I have no proof for these three things, only suspicions.
1) I suspect an accurate barrel is an accurate barrel, whatever the length it is. This assumes enough length to stabliize the bullet and that crowning remains constant when/if it is cut. If shot from a machine rest and human factors are removed, accuracy should remain fairly nearly constant. "Harmonics" changing with the different lengths might factor into that, however.
2) I suspect that for most people a longer and heavier barrel (within reason) on a rifle "hangs better," promoting more practical accuracy.
3) I suspect that some individual guns of a shorter length are inherently more accurate than some individual guns of longer barrel length. And vice versa. There is probably no way to account for this or to duplicate it in the manufacturing process. I just read in an American Rifleman that the Weatherby Vanguard is guaranteed to do 1 1/2". Some production rifles are pulled when tested because they will do much better and labeled as "sub MOA" guns and priced appropriately. Presumably that would indicate that things change during production.
I can attest to this: A stocked artillery is more easy for me to shoot accurately than my P-08's held in a Weaver stance. This is especially true now that my health is bad and I have had to lay off shooting for long intervals. Not only that, but I shoot several of my "regular" rifles better than I do the Artillery. Some guns are just easier to shoot and aim.
Mass produced rifles fit me pretty well--guess I'm pretty average. I would expect to do better with a stock custom made for me, though I don't have any.
Likewise, the Lugers are generally conceded to have a natural feel to them. The fact that I can shoot one better with a stock attached, as is the case with the Artillery, says something to me. The sight might indeed be longer on a P-08, but the type of sight on my Artillery is easier for me to use also.
Rod (who has personally shot 25,000 and one tin cans in his career)
