Actually, I gave very specific data on the two cartridges, but you seem to have missed that post. Furthermore, two thirds of the "facts" you present here are for the 300RUM, not the 300WM, so whatever point it is you were trying to make is somewhat obscured by the fact that you're quoting numbers for an entirely different, and clearly more powerful, cartridge.

NOTE: It was never proposed to use a faster-burning powder to get higher velocity, but rather to reduce the muzzle-flash of unburnt powder exiting a shorter barrel. The OP bought the gun and it will be fine for what he has in mind, so any further conjecture is really pretty pointless.

 

Actually, I gave very specific data on the two cartridges, but you seem to have missed that post.

Really? Then why is this the first line in you fact-filled post?

"The following calculations were done using QuickLoad, so they are only highly educated guesses."

My post was very clearly referring to ballistic facts, just as the OP's wanted "real world" experience - or didn't you read them? Somehow your quote above doesn't sound like fact, just guess. I 'guess' some don't know the difference.....


.

 

Yeah, I suppose highly educated guesses about the actual two cartridges in question are less relevant than your 300 RUM velocities.

Not sure what axe yer grindin' on, but the guy bought the gun and will be happy with it, so what's left to say?

 

Carpe Diem,

Thanks for your initial post. That was pretty much what I was looking for with the table comparing length vs. velocity. I appriciate it.

As far as the "mauling", I have big shoulders and I can shrug it off. I cant blame people as I also look at posts sometimes and say "why the h*&% would he do that?". Different strokes for different folks. I will report back once its delivered and I can get it out to the range.

 

Guys, be civil.

 

I agree, I've completely lost the idea of the posting.... I am wasting my time, looking now...period!

 

I'd sure like to see a picture of those unusual Brownings....

 

I am still wondering about all of this, if you are doing drives & Deer is the animal hunted & you aren't shooting beyond a 100 yds, what is this about? A 20" 308 without all of the blast, powder, noise & recoil will put them on their butt at several times the ranges being discussed. I am a 300WM fan & have a great shooting Sendero, but I would use a 308 if compactness is so important here & do at times, the same reason I would not use a Harley for a dirtbike, a misapplication, but to each his own.

 

I've expanded on the original post if you look back through you will find some answers. If you take a peak at my signiture you'll find I am well aware of the utility of 20" barreled .308s as I have and use one, a BLR. I posted the original question to seek facts about performance and have gotten some good information from a few individuals. This thread seems to have turned into posts about what rifles/cartridges I should get instead, which with all due respect I am not at all interested in hearing.

...I also wouldnt use a Harley as a dirtbike, then again I wouldnt ride one anywhere even if they paid me, thats a topic for a different forum though...

 

I am pretty sure he really likes the Browning and has a matching one in 30-06. I think if he could have gotten the exact rifle in another caliber he might of, but he likes this one, so he got it.. Were all big boys, you know how it goes, when you see something you want, you jump on it. Scotty

 

I am pretty sure he really likes the Browning and has a matching one in 30-06. I think if he could have gotten the exact rifle in another caliber he might of, but he likes this one, so he got it.. Were all big boys, you know how it goes, when you see something you want, you jump on it. Scotty

And that's cool with me, only my opinion given for the application. If you like something, that can be of more value than the practicality, I remember going by that emotion with girlfriends in the old days, before I was married,hope my Wife doesn't read this!

 

I do belive there is a video of a guy using a T/C using a short barrel 14-16 inch looks like in the .300 Win mag caliber. It also had a muzzle brake on the weapon. Now talk about a flame - thrower in low light, best have dark glasses on whey you pull that trigger.

 

Hey, I like a Browning, and I like a rifle with a short barrel. A 300 WM is a lot of gun, even out of a short barrel, oughta knock em on their butt. Good luck huntin, let us know how it handles.

 

Well, kids - here's my actual experience....

My cousin bought a 300WinMag w/ a bulged bbl. After verifying it wasn't damaged, I cut the bbl back to just under 20" and returned it to him "just to try." [Us Fine Country Gentlemen don't throw ANYTHING away "just 'cause it won't work"].

We were shooting at a rock approximately(?big guess here?) 800 - 900yds "up the holler."

24" bbl 7mmRemMag was dropping 6'. [175gr fact loads, IIRC]
26"bbl Ruger .30-06 was dropping 6'. [150gr BT handload]
18" bbl 742 .30-06 was dropping 12'. [150gr BT handload]
22" bbl .30-06 was dropping 9'. [150gr BT handload]
20" bbl .300WinMag was dropping 9'. [factory 180s, IIRC]

The two "shorties" were little fireballs, but NOT unpleasant, as we were shooting offhand and kneeling / sitting. I personally liked the Winny better than the 742.

I mentioned the drop [all measures SWAG as this was pre-range finders], but once we knew the holdover, hits were very consistant (for me) with everything. I happen to shoot carbines better than my cousin & brother (who was also shooting). FWIW....

BTW - I offered to buy that gun from my cousin, but he wasn't having any....

 

crazydave,

Thanks for sharing the results of your "Fine Country Gentleman" physics experiment . It'll come in handing if I ever need to try and stretch its wings at 900 yards while boulder hunting .

 

Found this thought wow

I HAVE A TIKKA T3 WITH A 20 INCH BARREL AND 10 SHOT MAGAZINES ,150 GRAIN 3000FPS

REALY SMASHES PIGS AND BIG GAME ,I HAVE 180GRN COMING OUT AT 2800 FOR CAMELS AND DONKEYS CLOSE IN TIGHT THICK BUSH ... FANTASTIC 200 YRDS VERY ACCURATE.

BUT HEARING PROTECTION NEEDED HERE SOME MORE FACTS I FOUND

CHEERS

I copied and saved this the info is from well known gunsmith Charlie Sisk. I am interested in this discussion

[ QUOTE ]
For a long time I have wondered about how barrel length
affected velocity. I had always been told you need a certain
length barrel for certain calibers. I have read when folks
compared one gun to another with different lengths but I
always thought that was not an apples to apples comparision.
So I did a few test myself.
All these were Shilen barrels. I used the same brass through
out the whole test. All weighed to with 1 grain. Bullets
were tested on the Juenke machine. Powder charges were
weighed to .1 grain. The same rest, chronograph, Redding
press, primers all from the same lot, bullets for the same
box, same lathe, same crowning tool, same cutoff tool, and
each rifle done from start to finish on the same day.
Ambient temperature was the same because I shoot from inside
the shop. I held the rifle the same way on the rest every
time. I shot ten rounds first to break in the barrel. Then
cleaned with Sweets and fired one fouling shot. Then shot
five rounds and took the average. I used a midrange load
fron the Nosler book, not too hot but certainly not a
reduced load. Here is what I got.

22-250 Hodgdon 380 34 grains Federal GM210M Remington brass
55 grain Ballistic Tip
27 inches 3469 fps
26 3451
25 3425
24 3407
56 fps from highest to lowest

270 Winchester Hodgdon 4350 54 grains Federal GM210M
Winchester brass 130 grain Sierra
27 inches 3115 fps
26 3093
25 3071
24 3054
23 3035
22 3027
21 3001
114 fps from highest to lowest

300 Winchester mag Federal GM215M Winchester brass 74 grains
of Reloder 22 180 grain Partition
27 inches 3055 fps
26 3031
25 3024
24 3003
23 2984
22 2960
95 fps from highest to lowest

340 Weatherby Federal GM215M 250 grain Sierra
81 grains Reloder 22 Wby brass
27 inches 2837 fps
26 2817
25 2809
24 2791
23 2777
22 2755
21 2731
106 fps from highest to lowest

I think I will do a little more thinking before I recommend
a barrel length in the future. What do you folks think ?
Charlie


Here is the info about the 338 Win and the 257 Roberts.
338 Win mag
Winchester brass
Federal GM215M primers
Reloder 19....73 grains
250 grain Partitions
27 inches.....2806 fps
26 inches.....2787 fps
25 inches.....2761 fps
24 inches.....2743 fps
23 inches.....2716 fps
22 inches.....2697 fps
21 inches.....2676 fps
20 inches.....2656 fps
150 fps from 27 inches to 21 inches

257 Roberts
Federal GM210M primers
Remington brass
H-4350....45 grains
120 grain Partitions
27 inches.....2860 fps
26 inches.....2834 fps
26 inches.....2815 fps
25 inches.....2815 fps
24 inches.....2798 fps
23 inches.....2775 fps
22 inches.....2760 fps
21 inches.....2739 fps
20 inches.....2717 fps
143 fps from 27 inches to 20 inches
I want to test this on the next 450 Marlin I build and on a
222 Remington. If I get the same results with those, in my
mind the test is over. I think this will be enough data to
support the findings. Are there any folks out there who have
a degree in this sort of thing ? Maybe explain how many data
points would be needed to be able to say this would work
with the majority of calibers ? Someone with experience in
statistical(spell check) quality control ?
Charlie

A few weeks ago I done some testing with shortening barrels
with various calibers. I just finished this test with a 300
Ultra.
These loads were EXTREMELY HOT !!!!!!!!!
I will not post the grains here because on the third loading
the primer would fall out of the case . I never load this
hot , only this time for the test. I used Remington brass,
Federal GM215M primers, 220 grain round nose bullets. I used
the same procedures as the last test.
length.... H-4895 .....H-870
.....27 .....2740 .....3107 FPS
.....26 .....2709 .....3088
.....25 .....2685 .....3062
.....24 .....2663 .....3046
.....23 .....2636 .....3018
.....22 .....2612 .....2997
H-4895 lost 128 fps
H-870 lost 110 fps
Charlie

 

I have chronographed a number of 300s with short barrels over the years including the 300 Win mag with a 22 inch barrel..You are very likly shooting a 30-06 in most cases and in some cases even less, but with more blast and more recoil as it takes more powder..

Some guns have fast barrels and some have slow barrels depending on how tight the barrel and/or chamber is and they can be as much as 100 FPS either way, so your best option is to buy a $100 chronograph such as a Procrony and test your rifle or have someone do it for you..

My testing over the years has resulted in me using at least 24 inch barrels with any belted magnum and preferably 26 inches otherwise I will use a non belted case and go with a 20 or 22 inch carbine. If I use carbine barrel length of 20 inches in a non belted case I will use a heavy for caliber bullet and trust a big slow moving bullet that will penetrate forever such as a 175 gr. 7x57 or a 220 gr. 30-06, both proven killers with a 100 years of proven history on game. I personally would have no use for a carbine in a 300 Win mag.

 

The 300 Win Mag is one of my all-time favorites. I've had them in 23", 24"(most) and 26". The 26" was far and away the best. Quiet on the ears in hunting without muffs, very accurate and 3200 fps from 180s and 3000 fps from 200s.

I did chronograph some loads, though, at a range one day for a fellow shooter who wanted to know what his 300 Win Mag Sako Carbine (20") was doing with 180s over a max load of IMR4350. Results: VERY loud, kicked like a mule (very light though), one of the worst kickers I've ever fired and I shoot some pretty heavy artillery! MV was right at 2950 fps, not far off from what the factories claim. But, I vowed I'd NEVER own one!

My very close friend wanted to buy a Sako carbine (20") in 7mm RM. I said: "That will make a very expensive and LOUD 7-08 Remington!"

I did own at one time a custom 308 Norma with a 21" barrel and it would make 3000 fps at the muzzle with one load. Recoil was normal and I can't recall muzzle blast being objectionable. To this day, I don't know why it was so different in my impression from the 300 Sako mentioned above. Perhaps it was due to that extra 1" of tubing and extra weight.

When I owned the 26" 300 WM, I also owned a 26" 340 Wby. It too was comparatively mild in report and recoil even at 3000 fps from 250 gr Noslers!

Just my experience.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

 

Looking at the averages posted above, in the cut-down testing, barrels lost pretty close to 20fps, per inch of barrel loss. So, if you cut a 300WM barrel down from 26" to 20", you probably lost about 120fps. That eliminates much of the speed advantage you would have over a 22" 30-'06 barrel. In fact, if you load an '06 to modern pressures....well, that's a slippery slope.

Longer barrels have been recommended for magnum rifles for a long time. Every two inches further away from my ears I can move that blast is fine with me.

 

It sounds like it got the OP a very nice rifle cheaply, and I think most of its deficiences will be of little relevance in a hunting rifle that won't be fired very often. The muzzle blast, for example, will affect a lone hunter much less than bystanders. Limited use nullifies the effect of muzzle erosion, due to the high terminal pressure and temperature. There will be some tendency to reduced accuracy from the effect of gases rushing past the emerging bullet, but while this might matter to benchresters, who can afford to neglect nothing, I can't see a hunter noticing any difference. Ammunition cost won't be a big factor, but I would sooner have two extra inches of barrel than two inches of brake.

I've used a heavy barrelled .300H&H on small deer, and took no harm from it. With the right bullet, tissue damage isn't excessive. Still, this one is only to be a short range deer rifle, and I can't see any reason to use a .300WM, or any of those new short, fat things either, except for having come upon a good one cheap. I'd use my 6.5x54 Mannlicher, but if you really need greater stopping power (e.g. for dense undergrowth in which a deer will easily become unretrievable), I don't see a thing wrong with a short .45-70.

 

"Handicapped?" I mean.... really????

I have a .30-06 that was put together out of parts that had mostly been thrown away by other people (meaning free to me). The barrel ended up being a little over 21" long (some of it had to be cut off at the muzzle due to being bad).

The last year I hunted with it, I shot 4 pigs that totaled about 600 pounds (several of them got written up on the forum). Also some deer (does) but I forget how many of those.

The only one that wasn't a one-shot kill was a tan pig that I shot in tan grass and not being able to see which end was which, shot the southbound end while he was headed northbound... ... and a .44 mag between the eyes settled the matter after I chased him down on foot.

Everything else was pretty much dead on it's feet and I think the farthest any of the pigs made it was about 50 yards, maybe, if that.

Yes, the muzzle blast is a bit worse than a longer barrel, but people who think a short barrel on a .30-06 (or any gun) is "handicapping" it probably haven't actually tried one. It might not make anyone's idea of a fabulous custom hunting rifle, but it was basically free, works great, and I don't worry about it getting scratched. Tough to argue with that.

My opinion..... arguing about in inch or two or three of barrel length is just plain silly

 

Can't believe someone dug this thing up after 3 years +.

Just to put it to bed from my point of view - I still have the rifle. I still like it. Its still open sighted so velocity loss really couldn't matter much less. Its still loud which I expect from rifles. I've since moved on to using 200 gr Partitions. I still don't load the piss out of it. Everything I have shot with it is still dead. If it did have a 26" barrel I absolutely would not hunt with it as I would find that to be more of a handicap.

Now, lets talk about my handicapped little 18.5" 35 Remington!