All-

Just thought I'd ask to see what the opinons were on this.

Assuming an "all-purpose" .270 (i.e. for use both near and far) what length do you like in say a #2 contour barrel.

Personally, I think 23 inches is a nice compromise here. Thoughts? Opinion?

BB

Well, 23 is better than 22, but it's not enough shorter than a 24 to make any difference in weight or handling, so why loose the inch? My Sako .270 has a metric length barrel that works out to about 24.4", and the only instances in which I might have wished for a shorter barrel, it would have needed to be 20" or shorter to do me any good.

I'm a 24" believer. But 23 is better than 22.

Well, since everybody else seem to like the long barrels, I'll be the odd man out and vote for the shorter variant.

A couple of years back, it was hard to impossible to find a .270 Win (.30-06 etc) factory rifle with a barrel over 22". Then all of a sudden, "firearms fashion" dictated that 24" was the thing to have. I suspect the pendulum will eventually swing back in the other direction - who knows?

Just like the proponents of the 24" barrels have their reasons, good and valid as they surely are, I have mine to prefer a 22" barrel. 1) I abhor long rifles, they are a pain in the posterior in most situations (climb a stand, stalk in close cover, move in and out of vehicles etc etc). 2) I don't think the 50-100 fps (actually 50 fps is probably more realistic for a loss of 2" of barrel) make one iota difference in the field.

So unless I use a cartridge with a really large case (most belted magnums spring to mind, as does the 25-06), give me a 22" barrel for big game hunting!
- mike

My favorite .270s have all had 22" barrels, as does my current .270. Works great out of a saddle scabbard - works great as you get up the mountain. The velocity you achieve is more depended on the individual barrel itself, rather than its length when you're talking about the .270 Winchester cartridge.

I once own a pre-64 Model 70 standard grade .270 (24" barrel), and a pre-64 Model 70 Featherweight (22" barrel) .270. Both shot the exact-same handloads with equal accuracy, but the Featherweight produce 100 fps. more velocity with the same exact loads. I've observed this phenomenon before with other rifles, so it's no major fluke.

AD

Too me... Allen is right. You will oftan see a wider variance in FPS between barrels with the same length to those 2 inches longer or shorter. Another words 24 and 22" barrels will oftan cross in velocities.
Personaly I always choose longer barrels I have 3 270s here in 24,24, and 25.
BTW Allen, where have you been?

The "ideal barrel" will be the one you are most comfortable with, the velocity gains and losses will be meaningless at those numbers.

[ 07-16-2003, 03:04: Message edited by: smallfry ]

My Opinion,
Shorter barrels tend to be more accurate, yet longer barrels are more stable for the shooter. So I like long, fat barrels. I would go with at least a 24 inch because I'm so "firearm fashion" conscientious .

I like the 24" too. It seems to be "balanced" with the heavier stock and mid sized action, in short it just plain looks good.

Well, it depends on what you want out of your 270. If you want Velocity, go for a 25-27" bbld rifle, and if you want packability, go with a 22-24" bbl. I read an article where a guy got several barrels for a couple of his 270's. He wanted to test the velocity difference, and in one instance, he gained 250 or 300fps over the standard 270 with a 22" bbl. But like I said, if you want packability and balance, go 22-24" route.

Well

I guess that the barrel lenght is a personal thing. I like long barrels, short feel flimsy and the rifle will often be to light in the front for me for off hand shooting after climbing and stalking for some time.. a light barrel will dance cha cha when you are trying to get enough oxygen

I would say anything between 24 and 25 is fine

/ JOHAN

In a 270 there's not enough difference in velocity between a 22 or a 24 inch barrel to make any meaningful difference in trajectory at any normal ranges. If you have a 22" barrel and it shoots good be happy and hunt with it, if it has a 24" baarrel and shoots good be happy still and keep on huntn'

I am the owner of a Remington "Tupperware Special" with a 22" barrel. I am the guy at the range that sits all the way at the end of the shooting lanes so no one has to see his cheap plastic rifle. I am in the midst of project to burn the barrel out so I can get an aftermarket barrel.
I can get some pretty good speed out of this barrel if I want to with handloads. As good as some published velocities from a 24" barrel. I can honestly say that my rifle shoots very accuratly and usually hits the target on the first try. I dont think that going to a 24" barrel is going to make me a better shot. I also question whether it is a good idea to add weight to a rifle and then drag it up and down the hills all day long. The longer barrels look good on paper(or in a gunrag)but I'd rather save the weight and stick with a 22" barrel

ZM

[ 07-17-2003, 03:12: Message edited by: Zeke ]

i bet i can shoot anything with my 22" barrel that i can shoot with anothers 24". why carry it if you dont need it...........
woofer

I have a Mark X manlicher .270 with a 20" barrel, other than being loud, it performs great. Factory 130's do 2900 fps, and groups under 3/4" at 100yds are common. I still prefer a 24" on a .270.

Both of my .270's had 20" barrels. They worked very well, but probably would have been better with longer tubes. If I ever get another .270, it will be a Ruger No. 1 with 26" medium-weight barrel. (No. 1B).

Short legs, saddle scabbards,and the fact that gravity is a constant thing all make me elect the 22" as the best set up for most standard cartridges.

Rich Elliott