26" vs 24" barrel for 300 win mag

ryanshaw44

ryanshaw44

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Hey, I'm having a rifle built and i'm torn between barrel length. I'm looking for some feed back and opinions regarding 26" vs 24" barrels on a 300wm. The barrel will be a m40 contour. I like the idea of a 24" barrel but just not sure. I know you loose a bit of velocity with a shorter barrel. Can that be made up with different loads. Is a 26 really that much better, even at longer ranges?

Thanks your your input
 
If it's for hunting, 26" is way too long. For me, 24" is longer than I really like for hunting. The velocity loss from 26 to 24 will be important to those who read charts; those who actually shoot won't care.
 
You really need to think about a 28" tube. The .300 can make good use of the extra inches.
Unless you're coming-up to a weight limit. Then a shorter fat barrel is generally better than a longer skinny tube.

The last rifle I built has a 28 incher on it, and I like it. Next rifle I build will wear a 30".
 
ryanshaw44 said:
Hey, I'm having a rifle built and i'm torn between barrel length. I'm looking for some feed back and opinions regarding 26" vs 24" barrels on a 300wm. The barrel will be a m40 contour. I like the idea of a 24" barrel but just not sure. I know you loose a bit of velocity with a shorter barrel. Can that be made up with different loads. Is a 26 really that much better, even at longer ranges?

Thanks your your input
Click to expand...


What's it for? Where are you going to use it?

In some areas a 26" barrel on a general purpose hunting rifle would be a PIA, but if you are going to use it as a long range big game rifle, the extra barrel length would probably be a small advantage, allowing you to put as much power as possible on the target and flatten trajectory by a click or two. If the rifle is intended as a hunting rifle, and if you hunt in difficult country, a target contour barrel will be a greater hinderance than the slightly longer barrel.

If on the other hand the rifle is a paper punch, the barrel length doesn't make much difference one way or another. If you are really concerned about the difference in velocity between a 24" and a 26" barrel, choose the heaviest bullet your barrel will stabilize, as heavier bullets have a lower initial velocity than lighter bullets and tend to shed less velocity when fired from a shorter tube.
 
Its for hunting, it's going to be more for bigger game at longer ranges . It's not going to be used as a "bush" gun as it's a .300wm. Will there be a considerable amount of adjustment on your scope with that small velocity loss. that its a hassle?

thanks your your input guys

Ryan
 
I don't know why anyone would build make a purpose built longrange belly rig with M40/varmint/sendero contour barrel then cut it off. My own .300 heavy barrel has a 27" fluted Lilja barrel.

Since it is a specialty item in the first place why start a compromise process? You can wonder how much a shorter barrel will affect you, but why stop there? Surely that heavy barel can't make that difference on a shorter barrel can it? Drop that back to a sporter weight barrel, then that HS/McMillan stock starts to seem a little overkill. Surely a Mark-Force-and-Bender scope can't be all that important? Give me a minute, and I'll compromise you all the way back to blackpowder. Trouble is, you'd probably want a long barrel on that.;)
 
It's a big gun. Give it a big (long) barrel. I have 26" now on my .300WM, and when I get it rebarreled it will have another 26". It wouldn't "look" right with a 24" barrel. A gun with a 24" barrel does not proclaim itself to be a .300WM.

You don't lose anything sticking with 26". You'll always be wondering what you lost with the 24". Don't worry about the weight...if you get sore & tired with the 2 extra inches, you'll have been sore & tired with 24" just the same.

Enjoy!
 
My first .300 Win Mag was a Ruger 77 tangsafety model with 24" barrel. I later sold it after getting a good deal on a used/exc Browning A-Bolt composite stalker with the 26" barrel.

Both rifles shot extremely well with 70 gr IMR 4350 behind a good quality 180 gr SP. I never felt the 24" was too short or the 26" too long. I'd be happy with either.

1aCoffee.gif

NAA.
 
The velocity is the only thing that will be affected and I would venture a difference of 50 f/s at the most... in hunting situations you wouldn't notice it.
 
24" works fine on my 300. I'd say ask the bears that may have seen the muzzle flash but they're all dead. I don't think theyda known the difference anyway. I prefer short barrels so if I ever get another 300wm it'll have a 20" barrel. Still shoot more then flat enough for me
 
I've owned and shot a number of .300s over the years. In fact, my very first .300 wears a 26-inch medium heavy barrel. I always believed that you needed a long barrel in this cartridge to really enjoy a benefit over a .30-06.

Then I re-barrelled an old Sako with a used 22.5 inch skinny barrel in .300 Winchester Magnum, and my eyes REALLY opened. The result has been a trim, handy rifle that is a joy to carry and point. It wears a Nikon 3.5-10 mildot scope and the balance of the whole package is excellent.

You'd think my accuracy and velocity would suffer with this short, skinny barrel, right?

Well, with top loads of N560 pushing a 180 Nosler Accubond, I'm averaging around 3,070 over the chronograph, with 1/2 m.o.a. for the first 3 to 4 shots -- more than good enough for any hunting. (The muzzle blast is darn near Hiroshima-like, however.)

I even hit the V-bull at 600 metres on an ICFRA target with this rifle and load, just using the third mildot as the aiming mark.

This combo has been absolutely devastating on game so far, as you'd expect.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that you should make your decision on this matter based purely on questions of balance and portability if this is going to be used for hunting. In some cases, a longer barrel might hang better while in other cases, shorter and lighter is the way to go. In ALL cases, however, handy, well balanced and accurate is far better than cumbersome but more powerful.
 
Here's an interesting article about barrel length.

http://www.tacticaloperations.com/SWATbarrel/

This is the most relevent part to the current discussion:

Many agencies purchasing a .300 Win. Mag. will primarily be employing the rifle in an urban environment. The common reason for opting for the .300 Win. Mag. that it extends the capabilities of the rifle to longer ranges than the .308 Winchester is capable in those rare situations where longer range capability is necessary. This leads to an obvious question -- will going to a shorter barrel for added maneuverability in the urban environment adversely affect long range performance of a rifle in this caliber?

To find the answers, Tac Ops took a 26-inch barreled .300 Win. Mag. and chopped the barrel down in one-inch increments as they previously did with the .308 Winchester. Ten rounds of Federal Match 190-grain BTHP Gold Medal were fired from each increment. No velocity was lost from 26 inches to 22 inches. Velocity loss started to occur only after they went below 22 inches.

As a result of their tests, Tac Ops decided not to go below 22 inches on their .300 Win. Mag. tactical precision rifle, the Alpha 66. According to Mike Rescigno, President of Tac Ops, the 22-inch barrel is ideal for the tactical shooters that are going to use the 190-grain Federal Match ammo. There isn't any loss of performance by going to the 22-inch barrel and this round. The Alpha 66 still provides 1/4-MOA or better accuracy.

For heavier bullets or hotter loads with slower burning powders, Rescigno recommends a 24- to 26-inch barrel. The longer barrel length is necessary for complete powder combustion with these loads. Rescigno adds that he has a 24-inch barrel on his personal .300 Win. Mag. just in case he wants "to shoot the heavier 220-grain bullets with a lot of powder."
Click to expand...
 
That advice concerning heavier bullets flies in the face of my experience and observations. Heavier bullets have a lower muzzle velocity, thus are less effected by a reduction in barrel length. The powder which provides the highest velocity in a long barrel will also produce the highest velocity in a shortened barrel, within reason. Besides, top performance in a .300 Winchester tends to be with slow burning powders even with light bullets, in which case the light bullet would have a heavier powder charge, rather than the heavier bullet having a heavier charge of slower burning powder as would be the case with a .30/06. The results of their test by incrementally shortening the barrel inch by inch having no effect on velocity of a 190 gr bullet tends to support this; had the test been conducted with 150 gr bullets I'm confident the results would have shown a more dramatic drop in velocity, sooner.
 
24" has a balanced look on alot of rifles, and still is handy in all but the thickest eastern softwood to carry. Weight between 24 or 26 is a non-issue. As stated the 2" extra will not deliver alot more horsepower in an all around carry rifle, however if you use a magnum 30 to extend the .30- '06 range by a 150yds or so, then it will probaly be fired from a treestand/blind, or fired over open terrain on a bipod, where compactness has no value and the 26" will be nice in the maximum range role, especially if you handload and can utilize ever inch.:)

Enjoy your .300WM, one of the best cartridges of the latter half of the 20th century, just behind the 7mmRemingtonMagnum;)...............:wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom