I was wondering what peoples thoughts are on the selection of a 22" barrel vs. a 24" barrel for a long action caliber (specifically .270 or .30-06). Near as I can tell a 24" barrel would only improve maximum point blank range (MPBR) by about 25 yards, max. And I doubt that any animal would notice the slight increase in energy of a bullet from a 24" barrel. I guess it sound like I am trying to talk myself out of a 24" barrel, but the weight savings of a 22" barrel would be nice if it didn't come at a significant cost of performance. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Bob

There wouldn't be any significant performance distance and the shorter barrel will definitely be handier.

Personally, I like long barrels. Many of my hunting rifles have 26" tubes, the rest 24" (don't think I have anything with a 22" tube). My "target" guns wear 28" barrels. So, I guess I'm a bit biased.

However, it sounds like YOU like shorter barrels. If that's the case, by all means, go with the 22" barrel. Realistically, you won't give up much performance. However, more importantly, deep down, you will be *happier* with the shorter tube. If you aren't happy with something, you won't shoot it, or you'll always have a nagging thought in the back of your mind. If you are more comfortable with the shorter tube, and you like it, you'll be happier with your rifle every time you take it out, and in the end, that's what's really important!

Bob:

The weight saving of 2" of a typical factory contour barrel would run about 1 or 1 1/2 oz. The velocity loss is a question. Charlie Sisk the well known Texas riflemaker recently did a test where he shortened barrels 1" at a time and chronographed the results. He found that a 270 lost an average of 19 fps/in from 27" down to 21"

Hard to make a case for a barrel longer than 22" unless you just "like 'em"

JimF