp. 7.62x39 cartridge has been tested to show that a shorter barrel does not have the same beta change. Note that the barrel length has considerable impact on velocities with the 5.56, whereas the 30 cal. The tester goes on to say with the 5.56 a 16" barrel would not enable the velocity required to defeat the steel, but a 20" would (both at close range.) Never would have "thunk" it would go trough the steel so easily. "Velocity is king" for penetration, was my take away from this video test.Ī buddy sent me this video post of an AR500 plate test with 5.56 through a rifle with a longer barrel. No doubt, the rise of gatling/machine guns, lighter artillery, and generally "combined arms" tactics helped to spur the transition of weapons and tactics.Īlso, powders have changed substantially since the time of the Mausers, allowing for shorter barrels w/ similar performance optimization. 7x57 mauser opened eyes to person-specific accuracy at 500 meters being of greater importance than area-specific accuracy at 1000+ meters. However, fire was intended to be an "area" rather than specific target. These heavy bullets ensured lethality at ranges exceeding 1000 yards. Like can be seen in some of the british period war films (not too many american films showing exact tactics of the time are available today that I've seen at least), volley fire was very much a central component as to how these rifles were intended to be used. 303 enfield round due to inferior performance in the boer war, and then forced the US to do the same w/ 30-40 krag after the spanish american war. In fact, it's still happening today.ħx57 mauser forced the british to redesign the. Small arms development by the US Military has typically placed tradition and designing weapons for the last war before optimizing for current wars. So what is the point of that length where the added velocity does not justify any added length and weight? Measure a Mosin 91-30 or a Swede 1896 or a Spanish Mauser cause the Mauser brothers designed those for a best compromise of length and accuracy and weight back when 1,000 meters was a serious factor and 6.5 cal bullets weighed 180 grains. You want higher muz vel then you can lengthen the barrel, to a point determined by barrel resistance, and increase the bullet vel with each increment of length added if all other factors remain equal. All these movements and gyrations in bullet design and rifle specifications have never upset the basic validity of the "Truths" associated with the science of guns. But then the ranger thingy went away with the word "ASSAULT", so to speak, and we became far less enchanted with 1,000 yard performance so Ballistic coe and other factors dropped away and we started shooting 22 cal stuff at higher velocities with flat/square tail bullets and dropped the boat tail. Sectional density and ballistic coefficient only became relevant when the carts with that attribute started kicking our Butts. We used to lust after muzzle velocity to get a bullet that would have some range and we built carts like the 30-40 Craig and then Teddy ran into the Spanish Mauser 7mm with even higher velocity and bullet performance and suddenly the Craig was junk. So how thin do we make the barrel to get it lighter and at what point do we reach the point of acceptable accuracy degradation? At that point, wherever it may be, we can always reverse the decision trail and thicken the barrel and get back some accuracy. Quote from: JohnEd on July 22, 2015, 02:35:15 PM Repeating the truth is never a sin and, NO, you are not wrong.