Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 300 WSM in Shorter Barrel??

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.