Gunsmiths - why is there usually a 26" barrel on factory .300 win mag rifles where as a 22" or 24" is on nearly all other bolt action rifles?
Thanks.

You shoot magnums to get the better balistics of the magnum. To get that extra velocity you need a 26" barrel as most magnums are somewhat overbore capacity. If one likes a 22" barrel then stick with the good old 30-06 and .270, they will do the job anyway...

On this point I very much disagree with Mr. Atkinson.....there's no reason at all for a 26" tube on a magnum except for marketing reasons.....many people feel the cartridge needs a 26"....some think it's better and nothing is further from the truth.

Yes a few extra FPS are achieved but no more so than a 26" tube for a .30-06 and we all know a 22" '06 will function just fine.

I have a .300 H&H that I've been considering "bobing" the barrel by 4" and the only reason I haven't is because of collectors value. It's a Rem 721 and it's collectors value is minimasl anyway especially after restocking it!

As far as a functioning rifle, I'd cut every 26" barrel back to 24" at a minimum and 22" preferably as it's just easier to handle with the shorter barrel and the performance loss is so slight that no Kudu will ever notice.

Cut your 300 back to 22 and congatulations you now have a very loud, hard kicking and obnoxious 30-06..

The longer tubes on the magnums are to better utilize the powder capacity inside of the barrel where it does the good instead of out in the atmosphere where it doesent.

I'm gonna go along with Ray. My pet load in my Winchester M70 Walmart El Cheapo rifle with 26" barrel will do 2930 FPS with the 200 gr. Speer Hot-core and 200 gr. Nosler Partition. The longer barrel does take a bit of getting used to but once you do, I doubt you'd ever want to go back If you want 22" overall gun length, go with a Ruger #1. They're no longer than a standard rifle 1ith 22" barrel and you have the benefit of 26". The best of both worlds. JMHO.
Paul B.

because 2 extra inches doesnt do any harm.
i have a weatheby mkv with 26" barrel and i have never felt that it in any way was a nuisance

I think a 24" barrel is perfect for any standard length magnum like the .300 Win Mag, 7mm Rem Mag, .338 Win Mag, ect. Plenty of barrel length to reach advertised velocities and not too cumbersome in the field.

I think the 26" barrels are better left to the larger cased magnums, i.e. 300 Weatherby, 300 Ultra, 7mm STW, ect...

original weatherby mags in 257 270 ect were 24" and seemed to do just fine.

I don't know about the 300 win ,mag, but the 7mm rem looses 150fps by going from 26" to 24" , to me thats a lot.

Being an engineer, I was thinking that there must be a technical reason for it but was not sure. I shoot a .280 with a 22" barrel and a .375 with a 24" barrel. My .300 shoots well but at times seems a bit long. Was just curious.
THanks for the help.

short story
it is because the case holds enough powder to "burn"all the way down.
it really creates enough gas to keep pushing the bullet that far.
same reason i use 50 gr of rl-19 with a 120 gr bullet in my 25 cal.
and 52 gr in my 7mm with a 140 gr bullet.
oh the 25 cal is going 200 fps faster.
this is in the same length bbl.

so why not 28" or even 30".....

I think one thing we can all agree on is a 26" will probably always shoot 2" farther than a 24" barrel.


Sorry i couldnt help myself


Cal30

quote:

so why not 28" or even 30".....

Vapo actually I have a few friends in Northern Idaho who shoot 30"-32" barrels on .340 and .300-.338 Rums when they hunt elk.

Awkward as hell to use but the do reap the benifits of the extra velocity.



cal30

Just my opinion but I think the manufacturers are trying to turn out a rifle that has acceptable balance to it. Quite frankly, we could all argue why bbls even come in even numbered lengths. Or half lengths, such as 26.5"

Whether or not there is any valid reason to use a 26" barrel or not, there are those who are velocity happy and have no issues with them.

Barrel lengths have always been a mystery to me. I've never used barrel length as the deciding factor in the purchase of a new firearm. Except for maybe the Marlin GG - I just had to have that 18 inch barrel. Handy rifle indeed.

When I had my 26" barrel installed I also had it long throated to be able to seat the 180 gran Partition out to have a OAL of 3.6" the max length for a Remington action. That barrel with LOTS of 7828 produces 3152 FPS. That is why I like a 26 inch barrel.
Regards, Keith

Just too funny

The extending of barrels of the years has NOTHING to do with increased velocity.
NOTHING!!!
Hunters have known for years that a 20"-22" 30 cal barrel did everything needed.
in a magnum were the IDEA is to shoot either CPX2 animals at 300 yards the 24" barrel was all that was needed.
The reason barrels started geting longer coincided with the advent of iron sights being mounted on the middle of the barrel.
previously the peep sight mounted on the tang or reciver sights gave ample distance between the front and rear sights. when the rear sight was moved 6" further up the barrel was extended to keep the sight radius at a distance that would allow for decent accuracy.
Velocity NEVER trumps accuracy?

You cant miss with a bullet fast enough to kill anything.

You speed heads are putting the cart before the horse.

quote:

so why not 28" or even 30".....

Interesting point. I use two rifles in .300 Win. mag., both having 26" barrels. The Winchester M70 sticks way out younder compared to the Ruger #1B which is no longer than my 30-06 with 22" barrel. In theory then, the Ruger could have either a 28" or 30" barrel and still not be any longer than the M70.
Whether or not the extra barrel length would also give enough of a velocity gain to compensate for the added weight might be something to consider. It wouldn't be worth it for just another 100 FPS.
Paul B.

KStephens,

I can't buy what you are putting out. First, most rifles today in the category we are talking about are scoped, so sight radius is a red herring.

As so many here have correctly pointed out, it is to provide a longer "dwell time" for the bullet before it leaves the barrel which is particularly useful with today's very slow powders. In deed, as someone pointed out, some hunters and many long range bench rest shooters are shooting 30+inch barrels.

My gunsmith put a 26" tube on my 30-338 and it quite easily get 3000fps with a 180gr bullet and does so without excessive pressure. Therefore, I can use the brass until the necks split from work hardening. (If I annealed, I don't know how many reloads I'd get.)

After my first hunt, I came home and asked my smith to put a barrel band on the rifle so I could sling it barrel up and keep the barrel below my head for ducking under trees and brush. Other than that, it is no different that a 24" barrel rifle. Kudude

quote:

Originally posted by kudude:
KStephens,

I can't buy what you are putting out. First, most rifles today in the category we are talking about are scoped, so sight radius is a red herring.

As so many here have correctly pointed out, it is to provide a longer "dwell time" for the bullet before it leaves the barrel which is particularly useful with today's very slow powders. In deed, as someone pointed out, some hunters and many long range bench rest shooters are shooting 30+inch barrels.

My gunsmith put a 26" tube on my 30-338 and it quite easily get 3000fps with a 180gr bullet and does so without excessive pressure. Therefore, I can use the brass until the necks split from work hardening. (If I annealed, I don't know how many reloads I'd get.)

After my first hunt, I came home and asked my smith to put a barrel band on the rifle so I could sling it barrel up and keep the barrel below my head for ducking under trees and brush. Other than that, it is no different that a 24" barrel rifle. Kudude

you can belive whatever you want.
The reason for longer barrels came about as i described.
As far as the the 180 at 3000, it has a PBR of 293 yards when zero is 250.
IF you lost 150 FPS it would change the PBR to 279 if zero is 237.
thats IF you lost 150 FPS.

quote:

As far as the the 180 at 3000, it has a PBR of 293 yards when zero is 250.
IF you lost 150 FPS it would change the PBR to 279 if zero is 237.
thats IF you lost 150 FPS.

Yup.....a whopping 14 yards!!!!!

Hey guys.....everyone gets to buy (or make) them the way you want.....but when the smoke clears the long barrels don't really offer as much as most think they do.

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
you can belive whatever you want.
The reason for longer barrels came about as i described.

On what source(s) do you base that absolute statement?

My first rifle with a barrel longer than 24" was a Jeffery-built .280 Ross on a Mauser. It was made in the decade between 1910-1920, and it had a 28" barrel. As I was not yet a gleam in my father's eye at that time, I did not get the chance to inquire as to why that length was chosen.

But I DO know that for many years before and at least 30 years after the more or less demise of blackpowder as THE propellant for rifles, it was widely accepted among both riflemen and shotgunners that longer barrels "shot harder". Whether they actually did or didn't, that was accepted as fact, so people who wanted especially "hard-shooting" guns often opted for longer barrels. And since even the most ignorant shooters knew they could be more accurate at long ranges with aperture sights, the "peep" sight became popular even before the adoption of smokeless powder. So, people didn't have to use the sights in the middle of the barrel for long range shooting.

I am not saying you are wrong, nor that you are right either. But, to be perfectly frank, I have been reading articles, reading books, and talking with the inventors of cartridges, about the development of magnum rifles for many, many years. This is the very first time I have ever heard it claimed that the 26" tubes were adopted to make up for open sights located in the center of the barrel. I wonder why that is?

I also wonder why it is that Winchester brought out the hunting versions of the .300 H&H in 1936/37 with a 26" tube and the .375 H&H with a 25" tube, yet left the hunting tubes 24" on the '06, .270, etc.? They all seem to have had their open sights in about the same location on the barrels. Their promotional blurbs said it was to take advantage of the greater cartridge capacity. But maybe not?

For myself, one of the reasons I enjoy Ruger No. 1's is that I build some of mine with 28" barrels, even in the non-magnum rounds. They are still handy, and ANY extra velocity I may get is not a hindrance, so far as I can find.

I like 26 inch barrels on my magnums and I figure my pocket knife is longer than the 2 or 3 inches were talking about...so I don't see that extra length as much of a handicap, plus it keep noise levels down, gives you and extra 150 FPS or so in a magnum, (not in an 06 case) because the magnum is over bore capacity...the extra barrel also really helps in off hand shooting..

The above is my persona reasoning, but it sure doesn't bother me if anyone else circumsizes their barrels or their their kids, it's their perogative...

When you are burning that much powder, 2 inches can be a blessing to your ears when un-protected during a hunt.

One has to also wonder why a lot of bench rest shooter do indeed use 28" and even beyond 30" barrels if it did nothing for accuracy or velocity?

Yeah, i know, hunting aint bench rest, but most people buy a magnum to reach way out there. Usually in wide open terrain, so i really do not see how a couple of extra inches would inhibit a hunter. He isnt crawling through a jungle to kill his game.

This is why a lot of hunters have a lot of rifles which are specialized to the animal and terrain thats hunted.

quote:

but it sure doesn't bother me if anyone else circumcise their barrels

good one Ray.....

Guess I have mostly Jewish barrels!

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I like 26 inch barrels on my magnums and I figure my pocket knife is longer than the 2 or 3 inches were talking about...so I don't see that extra length as much of a handicap, plus it keep noise levels down, gives you and extra 150 FPS or so in a magnum, (not in an 06 case) because the magnum is over bore capacity...the extra barrel also really helps in off hand shooting..

The above is my persona reasoning, but it sure doesn't bother me if anyone else circumsizes their barrels or their their kids, it's their perogative...

It certainly helps shut a 300 Magnum up...to a degree.

Why not have a longer barrel on something like a 300 Winchester? This isn't going to be a woods gun, or doesn't need to be, and fact is that the longer barrel DOES increase velocity noticeably. I am getting a 338 Edge for long range shooting and hunting, and it is going to have a 32" barrel. I know this won't be a handy rifle in any way, but it will shoot 300 grain bullets at 2900+ FPS, compared to losing several hundred FPS with a 22" barrel. If I want to go hunting in the woods I'll carry my 45-70 Guide Gun.

At a real optimistic 2700 FPS from a 22 or 24" barrel, you have 28.3 MOA of drop, and 5.3 MOA of windage (in a 10 mph wind) at 1000 yards.

With a 32" barrel, 2900 FPS will be easily achievable, and drops 24 MOA, with 4.7 MOA of windage.

A big difference in your drop, although if you are shooting anywhere near that far you will know the range, so only windage is a real factor. You lose a fair amount of windage, plus you get rid of some of the muzzle blast, or move the muzzle brake a little bit farther from your ears.

Where I hunt we have lots of trees but they are not very tall, about knee high. It's called sage. In these conditions every bit of velocity helps. That is why I like 26" barrels on 300s. I would even like to have a 30/06 with this length barrel.
Regards, Keith Semper Fi

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
you can belive whatever you want.
The reason for longer barrels came about as i described.

On what source(s) do you base that absolute statement?

source(s)?

what am i doing, a term paper?

It does not matter, the source is apparent.

Longer barrels are not more accurate, if anything they are less accurate due to the reduced stiffness of the barrel.
However a longer barrel does increase velocity with "magnum" or overbore cartridges that are most efficient with slow powders.

It is never a wise thing to judge the rest of the world from a persons own level of inadequecy.

Just because someone can't hit a bull in the ass at anything over 300 yards damn sure does not mean that 400 is not just an easy chip shot to someone else.

And for those people who are maxing out their talents and their equipment getting the most from all parts of the game is what it is all about.

Yes you do get more velocity from longer barrels ,, obviously up to a degree.
There is a point where if your barrel were long enough the gases would lose their push, the bullet would lose its momentum and it would simply stop inside the barrel.

But also there is an optimum length for different calibers/ bullet/ powder combinations.

My 338 has a 23 inch barrel, my 300 WM has a 26, two different guns two different uses.
Will either do what the other will? 99.5 % of the time yes.
But then if I wanted to go that route I could do what my father suggests since I started sneaking in and putting arrows through things..

Son just get rid of all them loud sonsabitches and use that old 30-30 you used to pack on your horse, I gaurentee you kill things better with it than that damn bow and arrow..

Well if it were just about killing things,,I guess that is the truth.

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending who you are and how you believe how we go about killing things makes all the difference.

Bucko,
You would be very surprised as to how far you can hit small targets with a 300 if you use a military web sling and a proper sitting or prone position. I carry my rifle on my daily walks and take shots at small rocks at unknown ranges. Under these conditions the big 300 will make you look good.
If you can hit a small rock imagine what you can do to an elk.
Regards, Keith
Semper Fi

I suppose we could use any barrel length we want with any caliber for hunting..The bottom line is that in the field, we will do about as well with one as the other. If I had a 18 inch 300 Wby I would probably kill the same animal that I would with a 30 inch barrel..We are always dealing with technology in these matters and we discuss what is the ultimate and that is decided on paper and on the target range. In the world of hunting I do about as well with a 20" 308 as I do with a 26" 300 H&H..I see the animal and I shoot him...But these discussions make for more knowledge, and its good campfire conversation...

Ray,
Your point is well taken and I accept it. I would however like to comment on what you said yesterday about a 26 incher is easier to shoot offhand with. That is the absolute truth with me also. My first real training shooting offhand was with the M1 in boot camp in 1958. I always shoot better offhand with a weight forward barrel such as the M1 or my 300. That is just another reason that I like the 26.
Regards, Keith
Semper Fi

quote:

I always shoot better offhand with a weight forward barrel such as the M1 or my 300. That is just another reason that I like the 26.

And that's the best reason to have one.....

As for me the 22" does just fine.....

Just finished fitting a 26" barrel, without the barrel nut, to a single shot Savage target action. Calibur is 300 H&H and although I don't expect to do much hikeing with this rifle anything less than 26" just (IMO) seems wrong for this cartridge.

VAPODOG...thanks again for the reamer. It cut a perfect chamber...Jon

in an old copy of Rifleshooter magazine. On the cover it anounced an article on barrel length vs velocity. Unfortunately they do not give all the information that I know that most of us would like to see in the article but what they do give I will post for you all.

22-250
H-380 powder
55gr bullet

27" 3469fps
26" 3451fps
25" 3425fps
24" 3407fps

270 Winchester
H4350 powder
130gr bullet

27" 3115fps
26" 3093fps
25" 3071fps
24" 3054fps
23" 3035fps
22" 3027fps
21" 3001fps

300 Win Mag
RL-22 powder
180gr bullet

27" 3055fps
26" 3031fpsMax Point blank range is 296 yds when zeroed at 251 yds.
25" 3024fps
24" 3003fps
23" 2984fps
22" 2960fpsMax Point blank range is 289 yds when zeroed at 246 yds

300 RUM
H4895 powder
220gr bullet

27" 2740fps
26" 2709fps
25" 2685fps
24" 2663fps
23" 2636fps
22" 2612fps

340 Wby Mag
RL-22 powder
250gr bullet

27" 2837fps
26" 2817fps
25" 2809fps
24" 2791fps
23" 2777fps
22" 2755fps
21" 2731fps

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:
in an old copy of Rifleshooter magazine. On the cover it anounced an article on barrel length vs velocity. Unfortunately they do not give all the information that I know that most of us would like to see in the article but what they do give I will post for you all.

22-250
H-380 powder
55gr bullet

27" 3469fps
26" 3451fps
25" 3425fps
24" 3407fps

270 Winchester
H4350 powder
130gr bullet

27" 3115fps
26" 3093fps
25" 3071fps
24" 3054fps
23" 3035fps
22" 3027fps
21" 3001fps

300 Win Mag
RL-22 powder
180gr bullet

27" 3055fps
26" 3031fpsMax Point blank range is 296 yds when zeroed at 251 yds.
25" 3024fps
24" 3003fps
23" 2984fps
22" 2960fpsMax Point blank range is 289 yds when zeroed at 246 yds

300 RUM
H4895 powder
220gr bullet

27" 2740fps
26" 2709fps
25" 2685fps
24" 2663fps
23" 2636fps
22" 2612fps

340 Wby Mag
RL-22 powder
250gr bullet

27" 2837fps
26" 2817fps
25" 2809fps
24" 2791fps
23" 2777fps
22" 2755fps
21" 2731fps

Given that a human being can hand throw a baseball at 150'/sec it makes me wonder about some of these gains.

Do the math.....the faster the cartridge shoots the less time it spends in the last inches of the barrel.....the less opportunity it has to gain velocity.....

Why do these threads remind me of the old Marlin goose gun.....a bolt shotgun with a 36" barrel.......but it did have 8" greater range than a 28" barrel!!!!! I also remember reading about the 3" 12 Ga ammo.....tests showed the increase in range over the standard 2 3/4" loads was very close to five yards!

The more I read this thread the more I like my short barrels.

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:



source(s)?
what am i doing, a term paper?

No, you are making a statement that what you say is absolutely correct. ("You can belive whatever you want. The reason for longer barrels came about as i described.")

And I am asking, "What makes you think so?"

I may well be wrong, but I doubt you were even born when makers started putting 26" barrels on bolt-action rifles. If that is correct, you would have to have received your authoritative information from someone else. All I am asking is "From what source?", so I may evaluate for myself how likely to be correct the information is.

As to barrel length, I don't care which lengths people choose, though the "whys" may be interesting. My rifles have barrels from just over 16" (Yes, legally owned) to 29-1/2" and each suits its own purposes.

It's just when I read an opinion which differs from the info I've been given and seen develop over my lifetime, and it is stated as an absolute fact, I like to be able to "check it out".

Best wishes,

AC