For no good reason, the idea has crossed my mind to trim the tube of my .270 WCF to 22" from its current 24".

Has anyone done such, and were you satisfied with the results? Or, was there some buyer's remorse, as a result?

I know it's mostly in my head, but 22" barrels have always just seemed so much handier, to me. At the same time, though, I don't want to negatively affect performance.

Thoughts and input?

RSY

Idle hands are the Devil's playthings.

Leave it alone unless you find the 24" barrel unwieldy. Then, cut 1" off at a time until you reach a state of bliss.

George

I had a model 70 338 Winchester that had a 26 inch barrel. I had it cut to 24 inches and was happy with it. I have seen written on these and other pages that the ideal length for a 338 Winchester is 23 inches.

I have a featherweight 270 wcf that has a 22 inch barrel. Works fine for me.

RSY,

I've been wrestling with something similar related to 300 mags and 26" vs 24" barrels.

I've gone to a bunch of gun shops and handled 24" barrelled rifles and 26" barrels.

Steve

I can't imagine a .270 having a problem with a 22" barrel, but then again I would take George's advice and shave an inch at a time just to be safe.

Longer is better, within reason, and 24 inches is well within reason.

Unless you're a sawed-off runt with short arms and legs who drags the muzzle or buttstock of an adult-sized rifle, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:Unless you're a sawed-off runt with short arms and legs who drags the muzzle or buttstock of an adult-sized rifle, of course.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

RSY

I am sure no problem with 22" - To be absolutely sure, George's advice is a good one to consider.

Caution is the mother of the porcelain store.

Roland

Once you do it you can't put it back.

Maybe I'll go "Euro," and trim it to 570mm or 580mm.

RSY

I used to shoot the .270 Win. more than any other cartridge, and I went through a period from 1978 thru 1986 when I loaded and fired thousands of rounds of .270, testing every recommended load and a few I thought up myself or gleaned from loading manuals.

During this period, I owned a bunch of pre-64 Standard Grade rifles with 24" barrels, as well as Featherweights with 22" barrels, not to mention PF post '64s with 22" barrels. I chronographed most of the loads I put through this assortment, and it might surprise you to know that there was very, very little difference in velocity, on average, between 22 & 24" barrels with the exact-same loads. In some cases, I had Featherweights that were actually FASTER than Standards, despite having 2" less barrel.

I learned something from that protracted exercise, as well as others of the same ilk: Velocity depends on more than just a couple of inches of barrel. Sometimes internal barrel dimensions count for more speed than length. With an '06 or a .270, 22" is plenty of tube all things considered, at least in my rather modest experience.

Coming full circle, I think the .270's ideal role is as Jack O'Connor promoted it to be a generation ago: As a reasonably light, mountain-type, general-purpose, flat-shooting rifle for medium to large big game animals. In that role, O'Connor liked a 22" barrel on his 270s, and so do I.

I also think the slightly shorter, stiff barrel tends to shoot slightly better as a bonus.....

AD

Short barrels are like sphincters, everybody has one. Stand above the masses and leave it long.

After many years of screwing up perfectly good rifles, I would apply one and only one criterium to this decision:

Is it accurate right now? If not, cut away. If yes, then LEAVE IT ALONE!

quote:

Originally posted by Jim in Idaho:
...I would apply one and only one criterium to this decision:

Is it accurate right now? If not, cut away. If yes, then LEAVE IT ALONE!

Criterium? What's a bicycle race have to do with rifle barrels.

And, if you must ask ...yes, it's accurate, now. Alright, I won't cut it quite yet.

Thanks, all. I'll ponder on it some more.

RSY

Lots of good advice above.

One thing that does change the personality of a rifle that has a conventional stock on it is to put a cored sythetic one on it. This takes about a half pound or even more off of the weight and improves the balance.

If you cut your barrel it will seem a little handier but for each inch it's only about an ounce of weight.

I have a lightweight now with a 24" barrel and it weighs 6.2 lbs without sights. The rifle feels handy enough for the woods even if it's a 270 magnum.

If the rifle shoots well now I would leave it as is barrel wise. The new crown may be worse than the present one.

The 22" .270 Winchester is a fine length and the loss of velocity will be negligible.....you could go to 20" as well if you choose. Remington built their M700 in 20" years ago and they made great guns!!

22" is just fine. Like stated previously the extra 2" doesnt do much for velocity or accuracy. If it wont shoot good at 22" there is probably something else wrong.

I have had a few barrels lopped and invariably if anything accuracy has improved. If done by a competent smith, a fresh crown never hurts and that is a byproduct of chopping a barrel. I have never regreted doing it.

Chuck

How about this for a suggestion:

Get a target crown put on your rifle, then just get it cut to your desired length while your rifles at the smith.

24" was the conventional length for .270 and '06 for generations, but now the factories have generally gone to 22". For my part when I had an UltraLight built by Mel Forbes in .270 several years ago I went to 26", I prefer the offhand balance, very slightly higher velocity, and lesser muzzle blast of longer barrels. I am definitely a minority voter on this.

I don't know the medical facts, but my left ear definitely appreciates the 24" rifle barrels and 30" shotgun barrels more than their shorter brethren.

Seems to ring a bit less, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by RSY:

quote:

Originally posted by Jim in Idaho:
...I would apply one and only one criterium to this decision:

Is it accurate right now? If not, cut away. If yes, then LEAVE IT ALONE!

Criterium? What's a bicycle race have to do with rifle barrels.

(Criterium? Boy, that was a public cerebral burp.)

Okay, okay! Criterion! Singular of criteria, there, ya satisfied now?

Geez Louise, since when was literalcy a required mint for intelligible discursing around here?

What do you want me to play?

ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT'S LOUD!

A 22" 270 will not only be louder with more muzzle blast but the loudness will be nearer to your ears and the blast nearer to your face.

Handier in the hand is livelier in the aim....