Win 94 16 inch vs. 20 inch barrel

[shtur]

Considering getting a Win 94 trapper in 30-30. How much honest difference in accuracy between the 20" barrel and the 16" barrel? Does one barrel (16" or 20") shoot better with boolits and the other with bullets?

[smkummer]

Never shot a 30-30 with a 16 in. barrel but I love my 1963 94 30-30. And to myself, 20 in. is already short. Mine loves a unique charge with the lyman cast 170 grain going out at 1500 FPS for a fun 100 yard range shooting and plinking load.

[runfiverun]

I can see the sights on a 20" barrel better than a 16" barrel.
I seem to be able to shoot my 24" barrel rifles better than either one.

[larryp]

I had a 94 trapper in 30-30 years ago and it held it's own on the range against my brother in law's 20" carbine.

[williamwaco]

There is no inherent difference in accuracy of the barrels.

Depending on your eyes you can shoot more accurately with a longer sight radius.

Odds are you will not notice any difference at all.

That said, I do not like 16 inch barrels.
I would get the 20.

[OverMax]

You know that's a good question. Why the Trapper never really became popular. All the quality's a hunter would want in a carry rifle. Small, light, powerful. As far as accuracy. With the proper load like any other rifle it should shoot just as well. I wonder? Maybe because anyone who bought a 30-30 wanted one like his Dad or Grampa had. (standard model) Huh!! To much to think about at 5:15-AM.

[DeadWoodDan]

I put a Marbles rear sight on my Win. Trapper and took care of the sight radius, problem solved.

[6pt-sika]

When I was intrested in 30-30's I had around a dozen of them all Marlin's except one !

Anyway I had barrels of 16 1/2" , 20" , 22" and 24" .

And my conclusion is this ,

From the bench shooting off bags and using a scope the accuracy based on barrel length has no merit .


Now I will buy into the one about longer barrels being more accurate with iron or peep sights .

But with scopes from the bags there isn't a difference that can be blamed on the length of barrel . And to be honest some of the better groups I shot were with the 16 1/2" barrel .

I dunno about now but a few years back the BR boys with the bolt actions kinda bought into the theory that a shorter barrel is a stiffer barrel therefore less harmonic vibration and therefore "supposedly" more accurate or easier to be made accurate .

On another kinda parallel not I have several 444 Marlin's in the same configuration . they all left the factory with 24" Micro groove barrels . Anyway I took one and cut the barrel to 19" and it will shoot groups from the bench at 100 yards that are as good if not better then what the other dozen or so 24" barrel guns shoot .

[pietro]

.

I've had various Winchester .30-30's over the past 45 years with bbl's of 16", 20", & 24" - my current version a 16" Trapper.

I've never shot/hunted (they were NEVER designed to be target rifles) any of them with any other than a receiver peep sight, and now (since they were introduced) FO front sight blades.

Looks/style aside, I've found the accuracy between them all to be about equal (Minute Of Deer Earache) - but much prefer the carrying characteristics of my current 16" Trapper model, maybe because I'm now old/fat ( 70/260 ).




.

[BCRider]

Since this would be chambered in a "proper" rifle round you may want to check into the velocity loss of the short barrel.

With the 92's chambered in handgun rounds there's typically some to no gain depending on the round being shot. But a rifle round generates FAR more gass pressure and volume. So the loss of velocity of the missing 4 inches might be enough to matter depending on your intended use.

There is also the reduced ammo capacity of the shorter magazine tube if that matters. And finally the 16's I've shouldered felt a trifle back heavy to me. But I freely admit that this last aspect is likely due more to owning and shooting the 20 inch Rossi and Marlin I've got. Still, depending on what you're used to shooting you may want to try the feel of it before you buy.

[6pt-sika]

But a rifle round generates FAR more gass pressure and volume. So the loss of velocity of the missing 4 inches might be enough to matter depending on your intended use.


Last summer I took a pair of my 444's to the range with a chronograph and shot the same loads from both rifles in bullet weights from 240 grains up to 375 grains . The average velocity loss from the 24" barreled rifle to the 19" barreled rifle was never more then 200 FPS and never less then 90 FPS .

Some how I do not think some poor unsuspecting deer or black bear is going to notice 150 FPS less in any normal range of say 150 yards or less !

Oh and as to magazine capacity they were still the same , even if I had cut the 19" gun to 16 1/2" it would still be the same mag capacity .

[6pt-sika]

.

(they were NEVER designed to be target rifles) (Minute Of Deer Earache) - but much prefer the carrying characteristics of my current 16" Trapper model, maybe because I'm now old/fat ( 70/260 ).




.

I'm not so sure about Winchesters . But with Marlin leveractions some of them can be made to do pretty darned well from the bench . Not exactly well enough for nternational Benchrest matches but well enough for shooting in Cast Bullet Assoc "Hunter Class" matches .

As to the old fat thing I'm almost 52 and down to 220 , I've found the hunting thing works a heck of alot better when I do most of my walkinf to my stands aboard my Kawasaki 750 Brute Force LOL's !

[shtur]

Thanks for the first hand actual accounts. I'm getting a trapper for sure. One less round than the standard 20 inch barrel is not a concern. So, who wants to get rid of their 30-30 trapper?