It’s actually on the light side for large frame ARs. Also, no Magpul D-50 for the Savage 99.
Bore capacity is one way of determining how well a cartridge will perform (velocity wise) from a specific barrel length. This should not be confused with efficiency, although at first glance they do seem similar. Taking bore capacity - which is something like an addition to the expansion ratio - and combining a book's worth of information into one sentence: Is the consideration of barrel length, bullet length, powder burn rate, and powder capacity. Smaller diameter bullets that have a case design which uses more powder are less efficient and considered "overbore"...but that really only occurs when the barrel isn't long enough to adequately burn all of the powder. Blah, blah, blah, this is why one usually doesn't see shorter factory barrels in historically accepted overbore chamberings (eg. an 18" 7mm RM).
Either way, one can usually trade a small loss in performance (velocity) for rifle weight savings and increased portability with a shorter barrel, especially in cartridges with a lower case volume to bore area ratio. Manufacturers know that there are a significant amount of hunters that are more concerned with portability than anything else, and offer shorter barrels in chamberings that result in the least loss of performance.
Here is an example of velocity vs barrel length with a very "efficient" cartridge (lower case volume to bore area ratio). Try this with a .264WM, and the results would be much more drastic.
I had written a ton here regarding the 'shorter barrels are more accurate' articles that were the fashion trend for many years. However, with the results over the last decade for many long range benchrest and F-class shooters to shoot sub-1/4 MOA groups routinely with 28-32" tubes that were once only thought to be good for pole vaulting, I think we can put that *absolute* to rest along with the previous trends of articles written regarding 45 ACP "knockdown power" etc... However the lore continues to this day.
Barrels are individuals, and can be looked at as tuning forks with their own individual traits that will be influenced by a myriad of variables such as seating depth in as little as .002" increments, charge weights to the tenth of a grain, primer selection etc... You would need a considerable number of barrels to be tested at once with the same variables under the same conditions before you can boast about statistical significance of just one variable (length for this argument).
Either way, one can usually trade a small loss in performance (velocity) for rifle weight savings and increased portability with a shorter barrel, especially in cartridges with a lower case volume to bore area ratio. Manufacturers know that there are a significant amount of hunters that are more concerned with portability than anything else, and offer shorter barrels in chamberings that result in the least loss of performance.
Here is an example of velocity vs barrel length with a very "efficient" cartridge (lower case volume to bore area ratio). Try this with a .264WM, and the results would be much more drastic.
I had written a ton here regarding the 'shorter barrels are more accurate' articles that were the fashion trend for many years. However, with the results over the last decade for many long range benchrest and F-class shooters to shoot sub-1/4 MOA groups routinely with 28-32" tubes that were once only thought to be good for pole vaulting, I think we can put that *absolute* to rest along with the previous trends of articles written regarding 45 ACP "knockdown power" etc... However the lore continues to this day.
Barrels are individuals, and can be looked at as tuning forks with their own individual traits that will be influenced by a myriad of variables such as seating depth in as little as .002" increments, charge weights to the tenth of a grain, primer selection etc... You would need a considerable number of barrels to be tested at once with the same variables under the same conditions before you can boast about statistical significance of just one variable (length for this argument).
Similar threads
