Has anyone tried a 300WSM in a shorter (22 or 20in) barrel? Is velocity loss extremely significant versus a 24 inch barrel? Does it just make a loud 30-06?

Just curious. Considering possibilities for a handier woods rifle.

22" would suit me.................

QD, I've been using 300 WSM's since the cartridge first appeared 10 years ago. My first M70 I initially ran at 24" then had it chopped to 22"... lost right around 70 fps. My current M70 I had cut to 23" before ever shooting it.

22" is fine, 23" for me is "just right" and I've certainly never found a 24" WSM a burden in the woods. Personally I wouldn't go shorter than 22" as I do value my hearing and I think one gives up too much velocity... some of the new powders like RL17 can certainly compensate for that, but I sort of question the "why" of a 300 WSM in a barrel that short. I'd sooner go 308 or 30-06 below 22"...

............FWIW, here`s been my experience. Yep! It`ll be louder, so wear some VERY good ear protection at ALL times even on hunts. With a shorter barrel, this cartridge is NOT for most.

In order to compare velocities between my 300 WSM Ruger Frontier carbine and the longer barrels, I borrowed from two friends of mine, two 24" barreled 300 WSM rifles and loaded up a wide variety of handloads using various powders and bullets. The experiment took several range sessions over several weeks to complete. All three rifles were taken to the range during each session and fired using the same chrony.

Identical handloads (same bullets, powder, brass, and primers) were used in each series of firings. Some loads were the recommeded starting loads, some were medium loadings, while others were maximum loadings.

From the three rifles which included my Frontier, the velocity loss from my 16.5" barrel averaged between 4.3% to 4.5%, or 16.4 to 19.5 fps per inch of shorter barrel length. So from a 20" or 22" barrel which you are considering, I would have to say that the percentage of loss will be less. Given another set of three identical 300 WSM rifles, the percentages might vary a little different going either way. My conclusion based on the results, is that there is no significant loss in the velocity dept using the 300 WSM. And there will no effective difference on any game in the field.

This experiment was done before RL17 was intro`d. The RL17, like it does with longer 300 WSM barrels, also increases velocities in the shorter ones too which I have found to be true.

With max RL17 loadings, my little shorty can push the 155 VLDs @ 3234 fps, the 168 VLDs @ 3040 fps, the 190s at 2870 and the 210s @ over 2700 fps. Awaiting the new Hodgdon Superperformance powder to see how it performs.

Like me, you`ll not only have a handier woods rifle, but you`re gonna have some excellent long range plains or open country capability from that handy woods rifle as well.

And while you`re at the range and after you spout off a few rounds, you`ll probably get a visitor or two to your station wondering what you`re shooting.

Mine is alot of fun!

BS, for sure it's interesting to compare different rifles with different barrel lengths, but at the end of the day the very best way to find what a barrel is really losing is to cut one barrel an inch or two at a time, chronoing the results, using the same ammunition for each cut.

I see no point in carrying a short barreled 300 wsm. I'd just go 30-06 with 165's. The 300 wsm is already 100 + fps behind the 300 win mag ,why cause it to lose even more performance?

..........Agreed! But I don`t think my buddies would have allowed me do that to their rifles.... .....My experiment was done out of curiosity and to to get a general idea on average what the losses in velocity were.

Cutting the same barrel down is the most accurate way to compare. That wasn`t possible, but have read similar fps per inch losses (15 to 20 fps per inch) when cutting down a 300 Win Mag barrel one inch at a time.

The actual #s, all depend on the individual barrel that is being cut down.

Well, those aren't very good friends

With RL17 the 300 WSM is within 50 fps of the 300 WM... it's no great trick to get 3,030 with 180's in a 24" bbl'd 300 WSM.

But I'm in agreement, going lower than 22" it makes more sense to me to go with a 308 or 30-06... I've had 30-06's with 18.5" and 21" bbl's and 308's with 18.5, 19 and 20" barrels.

21" is fine in the 30-06, but I'd not go shorter than that. 20" is as short as I'd go with a 308 anymore... I value my hearing.

...........But if one wants a shorter handier rifle pkg, AND more power than the 30-06, then the 300 WSM is perfect. The OP has in mind and is considering a "shorter" OAL`d "handier" rifle that is very potent.

A 30-06 would need a 28" to 30" barrel in order to about equal the ballistics from a 20" to 22" tubed 300 WSM.

The point is, carrying around a shorter handier rifle with greater ballistic performance.

...............Well! I did ask with a smirk on my face. Not enough charm I guess ay?

Guys, I really appreciate the replies. That's interesting that velocity loss is only marginal.

Whatchya wanting a 300 WSM for?

Since I'm the only guy on this thread that has actually cut and chrono'd a 24" bbl cut to 22" I guess I wouldn't say that 70 fps is a "marginal" loss. Still, a 180 grainer at 2,900 +/- fps is nothing to sneeze at either. Certainly it's a solid 125+ fps ahead of the 30-06 with the same bbl. length.

If you're wanting a carbine for NC deer hunting I don't think you could do better than a 308 Win... jut my POV.

Agreed.....if I want a handgun, I'll buy one.

I don't really want rifle barrels longer than 24",but I don't want them shorter than 22",either....I've hunted with those things and never noticed a difference in maneuverability or handiness that mattered much.JMHO.

Agreed.....if I want a handgun, I'll buy one.
.................Well if you happen to find "ANY" handgun that can propel 30 cal pills close to or duplicating what my shorty 300 WSM can do, please let me know!!!............I`ll buy one!...........

Bob hit the nail squarely.

I've never found that a barrel shorter than 22" is any "handier" than a longer barrel. So for me I'll take the velocity advantage of the longer barrel over the non-existent (to me) benefit of a short barrel every time.

Make mine 24" please.

Handy dandy is handy dandy, but if you don't know, you don't know.

No different than scatterguns.

Handy/dandy in a well balanced wrapper,is tough to whoop.

Downside bein' noise,which is why I draw the line...but ease of maneuverability of shorter wares,is muchly appreciated.................

Squeeze, there's a guy on another thread with the handgun chambered for some stout stuff.....think it's SScoyote.

He is doing some pretty cool stuff with bolt action handguns...at distance no less...7mmDakota among others...must be a 30 there somewhere!The world is your oyster!

Today, we can have whatever makes us happy!

...........Yep! No doubt there are some stout bolt custom handguns out there for those who wish to really push the envelope. But my shorty tubed 300 WSM Ruger carbine is alot easier to manage, tolerate, easier on the wrists and elbows, than if it were chambered in a handgun without a rifle stock.

I like, and I`m sure that most would prefer the idea of putting a stock butt against their shoulder with something that powerful. Bolt handguns can no doubt be carried way to the extreme, and if too extreme they`d be far less enjoyable to fire.

But again, if you happen to run across any 30 cal handgun which can deliver similar #s to my carbine, which would include nearly a ton of downrange energy at 500 yards, please let me know.

Handy notwithstanding, to me it's the noise factor. Even a .308 Win. get a bit blasty and overly noisy when the barrel gets short. My .308 is 23", my .300 Win Mag is 24". I wouldn't want a .300 Whizzum shorter than 22". With the short action and a 22" bbl, you've got a handy rifle. Everything is a compromise one way or another and that's about as far as I'm willing to go with barrel length.

IMHO.

DF

I love my 308 full size 24". The only reason I don't want a shorter 308 is that I want something capable of pushing a heavier bullet for bears. You don't see many loads published for the 220 grain RN bullets for a 308. I'm also thinking about getting a long range setup in 300WSM, so I could at least keep the components relatively similar.

My hearing is already ruined ....how about yours?

huh? what's that?

.............Isn`t your hearing ruined because you didn`t take the proper precautions?

Can`t blame that on whatever noise caused your hearing loss, nor on any rifle (short or long barrel) if that was also the case.

...........There are ways to overcome extra noise no matter where one is shooting. My three blasters haven`t caused any hearing problems.

Walker Game Ears (for field use) just to name one?

If you spend much time pulling a rifle from a saddle scabbard or a 4wheeler scabbard or out of a truck or on super steep slick/snowy hillsides, the handiness issue becomes an issue, but otherwise, not so much.

Just today, I shipped off one of my Kimber 300 WSM's along with a new Kreiger barrel, to have the barrel, threaded, chambered, fitted and my instructions are to cut & crown at 22 inches. So, in about 6 weeks I'll let you know what types of speeds I am getting with the Krieger at 22 inches, versus the factory barrel at 24 inches---having used Kreigers before, I'm willing to bet that 22 inches of Krieger will give the same seeds, with the same loads as the factory Kimber barrel gives at 24 inches.

..........And I`ll also add treking through thick brush and going up to and down from elevated stands. Don`t like it when a barrel gets hung up on branches and twigs, or constantly manuvering the darn rifle to avoid doing so. Shorter barrels can make a big difference in that regard too. In wide open country its a different story.

My left ear durm was busted by shooting a 7mm-08 from a 20" barrel out of a treestand in Altoona, PA. I got the deer but my left ear hearing is gone. I'm not gonna hunt with ear protection you do what you like.

.............OK! So your left ear drum was busted by shooting a 20" tubed 7/08? Had you been shooting a 24" tube instead of a 20" er, your left ear drum would have still ended up the same way. The shorter tube probably caused your drum to bust sooner, but eventually sooner or later, the end result would have been the same from the longer barrel too.

Just because you happen not to like wearing ear protection in the field, you can`t blame a busted ear drum on the shorter barrel.

I`m sympathetic to your hearing loss, but I also understand that it could have been avoided.

Not really blaming the ear on anything, I just don't shoot high intensity cartridges in 20" barrels anymore.

....Yeah I know! But on every thread where shorter barrels are discussed, regardless of cartridge, high intensity or not, the first complaint is the noise. Then I see posts that say,,,,,Huh?,,,,,What did you say??,,,,Can`t hear ya,,, and blah blah blah!!

And in all cases where there was hearing loss, the problem could have been avoided regardless of barrel length and the cartridge.

Can`t blame any hearing loss on shorter barrels.

I have yet to read ANY post, where someone`s hearing was adversely affected or affected in any way because of a shorter barrel, WHEN WEARING good hearing protection!

But yet, most who do lose their hearing or a portion of it, did not always wear hearing protection when firing their longer barrels.

That's my issue. A long barrel is a pain getting in a stand or dragging through dense woods.

My question re: 300WSM was really directed to a thought to have a lighter shorter rifle and a longer heavier rifle in the same caliber.

This is very true. It's not that hard to carry plugs or muffs in the field and it is definitely worth it. I would definitely wear muffs with a short barreled gun!

........Yep!...........Not difficult at all, but many feel that using hearing protection when hunting in the field is an inconvenience. A simple inconvenience, is worth preventing any potential and permanent hearing damage.

Even if a rifle barrel were 30" long, protection of some type should be worn.

I assume black bears, yes?

There's not a black bear alive that can't be taken cleanly with a 150/165 grain anything from a 308 Win carbine.

Sqeez I like your idea of a short barrel 300 WSM. I think a 20" would be about right for me. I know it will run faster than any 308/30-06 and that is pretty darn good. It would be way handy. If I was starting over and was 30 or so I might go with it.

Ever shot a 20" 300 WSM?

................My 20" tubed 375 Ruger Alaskan, isn`t exactly what you`d call a quieter rifle. And imo, it is just as noisy if not more so than is my little shorty 16.5" barreled 300 WSM carbine.

As long as the hearing protection is worn, a 20" barreled 300 WSM is not all that bad nor overbearing. Just a wittle puddycat.....

..........Heck, I`m 59. Don`t be whimpin out on me now!..........

One's hearing notwithstanding, wasn't the whole Whizzum concept, magnum performance in a shorter, lighter rifle? I think they delivered. Everything is a compromise, one way or another. If you're going to shoot high pressure ctgs in a 20" or 22" bbl, it's going to be noisy. Get some ear protection for practice and take your lumps, hunting. If you're good, you won't need to shoot but once on a hunt.

DF

You are probably right. However, we get some large bears - much larger than most of the black bears out west. 500lbs is not that unusual. We've had a few taken closer to 800lbs. Our bears don't hibernate / or hibernate long b/c of the warm temps. The layers of fat are pretty thick. That's why I would like something with more sectional density than a 150gr 308W.

I'm going to disagree a 308 is not perfectly up to 500+ lb bears... it certainly is.

I will agree though that if a guy wants a reason, any reason, for a new rifle yours is good enough!