Sorry to "bore" you with details, but this is a question I've been "barreling" down on for some time:D. Does a 22" barrel on a marlin 1895 .45/70 have any noticeable performance difference over an 18.5 barreled 1895GS?

Welcome to the Forum,Call.we're friendly and,usually,helpfu.
The barrel length that is best for you,depends on how you use the gun.For most hunting,the short barrel is just as accurate,and a lot handier.For long range shooting and target work,the longer barrel is better.
Just opinion
Frank

The only difference you will see is about 50 fps slower per inch, it does not affect accuracy at all.

So the shorter barrel really doesn't make a difference? Except maybe when you use the longer sight radius or swing to shoot? the actual accuracy of the bullet is really not substantially effected?
i would like a guide gun for bear and deer hunting in Northern California. I would like to get the 1895 GS with it's shorter barrel because i know I will be in a heavily wooded area where 150+ yd shots are not the norm. A brush gun would work well. Plus, 200- 250 yds would be my max right now for accuracy. I might have a possibility to move to Colorado Springs, Colorado for a new job and its more open out there. Just wanted to get a gun I could use in both places. Any feedback would be nice.

You nailed it cali. Accuracy is pretty much the same and the shorter gun is sometimes really handy. I've hunted for years with a 24 inch bbl bolt gun and picked up a Rem model 7 carbine in 308 for my grand daughter with a 18.5 inch bbl and it sure is easy to handle and does inch groups all day long.

Thanks Faucettb,
Sounds like it's ok to get the shorter barrel. I like the shorter, more compact guns anyways. I like hiking as much as I like hunting. I use hunting as an excuse to go hiking. (whoops!! did I just commit sacrilege? Admitting on this forum that there is something more important than hunting?:D)

P.S. Just wanted to thank you for your posts to some of my other threads. your opinion tipped the scales for me to buy a S&W 629 in .44 mag for handgun hunting (someday), instead of a Ruger Redhawk. Can't beat the action, grips and balance of a S&W 629. Felt good in the hand. I have never regretted it. Bought the Redhawk but returned it because it was too heavy and unbalanced. Exchanged it for the S&W.

Really? Here I though it was the other way around. Hunting was an excuse to go hiking.

I just like walking through the Oregon forest with a rifle. Hiking, hunting, they're remarkably similar to me. I'm working on the stalking part but the fact is that I just don't see a whole lot of animals so it really is hiking with a gun. :p

For a lot of years hunting was my passion, but as I've grown older just getting out in the woods is a great experience anymore. I still carry a gun, but it doesn't get used near as much and I tend to do more photography than shooting thanks to the digital camera my son bought a couple of years ago.

The only difference you will see is about 50 fps slower per inch, it does not affect accuracy at all.From my review of testing and anecdotes it is more like 26 fps difference per inch of barrel length.

thanks Jackfish for the 26 fps difference. Makes me think what would happen if I shorted the barrel to 16.5? Any comments? would it matter for a less than 150 yard shot?:confused:

Snew: gotta agree with you about not seeing a lot of animals. Here in northern Cal you got to go where no one else wants to go for a good buck. Bears aren't a problem and coyotes are shot by the dozen. Maybe I'm hunting the wrong game:rolleyes:? How does coyote taste? can ya make a rug outta 'em?:D

From my review of testing and anecdotes it is more like 26 fps difference per inch of barrel length.


Sounds good to me, I was trying to remember from when I was once anal and had to know how fast my bullets went. I knew it was not over 50 fps though. Now I know as long as I stay within the reloading data, accuracy is what really counts.
I no longer use a chronograph, It eliminates one more thing to take to the range and in my opinion is a waste of time. I go to the range to see how distance affects my loads instead of plugging numbers into a formula.

Forgot to add, if you are reloading and use Marlin loads, you will have bullets going faster then factory loaded ammo loaded for trapdoor rifles. So the barrel length is not important. Even with the loss of velocity due to the shorter barrel your bullets will be going faster than factory loaded ammo.
That is why reloading is the best way to go.

My wife calls my deer hunting outtings - armed hiking. I take my Guide Gun to the woods often. The short barrel is great.

In a test report I reviewed recently the velocity difference was less than 100fps between the 18" barreled 1895G and the 26" Cowboy.

I think I like shooting my 22" barreled 1895 more than my Guide Gun. I won't own a gun that I can't carry with the muzzle straight down. The 22" barrel is the max for that.

I rebarreled a short barreled (and ported) GG from 18.5" to 22" as the short, ported barrel was too loud to live with.

My loads gained an average of 26 fps per inch (or 90 fps total) with the 22" barrel. Some loads gained almost 40 fps per inch (140 fps total)...no pattern that I could discern between hot loads/light loads or lead/jacketed.

I also have a 26" bolt 45-70 and get a 25 fps per inch increase in velocity with it over the 18.5" barrel. That's nearly 200 fps for some of the loads.

The short barrel was great in the woods and I may have my 22" barrel cut back in the future, but it's a good set up for most hunting and does not make my ears ring when I shoot it.

the only difference ive noticed with the shorter barreled guns is noise and muzzle flash accuracey is dependent on the operator. ive heard somewhere dont remember where that anything over 14" is actualy detrimental to accuracy. this might be why a tank or a navy ship have such short barrels for the size of the projectile but i dont know i do know that a conteder with a rifle stock can shoot 1 inch or less at 100 yards with open sights in a .308 i think it had a 12 inch barrel

The "hunting/hiking" connection is a legitimate topic. I read a magazine article many years ago that I wish I had kept. It was about the Perfect or Favorite (don't remember exactly) squirrel rifle of the author.

The article was very well written. The crux of the story was that he had not shot at or killed a squirrel in many, many years with his perfect/favorite squirrel rifle; he just enjoyed cruising the timber and without the rifle in his hands the experience wasn't as rich.

I can relate. I still hunt for meat but having the rifle that feels right makes the non-shooting days feel richer. Just any old gun won't do. It needs to be the one that's "right." I can see the day when my perfect elk rifle may not be fired at all but the walks in the timber will be just as rich with it in hand.

So get the one that is right for you.

I can relate. I still hunt for meat but having the rifle that feels right makes the non-shooting days feel richer. Just any old gun won't do. It needs to be the one that's "right." I can see the day when my perfect elk rifle may not be fired at all but the walks in the timber will be just as rich with it in hand.

So get the one that is right for you.

That really hit the nail on the head for me.

Check out the Jan issue of Rifle magazine, Custom short barreled Marlin's from Grizzly Guns

That really hit the nail on the head for me.


likewise...
I can't just get an off the shelf gun and go shoot it
it's got to be tweaked and shot a lot to be considered "mine"

I had the ported 450, noise was really bad, decided to bob the ports and took it down to 17" relocated the sights and added a pachmyer decelerator pad at the same time. The poa/poi did not change, without the ports the noise I perceived was less and with the pad shooting a box of shells was a lot more fun. The guide gun barrels are so thick I think it reduces harmonics and chopping them does not seem to affect them much.