THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM GUNSMITHING FORUM


Moderators: jeffeosso
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
.300 H&H on a Ruger No. 1
 Login/Join
 
one of us
posted
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 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 5543 | Registered: 09 December 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
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?!? [Embarrassed] [Confused]

Just my opinion, of course. I've been dreaming about a No. 1 in .300 H&H myself. [Smile]

Best,
Joe
 
Posts: 144 | Location: Riverview, MI | Registered: 20 January 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
It would have been a removable brake of course...
 
Posts: 546 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 29 November 2002Reply With Quote
<t_bob38>
posted
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.
 
Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Maybe 24" is a happy medium then. Just a bit shorter, but not too much so.
 
Posts: 546 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 29 November 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I don't think that you will find the recoil of a 300H&H in a heavy #1 bad at all. [Big Grin]
 
Posts: 1257 | Location: Colusa CA U.S.A. | Registered: 27 June 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 546 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 29 November 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
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 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
No, this one will have iron sights on it. Actually, I'd like to replace the single blade rear sight with a 3 leaf setup.
 
Posts: 546 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 29 November 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
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: 42163 | Location: Twin Falls, Idaho | Registered: 04 June 2000Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
At www.24hourcampfire.com a smith by the name of Sisk did some recent testing of velocities after cutting barrels back an inch at a time.
 
Posts: 5543 | Registered: 09 December 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Would it be better to start with a No. 1 Tropical, or a No. 1 Medium Sporter? Would the extra weight of the tropical model be beneficial?
 
Posts: 546 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 29 November 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
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: 1665 | Location: Colorado, USA | Registered: 11 November 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Yeah, the Tropical barrel is a bit thicker. I know the cons to a heavier rifle are basically more to carry, but what are the pro's, if there are any?
 
Posts: 546 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 29 November 2002Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia