I'm buiding a 280 A.I. and I'm pondering what length I should make the barrel. 22" or 24"

IMO 24"

My choice was between 23 and 25 inches. I was using a #4 contour so chose 25 inches. If I were building a lighter rifle I would have used a #2 at 23 inches. I did a few years later with a 7mm-08IMP.

So between 22 and 24 it would depend on how I intended to shape this rifle.

I built mine on a pre 64 M70 action and went with a fwt contour @ 23.5", it been very accurate and gets the velocity I was hoping for (140 TTSX's @ 3150)

A point that FEW ever consider...but very, very relevant....

The shorter the barrel the nearer the bang (and the blast) to your ear. So the more DAMAGE your hearing will suffer.

FWIW I'd choose the longer barrel. In fact, as someone more knowlegeable than I said, if you want to keep weight down don't ask you rifle to do it for you!

In other words worry about the extra weight around your waistline not the extra weight of a 24" barrel over a 22" barrel!

24"

I built my 280PDK which is the size of a 7mm gibbs on a 23". To do it over I would probably go with a 24 but the 23 has never left me wanting. Any longer than a 24 is not needed in my opinion.

24" absolutely.

built mine with a 28". BUT it is a heavy barreled gun for longrange work.

It all depends upon how you are going to use the rifle. If its going to be a lightweight to be carried far and all day then a 22" featherweight contour will be fine.

If the rifle is like the Kimber 84L and still not heavy it seems many like them with the standard 24" barrel with the Kimber weight and all.

As for myself I have a number of light Kimbers and even those in WSM's that are a 280AI and more. These rifles along with a battery of M70's, Brono's, 99's etc. don't leave much room for a 280 AI however I want one too!

I could make the 280AI do what the magnums do. Just not shoot so far.

It really comes down to is if the 280AI has nice wood?

I have a thing about long barreled bolt action rifles --- I don't like them. I think we all have littlepreferences that influence our choices. My dangerous game rifles are 21" and all my others that i have that are custom are 22". I believe they are handier. I also like rather heavy stiff barrels. I also don't like bare barrels at all. I believe all rifles should have iron sights whether they will ever be used or not,it just plain LOOKS right. As far as performance I have read all the tests and seen all the charts and don't feel the loss of velocity to be of any significence. I am not a slave to velocity in any case and to me a LOOOONG shot is 300yds and i don't believe accuracy is particularly affected by barrel length except for increased velocity. If I remember when I was in the Artillery the 155 Howitzer was more accurate than the 155 Gun. It just mostly boils down to personal preference like anything else on a custom. That's why they call them customs.

quote:

I believe all rifles should have iron sights whether they will ever be used or not,it just plain LOOKS right.

I agree!

quote:

If I remember when I was in the Artillery the 155 Howitzer was more accurate than the 155 Gun.

I don't agree!

As someone who did both an artillery course and a tank course you will also know that with anyHowitzer (in the A/T role) it was critical that you got the range as near as possible...with the Gun (in the A/T role) it was not as important as the trajectory was flatter!

Just as the flatter the trajectory the greater the "dangerous space"...or the flatter the trajectory the less an error of fifty yards in estimating the rang matters.

Enfield-Spares,
Don't disagree with your expertise but do KNOW for a fact the US Army in the majority of the people I associated with during my service considered the 155 Howitzer more accurate than the 155 Gun. I was in an Observation Battalion and stationed at Ft Sill for 2 years . Ft Sill is the Artillery center of the US Army and in those 2 years I saw a heap of 155 rounds fired,both Howitzer and Gun and I persoanally believe what I said to be true. As to being more 'dangerous space' the less range estimating matters I don't agree. The absolute most dangerous weapon I EVER observed had a horrible trajectory ,a short range and with good observation accuracy and deadliness beyond what I felt comfortable with. It was a 4.2 Mortar. I would agree with you if the 155 trajectory was nearly flat but the rounds still come in from overhead and I mean overhead.

Howitzers are accurate that is for sure. I did the last ever artillery course conducted using the famous British 25 Pdr Gun/Howitzer.

It had both an anti-personnel role as a howitzer with high explosive and could be used also with solid shot in the A/T role.

When I used it were were firing at old tank hull targets, in plain view but using the high explosive rounds.

We had shot it earlier in the week in indirect fire using a plotting board. This was the final firing, ever, and to be over open sights.

So as to show a hit and also, as it was the last ever course, to use up well over one hundred of these things in one afternoon!

Accurate yes, once ranged in, and for repeat shots, but the slightest error in range estimation gave shots off the target.

Why?

Because the shell was coming in at a plunging angle and so just fifty yards error would give a shot short or long of the target.

As an example the old British 577/450 Martini Henry is accurate...but, like the US 45-70 if you misestimate the range it will strike low or high of the mark.

At short range I would agree that "handiness" is a reasonable trade off but at those "is it 150 yards or is it 200 yards" shots I'd prefer the comfort of those few extra feet per second that are forgiving of a range estimation error.

But yes I can see how a howitzer "dropping" a shell on target would seem more accurate than a gun.

Mine is on a ZG47 Brno action with 24 inch barrel but with 30 degree shoulder. Most accurate rifle I own.