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.

I sort of look at it as it can be cut later IF it becomes a problem.

I use 20-26 on all my rifles and really can't say I prefer the 20 over the 26 even in various hunting terrain. Now overall weight is a whole 'nother topic.

I tinker with turkey guns and turkey handloads all the time and am often asked about bbl length. It's a similar situation as rifles in respect to handling in brush or in open terrain. My experience leans twds a slightly longer bbl for pattern sake alone, but not too long. 26 is just about right in terms of speed, patterns, and handling in thick areas. I've drug enough 21" to 28" bbls through some nasty stuff chasing long beards and will be the first to say that I've never been hindered in the least by bbl length. As they say, opinions are like....


Have a good one,

loder

I'm with Loder, see no reason not to give it a go. I had a Lilja #2 that was cut to 25" to begin with. It shot well aside from the fact that it was a dirty bugger and a pain to clean...and it was fast.

Later I cut it to 23" mainly so it'd fit in my scabbard and so my wife could handle it a bit better as it was her elk gun.

Build it to balance for you and you'll be golden!

Dober

And I say you're FOS because I'm talking offhand shooting.

Walking down a trail with the gun in both hands across your body and a deer gets up and you throw the gun up to your shoulder and fire. Precisely as one would do when grouse hunting.

Happens all the time around here.

I think that you might be amazed at the velocity of a 26" 270.

You can always cut it off later, you can never put it back on.

Buddy of mine built a #5 contour, hart barrel, 29" long some years back for shooting chucks at long distances(he like to see them get airborn). I can't remember the numbers, but the velocity was like nothing I had ever read about clocking it across my Ohler 35P. What I do remember was that it was stomping hell out of a 257 Weatherby's velocity.

I agree.

I've been working with a 26" barreled 280AI lately and that thing is producing some astounding velocity numbers.
162 Amax doing 3050 at 15-20 ft.!!
Just using published loads too. Zero pressure signs and quickload shows acceptable pressure too.

When I said speak for yourself, you claimed practically no one (your words: hardly at all if ever) shoots from an unsupported position, to include offhand. To counter that, I'll contend that most good hunters, who are capable in still hunting situations benefit from a longer, slightly muzzle heavy rifle. And not only in an offhand, swinging/shotgun style shot. I feel long heavy barrels are of benefit in unsupported sitting, kneeling shots or tight sling shots too. They seem to hang on target a little better, with fewer inputs to shake things up. I've never found short barrels advantageous in any kind of brushy situation. Most of the elk I've killed and been around the kill shots of have been in quick, now or never type shots, where longish, heavy barrels were an advantage. Additionally, I've shot numerous deer(but certainly not most as with the elk) and pigs, and even a few antelope in quick situations where I couldn't support the rifle and a muzzle heavy weapon was beneficial.

That's what I meant by speak for yourself.

....Exactly! And that is where the longer barrels have their advantage. And that is WHERE I DO agree with you. What part of my last post,,,,didn`t you quite understand?

In one of your other posts (PRIOR TO YOUR LAST ONE ABOVE), you did NOT mention that type of off hand shooting. You instead mentioned hind legs, bones and all the other jazz. Right?

Let me state things again so it is quite clear. The off-hand shooting which you just described in your very last and above post, IS and WAS, the very type of shooting I was referring to in the FIRST PLACE, where with regards to balancing and stability, the advantage goes to the longer barrels. That was what I stated before.

All other styles of shooting, where there IS support of some kind underneath the non-trigger hand, either with shooting sticks, with a back pack, with a body part, against a tree or from whatever, there is no balancing or stability advantage with longer barrels.

I`m also not going to argue the point that in certain areas and depending on the terrain, shouldering the rifle and firing without any support underneath the non-trigger hand isn`t done more often, especially when speed is necessary. Been there and done that myself on occasion. Because in certain areas, that is necessary and it probably is performed more often than not.

But in more open country where the distances are much greater, and even in timbers where the distances can exceed 75-100 yards for the kill shots, you`re going to tell me that most hunters will use their scoped or even non scoped rifles just like shotguns? Freehand shooting with no rifle support whatsoever underneath their non-trigger hand?

Sorry! But if that is your thinking, then I`m not going to buy that at all, and will continue to disagree until pigs start flying I suppose.....

........And in response to you, please read my last post.

As usual you biases have clouded your judgement and reading comprehension.
Shooting off my hind legs and using only my bones to support the rifle is precisely the same thing as shooting offhand completely unsupported.
No surprise that you didn't understand though.

As you can see I'm not the only person who often shoots off of their hind legs.

How do you get from "hardly any or none at all" to this above?

You were talking out of your asz before and you got called on it and now you say why sure offhand shooting happens often!

..........No sir! Your reading comprehension is very clouded, not mine. And I`ll disagree
with you again, that it is not the same.

Freehand shooting involves various styles and definitons. I was referring to just one style. Personal bias doesn`t have anything to do with it.

Biased?? Yeah right! Ya think that my 48.5" long 338-378 MK5 Wby has a short barrel? Hmmm? Biased uh?

If I were so 100% biased favoring shorter barrels, I sure as hell wouldn`t own a 28" barreled MK5.

To the OP, I apologize for getting into left field.

Like most others have said, go with the 26" and see how you like it. You can always go shorter if you wish later.

The 22" barrel is easier to get in and out of my golf cart, and Toyota Yaris.

......Well excuse me! Shall we discuss the average (majority) shooting FREEHAND styles then?

You still gonna tell me that the MAJORITY of hunters, the MAJORITY of time, during the MAJORITY of hunting scenarios, will use their rifles like shotguns (meaning; SHOULDERING THE RIFLE, AND THEN ONLY SUPPORTING THEIR RIFLE`S FORE-END WITH THE PALM OF THEIR NON TRIGGER HAND??

Tell me something nsaqam. Given the above, how does one settle or stabilize the cross hairs for the shot? Hmmm? You are not that damn good, and neither is anyone else including me.

I explained as clear as a bell, why and under what shooting style the longer barrels have the advantage. Try not to switch the styles around and cloud things up.

Gotta like your self deprecating humor here Swampy!

Once again you're reading comp sucks and you're talking shiit.
I never once said that the MAJORITY of shots were offhand.
You however did say this "I`ll say hardly at all if ever." will an offhand shot be taken. You then backed away from that absurd statement in a later post.

I'll no longer respond to your mealy mouthed BS.

Have a great day.

I shoot when I get the chance. We need the meat, and I can hit them running.

..........Oh yeah??? Well look at your post here my friend! I know what you`re trying to do. You`re taking a small mis-step by me which it was, and then trying to exploit it.

It may happen all the time or most of the time in your hunting area and in others, but not in many other areas as a greater percentage of the time.

C`mon nas-quatch. How you gonna stabilize the crosshairs when shots are say 75 yards and greater using your shotgun shooting style approach? You didn`t answer that question. Maybe if you do, I just might learn something from you.

And perhaps you can tell me also, how to best use rifles for 75+ yard kill shots? Perhaps there`s a freehand shotgun shooting technique approach that I haven`t discovered yet, that will still deliver a well placed shot? And at moving game no less?

...Why sure you do!......You need to change your user name to Annie Oakley or to maybe Robin Hood?

26"? Sure! Why not?

Ain't my cup of tea but this whole "balance" thing is so subjective it's hardly worth a "talk" anyway.

I find a lot of "this is better than that" conversation is mostly subjective and what balances good for some feels like shidt to someone else.

Get what makes you happy and feels good.

Personally if I am gonna lug 26" of barrel I want a magnum hull at the back end....and a 270 with a barrel longer than 22" makes me break out with measles....but that's just my prefernces and others may feel different.

I have a 29" 270 that gets 3140 FPS with 140 grain TSX bullets with published load data

Prezactly. A 26" tube on a .270 ain't exactly my cup of tea but I'm not the one that'll be drinking said tea. If it makes your socks go up and down, have at it!

I concur....!

How's ya feeling...commin' around?

Our Rem 700 BDL 270s have 22" barrels but I've always thought of going to 26". The stock barrels just shoot so good, I can't replace them until they're worn out. As far as working in the thick cover, just came back from a hog hunt with my 500 Jeff with it's 24" barrel, killed my hog at 8 feet in thickets where 15 feet was the furthest we could see ahead of us and usually less. The 24" barrel was no hindrance.

If the brush is so thick that a rifle is a problem, then I suggest one choose a handgun

Swampman700 Mine been moving also from standing to falling on the ground with 270s and the rest of my guns

Over the past 40 years, I've exposed my ears to tens of thousands of unshielded muzzle blasts while out in the field hunting. Of course I use ear protection while practicing or when I can, but for most of my hunting, I dont. A 26" barrel will produce a lot less felt muzzle blast and noise to the shooter. Especially from prone. All of my coyote hunting rifles have barrels at least 26"(no brakes)and some are longer for that very reason. Not for the velocity gain. With the scopes I use on these rifles, 50 or 60 fps is a non factor.

I've said it before and will say it again.... seems funny to me that a 26" barrel works well on a shotgun but a 26" rifle barrel is too long. When I was a kid and we had a shotgun here in Minnesota, it had either a 28 or 30 inch barrel and we used it for waterfowl and grouse hunting. The grouse hunting was in the same brushy stuff as we hunted deer in. I hunted grouse many,many days with a shotgun with a 30 inch barrel and never gave it a thought that it was too long to work in tight cover. I have hunted deer with a rifle sporting a 26" barrel on several occasions in the heavy cover here. I didn't and still don't see a problem using that length of tube. And trust me, we have some thick brush here. By the way, I have a 270 with a 25" barrel that work just fine! As others have said, it boils down to what you like, and a 270 with a 26" barrel would work just fine, if that is what you want.

Good points MMGravy and exactly what I've found!

Being from NE MN I know what you mean about thick brush too!

+1...........

+1.........

I put a 28" barrel on a .375/.416 Rem Mag with a muzzle brake on the end of it. I intentially took it to the woods to see if it would catch on things. After several days I finally felt it bump on something. I stopped right there check how much I would need to cut off to miss the obstruction. All I needed to do was take off the brake.

I am now convinced, from reallife testing, the idea of a short barrel for woods hunting to clear obstructions is based on ignorant prejudice.

If I can hunt woodcock with a 26-28 inch barreled shotgun in woods so thick that a rifle with a bayonet on it would be scarcely less useful than it for deer hunting, the question of a 26 inch barrel on a rifle for any kind of remotely normal work is patently ridiculous.

If you like a long barrel shoot a long barrel. If you don't, then don't do that! Anywhere a rifle with a 26 inch barrel would be a problem, the sight you'd use to take advantage of the barrel would certainly be a bigger problem.

Dumb ass question. Dumb ass argument.

Exactly......

from Miles58 - "Dumb ass question. Dumb ass argument."

This statement is un-called for. What is this forum for, except to share ideas, information, experiences, and opinions.


Scenarshooter made a very good point here in my opinion regarding perceived noise. I have noticed that I can shoot my .222 with 26" bbl with comfort sans hearing protection, whereas a .223 with shorter barrel is uncomfortable for me to do the same. Im sure the .223 has more muzzle blast, but it has always been my theory that the longer barrel helped with this. Also, Ive heard avid duck hunters express distain for sharing a blind with someone shooting short barreled shotguns because of the loud muzzleblast that accompanied it. I was hoping the 26" barrel on a .270 might make shooting it a bit more pleasant. Just a thought.

pharmvet..............You have gotton alot of opinions for sure. What barrel length you settle on will be based on your own hunting preference. Nothing wrong with a 26" barrel, or a 24" barrel, nor even a 22" or even shorter using the 270.

Personally, when I know I`ll be hog hunting or hunting other game in much thicker terrains, I first prefer using my 35.5" long 300 WSM compact or secondly a 40.75" long Ruger Alaskan vs my 48.5" long 28.5" barreled Weatherby.

Is that to say that I or anyone else is going to have trouble getting tangled up with branches, twigs, bushes etc? No it doesn`t. But what it does do, is reduce the odds with less liklihood of doing so.

All the disagreements, the agreements, plus everything else discussed on this thread with regards to rifle balance and muzzle stability, is all subjective and is really a judgement call by the user.

Trial and error for yourself out in the field is really the best experience.

Good luck.

.............Having shorter barrels requires trade-offs. Certain things ya gain while certain things like more noise and blast you must be able to tolerate and be comfortable with.

Hi powered cartridges fired from shorter barreled rifles are certainly not for most. I have two of them. Bought them for me and not for anyone else`s consideration. I duly warn those around me before the fun begins, and then they can either do their due diligence or not.

Nothing wrong with a 26" tube at all.

All my weatherbies have one and it never felt out of place, even in the timber.

No kidding.. I've gotten several deer with offhand shots - no support, no sticks, no nothin'....

I had my Ruger Hawkeye rebarrel to a 243Win wit 24" length in sporter contour. I like the way it balances and like scenarshooter the noise/muzzle blast does seem milder compared to a 22"barrel. To earlier to tell how it handles out in the field yet.

Not sure how a 24" barrel would balance with a long action but one could always go with heavier contour to try to get the balance.

TC Encore Pro Hunter comes stock with 28-inch barrel in a variety of calibers, including .270 Winchester. One in 7mm-08 that I handled w/o scope felt like a nice shotgun - not long or awkward. Custom barrel maker MGM will supply up to 31 inches for TC rifles, although they up-charge past 28 inches.

Wonder how fast those 28-inch barrels toss .270 bullets.

A long barrel might be unhandy to carry while keeping very low to the ground, such as crawling. Have to keep the muzzle out of dirt or snow. Climbing with both hands free with the rifle 'slung' across the back, a long barrel could snag or drag on overhanging things.

I also prefer the longer barrels. I'd probably use my .270 more if I had a 26" on it than I do with the 22" on it now. However, that 22 incher dioesn't really handicap me in the real world; I herat-shot a deeer at 346 yards with it, and I don't think an extra 4" woulda killed him any deader.

If you're concerned about a few fps or just like the feel/balance of a longer barrel, go for it. If you like a short, handy little gun, short is fine, too. If 'twere me, I'd go with 26" on a .270, probably even a #4 contour. Unless I have to carry it in rough country a whole lot...

When the 270 was introduced in the M54 Winchester, it had a 24" barrel and an advertised velocity with the 130 gr bullet of 3160.When the M70 was introduced in 1937 it was chambered in the 270 and also had a 24" tube.Even JOC's early, custom 270's had 24" barrels.

Eventually he (and others)got around to building shorter, lighter 270's for rough country use...."mountain rifles".....at the same time powders like IMR4350 and WW II H4831,slower powders,were brought into play and allowed over 3100 fps from 22" barrels.

This led to the introduction of things like the pre 64 M70 FW with a 22" barrel,which followed the trend of shorter and lighter rifles.O'Connors customs set the pace for this activity and even today many common 270's are still built with 22" inch barrels.

This sort of "works" as such rifles produce 98-99% of the velocities attainable with longer tubes,yet are a bit handier in tight quarters (depending how you feel about those things).

Personally I never felt the extra velocity was worth the barrel length,and have used 22" 270's on game out to a bit past 400 yards,and on whitetail and mule deer hustling past at woods distances.I have never noticed any degree of handicap in any sort of country.

I know lots of stuff works, but if I am going to lug 24" of barrel I'll take a magnum chambering myself

If you hunt NE MN or N. Wisconsin, it IS the situation...

hunted both for many years...and deer drives produced more kills than just sitting up in a tree stand...

I have literally tripped over whitetails in a swamp... they just hunker down and don't budget at times.. unless they are being driven by multiple hunters...

ever deer I ever took back there was on the move, and quite briskly.. and they were always running snap shots....

from 80 to 300 yds.... and that 300 yd one, even I was surprised when that one dropped...was shooting a 300 Win Mag on that one..

the others were taken with either the 444 Marlin, or an 06 with a 180 or 220 grain RN...