I know the standard barrel length on a .340 is 26" as it is with the .300 Wby. I am wondering how a .340 would do with a shorter 24" tube since the .340 has a larger bore in relation to its case capacity? If you have any experience with this cartridge, I would appreciate your input.

Thanks,
Chet

Not with the 340 specifically. I did build a 338-378 some years back, and have seen several hopped up 338's over the years. My 338 had a 28" tube and needed it. You have a little more flex with smaller 340 case as the really slow powders are hard to get enough stuffed into the smaller case. Mine needed the long tube, and I would have prefered a 30" tube.

Can you use a 24" tube on a 340? I am sure you can, but your going to spend some time on the bench figuring out the right powder and bullet combo ( unless you like muzzel flash and incomplete burn loads).

I think you can work it out but the standard lots of slow powders like RE-25 which the 340 likes probably are going to be problematic. You are probably going to need to work with a RE-22 and possibly even RE-19 (or your IMR equivelants if you prefer).

I see this as just time on the reloading bench and the range, and you can work this out. Certainly not a impossible chore. One thing you should consider though is by shortening your tube and playing with faster powders, you are dangerously close to what the 338 Win Mag already covers The benefit of the larger Weatherby case is negated, and your just buying expensive brass for something you can reproduce more economically.

Just my $.02

No direct experience. Given the .340s larger bore size, it will do better than the .300 Wea will with a 24" barrel.

However, in speaking with others and doing some analysis, you'd be better off with the .338 win. mag. with a 24" barrel. It is more efficient at that barrel length. The increase in velocity with the .340 Wea. will be minimal, yet you're still burning more powder, using a cartridge that is more expensive, less available and has greater recoil.

23 or 24" would be perfect for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
23 or 24" would be perfect for me.

Me too....I'm very seriously looking at my .338 Win mag with a hack saw in my hands right now....that 26" barrel looks a lot better about 4" shorter.

There's power to spare in both these cartridges and the loss of a couple inches of steel is not going to make a hill of beans difference to any bear you ever encounter.

I played around with a Mk. V in .340, a Fibermark with a 26" bbl and it was a heavy, bulky rifle, not well suited to B.C. hunting, IMO. I also found that it kicked very hard, worse than my "old" Mod. 70s in .375 H&H which weighed about the same and the velocities were only about 100 fps more than my beloved .338 Wins. So, I didn't care for it and am not into owning one; I think that any cartridge on a full-length, improved H&H case, or .404 Jeff. case should be at least .375" in bore diameter and preferably larger, but, each to his own.

I have known some very capable guys who use and prefer "Roy" catridges and others who detest them. I prefer standards such as the .338 Win., .375 H&H and the twin 9.3s, 62 and 74R. YMMV.

I've shot my buddies custom Sako quite a bit. It has a 25"bbl. on it. Blast isn't bad & it is extrememly accurate w/ all bullet weights. Going down to 23" might be a bit much but I would think 24" would be fine. It's a med. bore but you are still cramming a lot of powder down that tube.

24" on a 340Weath. is acceptable to me if I were to run the 275gn Aframe or 300gn Woodleigh on a regular basis. The 340 Wm case allows you to seat them to normal load length, without encroaching on powder space to the point where you would not get a respectable velocity, or have to run excessive pressures to get a decent velocity.
However a 25"length with reduced dia. to maintain weight/balance would be prefered given the choice.

I had 2 .340s with 24" barrels. They both reached 3100 fps with 225s and 2900 fps with 250s. That said I now shoot a mod. 70 338 with 23" barrel and go 2760 fps with 250 noslers.

A 340 needs a 26" barrel to develop it's utmost potential. I have one and I really like it as a "cover your bases" hevy plains game and cat medicine. The 338 Win Mag is more practical I think, the beauty of it is you can wring out it's potential with a 24" tube. A 23-22" barrel on the 340 or even the 338 is a waste of time. jorge

quote:

A 23-22" barrel on the 340 or even the 338 is a waste of time.

Re the .338 I have to disagree. That 1" difference is moot when it comes to velocity and moot when it comes to packing the thing around. Pick your poison.

Chuck

Jorge, I got your back on this one. Most folks choose the 340 over the 338 for the extra performance; unfortunately, to achieve this additional perfomance, one truly needs at least a 26 inch tube. Real-world difference in loss of velocity per inch using rifles of the this bore diameter will yield a loss of 50-75 fps per inch, or a loss of 150 to 300 fps. Logic would dictate using a catridge that is capable of achieving these numbers with less muzzle blast and recoil. If you want to beat yourself up just for the sake of doing so, then the 340 with a 22-23 inch barrel is the rifle for you.

Although an economic law, the law of diminishing return is also applicable in the world of ballistics. To me a 338 WM with a 22 inch barrel would be acceptable- personally I would choose a 24 inch tube. If I wanted a 338 with a shorter barrel I would go with a 338-06.

Will the animal know the difference? Probably not. But I would, and that's what matters.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Lou:
Real-world difference in loss of velocity per inch using rifles of the this bore diameter will yield a loss of 50-75 fps per inch, or a loss of 150 to 300 fps.

Based upon what? Those numbers are way too high. Here is the most applicable data I've found on the subject. As you can see from Dan's actual tests, one can expect to lose around 20-30 fps per inch between 24" and 26" on a 338-378. The effects on a 340 should be slightly less.

Of course the effects on a 338 Win would be even less--the 340 will be hurt more than the 338 Win by the shorter barrel...but it's not as if you still won't be able to beat 24" 338 Win velocities substancially with a 24" 340 if that's what you want to do. It'll do it. Take a look at MTM's data above--you aren't going to get those velocities from a 338 Win, even if it is slightly more efficient at that barrel length.

Hi guys, don't want to argue with anyone just reporting speeds over my chrono. I've also owned two 338-8MM mags they went slightly faster that the 340s in 24". Those 340 loads were with IMR4831, maybe not what you'd consider ideal for the 340 but works very well.

The 340 Wby. cartridge puts me in a bind, quite honestly. I love it, and it's a great cartridge that I would trust implicently for 99% of the world's big game hunting. On the other hand, like Jorge said, it needs a 26" bbl. to achieve its potential, and I despise 26 " bbls. with a passion; won't hunt with one ever again, in fact.

So I want a rifle with a 24" bbl., and when so equipped, a 340 Wby. is about 50-75 fps. ahead of a properly-loaded 338 Win. Mag. with the same bullets, and the 340 brings with it MUCH more muzzle jump, noise, hard-to-find and expensive ammo, and MUCH more noise and recoil.

The trade-offs simply aren't worth it to me, and I guess that's why I'm a confirmed 338 Win. Mag. fan and currently don't own a 340 Wby................

AD

Allen,

I'm interested to know why you have such a distaste for a 26" barrel? I agree that a 24" or shorter tube is easier to handle, but there must be some story behind "dispising 26 inch barrels with a passion".

Thanks,
Chet

quote:

Originally posted by Chet:
I know the standard barrel length on a .340 is 26" as it is with the .300 Wby. I am wondering how a .340 would do with a shorter 24" tube since the .340 has a larger bore in relation to its case capacity? If you have any experience with this cartridge, I would appreciate your input.

Thanks,
Chet

All of my Weatherby Mark V’s(.224, .240, .257, .270, 7mm, .300, .340 & .375) have 26†barrels with the exception of .378 which has a 28†barrel. In my opinion the 26†barrel is perfect for the .340. It lets the .340 achieve it’s full potential. Cutting off two inches isn’t going to save that much weight or improve it’s handling one bit. Leave the barrel at 26â€, you’ll be happier. Lawdog

Chet, for a few years I hunted with a custom 300 Win. Mag. with a fluted 26" bbl., and I couldn't get rid of it fast enough, esecially after some steep elk, goat, and bear hunts in the Canadian Rockies. That 2" difference proved to be a very big deal to me, and that long-range 26" job just wasn't as light, balanced, or portable as I like, nor was it as practical in and out of a saddle scabbard. Great off the bench, and you do gain a some velocity, but I care about how it works on the mountain more than I do at the range.

A few years ago, D'Arcy built me a 'Legend' in 338 Win. Mag. that has slowly evolved into my favorite big game rifle of all-time. With its fairly light 24" bbl., .338 bore diameter and 2.5-8x Leupold scope, it's so well balanced that it seems to point itself, and actually feels much lighter than the scale indicates at 8.5 lbs. It's so much handier than the 340 Wbys. I've been around that for my purposes, there simply isn't a comparison.

That's my rational, anyhow........

AD

Chet-good question, and it is one that is generally answered by people with lil or no actual experience with said issue.(unfortunately, but why is it that people just gotta spout off instead of sitting back and listening?)

First off let me say that I am a certified 340 NUT period (one of mjy rifles is on its 4th tube). It is for me a wonderful round and it is one of the most accurate rifle rounds that I've ever worked with. Put it together right and it will shoot tiny lil groups.

I've worked with a whole lot of them and in tube lengths of 23" to 26". I've done a fair bit of abreviating them and doing careful tests of b4 and after speeds. So this topic I do feel that I have earned the right to talk about. I am not gonna guess, I am not gonna quote someone rag writers ideas or something I've read. I will just tell you what it is I have learned thru my own testing.

Lastly Chet, I am not trying to thump my chest here I just kind of get rubbed wrong when people spout off about things they have not actually worked with themselves. (plus I am tired as heck from goat hunting so Chet and All please excuse me if I seem to be PMSing)

So accurate yeah it is (I mostly work with 4.5 weight Schneider tubes on M70 or 700 actions cut with no freebore). My first tube would shoot 5 250 Horns into sub 3/4" day in and day out and it was one hella of a chuck rig!

To me tube length is very personal thing, kind of what the perfect women is supposed to be like. I've found many times that larger male specimens prefer the longer tubes, and the shorter fellas the shorter tubes.

I've also found that how and where a person hunts can have some bearing on tube length preferances.

If you hunt open country and it isn't all that rough then a longer tube is not generally gonna be for much of a issue. Now if you hunt elk comando style (the way Brad and I do) you'll be in the steepest, nasties stuff out there. It is public land bulls we are a chasing. No Prima Dona hunts here, just down and dirty up and down tough stuff. Brad kind of prefers a 21-22" tube on his 338's and I kind of prefer my old 700 with a 23" 340 tube on it. Either one will do very well for shots in the timber or cross canyon.

A fella by the name of Schromf -stated something to the effect that if you went to a 24" tube then be prepared to spend extra bench time to sort out a load. To this I say BS, if anything those 23-24 inch 340's are gonna be easier to find a load. I mean this is not rocket science, take some R22, H4831, IMR4350, R19, IMR7828 or whatever some 215's and it just works.

Dr. Lou-I just gotta know, you stated that you would lose 50-75 fps per inch and a total of 150-300 fps. Just how many tubes have you taken the time to do this with and how do you know this to be true? Please tell me you've done some work abreviating 340 tubes in order to get this data to pass on. And not just nearly guessing.

MTM-fyi 4 years a couple of buds and I formed our 340 brass out of 8 RM cases. It worked just find and is pretty much what your cat is/was. One heck of a good round 4 sure!

AD-you said that a 24" tube on a 340 will run about 50-75 fps ahead of a properly loaded 338. I am curious what do your properly loaded 338's run? From my workings I've generally found that a 338 will run the 250's at 2700 and perhaps a bit more if you lean on it. I've found the 340 to run with the 24" tubes right in the 2900 range when properly loaded.

Lastly Chet and to finally answer your question I've found in my testings of actually taking tubes from 26" down to 23" that I am gonna give up between 90-99 fps total. That is less than one hundred fps lost to this shortening process. Or it works out to right at 30-33 fps per inch choppped. And it makes for one heck of a elk/lope/yote rifle at that. 23" comes in kind of handy for me both in the timber and also when calling yotes in tight cover. And I do not miss the length one bit in the open country.

So, is it worth it, to me it is more a question of balance that speed. If I feel that a rifle will balance better with a shorter tube then I do it. If I feel it needs a bit more length to feel right (to me) then I leave it a bit longer.

I am 6'1" and run about 212 for weight. In reasonable shape for a 47 year old (although these goast mtns are kicking my arse!). For me if the tube is lighter in weight then I like a longer tube. If the tube is a bit heavier then I can do with a shorter stouter tube quite easily. And folks bore size does matter here as well. I do not worry one iota about what the 100 fps difference is gonna do down range. I mean for heavens sake your different lots of powders will effect you at least this much!

Just some thoughts from the experienced side of short tubed 340's.

Oh and one other thing my M700 with a 23" 4.5 weight Schneider on it in a Brown with a 3-10 Leo on it weighs in a 8.25. It is one nice package, my buds from elk camp called it Thunder.

Mark D

one last note, I am working with a rifle that Brad and I call Fat Bastard. It is a short action M70 with a 3 weight 21" Schneider on it. It is chambered in 338/300 WSM and contrary to all the BS that Win wrote/said it is pretty much a 338. Or at least IMO it is as close to a 338 as the 300 WSM is close to the 300 WM. It will be on the hill come sunrise as it is time for me to sort out a elk. Enough with the darn goats anyway...

quote:

A 23-22" barrel on the 340 or even the 338 is a waste of time. jorge

This is the kind of stuff that get's so tiresome on these forums... absolutely ZERO experience but plenty of opinion...

Good post Mark... I'm thinking you're due a mountain goat tomorrow!

Mark I get 2735 fps. out of my 338 Win. Mag. with Reloader 19 and 250 gr. Noslers, as per Nosler's current reloading manual guidelines.

The custom (Rifles, Inc.) 340s I've chronographed with handloaded 250s in rifles with 24" bbls. (no free-bore) have made 2800 fps. and change, and I wouldn't have wanted to have pushed them any higher. They also burned more powder and kicked decidedly harder, to the point that I didn't think the velocity trade-off was worth it.

Weatherby factory rifles with free-bored 26" bbls. shooting factory ammo have given right at 2900 fps., with so-so accuracy and ejector marks on the cases. They also kicked too hard and sharp to suite me, with too much muzzle jump, and quite honestly, I do shoot 375s and 416s better that I do those Mark V 340s. That crooked, obsolecent, dog-leg Weatherby stock is a big part of that particular set of problems, of that I'm convinced.

Lack of basic shootability and fundamental accuracy, added weight and length of rifle, plus lack of ammo availability in odd corners of the world have made me shy away from the 340. Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades, and I do much better work with the 338 Win. Mag.

All of this stuff's up to the individual to decide for himself, no doubt about it......

AD

Mark, I am not guessing, however my experience is not as broad as yours. Besides what I have had read, my experience only consist of loading and shooting two Sako rifles in 340 WBY: an L691 with a 24 " tube, and a 75 with a 26" tube. Using identicle loads with RL-19, RL-22 and IMR7828, under 225 grain NPs, I averaged a difference of about 125-150 fps (2800 fps and 2950 fps respectively) between rifles. I used my partner's chronograph -an Oehler of some flavor. I arrived at the approximated velocity of 300 fps loss contemplating a 22" tube and extrapolating accordingly. Moreover, I percieved an increase in felt muzzle blast with the shorter barrel. I have since settled with an AV in 338 with 24" tube. I am averaging about 2750 fps with the same 225 grain NP and a reduction in recoil and muzzle blast. I genuinely appreciate your knowledge and experience, and I will add it to my ballistic tool box. Thanks, Lou

I actually have come to strongly prefer a 23" bbl. on my .338s as I get 2715 fps-mv with 250 NPGMFs over 77 grs. RE-22 and sub moa groups out of my Dakota 76. I get a bit more in my 25" bbls. on the P-64 Alaskans that I have, the average is about 2735-75 depending on the rifle and powder lot.

I backpack hunt pretty much exclusively with a little bit of horseback stuff and I definitely find the 23" bbl. nicer in very thick cover. I would chop all my rifles to that length if they were not in collectible condition and fairly valuable.

I used to have a pair of P-64s with 23" Hart bbls. and got 2720 with admittedly warm loads of IMR-4350 with 250 NPs and superb groups. These were in Micky G&H stocks, I foolishly sold them and now regret it. No matter how accurate/fast or whatever your chosen rifle/cartridge is, you still have to pack it around and the shorter bbls. just feel better to me.

2,850 with a 250 in the 340's 23" tube is an easy going load. Not surprising as it runs 150 fps more than the 338 WM. My last 22" bbl'd 338 WM, apart fromm being a "waste of time", got 2,720 with 250's. 2,680 to 2,700 is generally what they'll go with a 22 tube. In the four 338's I've had with 22" bbl's all could get 2,850 fps with 225's... guess you could say the 340 does with 250's what the 338 WM does with 225's. Regardless, the 338 WM is my favorite 33 but I like mine with the useless 22" bbl length.. but heck, I've only had four with that length barrel so what do I know?

I think that a lot of this has to do with the conditions one hunts in; if you hunt the wide open spaces a longer bbl. is o.k., but, the thick timber that Mark and Brad hunt in Montana and we hunt here in B.C. drives me nuts with long bbls.

MTM and Free-Miner both have hunted the Muskwa River country here in B.C.; I have hunted there, the Gatho and will probably hunt the Tuchodi River next August. This is "Picea mariana" boreal forest and the bush is thick, so, a short barrel helps a lot. There are probably between two to three thousand Grizzlies in this area, it's some 16,000+ sq. miles of roadless, game rich wilderness and here again, a short, handy rifle really rocks.

Besides, if I honestly need more gun than a 22-23" .338-250 or the .340 if you prefer it, I wouild want a really big rifle like a Lott and I am too damned old to pack it!

It all depends what your doing with your rig. If your on a once in a lifetime hunt and might have 1 chance to kill a beast at 400yds go for the 26 or longer. If your going to carry it for a couple months at a strench and crawl through the alders and cliffs lop it off . Ballistics and bullet placement are almost a waste of words in the same sentence. SIC

Just wanted to clarify, in case someone thinks I'm inflating my 338 speeds. My Mod. 70 classic action has had the spacer removed from the mag box and bolt stop moved back. When the chamber was cut I requested the throat be set to seat 250 Noslers to the base of the neck.My O.A.L. is 3.495"so I'm sort of cheating. I know I could have gone 340 here but previous experience has shown me I can live without the extra 10-12 grs. of powder. A very uphill prone shot comes to mind. I guess what it boils do to is hunt with the barrel length you're comfortable with, the 340 has plenty to spare and weight and balance are more important than a few extra ft./lbs.

quote:

Originally posted by waterrat:
If your on a once in a lifetime hunt and might have 1 chance to kill a beast at 400yds go for the 26 or longer.

Huh?

The 340 Weatherby kicks like a fiend. That opinion is based upon experience.

I'll take the 338 Win Mag personally, but I appreciate what the 340 Weatherby brings to the table, and respect those who can shoot them. If you can handle it, you've got a rifle that can do it all.

Yup, that's what I found, too, and decided to forgo buying a minty MK-V, an early Sauer one, after some serious testing of the Fibremark I tried out. Every person seems to feel recoil differently and my .375s of about the same weight kicked less, to me, than the .340s I have shot.

Mind you, I find a .375 much easier to shoot than a heavily loaded .45-70 in a Ruger No.1, a Marlin 336-1895 or a Browning 1886 SRC, even with the recoil pads I have installed on them; my P-64 FWT. 270s in Brown kevlar stocks also seem to hit me harder than my identical rifles in Borden-Rimrock stocks in .30-06. Maybe this sounds odd, but, I base my rifle opinions on actual ownership/use of what I talk about and respect others who do so as well, everyone is different.

MTM is concerned about the .340 bonking his bean on an uphill prone shot, but, he does not mention the .416 Rem. "packing rifle" he once had built on a early Sako Fibreclass, now, THAT little gem certainly got your attention with 400 grainers from the bench at our old club!

Dr. Lou- If I get it right you're talking about the differences in speed and diff tube lengths off of 2 different rifles. Not off of one tube that has been long and then cut short. So yeah in essense you are guessing. IME you just can't do that (well you can it just isn't the right way to go about it IMO), if you take say 10 different rifles off of the shelf and same everything and clock them all you will get some sizeable differences in speeds.

About the recoil differnces between it and a 375, yep no doubt aboout it the 375 is pretty much a pussy cat in comparison. It is a long slow push, it does not have the sharp fast jolt that one gets out of the 340's.

Most people here talking about this appeared to of shot 340's but mostly in factory Mark 5 form. This to me is a very tough way to go about dealing with a 340 and there is much easier ways. I can tell that AD has shot something else and I know that Brad has. Personally I find if you keep the stock fairly straight, and use a M70 or a M700 action (the Mk5 is an excellent action but at 54 oz it is just too heavy for me, I want the weight in the tube not the action). Then if you put on a tube that will mike between .65 and .7 at the muzzle you will have a rifle that can be worked with for those willing to take the time.

I shoot my main hunting rifles quite a bit, and am on my 4th 340 tube and ready for a 5th some time in the next year. I tend to shoot my main ones about 500-1000 round per year a piece. As long as I keep at it the 340 (4 me) is a very easy round to keep in sink with. I really prefer to shoot about 20 rounds a week, if I stay away from it for a while it does take me a minute or two to get back into it. It is not a round (4 me) that I can just take and shoot a bit here and there and feel comfy with my ability to do my work on demand. Of course I want to keep in sink with most all my rifles in this manner and feel like I can take care of business on demand to a fair ways.

Make it your best day boyz...

Mark D

Brad: Oh Brad, please forgive me with my zero experience, I should have known better,than to even THINK I could know ANYTHING as an ignorant flatlander from Florida compared to someone from the "Mt. Olympus" of hunting, Montana. but I've probably owned and used Weatherby rifles than a lot of people. You sound pretty tough with the insults behind the safety of your computer screen so you go right ahead and keep going.

But here's an interesting tid-bit of info for you: Even the folks at the Weatherby Custom Shop, which I presume know a lot about their own calibers prefer the 26" barrel in the 340 to wring out it's full potential. The muzzle blast of a 340 with a 24" barrel is quite impressive to say the least and even a freebored 340 Weatherby has a tough time getting 2900 with a 26"and a 250gr bullet. I owned a 24" barreled 340 and never achieved 2900 fps with a 250. I guess I should have known better than to question your vast experience and kowledge. But you know what? I'll conceed the point on the 22" 338 to Chuck Nelson, I still think it's way too short, but a 23" on a 340? that is a waste of the 340s potential. jorge

I do NOT want to get into a pissing match here, Jorge, as I respect your experience, but, I have now owned and loaded for 12 different .338 Win rifles since Jan. 1968 and these had bbls. from 23" to 26". I honestly have never been able to get an honest 2800 fps. out of any of them with 250 Nps over anything and 2775 came with difficulty although I did accomplish it with my Ruger No.1 and one of five P-64 Mod. 70s I have had, with the 25" bbl.

So, I just do not see any real advantage to a bbl. longer than 23" for hunting, at least here in B.C. and the convenience of this exceeds the irritation of the increased blast, to me, anyway. I used my rifles for work in some of the most Grizzly rich areas on Earth for nearly 30 years and this was often solo, so, how a rifle handles is super important for me, each to his own.

BTW, have you shot anything with that fabulous custom shop Mod. 70 that your wife gave you, ya lucky bugger!

So in other words Jorge, you have ZERO experience with a 23" bbl'd 340 yet you feel qualified to call it "useless"... yeah, pretty tiresome.

I wouldn't term a 24" barreled 340 "useless" but I wouldn't care to own another one. Out of three 340s I have owned, it was the most disappointing in terms of velocity. After trying not one, but two different barrels of that length I gave up on it. A 338 in the same length wasn't far enough behind it to make all the extra blast and recoil worth it.

John, Mark D runs 250's at 2,850 in his 23" bbl'd 340. He's told me he can lean on it to get more but is comfortable with the 2,850 load. I've shot his 340 and found it quite shootable. It helps that Mark has forgotten more about rifles than a lot of guys will ever know and, as a result, set it up "right" with good barrel weight... makes it darn shootable and eminantly packable.

As an aside, another buddy had a 26" bbl'd 340 with a cut rifle HS Precision bbl. I chrono'd it for him once with the Wby factory 250's... it clocked 3,020! Amazing how hot the Wby factory stuff is gassed. This rifle had the WBY freebore as well.

Kutenay: Noted and accepted. I have a 24" 338 with a very fast barrel and after Allen's recommendations, that's waht I stuck with. What I said was that a 22" barrel much less a 21" was yes a waste of the cartridge's maximum potential.

John: On the 340, the 24" is not optimum, but anything less is also wasing the cartridge's full potential. AS I stated previously, I did owna 24" MKV in 340 and like you, would not consider it a waste and that was not my intention, but a 23-22" is wasting a lot of MV.

As for the resident "expert" from Montana, Navy Ordnance tested the 338 Win Mag and the 340 against the 338 Lapua for Navy Seal Teams as that caliber is currently used by British Sniper teams. DoD stuck with the 300 Mags as it offered the best combination of trajectory, accuracy and killing effect at tactically significant ranges. The 33s were tried with varying length barrels and both the Lapua and 340 showed the most efficiency with 28" barrels whereas muzzle blast became too obvious below 24" and velocity also started to taper off. Accordingly 26" became optimum. I believe that about covers the "significant experience" part of the discussion. jorge

Edited post.

Jorge, I love how you obfuscate with personal attacks, blow smoke, point mirrors and generally bullshit your way through the fact you, in an unqualified manner, called a 23" barrel on a 340 a "waste of time" without having any experience with said length. Amazing.

My question to someone who makes unqualified statements like yours is, "how do you know?"

You obviously don't know, have no experience with a 23" barrel, yet feel fully confident to comment with rigid authority.

I've been around a few 340's, including the 23" bbl'd version so feel I can comment on that length. Guess what, I've not been around a 22" bbl'd 340 so won't comment on that length. I stick to what I actually know and don't make sweeping statements about what I don't.

Explain to this "resident expert" how a 250 grainer at 2,850 fps is a "waste of time"... tell me about your accuracy experience and hunting experience with that barrel length in the 340. Tell me about your experience with muzzle blast with a 23" bbl'd 340.

I'm all ears...

OK, in fairness, you did tell us all about the Navy Seals, DOD and British snipers, and damn, that's so relevant to hunting moose in Newfoundland.

What sniper unit you in?

quote:

The 33s were tried with varying length barrels and both the Lapua and 340 showed the most efficiency with 28" barrels whereas muzzle blast became too obvious below 24" and velocity also started to taper off. Accordingly 26" became optimum. I believe that about covers the "significant experience" part of the discussion. jorge

Wow, there' a gem of personal experience... what the heck does what a sniper requires have in common with what a hunter can use? It's an apples/oragnes comparison. The needs are different.

I've got a big NEWS FLASH... even a 30-06 is "most efficient" with a 28" barrel and muzzle blast becomes greater below 24"!!!!

Doh...