Would a 20" barrel be ok for 22-250?

JCnAR

New member
I'm wondering if it would still have enough of the extra velocity/energy to make it worthwhile over a 223.
 
Yes, but it will be louder than a longer barrel.

I had a Winny Varmint Special in 22-250 cut down from 26" to 21" and the critters it took later never knew the bullets didn't come out of a longer barrel.

I did it to make it handier in the brush and the truck.
 
I'm no gun expert but...

With the relatively large case capacity of the .22-250 the longer barrel would get the full potential of the cartridge. I mean with the longer barrel you don't waste all the pressure from all the powder, (therefore also the reason for lower noise).
 
Quote:
I did it to make it handier in the brush and the truck.



That's why I would want a 20" barrel. I was thinking I might want to get a 22-250 but started wondering if I'd be better off with a 223 since I want to keep the barrel a bit shorter.
 
go for the 223. 20" 22-250 is a waste. you just wouldnt gain much and waste more powder. yes definitely more noise
 
From what I've read on test on barrel lengths is that you lose 25 - 35fps per inch. The main thing is accuracy. Bill Jordan once quoted someone saying "Speed is fine, accuracy is final!" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
For a calling rifle you won't miss the extra barrel length.
24inchbarrel22-250.jpg

20inchbarrel22-250.jpg
 
My 22" 223 WSSM puts out factory loaded 55 gr. bullets 3800-3900 fps. Doesn't seem to lose too much velocity considering the relatively short barrel and added case volume compared to a 22-250.
Regarding muzzle blast it will be loud although more so to people standing around than you.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see some real shooting over a real chronograph but hey it's your gun.

Chuchaholic, have you chronographed you 223wssm? My cousin just ordered a barrel and the guy at Accuracy systems said you lose too much velocity under 24" but he couldn't produce chronographed data.

I'm a skeptic on this because I've shot several calibers both rifles and pistols through a chronograph and the published data has not been very accurate. As an example a 15" 22-250 gets around 100fps over a 14" .223 so why not just shoot a .223?
 
I target shoot off a bipod from the prone position and often shoot through my chronograph the whole time. You learn alot about your loads that way. I've shot a box each(20) of factory 55 gr. PSP and 55 gr. BST's through the chrono. The PSP's averaged in the low 3800's and the ballistic silvertips or Nosler BT's with Win's coating averaged mid 3800's with a few individual shots breaking the 3900 fps mark. That is out of a 22" barrel and chronograph set at 15'.
I have been shooting through a chronograph for a long time and for the most part find that if you allow + or - 25 fps an inch for differences in barrel length compared to what the published data says things are usually pretty close. The worst offender I've come across was for being optomistic was some Winchester white box 223 ammo.
 
Thank you Chuckaholic, real world ballistics are hard to come by. If the weight is an issue, I won't feel too bad about cutting 2"s off his barrel.
 
The replies have been very informative and I appreciate the information and thoughts you've all provided. I found and purchased a Remmy SPS 22-250 yesterday and it has a 24" barrel. I'm pretty sure I'll take a little off the end as I can already tell that it's a bit long for my tastes. This will be a coyote calling/truck gun and I will rarely have shot opportunities beyond 300 yds. I may go with 21 - 21.5" on the length to cut down just a bit on the muzzle blast. The Model 7 comes in 22-250 and has a 20" barrel, I may need to ask around to see who has one and how they feel about it.
 
Last edited:
Among many rifles, I've got a Win 70 Featherweight with a 20" barrel in 22-250. I bought a barreled action and had it stocked with an extreme light weight custom kevlar stock from Garret Acculite. With featherweight rings and compact glass the rifle only tips the scale at about 4.8 pounds. I used to do a lot of "walk in" predator hunts and built the rifle for that purpose. Conclusions are as follows:

-20 inch barrel is too short for a 22-250. The standard projected 40fps loss per inch of barrel works out just about right and muzzle blast/flash is OFF THE CHARTS!

-Many factory 20 inch barrels are featherweight and are a LOT more finickey about the load combinations they like.

-Ultra light weight rifles are tough to shoot. I'm a rifleman who has shot both shilouette and hi power competition and although with custom loads the gun groups fantastic off the bench, in the field it just refuses to settle. All summer long I practice predator marksmanship by hunting wood chucks from field shooting positions (mostly sitting). I have to honestly admit I can't shoot this rifle worth beans. As you might guess it hasn't come out of the safe in a long time.

I guess you know my opinion. Nothing less than 24 inches for a 22-250.
 
I had a 20" barreled .22-250. It was accurate, but velocity wise it sucked hind tit to the 24" barreled guns. All it was was a really loud .223. *qb
 
It's that muzzle blast that would turn me off! My thinking is that if a guy wants a shorter, more compact rifle, then it's MOST LIKELY because he's hunting in quite a bit of brush. If it was just a little bit of brush, every now and then, he'd probably not bother bobbing the barrel of his rifle. That said, I DO think there's a better answer here to just putting up with the blast OR buying another (shorter) rifle. Cut the barrel down to 20" and reload down to .223 velocities. Why??? Because brushy areas by definition mean CLOSER shots and a .223 is great for those. Plus, a .223 will take care of 'yotes well out to 300 yards. Any further than that, you'd be better off with the original 24" barrel on a .22-250. Anyways, that's what I'd do if I was going to cut the barrel down. I'd just load it down to 24" .223 velocities!
 
After reading all the comments and giving it a lot of thought, I think I'm just going to split the difference and have it cut down to 22". That's the same length as the ADL's & Savage's. I haven't heard any complaints from owners of those rifles.
 
JCnAr..I believe that you are making a good decision with that train of thought..

It can be said that length equals more velocity and for the most part it is true, but I never had any problem acheiving 3600 fps and better with my Savage and that was with milder loads...

I shot some Hornady ammo through a chronograph that touted 3600 fps and it was a little slow.. It only gave an average of 3550.. I was real disappointed if you get my drift?????? James L.
 
Back
Top