I am going to buy a new rifle to use for elk next year and then Alaska in 2015. I'm pretty well set on a Winchester M70. Standard barrel length is 26" but I think I would like to have it cut down to 22". Am I going to lose enough velocity where cutting it down to 22" is going to be a bad idea?

I'm very happy with my .338 WM with it's 27" Krieger barrel. I'm launching 225's at nearly 3k/fps. Personally, I think a magnum should have a long barrel.

I had a 338wm cut to 22" I wish I had left it at 24".

Cutting the barrel down will lose a bit of velocity and increase muzzle blast and flash tremendously. You really want to keep the barrel as long as you can handle in the terrain you will be hunting.

24 or 24,5 inch !

24 inches.

I am wanting to go to 20.5" for the 338 Win Mag. because today we have so many good medium burning propellants that maintain velocity.

The idea that you are going to lose velocity is nonsense with todays powder's. If you do your research and choose your powder wisely, you might lose 50-100 fps shooting a 20" barrel.

In the last issue of Guns/Ammo, Dick Metcalf gave an example comparing a 24" barrel and a 16.5" barrel in a 7mm-08. The drop in velocity was less than 100 fps using todays modern powders.

You have many good propellant choices and make your decision to shoot a shorter barrel based on greater accuracy and mobility. Don't buy into the outdated concept of lost velocity.

quote:

In the last issue of Guns/Ammo, Dick Metcalf gave an example comparing a 24" barrel and a 16.5" barrel in a 7mm-08. The drop in velocity was less than 100 fps using todays modern powders.

Did the venerable Mr. Metcalf choose to include the difference in group size between the two barrel lengths? There is more to consider than just velocity when talking about barrel lengths...

I would stay with 24" and put a safari style banded front swivel stud on the barrel so it rides lower on your shoulder and doesn't catch every branch you walk under...

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

Did the venerable Mr. Metcalf choose to include the difference in group size between the two barrel lengths? There is more to consider than just velocity when talking about barrel lengths...

Actually the main point in Metcalf's article was the inherent "increase" in accuracy going to a shorter barrel. This is because the harmonic vibrations of the barrel are less using a shorter length. There is simply less barrel to fluctuate.

Also maintaining a consistent velocity is a good way to maintain accuracy. Today's propellants not only decrease pressure and work in short tubes, they also maintain a consistent velocity and consistent accuracy in short tubes.

I have one that has been cut to 21 7/8" because of having the "integral muzzle brake" cut off.
It is a little slower I suppose, seems easier to manuver in thick stuff but I wish it was back at 24 or even 26". Not enough to rebarrel as it is quite accurate, but enough I don't recommend shortening to others. Mostly due to muzzle blast.

I don't find the muzzle blast of the 338 Win Mag bad at all. It is a low pitched "boom" that isn't hard on the ears or skull.

Can't stand the "pew" blast from a 308 or 270 though. A longer barrel doesn't make any difference to these either.

I have been around a lot of 338 WM myself and know experienced shooters that also have owned them. The conclusion is that the 338 does not loose that much velocity by cutting the barrel to 20 - 22". If you have a good reason for a short 338, then by all means have it cut, as it will still be a very effective hunting gun. I personally would not go shorter than 23' due to balance and muzzle blast of the mag cal. I just do not like short barreled guns, especial the belted magnum cals. Even with the new powders availiable, cutting the barrel will will drop the velocity some and don't let anybody tell you different.

I would leave it alone. My .338 Win. Mag. has a 65 cm (25.6 in) barrel. Short barrels in magnum calibers produce increased blast and flash and decreased velocity. Bad combo.

quote:

Originally posted by Rich-:
I am going to buy a new rifle to use for elk next year and then Alaska in 2015. I'm pretty well set on a Winchester M70. Standard barrel length is 26" but I think I would like to have it cut down to 22". Am I going to lose enough velocity where cutting it down to 22" is going to be a bad idea?

Cut it.

The 338 WM has he same bore-volume/case-capacity ratio as the 30-06. No one would argue a 22" bbl. doesn't work well in the 30-06.

If you're worried, go 23"

I've had 6 338 WM's and all but one got cut to 22".

If I'm going to pack a 24" barrel I'd sooner have a 300 WM.

PS, bull in my avatar was shot with a SS M70 338 WM cut to 22". I've shot many bigger since, but that was a special day...

quote:

Originally posted by Rich-:
I am going to buy a new rifle to use for elk next year and then Alaska in 2015. I'm pretty well set on a Winchester M70. Standard barrel length is 26" but I think I would like to have it cut down to 22". Am I going to lose enough velocity where cutting it down to 22" is going to be a bad idea?

Rich-,

If it shoots and groups well with the 26" barrel,
Then keep it that way!

If not, cut it down to whatever you think you want and wish you good luck.

Agree with RaySendero.

If it shoots a good group, leave it alone.

By the way, the .338WM is quite popular in Alaska. The same for the Federal load with 225-grain TSX.

I can't imagine that a few inches of barrel makes too much difference in weight or handling. Both of mine are 24 inches.

I've had several, and I prefer a 25" barrel.
22 is too short considering the caliber.

I'm a long time fan of the .338 Win. it's the perfect balance of bullet weight, velocity and recoil that most can handle with a minimum of practice..

My load test indicate that 24 inches is the proper barrel length, everything considered. I have no objection to 26 inches unless one intends to hunt horseback and that extra two inches seems to bother me, may not someone else?

I am convienced that a 26 inch tube in the thickest of bush is as good as a 18 inch barrel. I have hunted the Jesse, the thickest of Shin tangle with my 26 inch guns, and it was never been a factor in my ability to get a shot off....Thats mostly in the mind of the user, and more than likely something he read and accepted as fact. If you think about it, you don't ever know if an intervenign stick or limb is going to be at 18 inches or 26 inches! and touching all but the thickest of limbs doesn't seem to change much as far as getting a shot off. The only up side to a short tube is saddle carry and they do feel good and point well, but so does a properly set up long barreled gun. The choice is yours and yours only.

If I were wanting a 20 inch medium bore then I'd opt for a 375 H&H or Ruger, both have enough vel. and energy and bullet weight to perform well enough, but still not optimum..

The 40 calibers are fine with short tubes, but they don't depend on velocity as much, and they still have more than enough power to get any job done.

Just my two bits, and these things are certainly argueable, and not set in stone.

quote:

Originally posted by Rich-:
I am going to buy a new rifle to use for elk next year and then Alaska in 2015. I'm pretty well set on a Winchester M70. Standard barrel length is 26" but I think I would like to have it cut down to 22". Am I going to lose enough velocity where cutting it down to 22" is going to be a bad idea?

Definitely leave it at 26". The longer barrels give a good balance for long range shooting and of course you will maximise the velocity from the cartridge. I used a 26" barrelled Schultz & Larsen rifle in 7x61S&H for years and never found the barrel length a problem in our bush which is virtually jungle in places while out on the open mountain tops it ruled supreme.

I'm always sceptical when barrel lengths are discussed because in one breath, those that talk about the negligible effect on velocity from shorting barrels are often the same that seek to get the highest velocity within good accuracy levels when they are working up reloads, often talking of the benefits of 50-100fps gains, happily ignoring 50-100fps losses when discussing barrel lengths.

IMHO and experience, for shooting large game at short or long range, nothing will beat a good length barrel and as much velocity as can be safely and accurately achieved, bullet to suit of course.
My favourite for hundreds of head of game was the 7mm 160gr Sierra SBT at 3000fps with which nothing at short or long range ever made it more than a few meters and then it was usually only a stumble or two as they fell (when I didn’t miss completely ).

quote:

Originally posted by Rich-:
I am going to buy a new rifle to use for elk next year and then Alaska in 2015. I'm pretty well set on a Winchester M70. Standard barrel length is 26" but I think I would like to have it cut down to 22". Am I going to lose enough velocity where cutting it down to 22" is going to be a bad idea?

". . . lose enough velocity. . . " having less would prevent you from . . .?

If you are going to cut it to 22", you may as well get a 338-06 and forgo the muzzle blast and extra beating on the shoulder. The difference in power level would be largely insignificant. Maybe a 325 WSM would fit the bill a bit better.

keep it at 26in, take the gunsmithing money you were going to spend and get you a 358 with a 20in barrel...now that is a match.

Ed

Lot of opinion's from those that have never had a 22" bbl'd 338 WM... I've had them 22, 24 and 26".

The 338 WM loses very little going to 22" and gains stiffness (accuracy).

But to each his own...

I currently own both a 26" M70 and a 20" Sako .338WM. Prefer the Sako in the field (carry a lot, shoot a little) and the M70 for "varmits". (carry a little, shoot a lot). Some velocity loss,but insignificant at my ranges. Target does not seem to know the difference,IMHO.

Personal preference. I've hunted exclusively with a 338 WM since 1993. I currently own 3 of em. One has a 24 inch barrel and the other 2 26 inch tubes. All wear muzzle brakes on top of that and I have no problem moving through brush etc. with any of em.

As I said, have had 6 since 1991... "moving through brush" isn't necessarily the point of a short barrel. Balance is the bigger issue for me.

But I'm only 5'10" so 22" "feels" right to me... a taller, longer-armed guy will likely feel differently and will often prefer a longer rifle/barrel.

This is something usually left out in these discussions.

Would also say, not all "brush" is created equal... the willow and devil's club of Coastal Alaska is different than N. Central Alaska. I was happy to be toting a 22" 338 WM on the Kenai.