Just getting my ducks in a row for when it comes time to put a barrel on my M1999.

I know longer usually means more FPS but this gun will be used primarily for big deer, elk, maybe African plains game if I ever get there.
What do you all recommend for the most versatility?

thanks, Rob

Rob, I cut my M70 300 WSM from 24" to 22"... If I were re-barreling I'd go with a 23" tube.

BA

I have the same decision to make this summer on a M 1999/300 WSM. I think I will go with a 22" barrel and it won't have a very heavy profile either.

But I am listening and considering options. I do appreciate the comments of Brad and others who are on the cutting edge.

There is a small chance that the cartridge will be a 338 WSM/22".

I guess I just don't understand,why have a large capacity case ie magnum and have less than a 24" tube.

All my mags are 26" tubes. Some longer, for most hunting 26" varmiting longer.

Mike;
Not to take anything away from a lighter more compact rifle, I think each has thier own reasons.
Psychologically every ounce seems to count at High altitudes.
But like you I don't want to sacrifice performance for a 8 oz. lighter rifle. The most important thing here is what do you really want, and what are you most comfortable with? It's your gun and money, build the gun the way you want it.
Remember, you can easily shorten a barrel if you decide that's the way to go but adding 2 to 4 inches is a bit more complex and expensive

Mike, the 300 WSM is not a "large capacity magnum"... I would put the 300 WBY / 300 RUM in that category. The 300 WSM's case-capacity to bore-volume ratio is exactly that of a 280 Remington and very few would argue that a 280 doesn't work well with a 22" bbl.

The reason I leaned towards the WSM in the first place was to have a cartridge that exceeded 06' performance yet worked efficiently in a short barrel with a over-all rifle length like a 22" bbl'd 06. I like the balance of a short barrel and when elk hunting where and how I do I truly dislike a barrel longer than 22"... a 26" tube is completely out of the question for me. The reason I reccomend a 23" bbl. is that it gets most of what needs to be gotten from the 300 WSM while giving the overall rifle length only 3/8" more length than a 22" bbl'd 30-06.

As you can see, everyone approaches things differently...

BA