View Full Version : Goose Gun Barrel
March 30, 2008, 11:34 PM
Back to the fascinating subject of bolt action shotguns. The "Goose Gun" had a 36" barrel and 3" chambers? Probably almost as potent as a Stinger missle!:D
Anyway, did the long barrel actually add to the range of the gun, or was it more to improve swing and pointing? I would think shotshells would have ballistics maximized for shorter barrel lengths. In a .22 rifle, I believe velocity decreases as the barrel lengthens above 20" or so.
March 31, 2008, 12:41 AM
The only advantage is in the mind of people who believe there is.
March 31, 2008, 06:18 AM
The longer barrel makes for a longer sight radius and definitely improves accuracy. Provent fact: the shorter you make the barrel, the more likely the shooter is to place shots low. The additional length and weight also greatly improves swing and follow through for passing shots (the type of shooting these guns were designed for).
Longer barrel also allows for maximum use of slower powders as well and provides a considerable velocity gain over 28" and shorter barrels. As for patterning, if you run two nearly twin bores, one 36" and one 26" with the same exact choke, the longer bore may or may not allow for any improvement as in providing additional range - all depends on the quality of the barrel and design of the choke. You can usually obtain a slight pattern improvement by fine tuning handloads to the longer bore but this has more to do with the load building itself, the longer bore just affords you more load options.
March 31, 2008, 08:57 AM
Longer barrels are much quieter in the blind or the boat than the short 21" and 24" barrels, and a little better than the typical 26" and 28".
I hate people who hunt waterfowl with really short guns. Hate 'em and avoid 'em. In addition, you have to stand right next to them to make certain they don't swing that short barrel in your face. Long barrels = good. :)
March 31, 2008, 07:55 PM
Im not sure where I saw it but Marlin did an actual test to confirm that longer barrels did get more velocity than shorter ones with factory ammo. I think it was worded as "Longer barrels do shoot further" They cut the barrel in 2" increments and compared velocity. If I can find it I will post. I agree with you John, Long barrels are the way to go for waterfowl.
April 1, 2008, 09:00 AM
I remember the test article years ago, I think Field and Stream where they took a 36 inch barrel and as mikenbarb stated, chopped off the barrel in increments and chronographed loads to see hohw barrel lenght affected velocity of the load. I do not remember if they used standard shells such as Winchester AA trap loads or a magnum hunting load. What they found out was the velocity increased something like 15 or so feet per second until the barrel was aprox 27 inches, then the velocity leveled off, then begain to dropped slightly, maybe 15 ft per second down around 24 to about 20 inches where it really begain to drop off. Under 18 inches was a loss of over 150 feet per second compared to the 27-28 inch lenght.
The spectulation from what I remember was in our modern faster burning powder and plastic hulls after about 27 - 28 inches the gas has expanded and done it's work, the shot column is not coasting past this point and slowing down due to barrell friction. Under 18 inches the powder is till in the burn process with many of the hot propellent gasses never able to work on the load.
They were not looking at pattern or things like sight planes, swing just velocity to answer the question, does a 36 inch barrel hit harder than a shorter one. Sorry for the poor memory, old age is catching up.
April 1, 2008, 05:25 PM
I did a little test of my own today with 2 different barrels. I laid out 3 white bed sheets along where I was shooting and fired with a 30" barrel. There was almost no residue powder on the sheets. I did the same with an 18.5 barrel and there was alot of unburnt powder on the sheets. I was actually suprised at how much powder was left over. I was shooting Federal premium 3"mag # 6 shot. I also tried this with 2 3/4 Remington nitro mags #4 shot and the powder burn was about the same as the above. I never thought there was that much of a difference until I did this.
April 1, 2008, 09:08 PM
I think that a barrel longer than 28" really isnt necessary for shooting geese if you cant hit em with that then you probly cant hit em with anything.
A buddy of mine has an H&R single shot 10 guage that seems about six feet long when you are shooting it but i dont think its accuracy is any better than my Mossberg 500.
As an aside from the original post I have been told that 16" is the ultimate .22 barrel length because anything shorter and the powder isnt burnt and anything longer drags on the bullet.
April 2, 2008, 02:45 PM
A 16" .22 LR barrel might provide the maximum velocity, but .22 LR is most accurate when kept under the speed of sound. A longer barrel is more apt to do that and provide the shot to shot consistency necessary for repeatable accuracy. Letting a bullet go through the sound barrier and then through it again as it slows before hitting the target can significantly upset the stability of the bullet.
Centerfire bullets start out fast and stay above the speed of sound all the way to the target, except possibly at very extreme distances.
Speaking of duck hunting, a shotgun with a long barrel makes for a better boat paddle or push stick if you ground the boat or your motor dies.
April 2, 2008, 04:24 PM
I hate people who hunt waterfowl with really short guns. Hate 'em and avoid 'em. In addition, you have to stand right next to them to make certain they don't swing that short barrel in your face. Long barrels = good.
And I hate people who have long barrels on their practical guns, so we should get along fine! :D
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.