22" vs 24" in 280 Remington?

[Exocet]

I have a #4 Krieger 24" barreled Remington 700 in 280 Remington and love it.

I just picked up another #4 Contour 7mm barrel and am thinking of building a lightweight Remington 700 in 280 Remington but finishing the barrel at 22".

Other than the obvious loss of a few fps, are there any downsides to the 22" barrel?

Anyone out there with a 22" 280 Rem? I'd be interested in hearing about it, velocities, noise increase, whatever.

Thanks.

 

[gzig5]

Two inches won't make a lick of difference to an animal. Might be a few Db louder but you already needed plugs. My 22" 700 Mtn Rifle in 280 pushes 140's at 2900 and will put ten into 3/4" with regularity. Go for it.

 

[1holeaddict]

I have been pondering purchasing a Remmy mountain rifle in 280 but they have 22" barrels and was debating the same question.

 

[dzelenka]

I have a #4 Krieger 24" barreled Remington 700 in 280 Remington and love it.

I just picked up another #4 Contour 7mm barrel and am thinking of building a lightweight Remington 700 in 280 Remington but finishing the barrel at 22".

Other than the obvious loss of a few fps, are there any downsides to the 22" barrel?

Anyone out there with a 22" 280 Rem? I'd be interested in hearing about it, velocities, noise increase, whatever.

Thanks.

Factories put 22" barrels on .270s for years. The .280 should fare pretty well with that length barrel, although I would just go with the 24" (actually, I did).

 

[Savage99]

There are more desireable designs for a bolt action hunting rifle.

Look at CRF M70's, Mausers, even Rugers. The 700/721's are not fine machinery, extractors break etc.

You can do much better.

The cartridge is ok.

 

[Raptor]

Savage99, I have to disagree with you. I have shot Remingtons all my life and only had one issure with an extractor and that was from a blown primer and guess what that wasn't a Remington extractor it was a bolt that had been modifed to a sako extractor.

I have a Remington that is on its 5th barrel and is still on the factory extractor. I am sure if they were so bad the military would not be using them as sniper rifles. If you think the Remingoton action is so bad maybe you need to tell all the people shooting them that hold national records and all the "Clones" that are being made off the Remington action. I have seen them abused and misused in matches and still get the job done. I would take one to war in a heartbeat. Just my thoughts on it...

 

[280nosler]

There are more desireable designs for a bolt action hunting rifle.

Look at CRF M70's, Mausers, even Rugers. The 700/721's are not fine machinery, extractors break etc.

You can do much better.

The cartridge is ok.

The cartridge if hand loaded has the potential to be great. I can get 162 grain SST to 2780 with a 26 inch barrel. I have shot one at 400 yards, and the trajectory is flatter than a 300 win mag 180 grain SST. I have several Remington actions, one is a 1948 721 in 30-06 with a shit load of rounds on the factory barrel, and the second is a 1961 280 Rem, with over 2,800 round s through it. The '48 was my granddad's hunting/target/competition gun, and the '61 was my father's and has taken dozen of whitetail deer. It was my father's 280 that got me shooting the round. Somehow, none of my 700 actions (5) have broken an extractor, and between my 3 and the 2 721's I have personally put just over 12,000 rounds through them. My 700 PSS in 223 has 6260 rounds down range, and aside from getting a new barrel next year, still does the job.

To the OP, the difference will cost you about 60 fps, depending on the bullet, powder, and temperature. The 22 will be handier, easier to point, and will still go 300 yards, no problem. For a pure hunting gun, 22 is not a bad choice, and the 24 adds little in terms of benefits.

 

[Clod-NC]

Hi Exocet,hi all

Man,just the question I like,tight choice between 22 or 24" of barrel...What is so tedious about having 2 extra inches of steel on a N° 4 contour? What does it amount to in terms of weight? I'd appreciate a metallurgist advice on that. I mean,you're not shooting a 222,or 22/250,you're using some caliber,that kicks,bucks,and blasts if you load it serious,but that can reach far and hard and accurate,so why take the risk of cutting down a sure part of its merrits with those 2 inches you want to take off? I can't even seem to be considering it as an option;please,mate,keep it at least 24",it won't kill your shoulder carrying it,so why bother,and I'm not even talking about those 70fps you'd drop down doing it....Especially if you mean to shoot above 160grs. I mean no disrespect to folks who say short is not so bad,but I just can't approve to a 22" bbl in 280 Rem,no way!!! I mean if it's a factory rifle that comes from the store with this barrel,OK,but having it made this way instead of 24",count me out.Hope it helps you make the right choice.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Gun balance and overall handling are factors in a hunting rifle that far outweigh the 2 inches of barrel. How's that for a metallurgical explanation? More specifically, those two inches of a #4 contour .284 416ss barrel weigh about 3-1/4 ounces.

 

[waverly]

For 20 years my absolute favorite( go to) gun is a custom ( my left hand version of a model 7 built when Remington would not make LH 7's) is a Stolle Kodiak action in 7-08. This gun has a #5 Lilja fluted barrel finished at 20". It weighs 7.5 lbs. with a very old Swarovski 3-12 x56 (aluminum tube). In a tree stand it swings and points much faster than any other rifle I have. Short stiff barrels will shoot. As far as velocity goes I haven't a clue, but I can tell you this every deer that I've shot with this gun didn't have a clue how fast or slow the bullet was going. I shoot 42.5 grns. of Varget and 139 Hornady btsp. This gun is accurate and is still on the original barrel. ( on a note I do have another #5 fluted Lilja on order to finish at 22")
I personally prefer in a short light weight rifle a short cartridge. I have a 280 imp. on a Remington(26" barrel) that I have also had for years. I have just acquired an older Ruger#1 in 280(1970's) but have not shot it yet. I have personally zero experience with a 280 except the 280 imp.

Build your gun on a 700 in any configuration you like. The only one on this post you have to make happy is yourself.
Regards, Waverly

 

[Pappy83]

Barrel length on some calibers is more important then others, I have shortened so many barrels and tested different calibers and here is what I have found, 308 go as short at 14.5 with fixed brake great hunting length and good all the way to 600yds with ease could handload so a 175 would still go 2550fps. 300win mag go 20 inch they still go faster and hit harder then any 308 with a 26 inch barrel. The one caliber that did not like 18 inch was a 280 I tried, that is why in 7mm I shoot 7mm saum only at 18 and 20 inch they are hammers most accurate barrel I have ever seen is a 20 inch CBI varmint contour saum it makes a lot of dedicated bench guns look bad. With your 280 stay at 22 inch you will like it but don't go shorter in that caliber. People get way to hung up on barrel length 308 is one of the calibers I see no benefit for a barrel in that caliber to be 30 inch except if you are palma shooting and need the sight distance, my kid will be running a 26inch now in ft/r and she shoots 215 grain bullets the difference between her old 28 inch and new 26 inch was nothing they both averaged 2602-2605 with the 215's.

 

[Shynloco]

There are more desireable designs for a bolt action hunting rifle.

Look at CRF M70's, Mausers, even Rugers. The 700/721's are not fine machinery, extractors break etc.

You can do much better.

The cartridge is ok.

I don't want to necessarily disagree with your thoughts as I've been a Ruger and Savage shooter all my life which dates back a very long time. BTW, the Savages are all the new version from the 2000 era and not the old 70's JUNK that was sold back then. BUT, having done the hunting thing and nowadays the Benchrest thing, if I were going to "BUILD" a rifle, whether for target or hunting purposes, I'd definitely go with a Remington 700 action because it is simply the most proven, reliable and versatile action available and has been for years. Now you keep the Remington barrels or give them away as far as I'm concerned, but it is pretty much a facts that most more serious target and accuracy guys use the Remington 700 action. I've not shot a .280 so the caliber is foreign to me. But as has been said, when you are out hunting and hiking over hill an dale, you don't wants a heavy rig and I'd personally go with the 24" barrel, but that's just my preference. I also doubt 2" is gonna make a difference when hunting. Now for target shooting where accuracy matters, I'd be sticking with a 24" or 25" barrel., which is on my .308 Benchrest Rifle that has a MG barrel.

 

[Raptor]

I don't know if this will help or not (Maybe I shouldn't help you for bashing my Remington's. HA) I had a 26" heavy barreled 260 I used in matches and when the barrel went south I removed the barrel. On a whim and a bet I had the barrel re chambered and shortened to 22"s to see if it would still shoot to 1000yds.

What I found out was, I lost less than 60fps cutting off 4"s of barrel. This surprised me and by bumping my load up one grain more I got back nearly half of what I lost before cutting the barrel off. The other thing it did was take a consistent .6 gun and turn it into a .4 gun!! I could not believe how much better it shot and I also really liked the way it handled.

The only draw back was that I did loose some accuracy at 1000yds. It was very consistent to 900 but did open up at 1000yds. This may have been the fact that the barrel had been toast before cutting it back.

I agree with what's been said above that its not velocity it is the handling that will make the big difference. I really like the 22" length and don't feel you gain any more cutting it less but once again this is a "Personal" opinion. I really do think you will like the shorter barrel. Good luck in your project!!

 

[Exocet]

Thanks for the replies.

Like I said in the original post, I already have a 24" barreled .280 Rem currently.

I have about 10 Remington actions and only had one broken extractor in a .223 over about 30 years of shooting. That rifle had about 5,800 rounds through it before it broke.

I have the action for the new rifle and the new barrel. I wouldn't own a Ruger (yes, I've had one....) and CRF is overrated in my opinion. I also have two newer Savages. They are okay but the Remingtons always seem to have a smoother bolt throw than the Savages. Again, in my opinion.

Remington actions are far more easily trued for accuracy than other actions.

I have 26", 24", and one 22" barreled rifles and the 22" just feels so much handier. Here in PA, 300 yards is a long shot where I hunt. Usually 100 is the norm.

I'm going to give 22" a try. I'm reasonably sure a deer or black bear won't notice the difference. Plus, my young son will be able to use it in a couple of years.

Again, thanks for the input.

 

[Savage99]

The topic is how to use a 7mm barrel in 280 Rem.

This means extra gunsmith expense on what is just a hunting rifle. While I shoot 40X's in competition and a Hepburn 38-55 is one of my schuetzen rifles I prefer the M70 and Mauser design with CRF and a three position wing safety for hunting. They are fine machinery.

The 7xx's are just economy guns. Those in the military used them because thats what they were issued.

Put a 22" Feathereight barrel on the 280. Otherwise give it a magnum chamber.





Search out and learn what the fine actions are before spending.

 

[JimT]

Gun balance and overall handling are factors in a hunting rifle that far outweigh the 2 inches of barrel. How's that for a metallurgical explanation? More specifically, those two inches of a #4 contour .284 416ss barrel weigh about 3-1/4 ounces.

I am always perplexed/amused when the subject of "gun balance and overall handling" boils down to 2 inches of barrel length and a 2.4 % weight savings (3.25 oz on a 8.5lb hunting rifle) are involved. Maybe you can point out some situations where these seemingly miniscule dimension variances result in a quantifiable difference?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Gun balance and overall handling are factors in a hunting rifle that far outweigh the 2 inches of barrel. How's that for a metallurgical explanation? More specifically, those two inches of a #4 contour .284 416ss barrel weigh about 3-1/4 ounces.

I am always perplexed/amused when the subject of "gun balance and overall handling" boils down to 2 inches of barrel length and a 2.4 % weight savings (3.25 oz on a 8.5lb hunting rifle) are involved. Maybe you can point out some situations where these seemingly miniscule dimension variances result in a quantifiable difference?

I'll try..
First, it's hard to "quantify" something that has a lot to do with personal preference and things like upper body strength, but think, location and leverage. It doesn't have to be a big percentage to change the way a gun handles.
I'll give an example.
Add a 6oz tuner to a well balanced HV benchrest rifle that weighs 13.5lbs(2.7%)...What happens?
What happens is the butt stock jumps out of the rear bag and the gun doesn't track well.


But we were talking about a hunting rifle, weren't we? Well, yes we were. The only specs for the rifle, given by the op were a 700 remington and a #4 barrel. Then you interjected 8.5lbs. I can only assume that weight was without a scope and rings, because I don't think you'll get a 700 LA wearing a #4 contour barrel and a scope down to that weight without putting it on a diet somewhere. A light enough stock and you might, but then the gun becomes even more nose heavy.