Author Topic: .338wm barrel length (Read 1463 times)

kloshe · « **on:** December 21, 2004, 07:48:06 AM »

i want to cut my 26" m70 .338 barrel down to something more manageable. any recommendations? i'm leaning toward 23"

Lawdog · « **Reply #1 on:** December 21, 2004, 12:24:21 PM »

kloshe,

I wouldn't cut it to any less than 24 inches. Personally I would leave it at 26 inches and count my blessings. Lawdog

anthony passero · « **Reply #2 on:** December 24, 2004, 08:13:36 AM »

I am with lawdog on this. My buddy had a 338 with a 22" tube and his velocities were not appreciably better then my 22" 35 whelen with handloads and the same wieght bullets burning considerably more powder. And it was LOUD. The 338wm needs at least 24" of barrel and 26" is even better. The original Model 70 Alaskans had 25" inch barrels for a reason. Good luck with whatever you decide. Anthony

kutenay · « **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2004, 05:11:41 AM »

I have now owned 12 rifles chambered in this superb round, one 26 " Ruger No. 1, two Ruger 77s and one custom with 24 " bbls., five P-64 Alaskans with 25" bbls. two custom P-64s with 23" bbls. and a Dakota 76 with 23" bbl.

I have come to prefer the 23" bbl. as it just feels right to me and I hunt in heavily forested B.C. I load my Dakota a tad heavier than my current four P-64 Alaskans and get just over 2700 fps-mv with all of them, this with the Nossie 250s.

I would say to try to find and handle several rifles in the bbl length you like and go with that. You can just exceed 2700 fps with a 23" bbl. using RE-22 and 250 gr. bullets, except Barnes Xs; if that won't kill whatever you are hunting in North America, you need a BIGGER rifle. In 37 yrs. of B.C. bushwhacking, I have come to regard the .338 win. as the single finest cartridge for serious use......and I have owned and tried just about everything!

Ron T. · « **Reply #4 on:** January 13, 2005, 06:04:23 AM »

I realize this post might be a little too late, but here's the experience of Charlie Sisk (a professional custom rifle builder) in cutting back the barrel on a .338 Win. Magnum.

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

Total MV lost = 150 fps from 27 inches to 21 inches. I hope this helps you decided if you wanna cut your rifle's barrel to a shorter, handier length. :-)

Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

Lawdog · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2005, 12:36:21 PM »

Quote from: Ron T.

I realize this post might be a little too late, but here's the experience of Charlie Sisk (a professional custom rifle builder) in cutting back the barrel on a .338 Win. Magnum.

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

Total MV lost = 150 fps from 27 inches to 21 inches. I hope this helps you decided if you wanna cut your rifle's barrel to a shorter, handier length. :-)

Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

Ron,

That is just one test that Charlie Sisk did. Other tests run by companies like Hornady, RCBS, etc. show an average loss of 25 to 50 fps. per inch depending on caliber. While the velocity loss will be negligible in a 3Â” shorter barrel the muzzle blast will be a lot greater. I have been down that road before with a friend cutting the 26Â” barrel of his .300 Weatherby magnum to 22Â”. That sucker would make a brass monkey flinch. Lawdog

aulrich · « **Reply #6 on:** January 14, 2005, 04:53:42 AM »

When I had my 338 ported the smith used a different procedure than I expected he had a reamer that cut a new crown 2" into the bore then he drilled the ports directly into the barrel. I am not sure what makes it louder the ports or the resultant barrel lenght but it sure teaches the guys next to you at the range to wear hearing protection :grin: it's an experience.

But I believe the how the rifle fits you and how you hunt is about twice as important as the cartridge that it shoots. I guess you want a shorter gun for getting through the bush better if that is the case then the fps that you will loose will be of no consequence.

Lawdog · « **Reply #7 on:** January 14, 2005, 10:08:41 AM »

aulrich,

Quote

I am not sure what makes it louder the ports or the resultant barrel lenght but it sure teaches the guys next to you at the range to wear hearing protection it's an experience.

It does make it louder, by a goodly amount. The shorter barrel also contributes to the noise level. I'll bet the guys next to you at the range really enjoy your rifle. :roll: Lawdog

Ron T. · « **Reply #8 on:** January 14, 2005, 02:43:32 PM »

LawdogÂ…

Yes, I agreeÂ… muzzle blast would, no doubt, be considerably higher as the barrel was shortenedÂ… and, the muzzle velocity losses per inch you quoted are reasonable & generally accepted.

However, since Kloshe specifically asked about the .338 Win. Mag. Â… and since I worked up a pretty "warm", but accurate hand-load (210 gr. Nosler Partition @ 3020 fps) for my pre-Â’64 Model 70 Â“AlaskanÂ” (with its factory-standard 26Â” barrel) in .338 Win. Mag. and hunted all manner of game with it for close to 40 years, I collected Charlie SiskÂ’s test on the caliber as a matter of interest to me.

Naturally, when I saw KlosheÂ’s querry, I passed Charlie SiskÂ’s actual test results along for KlosheÂ’s inspection

Personally, I agree with youÂ… I wouldnÂ’t shorten the barrel. ButtttttttttÂ… itÂ’s KlosheÂ’s rifle and if that is what he wants to do, I thought heÂ’d probably like to see the ACTUAL muzzle velocity loss as each inch came off the barrel.

Strength & HonorÂ…

Ron T.

Lawdog · « **Reply #9 on:** January 15, 2005, 09:41:52 AM »

Ron T.,

I agree with you completely. A person posts a question on one of these forums and they need to have both sides to make a proper decision. I got my first .338 WM(M70 Â“AlaskanÂ”) in 1968 when I mustered out of the Marines. Your post made me realize just how long ago that was(didnÂ’t remember it being that long ago). Â‘KlosheÂ’ now has both sides of the issue and can make an informed decision. Small groups and a great 2005 to you. Lawdog

aulrich · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2005, 05:39:35 AM »

Lawdog,

There are times even I don't like me at the range, and I usually only run 10 -20 rounds though that gun in a year, including hunting so I don't torment the guys at the range too much. That and I usually try to give the other guys some space. More than a couple of times I have been warned buy other guys at the range that thier gun is loud, you should see thier faces after the KABOOM.

Lawdog · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2005, 11:22:04 AM »

aulrich,

I would say that 95% or better of the shooters at ranges are like you. They are considerate of their fellow shooters. BUT it only takes a few "jerks" to spoil it for the rest. You know the ones that say Â“if you donÂ’t like how loud my rifle is, YOU moveÂ”(even though you were there first). Had it happen. Lawdog

while99 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2005, 07:01:27 PM »

I've been able to get 2,740 fps with the 250 Nosler in my pre-64 Alaskan with a 25" barrel and using IMR 4350 powder. I also have a current model 70 classic stainless synthetic with a 26" barrel and it gets about 2,780 with the same load.