Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 26" barrel on a .270 Win ???(why / why not)

I have a few rifles with 26" bbls and have always felt that they look nice and have a nice "balance" to them. Im thinking of barreling a pre 64 model 70 action with a .270 barrel and was considering 26". Is there any reason this would be a bad idea?

If you like the balance with the 26" barrel then by all means get one.
Not a single thing wrong with the extra velocity you'll get.

If the gun is an open country gun, then I see nothing wrong with long barrels. I have no desire to hunt timber with a long ass gun though. My 338 has a 24" barrel, and I am probably going to have it whacked to 21-22" just for hunting timber/aspens.

I like long barrels. Currently running 26 inch with .570 muzzle and a 27.5 inch with .620 muzzle

No, not if you like them. The 270 actually has an expansion ratio that fits neatly into the middle of the cartridges that have traditionally been called magnums, so it won't hurt a thing as long as you don't mind - even like- the extra length.

.............Exactly correct imo. Longer barrels have their (a better) place in far more wide open country as do the shorter barrels in bush and timber country.

Many prefer longer barrels 100% of the time. Aside from a little more bullet speed, better balance etc as they say. Ok then!

How many times has anyone with a longer barreled and better balanced rifle took a kill shot totally by freehand at their game without using either shooting sticks or resting their rifle on or against something? I`ll say hardly at all if ever.

So in just about all hunting cases imo, rifle balance or muzzle stability does not apply unless the rifle is used in a freehand manner. Against a tree, on a backpack, or on sticks, both my more compact and shorter barreled Rugers balance and stabilize equally as well as my 28" barreled Weatherby MK5.

So if someone feels that they prefer the longer barrel to "include" the advantage of better balance, then I hope they`re doing alot of freehand shooting. Otherwise imo, there are no issues with better balance or muzzle stability.

From a 270 and aside from a little velocity loss, there is no ("make or break") advantage that a 26" barrel would have over a 24" or even a 22" barrel.

As to the whys and why nots? There are no rights and there are no wrongs. It all boils down to judgement and individual preference.

I've killed game off my hind legs many times with the only support being my bones.
Although I prefer not to shoot at running game it is almost a rite of passage in NE MN and NW WI. Deer drives being a preferred method of the old timers.
Not everyone hunts from a stand or blind all the time.

Speak for yourself.

.............That`s you maybe. But in most situations, that is not the case.

Many if not all, use shooting sticks and/or a rest of some kind, when "NOT" hunting from a blind or stand?? Are shooting sticks or rests restricted to only stands and blinds?............Nope!

Oh! So you support your rifles on your "hind" legs? Do you happen to have a set of front legs too?..

Every deer that I've ever killed has been moving. Most have been running. We take off hand shots all the time. IMO a 24" barrel is more than enough and my .270 has a 22" barrel. But hey, it's your rifle.

I like the looks and feel of a short(er) barreled rifle. But, when it comes to shooting them, extra weight out in front helps my shooting. Which, BTW, is often done from a sitting position.
For the above reasons, most of my hunting rifles have 24 inch barrels and .600 muzzles.
I've never found a short barrel rifle to make any difference in heavy cover. E

Read both above and below this post of yours Squeeze.

Amen!

...........I did, as well as years of personal field experience and watching others too.

Disagree or not, I also notice that your three worded reply of "speak for yourself" shows quite alot of elaboration on your part.....Well done!

Possibly because you make claims like "many if not all" when that is clearly not the case.
What more elaboration do you require?

.........Ok! Help me out here.

Two other posters called bull on your claim that "many if not all" hunters use a rest when they shoot.

The only place I have found a shorter barrel to have an advantage is in an enclosed box stand/blind. I have an 18.5" bbl Ruger International in .308 that I like for hunting from the stands at our club. The stands measure about 4'x4' with posts floor to ceiling at all 4 corners.

....Well, I`ll have to disagree right on back to ya then.

To be more explicit if perhaps by chance I wasn`t clear before. Freehand means imo, that only the palm of your hand is supporting your rifle`s fore-end when taking the shot. I`m NOT talking about your non-trigger hand being supported "underneath" by either your legs, hind legs, knee bones, leg bones, or supported by anything else or when leaned against something else.

In that regard, longer barrels do have their advantage when it comes to better balancing and muzzle stability, but NOT when the rifle is resting ON or AGAINST something, which includes bodily extremities such as legs, knees, etc.

So you`re gonna tell me, that a good portion of hunters use NO support whatsoever underneath their NON-TRIGGER" hand for their kill shots? I`ll certainly disagree there. Because that is what I`m referring to, where only in those shooting cases, longer barrels do have the advantage when there is NO support underneath the non-trigger hand.

Otherwise, there is no longer barreled advantage when it comes to balance and stability.

............See my last post above. And I`ll state "bull" right on back.