Short vs. Long action


PDA






Squeaky Wheel
February 6, 2012, 09:31 PM
I've seen in numerous discussions of M1 Garand vs. M1A mention about advantages of shorter action (in this case the .308 being advantageous compared to .30-06). I own a .30-06 (1903 Springfield) and a .308 rifle (M1A), so I know that the .30-06 cartridge is longer/taller than the .308. And I know that it takes more distance of working a .30-06 bolt as compared to a .308 bolt. My question is this -- in what ways do shooters consider the shorter action to be an inherent advantage for a rifle? I realize that a taller/longer cartridge takes up more space and weight for carrying ammo, but I'm primarily interested in the pros and cons of short vs long action on the rifle itself. Thanks in advance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Short vs. Long action" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
nastynatesfish
February 6, 2012, 10:22 PM
about the only thing i could think of is the short action being stiffer? i have both short and long action rifles and cannt really see anything that would be a con to either, well the long actions tend to cost you more to shoot them lol.

MachIVshooter
February 6, 2012, 11:56 PM
but I'm primarily interested in the pros and cons of short vs long action on the rifle itself

6 of one, a half-dozen of the other. Short action rifles are about 3-4 ounces lighter. That's it. The "stiffer action" mumbo jumbo is just that.

The military created the 7.62x51 because their requirements for performance did not necessitate the powder capacity of the .30-06. Originally, the .30-06 was designated the .30-03 with the 1903 Springfield rifle, and was loaded with a 220 gr. bullet. In 1906, the 150 grain spitzer at 2,700 FPS was adopted. From 1926 to 1939, the .30-06 was loaded with a 172 gr. bullet at 2,640 FPS, then back to the 150 gr. in 1940. By WWII, the powders available could reach the requisite 2,700 FPS with that bullet in a smaller case, but there was so much stockpiled .30-06 ammunition that the M-1 was so chambered (M1 was almost .28 caliber, BTW). The change was finally made when the T44 (M14) was brought into service and the M60 replaced the aging and very heavy M1919s.

The .30-06, however, remained in service for some time as a sniper round.

It is, of course, still the most popular sporting round in America, and is one of the more popular rounds in Europe, too.

WNTFW
February 7, 2012, 12:05 AM
You also get a shorter throw on the bolt. Not that big of a deal. SA vs LA is not a consideration for anything I do.

Water-Man
February 7, 2012, 12:28 AM
IMO, not enough of a difference to matter.

briansmithwins
February 7, 2012, 03:18 AM
Every weapons minimum size and weight is dictated by the length of the cartridge, the action, and the power of the cartridge.

Using a shorter cartridge simply lets you make a smaller and lighter weapon.

BSW

jmr40
February 7, 2012, 06:54 AM
If you are trying to build a smaller, lighter rifle designed to work around the cartridge it is huge. The shorter actions means less metal and less weight. For example Kimber has spent a lot of time designing rifles as light as possible for the cartridge

Their 8400 is designed around 300 mag length cartridges and weighs 6 lbs 13 oz.

The 84L that is sized for 30-06 size cartridges weighs 5 lbs 10 oz.

And the 84 that is sized for the 308 family of cartridges weighs 5 lbs 2 oz.

If you want a standard size and weight rifle then I see no real advantage to a short action bolt rifle, but if you are trying to buy a really lightweight for carrying in rugged terrain it makes sense to save the weight.

There is also some evidence that says the short action rifles are stiffer, thus more accurate. This may be true, but the difference is so small that 99.99% of shooters probably can't shoot well enough to take advantage of the difference in my opinion.

FWIW, I prize accurate, lightweight rifles, and all things considered I like short actions and the cartridges they come in. But I understand that for most guys the difference is so small as to not be a factor.

Art Eatman
February 7, 2012, 09:23 AM
Stiffness for better accuracy only shows up in competition shooting at targets. For hunting accuracy there is no useful difference for short vs. long.

A savings of four or so ounces in an otherwise seven- or eight-pound rifle is a small percentage of the total, in and of itself. It's an appreciable increment when designing the lightest feasible rifle.

Picher
February 7, 2012, 09:59 AM
1. I also don't think there's a practical difference in accuracy. The extra stiffness of a short action may not manifest itself in a free-floated barrel situation because the shorter action length may work against stability between action and stock by reducing the contact length/area. (It's like the accuracy difference between short-barreled and long barreled handguns.) Any movement between action and stock during recoil can be greater with a short action. That motion may be a greater factor than the action stiffness because wood or plastic in a stock is much weaker than a steel action.

2. Scope mount separation is also greater on long-actioned rifles.

3. Given equivalent barrel lengths, rifles with a short action bring the muzzle distance closer to the ears, hence increased (perceived) muzzle blast. It's not as important in a range rifle as for a hunting rifle, when ear protection isn't often worn.

4. Some rifles balance better with a long action.

These may or may not be factors that affect everyone, but something to think about when choosing a cartridge/action length.

joed
February 7, 2012, 10:13 AM
I've wondered the same exact thing. Some people on here talk about a long action like it's evil. I own both in bolt action rifles and prefer the long action. I've never had problems with a long action when using long/heavy bullets. And I don't buy into the short action being stiffer.

Beagle-zebub
February 7, 2012, 10:16 AM
Here's one thing that can't be denied: you can chamber a long action in a short-action round, but you can't chamber a short action in a long-action round.

MachIVshooter
February 7, 2012, 11:43 AM
For example Kimber has spent a lot of time designing rifles as light as possible for the cartridge

Their 8400 is designed around 300 mag length cartridges and weighs 6 lbs 13 oz.

The 84L that is sized for 30-06 size cartridges weighs 5 lbs 10 oz.

And the 84 that is sized for the 308 family of cartridges weighs 5 lbs 2 oz.

Where did you find those specs for the 84M? I find it at 5 lbs 6 oz in the super-light 22" montana variant. The long action 84L Montana is correct at 5 lbs 10 oz (24" barrel) and the 8400 Magnum Montana (26" barrel) is also right at 6 lbs 13 ounces.

So the long action is 4 ounces heavier, which includes a 2" longer barrel. The magnum could be lighter, but would you really want to fire the .300 WM or .338 WM (the two chamberings they offer) out of a rifle weighing under 6 lbs?

BTW, their long action "mountain ascent" model tips the scales at 5lbs, 5 oz. It also comes in .280 AI :D

Anyhow, I maintain that all else being equal, a SA saves a mere 3 or 4 ounces at best. If you want the cartridge that comes in that rifle, it's a small perk. But it would be rather foolish to base your decision solely on a candy bar's worth of weight difference. A pound or two matters when humping a rifle through the woods, but a few ounces? That's a negligible difference in CCW handguns that often weigh less than a pound to begin with. The more important aspect with hunting rifles is how they balance in your hands and how they carry on a sling.

I am definitely a proponent of the lightest gear possible, but that's more about what's being carried in your pack, when a 3 or 4 ounce difference is multiplied by 15 or 20 items and it adds up to pounds. I don't think anyone can actually perceive the difference in weight of their rifle from a full magazine in the morning to what it weighs after having fired two rounds and sent 3-4 ounces down range/out of the ejection port.

mdauben
February 7, 2012, 12:50 PM
Personally, I don't really consider it an issue in a hunting rifle, unless perhaps you are striving for the shortest, lightest "bush rifle" you can make. For range work or probably 90% or more of hunting, I don't think it makes the slightest difference.

D*N*R*
February 7, 2012, 01:02 PM
I file it under the same catagory as talking about 'scope weight' when carrying around a rifle??? Just nothing left to talk about. Long action just gives you more flexibility in case capacity.

CB900F
February 7, 2012, 01:03 PM
Squeaky;

In the real world, the barrel contributes far more to the accuracy equation than the length of the action. As far as the speed of cycling the bolt to get a second shot off, well, hit the critter with the first shot and it's a moot point.

900F

kaferhaus
February 7, 2012, 02:25 PM
The biggest advantage is the scope mounting...rings are closer together which allows you to move the eye piece closer OR further away from your eye without having to crane your neck one way or the other. Even with offset rings the long action scope mounting is still an issue for many people.

They are lighter. If you're walking/climbing those few ounces mean a ton. Most folks shoot out of a shooting house or tree though so it matters little.

I highly prefer short actions. But that hasn't stopped me from also buying 270s, 30-06s etc.

But, a 308, 7-08 etc will take anything you can hunt on this continent without issue. Both obviously work in short actions.

valnar
February 7, 2012, 02:41 PM
In a bolt-action? Probably not much. The big seller of one particular short action cartridge though - the .308 - means it can be used in some semi-auto rifles. If having a common round or brass is important for your M1A or SCAR-H then that may be a deciding factor. If you go with a .308 variation, like the 7mm-08, then that difference means a lot less...or nil.

desidog
February 7, 2012, 03:57 PM
Well, YMMV, but for me, I can keep cheek-weld and eyes on target with a short-action, and can't with a long action. But that's my bone structure & ergonomics...possibly not yours. Also, my rifle manufacturer of choice, possibly not yours.

In a semiauto, the bolt travels farther, therefore longer, so i think getting on target for a followup shot may be impeded...but the make and model of gun count for far more.

dprice3844444
February 7, 2012, 04:02 PM
weight savings to you young bucks may not matter,but to us old farts,it does

jmr40
February 7, 2012, 04:09 PM
Quote:
For example Kimber has spent a lot of time designing rifles as light as possible for the cartridge

Their 8400 is designed around 300 mag length cartridges and weighs 6 lbs 13 oz.

The 84L that is sized for 30-06 size cartridges weighs 5 lbs 10 oz.

And the 84 that is sized for the 308 family of cartridges weighs 5 lbs 2 oz.

Where did you find those specs for the 84M? I find it at 5 lbs 6 oz in the super-light 22" montana variant. Direct from www.kimberamerica.com and my postal scales comfirm this. I don't always trust printed specs. They are quite often wrong but not this time. You probably looked at the specs for the 204 or 223 which show 5 lbs 6 oz, but in 308, 5 lbs 2 oz is correct. A bigger hole in the barrel makes a difference. I'm at 5 lbs 15 oz including a Leupold 2.5-8X36 in Talley Lightweight mounts.

A savings of four or so ounces in an otherwise seven- or eight-pound rifle is a small percentage of the total,

At one time this would have been a true statement, and with many rifles it still is. If I were considering a short action that was just a shortened version of the same rifle in long action, then I'd agree with you and just buy the long action in a different chambering.

But many companies, Kimber, NULA, Mossberg Lightweight hunter, Remington 7, etc they are building lightweight rifles on short actions that are anywhere from 1/2 lb to 2 lbs lighter than comparable rifles in long action. Even if they could find a way to build a 30-06 the same light weight as a 308, no one would want to shoot it because of recoil. The lightweight 308's recoil about the same as a standard weight 30-06.

I understand this is not important to everyone, I have both long and short actions. There are lots of things that can be done with a short action that a long action will not do. You just have to get past 1950's mentality.

MachIVshooter
February 7, 2012, 06:47 PM
You probably looked at the specs for the 204 or 223 which show 5 lbs 6 oz, but in 308, 5 lbs 2 oz is correct.

I stand corrected.

short action that was just a shortened version of the same rifle in long action

Since this whole discussion seems to be that, rather than specific rifles, that's the premise of my points.

If you take a standard Remington 700 CDL and compare the 7mm-08 SA model with the .270 Win or .30-06 LA model, both with 24" tubes, there is a whole 2 ounces difference (7 lbs 8 oz and 7 lbs 10 oz). The magnums gain another 2 ounces, but it's in the extra 2" of barrel, since 700s use the same action for .30-06 class and the big boomers.

The lighter 700 mountain is 6-1/2 lbs across the board (all 22"). I suspect they probably use only a LA, though, even in 7mm-08 and .308. Of course, this is the exact same weight as the 20" model 7 synthetic, unless you opt for the 18" barrel, which is 6 lbs. 2 oz.

What I'm trying to point out here is still that action length has very little to do with gun weight. I mean, we've got a 24" barreled long action kimber that is almost a pound lighter than a synthetic stocked 18" short action Remington.

I don't have anything against short action rifles. Heck, I love my 673 .350 RM (not exactly a light weight, which is a good thing in that chambering). What I have a problem with is people spouting garbage in the form of non-existent "advantages" with a short action just because .308 or .243 or some short mag is their pet round.

weight savings to you young bucks may not matter,but to us old farts,it does

Oh, it matters to me, too. Just not when we're talking 2, 3, 4 ounces. 2, 3 or 4 pounds hanging on your sling is a different story.

Pretty much all of my hunting rifles curb ~8.5-9 lbs with scope, mounts & sling. I cannot feel the extra 2 ounces from the 26" barrel of my .375 RUM vs. my 24" 700s. Anyone who says they can feel a difference between 136 ounces and 139 ounces I would call a liar to their face.

Art Eatman
February 7, 2012, 07:18 PM
Bench rest competitors probably have done a lot more R&D than any of us, comparing accuracy down in the arena where a few hundredths is the difference between winning and being an also-ran.

So what do the top competitors use? And if they tend toward short receivers, do they talk about stiffness? I dunno.

As far as weight, I went totally chicken: A 700 Ti in 7mm08. 5.25 pounds, bare. My tired old legs went to hollering, "Thank you, Lord!" :D

joed
February 7, 2012, 07:54 PM
What I have a problem with is people spouting garbage in the form of non-existent "advantages" with a short action just because .308 or .243 or some short mag is their pet round.

Me too, I own both short and long actions. But in all honesty the long actions work better in most cases when you start using long heavy bullets.

I keep seeing someone ask about a chambering and someone comes in with "That's a long action stay away from that chambering." Why?

nastynatesfish
February 7, 2012, 08:06 PM
i own a 308 and a 7mag i dont see any difference. i put one piece bases on them anyhow. again, i dont think there is any difference to be noticable unless your shooting 1000yrd for a paycheck but then your action is probally worth more that my truck lol

HKGuns
February 7, 2012, 08:21 PM
I think it boils down to a faster throw of a short bolt and less displacement of your limbs to pull it off, therefore much faster to throw the bolt on a short action rifle. Probably won't matter hunting, but for other uses could make a significant difference. I can manipulate a short bolt a lot faster than a long bolt. With practice there would likely still be a difference, perhaps negligible.

browningguy
February 7, 2012, 08:30 PM
The "stiffer action" mumbo jumbo is just that.

Actually, it's science, not mumbo jumbo. If you don't think it's important that's quite ok, but please don't confuse opinion with fact.

MachIVshooter
February 7, 2012, 08:42 PM
Actually, it's science, not mumbo jumbo. If you don't think it's important that's quite ok, but please don't confuse opinion with fact.

Show me. I wanna know how it makes any bit of difference when the locking lugs are at the front on either in any modern rifle. The rear of the receiver only serves to keep the bolt from falling out of the gun and a place for rear scope mounts to attach, so what does it matter how much distance is between the two points?

helotaxi
February 7, 2012, 08:47 PM
^^^It also depends on what style of action you're talking about. The difference in stiffness between a long and short action is going to be negligible when you're talking about closed top actions with the minimum amount of material removed. When you start talking about actions that have the whole top of the receiver cut off the difference can be significant in absolute rigidity, but still likely insignificant to PRACTICAL accuracy. Benchrest accuracy may be a different story, but so much of benchrest is mental hocus pocus that who can really say. Much of the things make a difference only because they seem logical in the mind of the shooter.

That said, short actions make the most sense for benchrest because there is a weight limit for most classes and every fraction of an ounce matters.

joed
February 7, 2012, 09:23 PM
I think it boils down to a faster throw of a short bolt and less displacement of your limbs to pull it off, therefore much faster to throw the bolt on a short action rifle.
If you think about what is the difference in length between long and short action? Maybe 1". I have both and never notice the difference at all.

MachIVshooter
February 7, 2012, 09:29 PM
If you think about what is the difference in length between long and short action? Maybe 1"

Not even on a Remington, and they use their long action for magnums, too.

Model 7 based 673 guide gun in .350 Rem Mag and 700 BDL SS .375 RUM. 2-5/8" vs. 3-1/4" ports, the difference in bolt throw is 15/16"

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/101_1266.jpg

And note my earlier point about the rear of the receiver; Notice how much smaller it is on the SA gun? Could that be because, as I said, it doesn't really matter?

jmr40
February 7, 2012, 09:53 PM
Just not when we're talking 2, 3, 4 ounces. 2, 3 or 4 pounds hanging on your sling is a different story.

Pretty much all of my hunting rifles curb ~8.5-9 lbs with scope, mounts & sling. I cannot feel the extra 2 ounces from the 26" barrel of my .375 RUM vs. my 24" 700s. Anyone who says they can feel a difference between 136 ounces and 139 ounces I would call a liar to their face.
__________________


Lightweight rifles are a lot like fast cars. Not everybody wants or needs them. It depends on your hunting style and location. I do almost all of my hunting on North Georgia mountain public land. I often walk 20-30 miles on a weekend hunt in pretty steep terrain. During Spring and Summer I backpack quite often in the same areas and my backpacking habits carry over to my hunting habits.

EVERYTHING I carry gets put on postal scales and any time a lighter weight item can be substituted and do the same job it is chosen. Three or 4 oz. by itself does not seem like much until you start adding things up. By choosing the lightest rifle, mounts, scope, and sling I can save 3-4 lbs. easily over the heaviest options in the same caliber. My go-to rifle (Kimber 308) is under 6 lbs including the scope and mounts. My heaviest rifle (300 WSM) is still just 7.5 lbs including scope and mounts.

When I start weighing my pack, boots, knife, watch, compass, binoculars, jacket, pants, underwear, food, rainwear, or anything else I may carry in a days hunt I can reduce what I'm carrying by 10 lbs or more just by making better choices.

I agree that just 2-3 oz on the rifle does not matter much. In fact if I'm carrying on my shoulder with a sling I cannot really tell the diffference between my 7.5 lb. 300 mag and my sub 6 lb. 308. The difference is that the 308 is almost always in my hands ready for a surprise snap shot if it were to happen. The 300 is more likely to be on my shoulder and not in my hands when needed.

I understand that to a lot of guys this is simply not important. But a short action can be built a half pound or more lighter than a long action. Just because some gunmakers choose not to do so does not mean others have to do the same thing. If that 1/2 lb. isn't important to you then don't buy that rifle. It is important to me.

CB900F
February 7, 2012, 11:40 PM
Fella's;

Hmmmph! I'm in my middle sixties, and hunt the mountains of Montana. Always with a long action gun, don't own a short action. If less than half a pound is gonna whup yer butt, there's a bigger problem than your equipment.

900F

joed
February 8, 2012, 06:15 AM
Fella's;

Hmmmph! I'm in my middle sixties, and hunt the mountains of Montana. Always with a long action gun, don't own a short action. If less than half a pound is gonna whup yer butt, there's a bigger problem than your equipment.

900F
I'm 63 and still carry a long action with heavy barrel. I own both though but prefer long action.

browningguy
February 8, 2012, 02:48 PM
Show me. I wanna know how it makes any bit of difference when the locking lugs are at the front on either in any modern rifle.

If you have Abaqus or Ansys you can build and run the models yourself, if not you can come to my office in Houston and I will see if one of our PhD analysts would run it for you. Assuming a free floated barrel a less stiff action will allow the action to move in a less predictable way in the stock, potentially leading to decreased accuracy. The action is of course connected to the barrel and exerts a force on the end of the barrel where it is threaded. If we can get the action to have less horizontal or vertical motion/vibration (by making it stiffer) then we can potentially affect the accuracy.

But what we are talking about is whether action length affects the stiffness of the action. And the answer is an indisputable fact that can be shown with any finite element analysis program. We can even vary the mesh size we use and it will still show the same results.

As I stated before if you if you want to believe it doesn't matter to accuracy then that is fine. Really the only argument anyone can make is does it make enough difference in a hunting rifle to matter, and I would venture to say that the great majority of the time the answer is no. But since I do have a basic understanding of physics and math I can't say it would never make a difference.

joed
February 10, 2012, 08:36 AM
But what we are talking about is whether action length affects the stiffness of the action. And the answer is an indisputable fact that can be shown with any finite element analysis program. We can even vary the mesh size we use and it will still show the same results.


Maybe it isn't as stiff when running formulas but I have to ask just how much would it effect accuracy in the real world?

Short actions are used in benchrest but I would think it is the cartridge used that dictates the action of the rifle. How about Long range shooting to 1000 yards, I don't see short actions taking all the honors.

I guess anything can be argued but I like real life results, they don't lie.

Gtscotty
February 10, 2012, 10:12 AM
browningguy,

I'll admit that its been a while since I have worked any FEA models myself, but it sounds like you are in a unique position to put this discussion to bed once and for all. Why don't you go ahead and get your PhD analysts crackin' on the short action vs long action issue? We'll be waiting with bated breath.

But what we are talking about is whether action length affects the stiffness of the action.

I think folks were talking about whether the miniscule difference in stiffness between short and long action makes any measurable performance difference... for 99.98% of shooters, it doesn't... The difference in action design (open top vs circular cross section), along with stock design and a hundred other factors will probably have a much larger effect on performance than an additional .6 inches of action length.Therefore in a general discussion of long vs short action, especially where the OP started off mentioning M1A rifles (a far cry from the benchrest world) I would argue that the difference in stiffness and therefore accuracy is so small as to not be worth mentioning.

Weight differences, on the other hand, people can cuss and discuss till the cows come home, but If the older gentleman from Montana can carry a long action rifle all throughout those mountains, I don't guess I have much of an excuse.

But since I do have a basic understanding of physics and math I can't say it would never make a difference.

You're not the only one on these boards who has done a math problem or two, but an equation (or even a series of equations) doesn't always tell the whole story. ;)

kaferhaus
February 10, 2012, 10:48 AM
Short actions are used in benchrest but I would think it is the cartridge used that dictates the action of the rifle. How about Long range shooting to 1000 yards, I don't see short actions taking all the honors.

No, but you'd be comparing apples to oranges. Those actions are mostly single shot actions with top bridges and solid bottoms (no mag cut out). However, "Short actions" do pretty much rule 1000yd bench rest as well. Most records are held with a 6BR or variations thereof. All short action rounds.

joed
February 10, 2012, 03:00 PM
If you have Abaqus or Ansys you can build and run the models yourself, if not you can come to my office in Houston and I will see if one of our PhD analysts would run it for you. Assuming a free floated barrel a less stiff action will allow the action to move in a less predictable way in the stock, potentially leading to decreased accuracy. The action is of course connected to the barrel and exerts a force on the end of the barrel where it is threaded. If we can get the action to have less horizontal or vertical motion/vibration (by making it stiffer) then we can potentially affect the accuracy.


I work for a major aerospace mfg company and was talking to the engineers today at lunch time. When I showed 2 of them the above they said you'd never notice a difference between long and short action stiffness at the pressure guns operate. They also brought up that the stress of firing is on the bolt and lugs and has nothing to do with stiffness of the action.

kaferhaus
February 10, 2012, 04:31 PM
I work for a major aerospace mfg company and was talking to the engineers today at lunch time. When I showed 2 of them the above they said you'd never notice a difference between long and short action stiffness at the pressure guns operate. They also brought up that the stress of firing is on the bolt and lugs and has nothing to do with stiffness of the action.

Boy are you off base.... this discussion is not about strength regarding the handling of "pressure", it's about rigidity and accuracy.

your engineers are correct, but you asked the wrong question and unless they're familiar with barrel harmonics and what affects them then they'd have no basis for giving a educated answer in the first place.

joed
February 10, 2012, 05:42 PM
Boy are you off base.... this discussion is not about strength regarding the handling of "pressure", it's about rigidity and accuracy.

your engineers are correct, but you asked the wrong question and unless they're familiar with barrel harmonics and what affects them then they'd have no basis for giving a educated answer in the first place.

Then you'll have to explain to me what is being talked about in regards to rigidity. They went on for at least 45 minutes on the subject and brought up many things, bottom line was it most likely makes no difference.

Another item brought up is the amount of space between the screws that hold the action to the stock. Close together is not conducive to accuracy as in a short action. They did go on to say that in a custom benchrest action things are different.

But we aren't talking custom benchrest are we? These are run of the mill standard hunting rifles not $2000 actions.

natman
February 11, 2012, 03:28 AM
There is a difference in accuracy between short and long actions. Part of it is due to a stiffer action. Part of it is due to the shorter cartridge.

None of it is going to be enough to be noticeable in a sporter rifle, but in a benchrest rifle, where everything is important, there's a definite difference.

In a sporter, the main advantage is the lighter weight and better handling you get with a short action. Sure it's only a few ounces, but when building a light weight rifle a quarter pound is a lot to take off in one chunk.

Compare a short action BLR to a long action and you'll get a good idea of what the handling issue is about.

MachIVshooter
February 11, 2012, 04:42 AM
There is a difference in accuracy between short and long actions. Part of it is due to a stiffer action. Part of it is due to the shorter cartridge.

Here we go................:rolleyes:

x_wrench
February 11, 2012, 08:31 AM
the big advantage of a short action, as far as i can see, is a dollar or two lees money at the manufacturers level. in all reality, i can not see any PRACTICAL advantage or disadvantage between a short action all the way up to magnum length action. the time difference between short and magnum length to re-chamber a round would have to be measured in nano seconds.

If you enjoyed reading about "Short vs. Long action" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!