Thinking about building a go-to rifle in 30-06. What barrel length and why?

Also what action would you use?

Thanks,

DG

I like my VZ-24 rifles and one in .30-06.....24"

That said....the best I have is a standard M-70 FWT in .30-06 22"...

Kicks 180 grain bullets down range at 2,800 FPS....

Light weight....easy to shoot and carry....makes it hard to build one.

If build you must....I favor a M-70 push feed action!

I also prefer the 22" barrel as I lose very little and it's easy to carry and handles great.

I like a 26" barrel. If you are tall and like a long stock it will give you a little extra velocity, and still balance well.

If you are shorter and need a shorter length of pull, a 22" barrel might balance better for you.

You want to build a "go to" rifle yet you don't say what you'll use it for? Incredible.

One of the best "brush" rifles is the Remington M7600 carbine in .30-06 with the 18.5" barrel. Short, quick handling, fast repeat shots. Build off the M870 action so it is proven reliable.

Long range thumper - build a "tactical" rifle on an M700 action with 26" barrel. The velocity difference from a .30-06 isn't much but the extra weight will help practical accuracy.

Overall performance? Your choice of stainless bolt action with synthetic stock and 22" barrel.



.

24 inches is the pretty much standard length for general purposes.

22 makes a lighter quicker gun and still has plenty of velocity. My pre 64 Win 70 Fwt with 22 inch Fwt contour barrel is extremely accurate and my go to gun.

I had a 20 inch model 70 carbine once and it pointed so very nice. I kick myself for parting with it.

ETA: A 26 inch is so cumbersome in the woods for hutning. It seems they catch on every limb and vine you get near. I would have a 26 inch 300 Wby but never a 26" 30-06.

quote:

Originally posted by Doublegun:
Thinking about building a go-to rifle in 30-06. What barrel length and why?

There are two considerations - velocity and 'handling'. A longer barrel will give a bit more velocity. With the 'usual' barrel lengths, of 20" to 26", a rule of thumb is you lose about 20 fps for each inch of barrel for a cartridge in that 'class'. In some ways a short barrel can be 'handier', however, some don't like the way a short barrelled rifle 'handles'. The shorter you make the barrel the further back will be the centre of gravity. Having more weight 'forward' can make the rifle 'swing' feel more 'stable'. So in part it depends on the type of hunting and your preference as to feel. The total rifle weight will also factor into this decision as well.

quote:

Also what action would you use?

Bolt. Might be an argument for semi, under certain circumstances.

By go to I meant one rifle for pretty much everything. Right now I have the following in my battery:

7mm G&H Sporter with a 20" barrel
3006 M70 (pre-64) 24" barrel
300 H&H M70 (pre-64) 26" barrel

Thinking one rifle that can be put through he'll without worrying about resale value.

Thanks

The best compromise between power and handling in the -06 is for me the standard Blaser length; 58 cm.
But that's in a Blaser. An ordinary bolt gun will be about 6-7 cm(2,5'') longer.
My 700BDL Mountain was 22 inches, or 55 cm. I wouldn't go much shorter.. then you anyway have a 308 :/

m

quote:

Originally posted by Doublegun:

3006 M70 (pre-64) 24" barrel

I guess the key question then becomes: Why isn't the M70 you already have a 'go to rifle'? The reason(s) will tend to point to what you'll want to change for your new build.

quote:

Originally posted by metric:
...22 inches.... I wouldn't go much shorter.. then you anyway have a 308

I don't quite agree it would 'be a 308' (of course it IS a .308, just not a .308 Winchester ). However, I do see what you're saying. In fact, if a shorter overall rifle length is a key objective, a short action would save a bit of length without having to give up any barrel.

DK, I agree with your thinking on a short action to keep the rifle short and light, that is why I have a .308 as my go-to, spare rifle on hunting trips. The barrel is 22" and seems right to me. Using 165 bullets as my standard, I don't think there is much difference between it and .30-06.
I also agree with your comments on looking at the gentleman's M70 and deciding what about it he doesn't like, then move forward. An item I'm always concerned about is balance. I've had less than 6# rifles that were too twitchy. Ensuring a little "weight forward" helped the handling a lot.

I love my M70 3006 but I don't see any reason for not having a back-up, one that could take a beating and save the finish on the pre64. What about a quicker handling rifle with a 20" barrel, synthetic stock built off a Sako or Springfield action. (I wouldn't want anything other than a bolt action).

On an unrelated note, who makes the best synthetic stock that I could drop my 300 H&H into?

Doublegun, Hello from a fellow Michigander (and once a Yooper).
Yes, the 20" bbl is a definite option as long as the weight doesn't get too light out front. I've been using Bansner's High Tech stocks lately for their quality and light weight. I forgot to add One is on my .308 above. You would probably very satisfied with his stocks.

Did a "What If" on my reloading program w/ a 06 and 150gr Nos Part. with H4350 from 18" to 24" barrel. 18"=2795fps----20"=2847----22"=2903fps---24"=2952fps That is 157Fps or 25.1fps per inch. No douht in my small brain that a deer could tell the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Fat_Albert:
Did a "What If" on my reloading program w/ a 06 and 150gr Nos Part. with H4350 from 18" to 24" barrel. 18"=2795fps----20"=2847----22"=2903fps---24"=2952fps That is 157Fps or 25.1fps per inch. No douht in my small brain that a deer could tell the difference.

This has been my premise forever....the velocity loss is inconsequential to the overall experience.

When I carry a rifle over my shoulder on a sling the long barrels always seem to catch on tree limbs, knock off snow, and generally are banging on things I'd rather avoid.

For those that are not irritated by this stuff I cheer them on...may their 26" barrels give them peace and comfort.

I have a 26" barrel on a Rem 721 in .300 H&H and every time I look at it I envision it four inches shorter.....but just don't have the heart to hacksaw an old war horse.....I should just sell it to someone that loves it more than I do

i'd get a 22" barrel on the 06'.

I've used the '06 in hunting rifles with 20, 22, 23, 24 and 26" barrels. I've found the 24 or 26" to be best for optimum ballistics, especially with 165 - 200 gr bullets. Two of my four hunting '06s have 24" barrels and they suit me just fine, never found the 20" barreled rifle to be any "handier".

Larry Gibson

For the 06, I prefer 22-24 inches max. It would depend on balance, the stock and if you were hunting primarily open or mixed terrain. To my mind, 26 inches is just not needed, but again, that's just my preference.

I generally prefer a 22 inch barrel on a rifle, sometimes a 23. If shorter barreled rifles weren't handier the military of various nations wouldn't have looked for a shorter barreled weapon in the WWI trench and there would have never been any carbines, which go back even further then that. Isn't the reason for the M4 carbine our military is using in the house to house fighting because it's "handier" then the 20 inch M 16?

Carbines were designed to replace the 1911 sidearm usually worn by officers. It was learned that the officers couldn't hit shit with the .45. The carbine was also issued to tank crews for basically the same reason and too, there isn't much room inside a tank.

Are we hunting in trenches in WWI and doing CQB with an '06 these days? Seems the M1 with it's 24" barrel did fine across Europe and the thick jungles of Asia in WWII, Korea and some in Viet Nam....but then that's back when we were in the business of winning wars. In my 42 years experience (infantry, armored Cav and SF) in the Army I've a little bit of QCB experience in 2 wars and a lot of S**tholes in between, especially with long and short barreled weapons. Never did any better, and my soldiers never did either, in QCB with the shorter barreled M4 than the standard M16 or even the M14 (has a 24+" barrel including the flash suppressor, also doesn't require multiple hits to stop the fight like the M4). The only thing quicker in QCB was the transition to a handgun but only if the operator was well versed in it's use. Of couse a handgrenade was the fastest method of QCB but the current (let's capture them, read'em their right and prosecute them as criminals) PC mentality doesn't allow the use of the handgrenade as it "profiles" anyone in the room

My impression was Doublegun was wanting a "go to" hunting rifle not a "tench fighting, QCB" type rifle. Could be wrong but that's my impression.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Are we hunting in trenches in WWI and doing CQB with an '06 these days? Seems the M1 with it's 24" barrel did fine across Europe and the thick jungles of Asia in WWII, Korea and some in Viet Nam....but then that's back when we were in the business of winning wars. In my 42 years experience (infantry, armored Cav and SF) in the Army I've a little bit of QCB experience in 2 wars and a lot of S**tholes in between, especially with long and short barreled weapons. Never did any better, and my soldiers never did either, in QCB with the shorter barreled M4 than the standard M16 or even the M14 (has a 24+" barrel including the flash suppressor, also doesn't require multiple hits to stop the fight like the M4). The only thing quicker in QCB was the transition to a handgun but only if the operator was well versed in it's use. Of couse a handgrenade was the fastest method of QCB but the current (let's capture them, read'em their right and prosecute them as criminals) PC mentality doesn't allow the use of the handgrenade as it "profiles" anyone in the room

My impression was Doublegun was wanting a "go to" hunting rifle not a "tench fighting, QCB" type rifle. Could be wrong but that's my impression.

Larry Gibson

Larry,

Handier is a thing that applies to all situations a firearm may be used for from war to hunting. They used those rifles you mentioned in all those wars because they were old school ingrained into the military. I believe the Germans and Russians learned a hard lesson in building to building fighting in Stalingrad. Seems the preferred weapons were the MP38 and PPsh41 "if" the soldier could grab one, not the Mosin Nagant and 98 Mauser clothes line poles. You don't see many of the military armies today fielding long barreled rifles alone a full power round like the 30-06. I know many WWII vets that wanted to carry the M1 carbine over the Garand. Now that wouldn't have been my choice, but they knew they were lighter and handier. We really didn't have anything shorter or handier in those wars.

I didn't mention before that if you have a long case like the 30-06 in say a 24 inch barrel you've really lost usable barrel because of what the cartridge takes up in the chamber. So that 24 inch barrel isn't 24 inches that the bullet is going to use. It's even worse in shorter barrels for that round or any cartridge that is as long or longer. You know as well as I they don't measure barrel length from the tip of the bullet in the chamber to the muzzle.

quote:

Originally posted by Doublegun:
By go to I meant one rifle for pretty much everything. Right now I have the following in my battery:

Thinking one rifle that can be put through """ he'll """ without worrying about resale value.

Thanks

Mod. 200 Stevens as is 22" barrel.

I guess we should all let what the Germans and russians prefered in Stalingrad govern what we choose for a hunting rifle......BTWSpecOPs, the Army and the Marines have been clammoring for more M14s in Iraq and Afghanistan for numerous years. Seems the "handier" M4s aren't much good past 175 meters.......perhaps they should all just remember Stalingrad and be happy they have what is "needed".....

You contradict yourself in your last paragraph. Test have proven over and over again that the '06 will always outperform a shorter cartridge like the .308W given equal barrel lengths (measured from breach to end of barrel) and loaded to equal psi using 100% loading density. The '06 does so by 150 - 200 fps even though the .308W has a 1/2" longer "effective barrel". Compare the '06 to a .300 Win mag given the same conditions. The '06 has more "effective barrel length but the .300 Win mag will still out perform it. It has to do with case capacity, not "effective Barrel length". You are correct though, the '06 is a longer cartridge and is better in a longer barrel, exactly as I said.....where is this going......

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Doublegun:
Thinking about building a go-to rifle in 30-06. What barrel length and why?

Also what action would you use?

Thanks,

DG

I'll stir the pot. A "Go To" rifle in .30-06? It's got to be a small frame double rifle like a Merkel 140 with quick detach mounts and scope like a Leupold 3x9x33 Ultralight, regulate to shoot 180gr., accurate out to at least 200yds, takes down anything in North America, plains game in Africa, light weight at not more than 9lbs, the fastest two shots on the market, and a classic shooter. Anything else is just a pretender. lol. Mike

quote:

Originally posted by mdstewart:

quote:

Originally posted by Doublegun:
Thinking about building a go-to rifle in 30-06. What barrel length and why?

Also what action would you use?

Thanks,

DG

I'll stir the pot. A "Go To" rifle in .30-06? It's got to be a small frame double rifle like a Merkel 140 with quick detach mounts and scope like a Leupold 3x9x33 Ultralight, regulate to shoot 180gr., accurate out to at least 200yds, takes down anything in North America, plains game in Africa, light weight at not more than 9lbs, the fastest two shots on the market, and a classic shooter. Anything else is just a pretender. lol. Mike

Mike, I like your thinking but I just can't see a beautiful double rifle with a scope mounted on top.

Double rifles have a place but I don't think of them when I think versatile (at least here in the states).

For most hunting situations, the slightly lower velocity of a 22 or 24 inch barrel isn't going to make any difference on the outcome of the hunt. However, the ease of handling of a 22 inch barrel makes it the better choice, in my humble estimation.

quote:

Originally posted by Doublegun:

quote:

Originally posted by mdstewart:

quote:

Originally posted by Doublegun:
Thinking about building a go-to rifle in 30-06. What barrel length and why?

Also what action would you use?

Thanks,

DG

I'll stir the pot. A "Go To" rifle in .30-06? It's got to be a small frame double rifle like a Merkel 140 with quick detach mounts and scope like a Leupold 3x9x33 Ultralight, regulate to shoot 180gr., accurate out to at least 200yds, takes down anything in North America, plains game in Africa, light weight at not more than 9lbs, the fastest two shots on the market, and a classic shooter. Anything else is just a pretender. lol. Mike

Mike, I like your thinking but I just can't see a beautiful double rifle with a scope mounted on top.

Double rifles have a place but I don't think of them when I think versatile (at least here in the states).

DG,

I used to feel the same way. But now I hunt almost exclusively with double rifles or drillings in the US, whether for deer/pigs/bear/etc. I really like the 2 quick shots. I'm a stalk hunter, so I normally carry my DR's without the scope mounted for quick shots at moving targets. If I decide to stop behind a tree for 15-30 minutes overlooking a fresh trail or feeding area, then I'll reach in my pouch, pull out the scope, and mount it for use on specific targets. The drillings give me the option for grouse/woodcock/or fall turkey while I'm deer hunting, not to mention pigs.----I prefer open sights on a DR, but a scoped DR is deadly. Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
I guess we should all let what the Germans and russians prefered in Stalingrad govern what we choose for a hunting rifle......BTWSpecOPs, the Army and the Marines have been clammoring for more M14s in Iraq and Afghanistan for numerous years. Seems the "handier" M4s aren't much good past 175 meters.......perhaps they should all just remember Stalingrad and be happy they have what is "needed".....

You contradict yourself in your last paragraph. Test have proven over and over again that the '06 will always outperform a shorter cartridge like the .308W given equal barrel lengths (measured from breach to end of barrel) and loaded to equal psi using 100% loading density. The '06 does so by 150 - 200 fps even though the .308W has a 1/2" longer "effective barrel". Compare the '06 to a .300 Win mag given the same conditions. The '06 has more "effective barrel length but the .300 Win mag will still out perform it. It has to do with case capacity, not "effective Barrel length". You are correct though, the '06 is a longer cartridge and is better in a longer barrel, exactly as I said.....where is this going......

Larry Gibson

Going no where Larry I understand now. For you, you are comfort with the barrel length that you mentioned was just as handy for you. I've always carried my rifle slung on my shoulder barrel down unless the snow was pretty darn deep or the undergrowth high. It's much easier, for me, to get through thick dense vegetation with the shorter barreled rifles.

On the M4, well aside from having a 7.62 Nato, I honestly think the Army should have rebarreled all their M16 (and carbines) for the 6x45....until they decided on something better then the 5.56. Cheapest way out with just a barrel change.

Way off topic.