I'm considering having a Ruger No. 1 Medium rebarreled to .300 H&H. I'd like to keep the rifle as compact as possible. What's the shortest reasonable length I can go to without seriously sacrificing performance? Also, would adding a removable muzzle brake be worth the expense?
[ 05-05-2003, 01:07: Message edited by: Urodoji ]
Posts: 546 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 29 November 2002
For every inch of a "standard" 26" 300 H&H barrel you might loose 25 fps. There is nothing wrong with a 22" barrel. It will still have a lot more power than a 30/06.
The 26" #1's seem like a good idea on paper but they are kind of heavy. Nothing wrong with a shorter barrel at all.
quote:Originally posted by Urodoji: I'm considering having a Ruger No. 1 Medium rebarreled to .300 H&H. I'd like to keep the rifle as compact as possible. What's the shortest reasonable length I can go to without seriously sacrificing performance? Also, would adding a removable muzzle brake be worth the expense?
Barrel length would really be a personal choice, but remember that the overall length of a No.1 will be a few inches shorter than the overall length of a bolt-action with the same length barrel, since the action is shorter. Personally, I'd go with a 26" barrel; overall length should be like a bolt-action with a 22" barrel.
To me, a muzzle brake on such a rifle would be totally unneccessary and a terrible mismatch. You have a fine classic cartridge in a beautiful, elegant rifle, and you want to put a brake on the end of it?!?
Just my opinion, of course. I've been dreaming about a No. 1 in .300 H&H myself.
Best, Joe
Posts: 144 | Location: Riverview, MI | Registered: 20 January 2003
You might find muzzle blast noticably more in a 22 inch 300 mag barrel than in a 26 incher. And velocity loss per inch is greater with large capacity cartridges than smaller ones.
quote:Originally posted by Urodoji: Good point. Maybe the removable brake wasn't such a hot idea. I think I will have the barrel cut to 24 inches though. Thanks.
If you're not going to have iron sights on it, you might try it at 26" and see how you like it. You can always have it cut shorter.
Best, Joe
Posts: 144 | Location: Riverview, MI | Registered: 20 January 2003
I would not own any 300 with a 22" barrel, I have a chronograph that will put that idea to rest and I have tested them many times over the years...
The Ruger no.1 is a short action and with a 26" barrel, which is what all magnums need, it is about the same as a short barreled bolt gun in over all length...
With iron sights the 26" barrel will give you a much better and clearer sight picture and it will balance much much better for off hand shooting...
I shot a 26" Ruger no.1 in 338 for sometime and it was just a fine rifle..be sure and get the classic Henry forend with that 300 H&H...
Posts: 42210 | Location: Twin Falls, Idaho | Registered: 04 June 2000
The extra weight in a 1H Tropical comes from the barrel contour...the actions are the same. I agree that a 26" barrel has great balance. I have a 1S in .338 and it balanced very well. Hope this helped you.
Posts: 1676 | Location: Colorado, USA | Registered: 11 November 2002