What advantages does a 24" barrel offer over a 22" barrel on a 30-06? I know the 22" is going to be a lighter gun but other than that what are the advantages?

The 22" barrel saves at most a couple of ounces, not really meaningfull unless you are trying for an ultralite. The 24" will give you slightly more velocity. For me it's more important how the gun balaces, I have full length stocked rifles with barrels from 19-21.5" that handle really well. I had my 275 Rigby built with a 24" barrel last year and it's a really sweet shooting rifle. Not as fast to point as the Mannlicher stocked rifles but very smooth movement. With the shorter barrels all that weight on the end form the full length stock really seems to feel good.

Browningguy, Sir is there any diference between the 275 Rigby and the 7x57 Mauser ?

Regards

I have a .275 Rigby High Velocity.
Not the plebian 7 x57 Mauser

They are the same, it is just that the Brits are sort of snobbish when they steal someone else's cartridge as there own. They want to rename it after the company that stole it. Take the 10.75 x 73 for instance. (404 Jefferys)

The .275 Rigby HV originally shot a Kynoch 140 grn. semi spitzer

GBF, as mentioned they are one and the same. When I had it built I just thought .275 Rigby sounded so much better. I also had it marked in smaller letters (7x57mm)just in case 100 years from now someone else owns it and can't figure out what a 275 Rigby is.

I did spend 5 years living in the UK so it probably rubbed off on me a bit.

Naw, I was raised on a ranch in the Big Bend of Texas and I always thought "275 Rigby" sounded better...Maybe I'm a cowboy snob!! Pos se es la vida! ( Translation: thats the way the grapefruit squirts)

A twenty two inch barrel is plenty for the 30/06. Before WWII the style was set by Col. Whelan and the Springfield pattern which had a 24" barrel. It's too bad in fact that so many of the old pre 64 M70's have those heavy 24" barrels.

When the Featherweight came out with 22" barrels the other rifles were obsolete in standard calibers.

If you want a 24" barrel .30 then chamber it for a bigger cartridge.

Split the diff. & go 23". I have settled on this length for any "std" capacity cart. & 25" for te mags.

For standard cartridges I prefer the 22 inch barrel. It is somewhat lighter and handier. I does not lose enough velocity over a 24 inch to make a difference.

In Magnum cartridges I prefer a 24 inch barrel. I like a slightly heavier rifle due to the recoil, and the longer barrel is necessary to take advantage of the amount of slow burning powder.

I would not own a 26 inch barrel.

Shorter than 22 inch barrels lose velocity and the noise will knock the ears off a brass monkey.

22 in advangages are handier and lighter. Disadvantage in magnum cal you lose too much velocity.

24 inch. Advantages are more velocity, and still not too unhandy, and some like the balance of them.

Disadvantages are the additional weight and the length is unhandy in the brush.

Jerry

The only reason I shoot 26" barrels almost exclusively is simply because I can just shoot them MUCH better off hand.. That extra 4 inches or barrel isn't too heavy for me nor does it get in my way, heck my pocket knife is heavier and longer than that....

Most of these excuses for a 22" barrel are pretty lame in my books, other than if one just likes them better, then I can buy that and it is a legitamate reason for 22 or even 16.6 inch barrels. I also like at least a 9 lb. rifle, the lighter guns flop and flip to much when I'm breathing heavy and I have noticed I breath a lot heavier after a short run these days...

I like barrels shorter than 24", though a 23" bbl. on a Short Action is nearly the same (3/8" difference) as a 22" bbl. on a Long Action. I could care less if a rifle has the name "Magnum" tacked on to it... what matters is its Bore-Volume / Case-Capacity Ratio (BVCCR). For instance, the 338 WM is almost identical to the 30-06 in its BVCCR so a 22" bbl. works well with a rifle so-chambered (I've had thre 338's with 22" bbl's). The 220 Swift and 7mm Rem Mag are nearly identical and most would argue that at least a 24" barrel is in order for those two... a reason I've never owned either. The 300 WSM is nearly identical (again, with its BVCCR) to the 280 Rem... a 24 or 23" bbl. is probably "ideal in either those two, but a 22" bbl. works well too. As a result my 300 WSM wore a 22" bbl. and still did 2,940 fps with a 180 grain bullet. The 308 Win is one of the queens of the short barrel ball and really shines with a 20" (or a little less) barrel.

BA

This is one reason I like the Ruger #1 so much. Even with a 26" tube it's shorter OAL than my 700BDL Remington with a 22" tube.

interesting outlook brad. another thing to consider if weight is an issue the shorter barrel [within reason] will allow a lighter contour than the longer barrel for like stiffness. splitting hairs but what the hell.
woofer

The longer barrel adds velocity and puts more weight out front where it usually helps you steady down the rifle.
The "more velocity" claim depends alot on the type of ammunition. Some of the hotter handloads, and the "Light Magnum" or "High Energy" ammo makes much more of a difference.
Over at 24hourcampfire, one of the posters has a 27 inch barreled 30'06. He reports 3043 fps with Federal High Energy 180 gr. ammo. That compares to less than 2900 fps. for standard 180 gr. .300 Win Mag, ammo out of a 24 inch barreled .300 WM. E

I have barrel lengths from 18" to 30". The short ones are noisy. The longer ones are not. In the big calibers the long barrel adds recoil reducing weight.
But weight is not really an issue, unless you're pathetically out of shape, or want a mountain gun is it? Remember we're talking a few ounces.
Brush hunting I like short barrels, but I've done it with long ones too, no big deal.
I think my ideal is the 26" if all had to be the same.

Depends on caliber. 270 yes 22" 30-06 yes, 25-06 never 24" minimum

With a lightweight synthetic stock, a 22" barrel balances nicely, even for offhand shots on running game.