Blackelk

Never mind if it's in a book it has to be set in stone. And if you hear it on the internet it's gotta be the truth.

fritz1

I actually have tested the 223, 280, and the 243, I posted the charts because they DO show what I have found to be true.
Here is the rest of the data published by Remington and Lyman that shows the effects of barrel length on the 270.
The 43rd edition of the Lyman reloading Handbook gave some concrete examples of velocity loss for specific calibers and loads. The Lyman technicians chronographed some high velocity cartridges in rifles with barrels ranging in length from 26 inches down to 22 inches with the following results:

The average loss for the .243 Win./100 grain bullet was 29 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .264 Win. Mag./140 grain bullet was 32 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .300 H&H Mag./220 grain bullet was 25 fps per inch.

For standard high intensity cartridges in the same test, the Lyman technicians chronographed the cartridges in barrel lengths ranging in length from 24 inches down to 20 inches with the following results:

The average loss for the .270 Win./130 grain bullet was 37 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .270 Win./150 grain bullet was 32 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .300 Sav./180 grain bullet was 17 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .30-06/180 grain bullet was 15 fps per inch.
The average loss for the .35 Rem./200 grain bullet was 11 fps per inch.

The 270 is a cartridge that does benifit from a longer barrel, it is actually a bit overbored, any overbored round like a 6mm-06, 25-06, or 270 benifits from a longer barrel, the bore is actually too small for the case capacity. Increase the bore on the same case, like a 280, 30-06, 338-06, or 35 whelen and the velocity loss is a lot less with a shorter barrel.

I read from another poster on another forum.
"Personally, I see no need for a barrel longer than 22" on a cartridge burning 60grs of powder [give or take a few grains] and no need for a barrel longer than 20" if burning 40-50grs of powder.

I've shot alot of guns with short barrels and standard 22" barrels, and velocity lose is nothing to worry about and the critters die just a quickly when shot correctly".

I could not agee more, he has hit it right on the head, from what I have personally seen.

There is also a point when you can have too much barrel length, it will actualy cause lower velocities because of friction and bullet drag.

Personally I load for accuracy and dont really care what velocity it is pushing. I have killed enough animals over the years to know that 100fps doesnt kill any deader or bullet drop isnt enough to matter at normal hunting ranges. (300 yards and under, or even at 500 yards or under, for that matter.)

stapher1

What powders did they test with?

Did they test both fast or slow burn with the different weight bullet in each lenght?

fritz1

That was the average, I am assuming the average means all powders tested and that is how they came up with the average. The bullet weights are listed that they tested with.
There always seems to be a way to justify a arguement, huh?

sandilands

I would get the .280AI with a fast twist barrel and be happy with it. Shoot heavier bullets with ease. The 280 AI is a dream rifle of mine tho.

My rifle would wear a 24" barrel even for shooting in the big woods of S.eastern MB. If I wanted a rifle for the bush it wouldn't be a 280AI it would be a 7x57mauser.... or the AI variant

stapher1

Because you assumed,...yes and posted it as the gospel. And you have no idea if those tests were with factory ammo or reloads and whether they used powders fast or slow burn powders with the different bullet weights.

And considering that lyman's test mirror Remington's ammo we can "assume" that they tested with factory or equal spec reloads.

fritz1

Yeah, I assumed you knew what average meant also, I guess I should have known better. I would not think that Lyman would do tests with factory ammo considering that they are a company that deals with only reloading components and publish data from a test using factory ammo in there reloading manual really doesnt make sence, does it?. The tests mirror Remingtons test because it was a average, that means, incase you dont know what average is, that there was some loads that showed more than the average and some that were less than average, they took all results and devided by the amount of different loads used and came out with a average for that caliber and bullet weight. Yeah there is going to be different loads that show different, that is the reasoning behind taking the average, it gives you a general idea of what to expect. Also if you look at the results on the chart for the 270, you will see that they are very similar to what Blackelk says about the 270, which goes back to the reasoning of having a average, basicaly it tells you what to expect using that weight of bullet.

salukipv1

ugh, glad the decision isn't soon, the idea is to rebarrel a ultralight rifle and turn it into a sheep style rifle, very light,

270win, 280rem, 280ackley I keep bouncing back n forth, already have a 270win and some ammo, but that's hardly a reason to get another or not to.

I'm thinking 22 or 23 barrel, assuming 280ack, what would 1 inch really matter? since I'm not talking 22 vs 26 etc... just 22 vs 23? almost makes me think weight would be more important than the 30fps? although both would be negligible