Since adding our article on Sniper Rifle Barrel length (Original article can be seen HERE), we have noticed that we have created a bit of a stir in the tactical community. People are starting to notice our method of not believing information simply because someone said it but rather because we have actually tested and confirmed or disproved it.

A recent student of ours who had read the article prior to attending our course was a bit skeptical. He came to the course with an open mind and was amazed as we dispelled the rumor that a shorter barrel reduces the accuracy and effectiveness of a rifle. He watched as we cut four rifles in front of the class and allowed the students to see the data for themselves.

Again, we here at GPS Defense do what works, not what somebody says should work. This is why the method of cutting a sniper rifle’s barrel shown by us below may shock you… but it works. And when you are trying to engage a target, theory doesn’t do a thing for you, what actually works, does.

Here are the student’s own words and pictures from a popular tactical forum:

“…To preface, 1 MOA accuracy was expected from the rifles. Many were box stock but all were Remington 700 variants. All shooting beyond 100 yards was on steel targets (except for the 150 yard high angle shoots and urban hide stuff). 6″ steel at 200yards and from 300 to 640 yards were the USMC silhouette shaped targets that are 9″wide x 12″high for the torso and a 3″ x 3″ head. The targets for the 740 and 920 were similarly shaped but were 18″w x 30″h overall with the 6″ head. While I have no pics of groups, all dopes for elevation were adjusted so that hits were mid-line or center of the target. On all the targets at all distances impacts within 1 MOA are pretty apparent. This school had a purposes and that purpose moved rather quickly everyday and taking the time to just prove this lone issue was not one of the main agendas. Therefore I am trying to recount accurate information as I had little time to write everything down for all the differing rifles and take exact pics that people want to see. However all of the dope and zero targets were accumulated and kept by each shooter who had 18″ barrel weapons provided by the school and 4 guys who brought their own guns cut their barrels while there and they developed dope prior to and after cutting the barrels. Ironically the only guys who cut their barrles on site, all shot the Black Hills ammo purchsed from the school. Everyone who shot the Federal ammo brought their own.

The schools standpoint which I echo is don’t talk about it, get out there and do it and prove it for yourself. We didn’t internet analyze the issue, we did it and the proof is in the puddin so to speak.

Anyway, here are a few pics.

Cutting included measuring 2 sides of the barrel to align duct tape. Then a steady hand on the sawzall followed the straight edge. The crowning tool is off to the left of the pic on the table. It was a hand held and hand cranked unit…”

At GPS Defense, we have the ability to see many different skill level snipers operating many different weapon platforms. We noticed one problem with the stocks that one group of snipers had on their rifles HERE and noticed a scope ring problem on the very next class of SOCOM snipers.

These units have a near unlimited budget and are unfortunately being stuck with equipment that was not designed properly. We urge you to use the most effective equipment on your rifle, not necessarily the most expensive.

This second group of SOCOM snipers had two-piece rings on their scopes and rifles. The actual ring was attached to the quick detach base by a dovetail and roll pin system. When it comes to parts on a rifle such as this, simplicity is best. The more parts there are, the more likely there is a chance for something to fail.

These rings were “quick-detach”. We have never seen the need to get our scopes off of our rifle in a hurry. One of the students mentioned that it would be helpful in order to use their iron sights if the scope broke. This could be a benefit, but these rifles (along with many we see) didn’t have back up iron sights installed.

The dovetail section of the ring allows the upper portion of the ring to slide left and right if the roll pin is not installed. Even with the roll pin installed, it eventually will compress and allow movement in the system. This is bad.

There is no reason for that overly complicated section of the ring (that should just be one solid piece) to be there. It only allows for problems like we experienced.

The shooter was engaging unknown distance targets with reliable data that he had gathered on his system so far throughout the course. Out of nowhere, he was missing a target 10 feet to the left and then 10 feet to the right. We had been instructing this sniper for a few days now and knew that he could shoot much better than that. We stopped him from continuing and immediately checked for equipment problems. Sure enough, the unnecessary roll pin had compressed and allowed the two pieces of the scope ring to slide back and forth rendering the entire sniper weapon system useless.

Imagine our surprise when SOCOM Snipers showed up to one of our Warfighter courses with rifles that could not function properly. On day one of the course, we ensured that each rifle was set up properly for the respective shooter. The snipers had adjustable “tactical” stocks on their SR-25s (AR-10s) and we started to adjust their adjustable cheek rest when we saw a problem.

With the adjustable stocks they had on their rifles, it was impossible to raise the adjustable cheek rest without interfering with the ability to charge the weapon. Although the weapon would still fire when using the adjustable cheek rest, the weapon could not be loaded, unloaded, nor could a malfunction be cleared with the charging handle.

Here’s a free lesson, whenever you add the newest “cool” feature to your weapon, make sure it allows you to still operate your weapon!

Here are some pictures: Note the distance the charging handle needs to travel in the first picture and the bolt not being far enough back to feed a round from the magazine in the second picture.

“All Great Truths Start as Blasphemy” -George Bernard Shaw

Appropriate barrel length for sniper rifles has been debated at length in tactical communities and online forums alike. In the spirit of GPS Defense’s teaching principle of deciphering the truth out of the piles of opinions by testing a theory and seeing the results first hand, we decided to put the barrel length issue to rest.

As our previous students can attest, and as you will experience in any of our classes, we often choose to prompt our students to figure out the answer to a question or previously held belief on their own. Chances are, we have encountered their question or opinion many times before and we have learned that the reason they are led to believe a certain point is simply because somebody else told them it was so. If we do the easy thing by simply telling them the correct answer, the truth we tell them will have no more weight in their mind than the possibly incorrect information that has been unquestioned and passed down from person to person.

Simply put, barrel length (within reason) does not affect accuracy within a manner many people believe. My personal rifle, based off of a Remington 700 action, has an 18″ .308 barrel. When people see my rifle, they often ask, “How much does that affect the accuracy?”

Their question, although a valid one, is usually asked in such a way that assumes accuracy must have been compromised in order for the barrel to be so short. The exact opposite is true.

My rifle came from the factory with acceptable sub minute of angle (less than 1″ group per 100yds) accuracy out of a 26″ barrel. I had my barrel cut down to 18″, took it out to the range and was pleasantly surprised to see the accuracy improve to a 1/2 minute of angle. Yes, you just read that right… the shorter barrel was more accurate.

When I dropped off the rifle to have it cut and re-crowned from its factory length, the gunsmith asked how short I wanted the barrel to be, and when I told him 18″, he tried his best to talk me out of it. He explained to me that 20″ is a “safe” length and about as short as he has seen people go while maintaining accuracy. I decided that since I was cutting the barrel to create a more manageable and compact shooting platform and partly to prove a point, I shouldn’t go to a “safe” length…. I should go shorter.

A common argument I hear from disbelievers revolves around some sort of belief that the twist rate must relate to the barrel length. This fallacy tries to say that since the twist rate of my .308 700 PSS is 1 in 12″, the barrel must be cut to a length in multiples of 12 inches in order for the bullet to spin properly. This is absurd. If this was true, Remington would never ship the PSS from the factory with a 26 inch barrel. And for that matter, a 1911 style .45 with a twist rate of 1in 16″ would have a 16″ barrel in order to be able to hit the target.

So, if a bullet from my barrel is spinning at a 1 in 12″ rate regardless of the length, why did cutting it down increase the accuracy? The answer lies in the effect of barrel stiffness. We all understand that a thicker bull barrel will provide better accuracy than a thin sportster style barrel. From this we know that a stiffer barrel helps increase accuracy by negating excessive barrel flex and vibration. The only way to stiffen an already stiff bull barrel from the factory is to shorten it. Let me explain….

Inch per inch, the barrel’s stiffness has not changed. But when taking the entire length into account, the overall effect is a stiffer barrel. Think about a 2 inch stick that is just stiff enough to be unbreakable. Now, take a stick of the same diameter with a length of 12 inches…. it would be much easier to break. Each individual inch of the two sticks share the same rigidity, but the longer stick allows more leverage to be imparted on the stick and therefore nets less overall stiffness and more leverage.

So, by cutting the barrel, the twist rate was not affected and the barrel was relatively stiffer. The only other concern lies in whether or not the powder has enough time to burn before the bullet leaves the barrel. This should not affect accuracy since it should burn consistently whether or not it burns completely. The only problem will in fact lie in the change in velocity of the bullet.

At 100 yards, I found absolutely no change in the point of impact of the bullet from the longer 26″ original length to the new shorter 18″ length. I did, however find a significant difference at longer distances.

At our 920 yard target on our range, school rifles with standard length barrels are able to hit the target with a 34 minute of angle adjustment above their 100 yard zero. When I first shot my rifle to compare the bullet drop from my rifle with the short barrel to the school rifles, I was using 168 grain Federal Gold Match ammunition and recorded hits at 39 1/2 minutes up from my 100 yard zero. That translates into a little over 50 inches of difference between the barrel lengths at 920 yards!

After realizing that the powders used by Federal (ammo I used) and Black Hills (ammo the students use) may burn at different rates, I decided to re-test my rifle with the 175 grain Black Hills Match ammunition that our students use. When using the same ammo, my rifle only needed 36 minutes of elevation in order to hit the target. Based on changing the ammo, I had a 3 1/2 minute change at 920 yards! Using consistent ammo and consistent environments, my 18 inch barrel only requires two additional minutes of elevation to engage a target 920 yards away!

With a more manageable, compact, lighter, and more accurate rifle only requiring only 2 more minutes of angle at 920 yards, I see no reason to not cut down a barrel on a sniper rifle. Still don’t believe me? Enroll in a class and I will shoot my short barrel rifle next to yours and you can learn what happens in the manner we suggest the most… you can see for yourself.

–Ryan Cleckner