A while back I acquired a Browning X Bolt 338 Win Mag. It has a 26" barrel. So far I haven't choreographed anything with it. In general though, is there a consensus about optimal barrel length for a 338 Win? I'm thinking it would be more handy in thick areas with a somewhat shorter barrel, probably 24". The 338 Win Mag doesn't seem like a large capacity cartridge (relative to bore diameter) that would need a 26" tube. What say AR gun geeks?

quote:

Originally posted by JeffreyPhD:
A while back I acquired a Browning X Bolt 338 Win Mag. It has a 26" barrel. So far I haven't choreographed anything with it. In general though, is there a consensus about optimal barrel length for a 338 Win? I'm thinking it would be more handy in thick areas with a somewhat shorter barrel, probably 24". The 338 Win Mag doesn't seem like a large capacity cartridge (relative to bore diameter) that would need a 26" tube. What say AR gun geeks?

Why is a 26" barrel on a shotgun considered "short" (even on a pump or auto-loader) & ideal for thick cover yet a 26" barrel on a rifle is considered "long"?

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:
Why is a 26" barrel on a shotgun considered "short" (even on a pump or auto-loader) & ideal for thick cover yet a 26" barrel on a rifle is considered "long"?

Just one of those mysteries of life I guess. Maybe something to do with carrying a rifle on a sling, which we don't generally do with a shotgun.

23.5" for mine, because it's a handy length for me.
(I don't blame you for not choreographing, folks look silly when they dance with their rifles.)

Not about the 338 Win. Mag. but some principles explained.

Optimal Barrel Length

My Browning Abolt, Xbolt and Remington 700 XCR all wore 26 inch barrels and my Weatherby Vanguard sported a 24 inch. I prefer the 26 inch barrel myself just for the extra velocity but it's all good either way. The velocity difference between 24 and 26 inch barrels has been 40-65 fps. Currently, my Vanguard shoots my 225 TTSX handload at 2764 FPS and my Xbolt shoots the same load at 2825 FPS. The difference in handling in the brush with the 26 inch barrel is irrelevant...and all my 338s wear muzzle brakes.

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:
Not about the 338 Win. Mag. but some principles explained.

Optimal Barrel Length

That's an interesting read.

20 inch 308 is not a 20 inch 338 !
There is no where , no way that the principle applies ! The internal ballistics between these two cartridge classes are way different !

I for one dont care for 26 inch barrels unless the cartridge really needs it. For me a 24 inch .338 is just fine. I like the balance a little better than with a longer tube. Yes it looses a a small amount of velocity but I can live with that. Others may feel different.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
20 inch 308 is not a 20 inch 338 !
There is no where , no way that the principle applies ! The internal ballistics between these two cartridge classes are way different !

If you had read the whole article, you would have known that nowhere was it implied that a 20 inch 308 Winchester barrel was necessairly applicable to a 338 Winchester Magnum. The underlying principles are still valid though.

I was not referencing the article per se but the assumption made that because you can cut a barrel to 18 inches in a 308 for the range purposes required in urban tactical shooting you could do the same for a 338.

The difference lies in the internal ballistic cycle difference between the two classes of cartridges. Whilst a 338 in a 20 inch is a dandy rifle ( I have a Sako Finbear Full stock in this configuration ) it is a complete waste of useful propellant. It's like having a V8 motor in a vehicle and governing it by cutting a hole in the fuel line.

The bigger question is why do we choose a 338 Win mag for shooting certain classes of game ?

If you are going to choose a short barrel 338 you could achieve the same result with a far lesser cartridge .... actually come to think of it one would actually do far better with a lesser but more efficient option.

As to a 18 inch or 20 inch 308 ? if loss of about 200 fps is acceptable for the purpose the gun is to be used at the distance it is used why even bother shooting a 308 ? one could go smaller, lighter less recoil and achieve the same end result.

I have had half a dozen 338's, 340's and an Edge. All had 26" barrels, except the Edge that has a 32" barrel.
Also had 3 300WM with 24" barrels, much prefer a minimum of 26" barrels for hunting.
If I was buying a new rifle in 338, it would be on top of the list that it had a 26" barrel. This is where I choose Winchester Model 70's in the Extreme Weather. Ticks all the boxes for me. Kimber 8400's are also top of the list.

Cheers.

I have a Win M70 .338 that has a 21.5" barrel, before everyone screams "muzzle blast" and "low velocity", "might as well have a 338/06" just hear me out.
Mine gets 2845 fps with a 225 grain bullet (70.5 gr IMR 4350) shoots tiny groups and does not have any noticeable muzzle blast any worse than anything else I shoot.
So having said that I would say the optimum length of barrel for a .338 WM is up to you, anything from 21.5" to 26" seems to work.
If you are hell bent on shortening yours have it chopped at 22 or 23 and never look back.

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:
Why is a 26" barrel on a shotgun considered "short" (even on a pump or auto-loader) & ideal for thick cover yet a 26" barrel on a rifle is considered "long"?

Valid question. Part of the answer is between a shooter's ears. But part is defensible. Moment of inertia (MOI) is what bird hunters care about. Alot. It accounts for what we refer to as "feel". Most shotgun barrels are thin (not all, ie., Mossberg), so many repeaters are pretty dynamic with 28 or even 30" tubes. A small frame Model 12 is an excellent example.

It would be very easy to make a rapid taper 28" rifle barrel so to make the gun feel like it has a stiff 18.5" tube. Most rifle makers do not want to sell us long thin barrels, b/c accuracy is more the concern.

FWIW, I find something like a WBY Ultralite with 26" bbl every bit as dynamic as some 20" barreled sporters. Evidently, I'm a bird hunter.

Don't ask me, I am on my 3rd 338 and all had 24" barrels . This has been on my mind as well and have been thinking about chopping it to 22"s. I doubt I'd loose much in terms of velocity but also, 24" don't bother me. Sorta on the fence with it myself.

Where is Brad when you need him

My 338 has a 21" barrel. 338 has the same expansion ratio as the 30/06. So, velocity loss will be the same.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
I was not referencing the article per se but the assumption made that because you can cut a barrel to 18 inches in a 308 for the range purposes required in urban tactical shooting you could do the same for a 338.

The difference lies in the internal ballistic cycle difference between the two classes of cartridges. Whilst a 338 in a 20 inch is a dandy rifle ( I have a Sako Finbear Full stock in this configuration ) it is a complete waste of useful propellant. It's like having a V8 motor in a vehicle and governing it by cutting a hole in the fuel line.

The bigger question is why do we choose a 338 Win mag for shooting certain classes of game ?

If you are going to choose a short barrel 338 you could achieve the same result with a far lesser cartridge .... actually come to think of it one would actually do far better with a lesser but more efficient option.

As to a 18 inch or 20 inch 308 ? if loss of about 200 fps is acceptable for the purpose the gun is to be used at the distance it is used why even bother shooting a 308 ? one could go smaller, lighter less recoil and achieve the same end result.

Alf. as usual a very logical response

I'm not sure where the 200 fps velocity loss came from in regard to the 308 Winchester. The article said "They found that a 20-inch barrel provides for a complete propellant burn and no velocity loss when using Federal Match 168-grain BTHP, a cartridge that has become something of a law enforcement standard. Going to an 18-inch barrel only resulted in a loss of 32 feet per second (fps)."

"No velocity loss" seems a little less than 200 fps.

So the question isn't why not go with a lesser cartridge but why have extra barrel out there not doing any good.

If we want maximum velocity we should have a 32" or longer barrel. I lost 75 fps. when I went from 24" to 21" on my .338. Since that rifle is mostly used for elk hunting in the dark timber I thought the trade off was very acceptable. I think most of the individuals posting on here are talking off the top of their head. Just because it says magnum does not mean it has to have a 26"-24" barrel. Who else has actually done it and checked velocity on an accurate chronograph. PS. I'm loading sensible maximum loads of H-4350 behind a 250 gr. NPT and RL-19 behind 210 & 225 gr. bullets. At long range this rifle holds up as good as any 30/06. If I desire really flat long range trajectory I'll shoot my .300 mag.

We all do what we think is best so do what you want. With that said, here are a few of my observations over the past 5 decades of big game hunting.

The only time I feel a need for a "handy" rifle is getting in and out of the truck and I only do that once per day when I'm carrying a 338 cal!

I've owned 338's in everything from a 20" to a 26.5" Lilja and add a muzzle brake to that. In the field I have never felt hampered by my long tubes at all.

If it were me, I'd keep the 26" barrel and enjoy the hell out of it just the way it is.

(I've held 2 inches of barrel in my hand and I can tell you it's not much for weight or length)

Zeke

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:
If we want maximum velocity we should have a 32" or longer barrel.

You do realize don't you that if you make a barrel long enough the velocity will decrease?

Yes, I do realize that. But that length is in excess of 40" with the larger centerfire cartridges. Although only around 16" with .22LR. I have a 32" 284 Win. I don't care to hunt the dark timber with it though. If a hunter isn't aware of the advantages of a shorter rifle he hasn't still hunted the dark timber. I've also been big game hunting for over a half century. The expansion ratio of a 338 is the same as for a 30/06. It will not lose any more velocity by shortening the barrel than a 30/06 will. Rugers relatively new 375 Ruger in the Pro-hunter has a 20 1/2" barrel. Sako has sold many 375 H&H's with 20" barrels. Winchester and Remington have sold a lot of 18 1/2" barreled 30/06's. Not everybody sits on a stump and hunts. First time you knock a five gallon bucket full of snow off of a limb down the back of your neck( been there done that) or jam your barrel in the mud or snow (been there done that also) you'll realize the advantages of a shorter barrel, and when you're shooting at game, 75 fps doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Or just banged your barrel against a limb and spooked a big elk or deer (done that too). Frequently our cartridges vary by that amount from one shot to the next.

JefferyPHD: I don't find a 26-inch barrel particularly unhandy, and do like that the longer the barrel the less the muzzle blast, as well as the further from your ear.

However, I've never found sporter weight 26-inchers to be particularly accurate. They seem to be a bit "whippy". To get an accurate 26-incher they seem to have to have an undesirably heavy contour (at least for a hunting rifle).

Having your X-bolt cut and crowned back to about 24" won't result in any significant velocity loss, but might improve its accuracy. And it will improve, albeit slightly, its portability.

I'll betcha that those instant spellers on some computers will automatically change "chronograph" to "choreograph" if you toss them the reins and let them have their head.

The barrel is indeed fairly whippy with that .33 caliber hole in it. Accuracy is decent but not exceptional. Usually about 1.5" at 100 yes with factory ammo it likes. That would be Barnes ammo mainly. Accuracy with Nosler partitions, factory or handloads, is abysmal.

I wasn't thinking of going below 24" inches. But it might be interesting to take off a half inch at a time and see how accuracy is affected. Kind of like the BOSS thing, but no going back. Chronographing it at each step could also be worthwhile. My guess is that there wouldn't be too much velocity loss going from 26 to 24 inches with a 338 Win. It's not like a 300 RUM or 26 Nosler.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
JefferyPHD: I don't find a 26-inch barrel particularly unhandy, and do like that the longer the barrel the less the muzzle blast, as well as the further from your ear.

However, I've never found sporter weight 26-inchers to be particularly accurate. They seem to be a bit "whippy". To get an accurate 26-incher they seem to have to have an undesirably heavy contour (at least for a hunting rifle).

Having your X-bolt cut and crowned back to about 24" won't result in any significant velocity loss, but might improve its accuracy. And it will improve, albeit slightly, its portability.

I'll betcha that those instant spellers on some computers will automatically change "chronograph" to "choreograph" if you toss them the reins and let them have their head.

From past experience I would assume that you would lose 40-60 fps. total, depending on the powder being used.

My vote goes with leave it alone. As some others have said, and I agree, the longer barrel does give you more velocity. It might not be a lot, but I'd like all I can get from my rifles. The longer tube also helps the gun point nicer and keep the muzzle blast and associated noise farther away from you. If the rifle shoots well the way it is, why mess with it?

One of many references on the internet dealing with barrel length and velocity.

There is a lot one can learn from history:
When the Allies faced the superior armour they did not cut the barrel length of their guns, they made them longer and they chose powder options with position of burnt close to the muzzle.

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:

quote:

Originally posted by JeffreyPhD:
A while back I acquired a Browning X Bolt 338 Win Mag. It has a 26" barrel. So far I haven't choreographed anything with it. In general though, is there a consensus about optimal barrel length for a 338 Win? I'm thinking it would be more handy in thick areas with a somewhat shorter barrel, probably 24". The 338 Win Mag doesn't seem like a large capacity cartridge (relative to bore diameter) that would need a 26" tube. What say AR gun geeks?

Why is a 26" barrel on a shotgun considered "short" (even on a pump or auto-loader) & ideal for thick cover yet a 26" barrel on a rifle is considered "long"?

Generally because a shotgun, unlike a rifle does not have an action several inches long. A 26" shotgun or Ruger No1 or a double.for that matter, has a far shorter overall length than a 26" bolt action rifle. Of course the reference to pumps is relevant in this case due to their action length. Long barelled pumps and semi's aren't that handy as you quickly see in a 3 gun match with tight stage design.

All of the above said I've got no issues with 24" and 26" barrels in even fairly thick bush. I have some favourites with 26" barrels. I say try it out and see how you like it. I'm more about how it points and swings than how long it is! ;-)

Really this thread is this astonishing. Cut the barrel how are you please 20 to 26 inches. The only difference that is actually realized is where the velocity envelope ends. There is what, 40-60 yards of "argument" there? I doubt anyone could realistically tell. The downside to cutting your barrel from 26-22" is that you have to get 4" closer . I don't mind short barrels but 24"s doesn't bother me much either. I am not sure I'd have a 26" 338 wm. Even my 340 got chopped to 24" and its 150 FPS ahead of any of my 24" 338 loads.

I have a Ruger M77-Hawkeye (the African version), which by the way is quite a good looking-rifle (if there is such thing as beauty on a rifle)

Anyway, it comes with a 22" barrel from the factory, and has no muzzle brake. If you look at a Ruger #1 from the stock forend to the front sight, that's the way this rifle looks like.

It's shown at the bottom of this Ruger page:
http://www.ruger.com/products/Hawkeye/overview.html

Rugers Guide's Gun comes with 20" barrel in 338 Win Mag among other calibers. It's a very attractive, functional rifle. If I had a few more years to hunt I would buy one.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:


One of many references on the internet dealing with barrel length and velocity.

That chart is suspect to say the least...

First, I've never had a 22" bbl'd 308 that wouldn't shoot Federal 168 Gold Medal Match loads at 2,700 fps.

Second, velocity doesnt drop-off in an even line like the chart suggests. Some inches lopped-off lose more fps than others.

I've had an even dozen 308's with 18.5, 20, 22 and 24" barrels, and a new acquisition with a 28" barrel. The chart doesn't jive with my actual hand's-on experience.

Back to the 338 WM, I've had them with 22, 24, and 26" barrels. I believe I've had five total 338's, and all but one were eventually cut to 22" which is my favored length.

The Bore-volume/case-capacity ratio of the 338 is EXACTLY the same as the 30-06, and I doubt there's an intelligent person anywhere that would argue a 30-06 doesn't work very well with a 22" barrel.

What I found was 250's went around 2670 fps in the 22", 225's at 2,850 and 210's at 2,920.

One of the primary reasons, I believe, to choose a 338 WM over a 300 WM is it can be made handier and lighter by a shorter barrel. That's a nice thing to have stalking elk in the dog hair after a day of climbing in sub zero temps up and down in the Rocky Mountains... exactly how the bull in my avatar was taken.

Final thought, HUNTING RIFLES are made for just that, hunting. Choosing an appropriate barrel length takes more into account than just optimum performance.

"Optimum Performance" is a compromise for the hunter, otherwise we'd all be using 28"+ barrels.

That compromise varies, person to person, taking into consideration that person's physical build, hunting style, terrain, and subjective aesthetic preferences. Of course it also takes into account the actual cartridge in question.

It goes without saying there are "norms" when it comes to barrel length with a given cartridge, but some of those "norms" are also faulty. The 338 WM and 375 H&H are two cartridges that suffer from those faulty norms.

Both work exceedingly well with 22" barrels, despite the term "Magnum" applied to them, yet are routinely chambered in unnecessarily long 26" barrels.

I wouldn't say the same of a 7mm RM...

quote:

Originally posted by smallfry:

Where is Brad when you need him

lol, just saw this!

quote:

Originally posted by smallfry:
Really this thread is this astonishing.

That's being kind...

JefferyPhd, I'm not sure of all of the reasons that you're considering a shorter barrel. But if one reason is portability, as someone mentioned( hanging-up on limbs,ext.) when slung on shoulder, consider relocating the front sling swivel onto the barrel. You can still have your longer barrel, but lower your carry height by 4 to 6 inches! memtb

That's a good suggestion. Actually, that was the primary reason I was thinking of it.

quote:

Originally posted by memtb:
JefferyPhd, I'm not sure of all of the reasons that you're considering a shorter barrel. But if one reason is portability, as someone mentioned( hanging-up on limbs,ext.) when slung on shoulder, consider relocating the front sling swivel onto the barrel. You can still have your longer barrel, but lower your carry height by 4 to 6 inches! memtb

I've owned two .338 Win Mags: a 20" SAKO Carbine Fullstock and a 26" Browning A-Bolt.

After a LOT of work in handloading I finally managed 2660 fps (factory specs) from some 250s, and about factory specs for 225s. The main fault of that rifle was the stock that would not handle the recoil, so I had it replaced by a fiberglass that also broke under recoil. I gave up on it and traded it for a very slightly used M70 in .375 H&H with its 24" tube. It never was able to reach 2600 from 300s with the powders of the day.

My second son bought a Remington 700 Mountain Rifle in .338 Win Mag. I became the consultant prior to a moose hunt and we managed a good load at 2735 fps from 250gr Hornadys using IMR4831. That wasn't max but close. Of course, it had a 24" barrel. I had previously traded three rifles for two: A matched pair of a .375 H&H and a .300 Win Mag. in A-Bolts SS (LH) with 26" barrels. I'd owned several .300 magnums prior -- the 26" Browning in .300 WM was superbly accurate and would fling a 180gr at 3185 fps and a 200 at 3000 fps. I've owned 5 other .300 Win Mags with barrels between 23" to 24"and none of them would come close to that. Moreover I greatly appreciated the noise factor being far enough away from my face that I never really ever noticed it in shooting game.

The .375 H&H in the Browning with it's 26" gave 2700 + a few from 300s but was not accurate due to the bore being off center. So, I took it back to the dealer and got a .338 WM in the exact same format with a 26" barrel. A load from Barnes gave me almost exactly what they said in their manual (an older manual) = 2842 fps from 250s and superb accuracy. My plan from the get-go was to have it re-chambered to .340 WBY, but I had second thoughts after a performance that almost gave .340 WBY to begin with - or so it seemed. The most accurate load from a big rifle that I had ever fired from a bench came from that rifle -- not the above load, but from a load of 3100 at around 2800 fps. It fired 3 into a perfect cloverleaf at 300 yards, 3/4". Nonethe less, I had it reamed to .340 WBY and gained 160 fps. It went moose hunting in very mixed terrain with clearcuts, bogs and swamps and thick brush. I was indeed happy to have the 26" barrel. A very good bull was taken.

But the point is: The 26" .338 Win Mag gave an approximate 180 fps OVER the 20" Sako Carbine, and it was much more pleasant to the ears and balanced better in addition to adding about 100 effective yards.

Now, about .375s: The Browning with the off-center bore was cut from 26" to 22" to try to improve accuracy matters -- of course, that didn't work because that wasn't the problem but I did learn something in the process of cutting the SAME barrel back by 4". As mentioned, from it's 26" tube I quite easily attained 2700 from 300s. At 22" it barely made factory specs (2530 fps). With a LOT of work, I did finally manage to reach 2560 fps from the best powders of the era (before RL-15 days). That was a loss of at least 140 fps, and really more so, because that was really stretching matters to make the 2560 whereas the 2700 was easy, and I didn't mention that by times it was attaining 2715. So, does a loss of 140 to 160 fps from a 300gr matter?

To me it does -- here I have to agree with ALF and his thinking.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca