Barrel Length -short mags vs long mags

[njc89]

I'm considering either a 7mm or 300 magnum. I notice that the new short magnum calibers are offered primarily in 22-23" barrel lengths, while most of the traditional magnum calibers are still 26". Is there an inherent difference in the short mags that optimizes them for the shorter barrels? Would you lose a significant amount of velocity and/or accuracy with say a 300 Win Mag that had a 24" barrel?

I think 24" is the longest I am willing to pack around anymore on my high mountain elk, mule deer hunts. I would like to find an optimal balance of velocity, accuracy, and weight/size. I'm looking for a rifle that could reliably take game out to 6-700 yards, when I become up to the task, and still be tote-able in steep country.

Thanks for the input

 

[Top Cat]

The Short Mags have the inherent advantage of being chambered in shorter, lighter and handier rifles. There isn't much difference between them in ballistic performance out to 6-700 yds.

There is no disadvantage to a 24" 300 Win Mag at that range either...for 6-700 yds...a 22" bbl would do it.

Bullet choice will have a more significant impact on down range results than a few fps in muzzle velocity.

TC

 

[elkaholic]

A change in barrel length in either will result in around 40'/sec./inch. Whatever your ultimate goal is should be the determining factor. i.e. how much velocity do I want and how long a barrel am I willing to pack to attain it. A WSM will give you around 50'/sec less than a WM all else being equal. Using that standard, a 24" barrel on a WM will give around the same velocity as a WSM with a 25". Hope this is of some help........Rich

 

[njc89]

Thanks for the replies.

What is your opinion of the Remington 700? I notice the new XCR II is offered in a 24" barrel, in 300 WM. What concerns might any of you have with a rifle like this when considering a longer range hunting rifle? My current rifle is a much older Remington 700 in 300 H&H. Other than the weight and 26" bbl, it is a pretty darn accurate rifle. Thanks again

 

[elkaholic]

Thanks for the replies.

What is your opinion of the Remington 700? I notice the new XCR II is offered in a 24" barrel, in 300 WM. What concerns might any of you have with a rifle like this when considering a longer range hunting rifle? My current rifle is a much older Remington 700 in 300 H&H. Other than the weight and 26" bbl, it is a pretty darn accurate rifle. Thanks again

I've been a Rem. guy all my life but to be honest, quite often the older Remingtons were better that the new ones. The Senderos usually shoot very well but some of the cheaper ones; it's kind of a crap shoot. Maybe yes, and maybe no! I don't have any experience with the XCR's so maybe someone else can help there. The Rem. action is very good but sometimes only accurate after it has had some truing. The older ones were more consistent.......Rich