I really like my Ruger M77 MK II in .338 WM. However it is pretty heavy and long IMO. I prefer 20" barrels on my rifles just for ease of handling and what not. Would I just be destroying the calibers performance by lopping 4" off the barrel??
Thanks for any input.
........................A few are trending toward shorter OAL rifles these days. I`ve been in that camp the past 3 1/2 years after many years of owning longer tubed rigs. Carbine lengthed rifles or there-abouts (40" to 41" in OAL and less), are easier in every respect in the field. And there isn`t alot of overall velocity loss by sacrificing a few inches of barrel length; certainly not enough to make any killing difference on game.
Shouldn`t be any problem taking your 338 WM rifle down to a 20" barrel length. A few always gripe about the extra noise from the shorter barrels as this subject pops up from time to time, when in reality,,,good hearing protection for the range and for use in the field as well, should be worn when shooting "ALL" rifle barrel lengths!!!
Because of wearing good range and field hearing protection, my hearing is still great (100%), with no hearing loss from either ear after firing my 20" barreled 375 Ruger Alaskan for 2 1/2 years and a 16.5" tubed 300 WSM Ruger Frontier carbine for nearly 3 1/2 years. Those two cartridges are excellent performers (perhaps two of the best) from shorter barrels. Common sense is what prevents hearing loss, rather than shorter barrels causing the hearing loss.
You also read of possible rifle "balance" issues that come about after the cut-downs. Based on alot of experience, that is simply a matter of getting use to it and can easily be solved with a just a little practice here and there.
Whichever you choose, a 20", 21", or a 22" barrel, there will be an improvement vs a 24" er in the field.
Good luck and have some sweet handling fun!
