Opinions on barrel length please

[MR T]

I would want a larger muzzle diameter for a 30 caliber with a brake.

+1 I'd look at their sendero contour. 24" w/ brake

 

[dmj]

No question. 26 inch. I would add the brake, but if the recoil doesn't concern you that would be your call. Do I have mag rifles with less that a 26 inch barrel, yes. Would I rebarrel one with less than a 26, probably not. But remember, it's your rifle and in the end you are the one that needs to be satisfied. Good luck with your project.

 

[Mateo]

I vote 26" too. With that much pressure/case capacity pushing your bullets 24" seems quite short. I hunt with 26" and don't mind the length. 28-30" is hard to not notice. That being said. #3 contour seems a bit light for a magnum like this....

 

[huntoregon]

Bartlein's #3 contour is comparable to most others #4 for what it's worth

 

[Edd]

Bartlein's #3 contour is comparable to most others #4 for what it's worth

A Bartlein #3 is the same size as a Krieger #4. Krieger won't make a 30 cal stainless steel barrel in a #4 but that wasn't my point about the muzzle diameter. I think a 30 caliber barrel needs an 11/16" thread for the muzzle brake. An 11/32". I wouldn't want anything smaller than about .800" for that size thread.

 

[Timber338]

My personal opinion is that a 300 win mag is handicapped with only a 24" barrel. If barrel length is that critical of a factor, I would go with 24" and a 300wsm. That would make a very handy rifle that will do anything a 300 win mag will do with the same length barrel, but could be built into a short action and would be lighter to carry.

The shortest I would ever go with a 300 win mag is 26". But like others have said, this is your rifle, do what you want.

 

[ohiohunter]

"To find the answers, Tac Ops took a 26-inch barreled .300 Win. Mag. and chopped the barrel down in one-inch increments as they previously did with the .308 Winchester. Ten rounds of Federal Match 190-grain BTHP Gold Medal were fired from each increment. No velocity was lost from 26 inches to 22 inches. Velocity loss started to occur only after they went below 22 inches."

Shorter barrel = Stiffer barrel.

I wouldn't use a 22", but I don't see 24" 300wm as a handicap.

 

[huntoregon]

I am leaning towards the 26" barrel. I guess now it comes down to will it be too long with a brake on it also.

After I get the barrel work done I plan on going with a nice stock also, right now I am looking at Manners and McMillan. How do you guys determine what stock you want and how heavy it should be for a good balance of weight?

 

[ohiohunter]

Standard fill should be fine.

 

[TonyQ]

I would say get the 30" with the brake if you don't like it the have it shorten. Think about how much time you practice shooting vs acutal hunting. I practice shooting all the time and I hunt one week a year so I think i can handle hauling an a extra pound around or so. Think about the benefits of the extra velocity 700vs1400 yard shot. It's your rifle and to each his own.

 

[Timber338]

"To find the answers, Tac Ops took a 26-inch barreled .300 Win. Mag. and chopped the barrel down in one-inch increments as they previously did with the .308 Winchester. Ten rounds of Federal Match 190-grain BTHP Gold Medal were fired from each increment. No velocity was lost from 26 inches to 22 inches. Velocity loss started to occur only after they went below 22 inches."

Shorter barrel = Stiffer barrel.

I wouldn't use a 22", but I don't see 24" 300wm as a handicap.

I just read the article that you mentioned and the test was conducted out of a single rifle using Federal Match ammo. That ammo very obviously uses a faster burning powder that completes it's burn around 20-22". The article goes on to say that a longer barrel would be better for higher velocities when slower burning powders are used.

It has been proven time and time again by reloaders that a 24" barrel is going to be about 40-50 fps slower than a 26" barrel using appropriate powders that maximize the potential of the cartridge. With slow powder and heavy bullets that are typically used in long range hunting ammo, a 24" barrel is simply not going to deliver as much velocity as a 26". Same thing can be said comparing a 26" to a 28".

 

[tony m]

My opinion ..nothing longer than 22".If you hunt our steep sided brushy mountains.You gotta pack it into tough spots

 

[huntoregon]

Last year I hunted with the factory 24" barrel and that didn't bother me at all.

 

[ohiohunter]

I just read the article that you mentioned and the test was conducted out of a single rifle using Federal Match ammo. That ammo very obviously uses a faster burning powder that completes it's burn around 20-22". The article goes on to say that a longer barrel would be better for higher velocities when slower burning powders are used.

It has been proven time and time again by reloaders that a 24" barrel is going to be about 40-50 fps slower than a 26" barrel using appropriate powders that maximize the potential of the cartridge. With slow powder and heavy bullets that are typically used in long range hunting ammo, a 24" barrel is simply not going to deliver as much velocity as a 26". Same thing can be said comparing a 26" to a 28".

Yeah, i get it, but can you tell me where and how 50fps (if you get that much difference) effects much of anything? All I see is 60ft/lb more energy at 650... and both 180gr accubonds fall below 1500ft/lb at 700yds at 3050 and 3100fps. At 3000fps (22" barrel) you fall to 1455 f/lb @ 650yds. If 180gr is too light then w/ the 215 at 2900fps is only a difference of 64 ft/lb @ 950. To say you are losing A LOT of performance in that 2" is a stretch, you'd be way better off with two inches somewhere else

I'd take the handiness and stiffness over that 50fps in a hunting rig any day. Even more so in a rifle I plan on doing a lot of hiking and walking with.