shortest .300 wm barrel for a hunting rifle ?

For convenience sake and better in hand balance and maneuverability, I like 22" barrels on my hunting rifles... I have several WSM and Rem Mag cartridges that perform admirably at that length... mind you, I am searching for accuracy, not velocity with these rifles.
 
I opted for a 22" barrel on my 280 Ackley, I'd imagine case capacity to bore diameter ratio would put it in the same ballpark as a 300wm
 
As many have said, 24" minimum. 26" ideal. Any less and you may as well have a 30-06

Except multiple people have proven that wrong. No 19" 3006 I've seen spits 180s at 2950 fps... With the same barrel length, the 300wm wins every time, all the time.
 
Ruger #1 is the way to go. Get one that is chambered for the 300 and it will work as good as anything you will get anywhere else. The nice thing is that with the falling block you cut 4 inches of the overall length as opposed to a bolt action.
 
IMHO, 20" represents the shortest barrel I want on a hunting rifle with a sporting contour barrel; any shorter and the rifle will feel butt heavy and clubby. There is no reason I can think of not to chamber a carbine for a .300 magnum cartridge if a short rifle is what meets your needs. A short barrel .300 won't do any worse than a long barrel .30/06, and a long barrel .30/06 ain't bad.
 
Prefer shorter handier rifles but no burning desire to cut down the 24.4" barrel on my .300 Win. Mag. to lose ~50 fps muzzle speed per inch. Defeats the purpose of this so-called overbore design which requires a longer barrel to achieve higher muzzle speeds.

Non overbore rounds lose less muzzle speed with shorter barrel lengths. For example, an 18.5" barrel .45-70 has only about 100 fps less muzzle speed than one with a 24" barrel. The longer barrel makes the rifle unwieldly and to me isn't worth the marginal gain in muzzle speed.
 
Prefer shorter handier rifles but no burning desire to cut down the 24.4" barrel on my .300 Win. Mag. to lose ~50 fps muzzle speed per inch. Defeats the purpose of this so-called overbore design which requires a longer barrel to achieve higher muzzle speeds.

Non overbore rounds lose less muzzle speed with shorter barrel lengths. For example, an 18.5" barrel .45-70 has only about 100 fps less muzzle speed than one with a 24" barrel. The longer barrel makes the rifle unwieldly and to me isn't worth the marginal gain in muzzle speed.

Have you tested this 50fps loss you claim?

I don't think so as in reality it is more like 20 or less per inch on those I have tested before and after.
 
Last edited:
Have you tested this 50fps loss you claim?

I don't think so as in reality it is more like 20 or less per inch on those I have tested before and after.

The results in the test by rifle shooter.com (posted above) found an average of 39fps drop. That varies though, sometimes it was over 60fps per inch, one time it actually went up 3fps.

They did the same thing with 308 (can be found at the bottom of that article) and found an average decrease of 20-25fps per inch, depending on the ammo used.
 
I don't get this train of thought. Compare apples to apples. A 18.5" 300 win will stomp an 18.5" 3006 any day of the week.

The recoil, muzzle blast, and muzzle rise on the 300wm would be greater though.

It should be noted that the guy who did the test for rifleshooter.com said he had a headache after 50 rounds, even though he was wearing plugs and muffs. Obviously not a big deal if you're hunting and only shoot one or two shots, but it probably wouldn't be the most fun to spend a day at the range with a 18" 300wm.
 
I don't get this train of thought. Compare apples to apples. A 18.5" 300 win will stomp an 18.5" 3006 any day of the week.

Of course it would. But at a higher cost. More recoil and powder. You wouldnt be using the .300 WM to its potential. It would be a waste. IMHO
 
Of course it would. But at a higher cost. More recoil and powder. You wouldnt be using the .300 WM to its potential. It would be a waste. IMHO
a waste how? Many people hunt in places that will never afford them a long range shot and even fewer are practiced enough that they should even consider taking one at an animal in the field.

Imo, not having to lug around an extra 6-8" of barrel is well worth it for those hunters that must carry a magnum these days
 
Of course it would. But at a higher cost. More recoil and powder. You wouldnt be using the .300 WM to its potential. It would be a waste. IMHO

But in the same train of thought, is a 18" barrel on a 3006 using it to its full potential? You can get pretty impressive velocities with a 26" barrel and slow powder in an 06. If I'm not mistaken, guys are pushing 180s to almost 3000fps in 26 or 28" barrels.
 
...Imo, not having to lug around an extra 6-8" of barrel is well worth it for those hunters that must carry a magnum these days

I like my short barreled non-overbore magnums for that reason. For example my .416 Rem. Mag. carbine has a 20" barrel and only gives up about 80 fps muzzle speed compared to a 24" barrel.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom