Lost a Glock at this past weekends gun show and had a Mannlicher 20" .338 Win Mag follow me home. What sort of velocity loss am I looking at compared to my 26" barrel .338?

It looked cool and was as new so I had to have it. If anything...having two should be twice as nice

About 25fps per inch.

Should be fun to shoot at night. Have a good friend that cut a Ruger 77 down to 19". I think he figured 20 fps per inch. Not as much loss for the bigger calibers.

Not as much as you'd think. The bore to expansion ratio is pretty good, so its not going to suffer big losses like the same case with a smaller tube. 100 give or take sounds about right. Charlie Sisk did an article with several guns from 27-20" in 1" increments, the 338 went from like 28-something to 27-something, maybe high 2600

Sounds like the perfect short range self defense dangerous game gun!

I have a Win M70 Super Grade, .338 WM, after I cut the BOSS and threads off I have a 21.5" barrel.
With 70.5 grains of IMR4350 and a Sierra 225 grain bullet I get 2825fps with WW brass and 2845 fps with FC brass.
This is perfectly acceptable velocity for me.
Accuracy is superb, sub 1" for 5 shots.
Good luck with yours.

Nice! I don’t mind losing some for the style. It is a Sako AV Mannlicher. Circa ‘78-‘82

That, is slick. Buddy of mine just got an AV Battue in 7mm Rem....now THAT, is probably gonna lose a bit if speed. And I don't want to be near him when he fires it.

I think I'm going to be cutting my M70 375 down to 21" . Something cool about a big bullet from a short tube

I chopped my 26" 375 H&H down to 21" and lost 120 fs...cut to 18" 220 fs...basically made it into 375-06...basically BAD DECISION. If you want a short barrel go to a shot gun with slugs or a 50 cal with heavy bullets...or step up another caliber to retain the energy. QL says basically the same thing for the 338...high velo loss for an 18" tube.

Energy increases or DECREASES at the square of the VELOCITY so you still loose more energy faster by dropping velo than by just increasing/decreasing bullet weight.

No matter what you do there are trade-offs but if you can live with them, more power to you....I happen to LIKE long tubes...those stubby Ruger's are juts unlovely to me, and that 21" 375 H&H just never looked balanced to me NOR felt right.

Good Hunting

quote:

Originally posted by NONAGONAGIN:
I chopped my 26" 375 H&H down to 21" and lost 120 fs...cut to 18" 220 fs...basically made it into 375-06...basically BAD DECISION. If you want a short barrel go to a shot gun with slugs or a 50 cal with heavy bullets...or step up another caliber to retain the energy. QL says basically the same thing for the 338...high velo loss for an 18" tube.

Energy increases or DECREASES at the square of the VELOCITY so you still loose more energy faster by dropping velo than by just increasing/decreasing bullet weight.

No matter what you do there are trade-offs but if you can live with them, more power to you....I happen to LIKE long tubes...those stubby Ruger's are juts unlovely to me, and that 21" 375 H&H just never looked balanced to me NOR felt right.

Good Hunting

I would be more prudent concerning the choice of bullet than energy loss with the 338 Winchester Magnum.

A year and a few months ago on this forum we discussed velocity loss vs. bullet drop with the 338 Winchester Magnum. It was concluded the optimum barrel length to be around 22.5" where bullet drop loss becomes negligible for the 338 Winchester Magnum around 300 yards.

Personally I would focus on a good premium bullet, and probably wise to maintain at least 22" if you plan on shooting past 300 yards.

Actually...I wasn't speaking to bullet weight directly...the question was VELOCITY loss in shorter barrels and I presented what I've seen happen MANY TIME an what happened when I mucked about with a very accurate barrel for ACTUAL loss NOT "possible loss". I only included the energy loss as an aside.

I read all that stuff on the 338 Mag and found it somewhat interesting but never did see the point...what I see as "optimal" may be horse krap to what someone else sees as "optimal" and we ALL find ways to prove our favorite theories.

I agree that bullet construction and bullet placement are the primary, major factors, but don't want to get into that which has been beat to death already 1000 times over WITHOUT any way to settle the hoohaw.

Good Hunting

Whatever you lose in velocity from the short barrel, it will probably be less per inch if you reload with a relatively fast-burning powder.

When I first got my .338 I used the base load of 3031 with a 250gr Hornady RN, because I thought a sub-load would do for deer in thick bush. My old notes quoted the Lyman book as saying 50 grains of 3031 gave 2275fps and the max of 56.5 grains gave 2469fps - but I haven't seen that book for about 38 years, so you might check it elsewhere!

Though those velocities are probably lower than you'd get from a slow powder, even with the short barrel, you should get less noise and rocket blast from the faster powder.

I went through a short barrel phase I like a bit longer barrels again.

The shortest is a 308 16 inch that I plan to put a suppressor on then a 17 in 7x57 and a 18.5 in 06.

They are all loud other then that they kill fine.

Hey, Sambarman...I got one of those Speer #8 manuals...some of those loads are a bit scary compared to todays modern information...the strength of those Rem/Ruger/M98/Win receivers surviving those early reloading years is a testament to their solidity and me surviving without doing anything more than sticking a bolt now and then.

You did get me to thinking tho'...about one of those things I've often wondered about and read on forums, but never actually addressed it, for some unknown reason...so I ran a few powders from faster to slower through QL just for yeehaw...

The faster ones DID burn 100% much quicker... ...between 6-8" or so and produced good velos with much less powders but at much lower load densities, i.e., <80% which is a lower % than I like, at near 60KPSI pressure...

While the slower burning powders produced the highest velos and higher densities and roughly the same pressures at 15" +/- 1" or so.

Basically...it's do what you like and accept any vagaries.

Yeah, P-dog...I have a 16.75" 308 that does ~2850 within limits...BUT...with 130 gr bullets...anything heavier just falls out the end of the barrel, so to speak. When checking a 22" barrel the velo was 200 fs faster and 300 ftlbs more oomph. I MIGHT go crawling into the bushes with a 16" 12 ga loaded up with my favorite flavor of home grown narly 3 1/2" slugs or one of my semi 50's with 6-700 gr pills, but definitely NOT some short barreled pip squeak of a small cal rifle.

But, Hey...It's all good at the right time.

Good Hunting

Its a mistake to cut any belted case caliber below 24 inches IMO, max loads are faster than many think with the .338 and blast will be excessive with max loads, and the .338 at best is not a super velocity caliber even with 24 or 26 inch barrels, it is a superb killer of game as is with a 24 to 26 inch barrel..If I wanted a 18 inch barrel Id use a 30-06 and be shooting a 300 Savage..An 18 inch .338 that loses 100 to 150 fps is defeating the purpose of the caliber, and I have tested one on the chronograph and lost more velocity than I see quoted here, but it mostly depends on the bullet one uses..then you have ruining resale value of the gun to beat hell..its a mistake..

I cut a Savage 99 .308 Win barrel to 18 inches and had myself a 30-30 with 180 gr bullets and a 300 savage with 150s..Too much "guess and by gosh" goes on with cut barrels, the chronograph was a wake up call for me..The .338 I chronographed was not mine, it was a custom Mauser of a friends, the 250 gr. bullet got him 2360 FPS with my 2740 FPS in my gun. The 225 gr. at 2913 FPS in my 24 inch .338 got 2589 FPS in his short tube..He rebarreled it promptly..Those velocity however, even as low as they were, would kill about anything out there. velocity can vary a good deal from barrel to barrel for that matter...and to each his own, just seems a waste of a wonderful caliber to me, Id probably opt for a 338-06 with a 22 inch barrel if I wanted a handier gun, but, in reality Id use my Pre 64 mod. 70 fwt. 30-06 with 200 gr. Noslers as opposed to a cutting off a good .338 win. with a 24 inch barrel...

Right on Raymundo...As I see it people read the road apples put out by the gun rags and Madison avenue and don't believe in listening to those who know from experience. We humans are herding animals and "have" to follow along, then bleat when we actually get the good stuff and don't like it.

Way back at the dawn of time I set my Oehler 33 up most weekends and chrono'ed any rifle I was proffered just for the data I could collect. EVERY weekend someone offered a dust up because my chrono didn't agree with their velo assessment...ESPECIALLY someone who just spent a ton on some fancy HIVO, shortened-by-mental-midget advertiser cum rag wordsmith types, barrel burner that lost a couple hundred fs between the rag pages and my chrono. I knew when I was chopping what was going to happen and had calculated the possible velo loss, but as you said, my 375 H&H turned into a ~375-06 but taking more powder to equal out.

I'm trying to figure out what I can do with a 21" 375 cal barrel(including a 2" integral M.B.) with a ~3.00" chamber that will end up just barely legal with just about ANY case with enough powder space to get the bullet out the tube...maybe keep using it as a jack handle for one of my presses for forming bullet or cases.

I keep thinking just stub barrel it for an NEF receiver and re-cut the chamber to 375 JDJ, Ruger or RUM...at least I have dies and brass for all those and the reamer rental is cheap. Besides I won't feel too bad because I have to load it to ~45 KPSI max anyway and I won't have a wasted barrel starring at me every time this subject comes up.

Good Hunting

quote:

Originally posted by NONAGONAGIN:
Hey, Sambarman...I got one of those Speer #8 manuals...some of those loads are a bit scary compared to todays modern information...the strength of those Rem/Ruger/M98/Win receivers surviving those early reloading years is a testament to their solidity and me surviving without doing anything more than sticking a bolt now and then.

You did get me to thinking tho'...about one of those things I've often wondered about and read on forums, but never actually addressed it, for some unknown reason...so I ran a few powders from faster to slower through QL just for yeehaw...

The faster ones DID burn 100% much quicker... ...between 6-8" or so and produced good velos with much less powders but at much lower load densities, i.e., <80% which is a lower % than I like, at near 60KPSI pressure...

While the slower burning powders produced the highest velos and higher densities and roughly the same pressures at 15" +/- 1" or so.

Basically...it's do what you like and accept any vagaries.

I see what you mean about the Speer manual. I've got the Number Nine edition and notice its .338 loads for IMR 4831 and 4350 start and finish about three or four grains higher than in the Hornady third edition, printed about 14 years later. Speer had started to reduce their loads in the following, Number 10, edition, as I notice some loads are a grain or two lighter.

Unfortunately, none of them mention 3031 or any powder that starts below about 54 grains (bar reduced loads with SR 4759). Whatever else, 50 grains of 3031 is about 10 per cent less powder to burn before the bullet exits.

Yes, Atkinson, I'm amazed Sako even bothered to make a 338WM carbine. Maybe it was for hunting bears with hounds or something analogous with those big, short, lever actions made for Alaskan bush pilots. I don't suppose many bears would notice the difference but the loss of 150fps from normal would appear to cost about 400 foot-pounds of energy. That might assume 'normal' is a 26-inch barrel, of course, to lose that much at 20 inches. My Sako .338 from the same period has a 24.5-inch barrel and I think that's fine.

3031 is one of those long ago, "all around" powders that still has applications for many cartridges today and lots of "newbies" don't know how good it is so lets keep it that way so no one starts hoarding it....shoots very accurately in my 30-30, 300 Sav, 308's and 30-06 as well as my 375 H&H. I wouldn't call it optimal in many ways but it's doable if the "Best" isn't available...I never felt put upon by using it. Works OK in my 7 and 8 mm's and most of the other "medium" size cases and I always seem to have a couple of cans close at hand....not quite partial to the yellowish-orange reddish paint job tho'.

I pulled out the 21" barrel and took another gander and decided just to leave it alone...it's setup as a switch barrel anyway and 140 fs loss isn't all THAT much considering a 260 gr Part is still tripping along at 2800 fs and over 4500 ftlbs of kickazzzzzz...thick it can handle the sageratz around here.

I think with all this hair splitting many totally miss the fact that some of us have been eating venison taken with a 22 short for a long time.


Good Hunting

Some years ago is was professed by more than a few gunscribes that you could use a fast burning powder like 4064, 3220, 3031 in short tubes and equal or better the long tube velocity.
.Apparently the scribes of the day had no chronographs or could write better than they could read, regardless of barrel length in a 06 or 270 for instance, there 4831 of the day ruled the roost at the time and still does as a matter of fact, more velocity and less pressure, its just a pain to run thu a powder measure so I opted for H414 and RL-22 for both.

I had my 24" shortened to 21" and lost about 50 fps.

Mine, 20 inch pre 64 win loses 150 to 200 fps according to reloading manuals and factory ammo stated velocity. 250 grn. bullets running just under 2600 for best accuracy.

quote:

loses 150 to 200 fps according to reloading manuals and factory ammo stated velocity

eny, you know this statement is purely a guess. many rifles never reach velocities stated by the ammo manufacturers or reach reloading manual velocities while other rifles equal those speeds with shorter barrels than the test rifles.
I have some rifles with "fast" barrels and some rifles with relatively "slow" barrels. I'm sure everyone out there experiences the same phenomenon.
With that said I bet your 250 grain bullet hits like a hammer!

Hence 4831 and 7827 "SC", but I totally agree 4831 is a PITA to try to feed thru anything smaller than .375 cal or there abouts INCLUDING the powder funnel.

For those interested a long trip through QL's powder burn rates vs barrel length will give you some insights that can be then proven on the range WITH a chrono, about which powder is actually really proving those old adages.

quote:

Originally posted by NONAGONAGIN:

I think with all this hair splitting many totally miss the fact that some of us have been eating venison taken with a 22 short for a long time.


Good Hunting

That was my father's favorite cartridge, and I think he thought it would be good enough for elephants if he could find a stepladder.

Great pictures Alf! Looks just like my new (to me) .338. Mine is missing the hood for the front sight but oh well. I saw a few in .375 h&h when trying to learn more about these rifles...It seems like it was pretty popular in the H&H.

Our last gun show even had one in 7mm rem mag on the table. I fell in love with a 6.8 that day and talked myself out of owning another Motherlicker.


Thanks for sharing the pictures!!

Justin

I wouldn't be opposed to a 375 or 416 Rem with a 20 inch tube for hunting in thick cover mostly and it would do for long shots from time to time, but my favorite barrel length for those heavier calibers is 24 inches and Im not opposed to 26 inch tubes, they sure are nice for off hand shots, running shots and its a trade off, but a short tube with a slightly heavy muzzle will feel just as good...Im just not inclined to worry much about either as the big boys kill no matter what. Ive been going back and fourth from 20 to 26 for years..nothing much changed under any conditions, it always worked with whatever barrl I swore by at the time...

Alf that is a Beautiful rifle!
I'll bet it is a handful but I'd be proud to have that in my stable.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Its a mistake to cut any belted case caliber below 24 inches IMO, max loads are faster than many think with the .338 and blast will be excessive with max loads, and the .338 at best is not a super velocity caliber even with 24 or 26 inch barrels, it is a superb killer of game as is with a 24 to 26 inch barrel..If I wanted a 18 inch barrel Id use a 30-06 and be shooting a 300 Savage..An 18 inch .338 that loses 100 to 150 fps is defeating the purpose of the caliber, and I have tested one on the chronograph and lost more velocity than I see quoted here, but it mostly depends on the bullet one uses..then you have ruining resale value of the gun to beat hell..its a mistake * * *

That depends entirely on what the owner's planned use for a cut-down big bore is, and where and what he might want to hunt with it.

There are today any number of 20" or 21" .375H&H "carbines" being toted around the thick brush and boonies of Alaska. Yeah, a shortened tube gives up velocity, but in those hunting conditions you gain portability and quick point-ability for the type of close-range shooting you can expect in that hunting environment.

That's why the so-called "Hog Guns" in .30-cal, typically short-barrelled 18"-20" 308s or .30-06s, quickly became popular, whether or not the owners ever got around to blasting a pig with one.

Having one short-barrelled big-bore blaster in the safe, among the long-barreled ones, is like having all the most useful clubs in your golf bag. You grab the one you need at the moment ... and go!

When you start cutting barrels the first few inches don't lose much, like 20 to 25 FPS and you jump with joy and go crazy and cut to 18 or 19 and your then losing 35 to 40 FPS or more and 99% never know it because they never invested in a chronograph and guess and by gosh is the internet word for success!

I would much prefer to buy a fwt. 30-06 with a 22 inch barrel than cut my .338 barrel below 24 inches, The 338 just isn't that fast to start with..and with a short tube, all I gained is a lot of noise, and wind pasting my ears to my sideburns..and it would light up two miles at night with a big ole ball of flame..As my uncle Walter used to tell me "shit boy you ain't got nothing there?" talking about my 25-35..

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
When you start cutting barrels the first few inches don't lose much, like 20 to 25 FPS and you jump with joy and go crazy and cut to 18 or 19 and your then losing 35 to 40 FPS or more and 99% never know it because they never invested in a chronograph and guess and by gosh is the internet word for success!

Huh?

quote:

I would much prefer to buy a fwt. 30-06 with a 22 inch barrel than cut my .338 barrel below 24 inches, The 338 just isn't that fast to start with..and with a short tube, all I gained is a lot of noise, and wind pasting my ears to my sideburns..and it would light up two miles at night with a big ole ball of flame..As my uncle Walter used to tell me "shit boy you ain't got nothing there?" talking about my 25-35..

Wut?

My Ruger Hawkeye African .338WM comes with a 22" barrel from the factory. It has no muzzle brake, and express sights. It should be plenty fast as it is, and I don't think any Alaska game would notice a difference in bullet speed within 300 yards.

One has to take into consideration that for hunting in forested areas a short barrel is just about perfect, not only because there is a possibility of closer shots, but also because the shorter barrel makes the rifle so easy to point in the right direction. Who cares about the added noise as long as the bullet hits the right spot?

I'm not convinced a 22" or even 20" barrel is any advantage over a 24" as far as handling is concerned. Might make it more compact for a saddle scabbard or fitting into a bush plane, sure, but any handling advantage is probably psychological. A properly fitted stock and good balance makes for a fast handling rifle. But who really cares about fit and balance these days?

quote:

Originally posted by ismith:
I'm not convinced a 22" or even 20" barrel is any advantage over a 24" as far as handling is concerned. Might make it more compact for a saddle scabbard or fitting into a bush plane, sure, but any handling advantage is probably psychological. A properly fitted stock and good balance makes for a fast handling rifle. But who really cares about fit and balance these days?

I got mine properly fitted with a MaCmillan stock and decelerator recoil pad for an LOP of 12-1/2", so it's very easy to point. I imagine the .416 above is well balanced. For some reason I find short-barreled rifles that way, including a .45-70 Marlin I have.

I had my 338 cut from 24” down to 21” after one fall of toting it around Kodiak Island. The amount of brush that thing got caught on was crazy. It is much much nicer now. And no animal ever acted like it hit any less effective.
My 416 Nula was on a 22” barrel, I asked for 20” but MelvIn wouldn’t do it.
My 416 ruger is on a 18” barrel and was getting almost 2700fps when we loaded it up warm. We backed down to mid 2600’s.
Unless your strictly a numbers guy and not a practicality in the field guy a short barrel will fit the bill for 99% of hunting situations. The other 1% I would say may be for those 1000 yard types.

quote:

Originally posted by Fourtyonesix:
I had my 338 cut from 24” down to 21” after one fall of toting it around Kodiak Island. The amount of brush that thing got caught on was crazy. It is much much nicer now. And no animal ever acted like it hit any less effective.
My 416 Nula was on a 22” barrel, I asked for 20” but MelvIn wouldn’t do it.
My 416 ruger is on a 18” barrel and was getting almost 2700fps when we loaded it up warm. We backed down to mid 2600’s.
Unless your strictly a numbers guy and not a practicality in the field guy a short barrel will fit the bill for 99% of hunting situations. The other 1% I would say may be for those 1000 yard types.

Yeah, I could see a shorter rifle being handier in the Alder and Devils club.

Love those little mannlichers, good find. I have been contemplating a build of a 338 RCM for this very reason...want to use a 20 in barrel and get the most out of it.

Ed

Don't be a wuss. Chop 'em ...

Having one or more shortys in your arsenal is never a bad thing. I have, for example, three Mini-Gs, which are essentially 16.1" Garands re-purposed from the traditional M1 role.

One Mini is a .30-06 big-game hunter in "Scout rifle" configuration, running a Burris 2.75x mounted on a Ultimak M1 forward rail. Frickin' thing shoots like a laser. Handy and portable. Not to mention, it's quick to shoulder. I handload 200gn & 220gn slugs for deer, pig, and elk.

No doubt those same loads would also suffice for Caribou, Moose, and black bear. Probably, up in Alaska, for the big bruins too.

What did ya say? Shooting with barrels four inches longer has made me deaf enough. Unless you're swinging sideways in the alders, the advantage of the short barrel may never be realised - but you might just miss the energy.