Hunting Washington Forum

Equipment & Gear => Guns and Ammo => Topic started by: predatorpro on March 27, 2012, 11:57:19 AM

Title: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: predatorpro on March 27, 2012, 11:57:19 AM: so i have been wondering what really are the beneffits of a bull barrel and how much of a difference do they really make? does anyone have any knowledge on this subject? and what do you prefer?
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: jaymark6655 on March 27, 2012, 12:09:34 PM: They have some interesting benefits and drawbacks.

They take longer to heat up, so the rifle can shoot several rounds before the point of impact changes. However, they take forever to cool down.

The shift weight forward and make shooting offhand easier, but they weight more and will tire you out when hiking around.

When firing barrels vibrate, the thicker barrel dampens this vibration and makes it more consistent. This makes them more accurate.

That is about all I can think of.
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: JPhelps on March 27, 2012, 12:13:17 PM: Bull barrels are more rigid making them more accurate (not as much flex). A shorter barrel is more accurate than a long barrel of the same diameter all things considered. That's why when the barrels start getting longer they start getting thicker.
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: predatorpro on March 27, 2012, 01:04:31 PM: thanks for the info guys! i have a cz 550 varmint with a laminated stock and a 26 inch bull barrel chambered in 22-250 ....i have been contemplating getting a tikka t3 in a 22-250 too, and i hear they are extremely accurate also, that or pay $1400 for carbon fiber barrel...lol, essentially i just want a light gun that doesnt wear me out hiking around...
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: high country on March 27, 2012, 03:38:26 PM: Unless you sit over dog towns, you won't need a bull......and if you do, you might give the 223ai a peek. A sporter weight rifle can produce great accuracy in a 22cf.

Instead of buying a carbon barrel, just go light a couple c notes on fire....it wont hurt as bad and you can use the left over cash to buy a good barrel.
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: Bofire on March 27, 2012, 04:53:04 PM: The Tikka Varmit is a bit over 8 lbs, about 4-5 lbs lighter than a rem 700 varmit.
Carl
I still do not like heavy barrel guns for my uses.
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: Hornseeker on March 28, 2012, 06:08:09 AM: There are also a lot of different barrel contours that are "in between" sporter and full bull... I dont know what they are called, but some just have a less aggressive taper....
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: high country on March 28, 2012, 01:48:06 PM: a .65 at the muzzle barrel in .224 leaves over .200" around the bullet. that same figure would be equal to dang near 3/4" at the muzzle ona 308.
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: gadwall on March 28, 2012, 08:38:20 PM: I bought a winchester model 70 Laredo LRH in 7mm mag in 1996. It weighs 11 pounds loaded, including the scope. I have packed it for many miles in mule deer country and I shoot it quite a bit. I spent alot of time after I bought it working up a load and it shoots 3 shots in less than 1/2 inch at 100. I would shoot 600 at a big bull or a big muley with that rifle as a matter of personal confidence. I bought it because I can't shoot a lightweight rifle as well over the long haul. Everyone has their likes and dislikes. I happen to shoot better with the heavyweights.
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: demontang on March 28, 2012, 08:51:40 PM: Or just have your bull fluted. Best of both worlds, cools fast is lighter then a full contour and even looks good .02
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: jaymark6655 on March 28, 2012, 09:03:18 PM: Or go with a VTR and that triangle barrel. Still trying to figure that one out.

"...the triangular cross-section provides the maximum surface area for a given enclosed volume. This accounts for the Remington heat dissipation claim / feature. Removing the mass along the central axis leaves the mass in the three corners at a maximum distance from the central axis. This maximizes the axial compression rigidity and the torsional rigidity, also a Remington claim / feature. The torsional rigidity promotes stability under the influence of the rifling twist, a special benefit in a rifle barrel. Flexural stiffness is optimal for downward bending of the muzzle end in the orientation Remington uses in the stock; one corner up and two corners down. That puts the top corner in tension and the bottom corners in compression, where buckling concerns reduce the allowable load-carrying capacity ."
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: addicted on March 29, 2012, 01:59:53 PM: Shortly after I bought a remington 700 CDL stainless fluted .223 my friend bought a sps bull barrel .223. These guns were raised as sisters, always going out to play together and sometimes having sleep overs in eachothers safe's while their corresponding dad was off deployed.

They both had big scopes on them and loved to shoot small things, big things, close things, and far things, but my girl the fluted CDL always had to stop and cool down after a half dozen quick shots where her friend the SPS with the bull barrel got to shoot all day long without a care in the world.

So I sold my girl and my next .223 is going to have a bull barrel because .223 ammo is just too cheap to shoot slow.

next one is also going to have 1:7 or 8 twist cuz not being able to shoot over 55 grains sucks.
Title: Re: Bull Barrels vs. Standard Barrels
Post by: buckfvr on March 29, 2012, 06:03:07 PM: Quote from: high country on March 28, 2012, 01:48:06 PM
a .65 at the muzzle barrel in .224 leaves over .200" around the bullet. that same figure would be equal to dang near 3/4" at the muzzle ona 308.

For another reference, a Rem Sendero is .820 at the muzzle.