No reference to you at all because you are not the author of this "study" (plus I have to refute it before so not the first time) and just posted the link- I'm discussing the article and its "conclusions" Although I support people conducting experiments (safely of course) and thinking, analyzing and all that as well as discussing conclusions- they have to be taken with a grain of salt and caution. Read this guys last part on sources of error- this entire design of experiment, analysis and conclusions are fatally flawed and not even close to the standards of testing under the auspices of the scientific method. At the 10,000 ft level with identical loads, a shorter barrel will have a direct bearing on velocity ( muzzle) different from a longer identical barrel just due to the reduction in friction alone. ( defined simply as one is physically longer than the other) At that level its true but unqualified in terms of "length to imparted friction" correlation and there are many techniques to manipulate those properties and close that gap drastically. That's why there is more than one barrel design ( a science unto itself) with different outcomes in terms of velocity, effective range, effective accuracy etc.
Originally Posted by bsmithwins
These guys did a barrel cut down test and found a average loss of 23fps for each inch of barrel lost: http:/
BSW bulletin.accurateshooter.com/ 2015/ 06/ 308-win-barrel-cut-down-test-velocity-vs-barrel-length/