Years ago in one of the prominent magazines, someone asked how much further a shotgun barrel of 30" would shoot vs a 28" bbl. The editor had a good sense of humor, as his entire response was "two inches".
At the risk of getting a similar answer, what advantages/disadvantages would a rifle barrel have as is, vs + or - 2" ?

Depends on the barrel, the length you're starting with, the cartridge, and the load. General (very very general) rule of thumb, maybe 25fps/inch.

For hunting purposes, none. Last year I had a doe stop and stared at me from right at 100 yards. Shot her in the neck with my 250R with 24" barrel. This year I had a nice 8 point walk straight at me, and shot him in the neck at about 50 yards with my 22hp with 20 inch barrel. Both never twitched. I guess for any real evaluation you would need barrels of different lengths in the same caliber. Things like the big heavy forearm on the R may give more support than the thin schnable forearm. To me the advantages/disadvantages is in carrying the rifles. My 1899B octagonal barrel in 303 almost killed me carrying it all day. The 1899H in 22HP was a joy to carry all day. The R would make a good stand gun. Carbines good carry guns. The 1899A, B, and C make good shoot them out the kitchen door guns.

Always had a thing for carbines, but a 22” barrel is just about perfect on a sporting rifle.

As Joe points out in his post, it probably makes way more difference to the sender that it does to the receiver in almost all practical hunting situations. Because there are so many variables, the pros and cons of what is the best barrel length for any rifle or caliber could be debated in infinitum without clear resolution. If we knew the answers to those questions how would gun writers make a decent living?

There are 2 kinds of rifleman.

The ones that measure success by ft/s, (velocity) ft/lbs, (energy) and MOA, (accuracy). Shooters

And the ones that measure success by dead. Hunters.

Those 2 guys ain't always the same guy...

Balance matters, and that's affected by a few different things, not just barrel length. I like em all, short, long, skinny, fat.

Balance. In regard to the Savage M99 and all it's variants it has the best balance of any sporting rifle ever manufactured. It handles like a dream and points like a fine English shotgun. You see a deer. You raise the rifle to your shoulder. You briefly glance at the sights and then you take the shot. Dead critter. Successful hunt. Done deal.

Hmmm. I took the OP's question to be about how much velocity was lost/gained by a variation in barrel length. Maybe I read it wrong.

As for "handiness", I don't feel barrel length alone is the deciding factor- a lot other aspects factor in. Overall balance can be achieved with short(er) barrels as well as long(er) barrels, as well as the model of gun. Personally for "shooting" I like a little extra length/weight in a barrel, putting the balance point a little farther forward. For carrying in the woods I like a neutrally balanced rifle, and like I said that can be achieved with either a short or a long barrel depending entirely on how savvy the builder is and how savvy the owner/shooter is in demanding it.

Bottom line, like my compadres pointed out: dead is dead and how one makes use of his equipment is all that matters.

Nope, you read and answered it correctly.

However, the OP's question was, "...what advantages/disadvantages would a rifle barrel have as is, vs + or - 2" ?

Could be with regard to;
Speed?
Energy?
Handling?
Aesthetics?

Interesting question as well as interesting answers.
Everyone answered correctly.

I used to "chase" high velocities, reloading as hot as I could. Experience over the years I've learned it doesn't matter what unless you're shooting really long distances. Generally velocity changes 25-50 fps per inch depending on cartridge. How the rifle balances and carries are more important to me.

Does this mean we all get a trophy Rick?


I'm with Gnoahhh in that for shooting I like a little weight out front. The 26" 38-55 has the perfect combination of barrel length, weight, bore size, and buttstock density (weight) to really settle down for shooting. No bobbing around and "pass shooting" as the sights go by the target.

Thank you all for your comments. All responses are appreciated. -Jim

I'm a fan of balance, but the 99EG isn't very well balanced and it was one of the most popular style of 99.

Proper balance allows a shooter to get onto his/her target more quickly.

Two well balanced 99s from the early 1960's were the 99DL and 99F. The early 99DLs had 24" barrels that helped to offset the heavier monte carlo style stocks. The 99Fs had 22" barrels that were in sync with their straight lower comb stocks. When Savage changed the barrel length on the 99DLs to 22" the balance changed and they became a little more "butt-heavy". While it was the right decision from a manufacturing perspective, having the 99C, 99DL, and 99F share the same barrel specs, it decreased any incentive there was to own a 99DL. At least that is this guy's perspective on barrel length and balance.