.303 sporter barrel length

[Cervus elaphus]

Thinking along the lines of the Scout rifle, what barrel length could you shorten a .303 sporter to?
I have read about the Garand with a 16" job, would the trusty old LE work at this length?

 

[Ike85123]

My brother has a enfield no4 mk1, shortened to 18" that he picked up at a pawn shop. Shoots pretty decent.

 

[Cervus elaphus]

My brother has a enfield no4 mk1, shortened to 18" that he picked up at a pawn shop. Shoots pretty decent.

Thanks for that

 

[Professor Mawla]

Thinking along the lines of the Scout rifle, what barrel length could you shorten a .303 sporter to?
I have read about the Garand with a 16" job, would the trusty old LE work at this length?

@Cervus elaphus
I mean not to ask any personal questions unnecessarily , but what is your height ? I am 6 feet 6 inches tall and I would personally opt for a 22 inch barrel on a .303 British . I have used this calibre extensively during our liberation war in 1971 .

 

[Alistair]

The original Lee Enfield No.5 'Jungle Carbine' had a 18.8" barrel and did ok with the standard military ammo, so I think you'd be fine down to at least 18", probably 16".

If you're home loading, fast powders and heavy bullets might be the way to go, to minimise muzzle flash if nothing else. It'll still be loud and with maybe a couple hundred fps lost though, same as any other short barrel centrefire.

 

[Alaska Luke]

I have a 358 and 308 with 16 inch barrels. I like short but it will probably be noticeably louder. If you wear ear plugs no big deal. If you tend to forget them longer is better

 

[Cousin Bongo]

The Lee-Enfields make into really nice, albeit pudgy (as in overweight), pseudo-Scout rifles. I’ve built up several. Even showed one of my earlier ones to uncle Jeff (Jeff Cooper). He like it (I didn’t present it as a Scout, strictly a pseudo-Scout). Unless you’re planning to run a can (suppressor) I wouldn’t go below 18” - any less and muzzle flash/blast become a big factor as does powder selection.

CB

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

The original Lee Enfield No.5 'Jungle Carbine' had a 18.8" barrel and did ok with the standard military ammo, so I think you'd be fine down to at least 18", probably 16".

If you're home loading, fast powders and heavy bullets might be the way to go, to minimise muzzle flash if nothing else. It'll still be loud and with maybe a couple hundred fps lost though, same as any other short barrel centrefire.

Isn’t the Jungle Carbine notoriously uncomfortable to shoot?

I’ve shot mosin nagant carbines with standard ammunition and they have a pretty unpleasant report.

 

[Cervus elaphus]

@Cervus elaphus
I mean not to ask any personal questions unnecessarily , but what is your height ? I am 6 feet 6 inches tall and I would personally opt for a 22 inch barrel on a .303 British . I have used this calibre extensively during our liberation war in 1971 .

Ask away. I'm 182cm (5' 11 1/2") soaking wet. My BIL has my old .303 No.4 sporter and I have designs (with his permission of course) on shortening the barrel hence my post. I'm hovering around the 20" mark at the moment. As 99.9% of my use when I owned it was almost point blank range in the bush (jungli) there was no need for a longer barrel which just hangs up on tree bits. If it had been legal, I would have been better using a 12g with buckshot. Thanks again for your suggestion Prof. Where I come from, the game doesn't bite or claw (except the odd wild pig or two and sows are worse than boars in that department).

 

[Cervus elaphus]

The original Lee Enfield No.5 'Jungle Carbine' had a 18.8" barrel and did ok with the standard military ammo, so I think you'd be fine down to at least 18", probably 16".

If you're home loading, fast powders and heavy bullets might be the way to go, to minimise muzzle flash if nothing else. It'll still be loud and with maybe a couple hundred fps lost though, same as any other short barrel centrefire.

I believe the jungle carbine was about as accurate as my picks of winning horses. Like handloading, I might start with the Prof's 22" and see how that goes and then reduce from there. Ok I know it costs money but what else would I want to spend money on?.
My wife said if I ever acquired another firearm she would leave me and I said darling I'll miss you (just kidding, she's a treasure) and anyway this is not my rifle so I have no conscience to worry about.

 

[Cervus elaphus]

I have a 358 and 308 with 16 inch barrels. I like short but it will probably be noticeably louder. If you wear ear plugs no big deal. If you tend to forget them longer is better

Just imagine one of those with a muzzle brake !

 

[Sarg]

I made a couple of short ones to play with, just messing around & Ok with ear plugs but would be hard on the ears with out.

If I have a short barreled rifle here in NZ for hunting it has a can on it so no problem .

 

[Cervus elaphus]

Noice, now we're talking. I hadn't thought of the can, thanks Sarg

 

[Ray B]

Plugging 303 brit info into the Powley slide rule the difference between an 18" and a 22" barrel was 100 fps. The Powley result was 48 gr IMR4320 180 gr bullet @ 2440 & 2540 fps. The velocities are generally lower than most rifles will safely use, but the ratio of velocity change would be similar.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I would start with 22”. It’s harder to put it back on than to cut it off.

@Rocked and Loaded “unpleasant” is a very modest term to describe the report of a mosin carbine. I would go as far as unbearable, even with hearing pro.

 

[Cervus elaphus]

I would start with 22”. It’s harder to put it back on than to cut it off.

@Rocked and Loaded “unpleasant” is a very modest term to describe the report of a mosin carbine. I would go as far as unbearable, even with hearing pro.

That's what I was thinking. As regards the Mosin, have you ever fired a Stoner prototype AR10?

 

[Alistair]

Isn’t the Jungle Carbine notoriously uncomfortable to shoot?

I’ve shot mosin nagant carbines with standard ammunition and they have a pretty unpleasant report.

I can attest that yes, they're a bit lively and extremely loud. Not horrid by any means, but you know it's a full size cartridge in a short, light gun. Crap butt pad design as well. A lot of the modern superlight hunting rfles are worse though.

Al.

 

[Alistair]

I believe the jungle carbine was about as accurate as my picks of winning horses.

I think this is overstated rather on the interweb, but yes, there are some issues intrinsic to the bedding design, the flash suppressor and the lightening cuts in the stock that reputedly cause the zero to wander. The one I shot had been free floated and offered the same 2" or so groups at 100 as every other Lee-Enfield I've used.

Certainly it's not an issue with short barrel .303's per se, just that rifle design.

 

[Cervus elaphus]

I can attest that yes, they're a bit lively and extremely loud. Not horrid by any means, but you know it's a full size cartridge in a short, light gun. Crap butt pad design as well. A lot of the modern superlight hunting rfles are worse though.

Al.

Interesting point. With a lot of featherweight rifles around in large calibers, are we becoming a physically weak race of hunters? Women carried and shot heavier guns last century.

 

[Alistair]

Interesting point. With a lot of featherweight rifles around in large calibers, are we becoming a physically weak race of hunters? Women carried and shot heavier guns last century.

I think it's more that with modern materials we can make that kind of rifle, and therefore that certain folks think that we should. Plus marketing which polarises the market. I'd also say that most people don't actually weigh their rifles in hunting configurations and so severly understimate the weight of what they're taking into the field. This isn't helped by 'optimistic' weight claims from manufacturers.

More generally though, it seems that most of the hunting rifles on sale today fit into two camps; 'superlite' or 'tactical/ target cross over'. The first group are marketed as being lighter than tradition dictates, whilst the latter are a fair bit heavier (especially when you fit the usual 5-25x50 or bigger optic).

As for the middle ground, I don't think it offers a 'USP' for the marketing department to sell it on. They're not ultra light and portable companions for your mountain adventures, but they're not in possession of 'features' which make them well suited to long shots / target shooting to 1000yds either. I think that makes them harder to sell, even though for most, they're actually the best tool for the job.

I think that the true number of todays hunters who physically couldn't use the usual 10lb all up classic hunting rifle for all their excursions is minimal, and what's more, that the true number of folks who gain real world benefit from losing that 2lb is also minimal, but thats the fashion, that's what people think they want, so that's what we get.