What is more accurate a 17 inch barrel vs. 24 inch featherweight barrel?

I know there are people here who would know.

Consider two barrels from a quality maker such as Douglas, Shilen, Pac-Nor, Lilja or other top tier barrel makers.

Both in 260, goal of weight about 30-32 ounces in stainless, and accurate enough to hunt to 500 yards.

One barrel would be 24 inches, would have to be featherweight profile to make the weight.

The other would be 17-18 inches, could even be a Striker barrel. Could be pretty heavy profile at that length.

Being a hunting rifle, there would be no 5 or 10 shot groups. Just one group of 3 shots.

Both properly broken in and using hunting rounds

Not which one you prefer but which would be the most accurate?

Assuming one uses a scope, the increased sight radius a long barrel affords goes away.

The shorter, thicker barrel will be stiffer, and vibrations will be lessened. This will improve intrinsic accuracy compared to the thinner and longer barrel.

This is offset by slightly increased wind drift at long range.

Let's assume the hunter is careful and chooses calm conditions: advantage short barrel!

Yeah but if you don't have enough barrel to properly burn your powder you can miss out on much needed velocity to attain proper accuracy.
If your talking 50 yrds it don't matter much if your talking 500 it does.

Theoretically I thnk the longer barrel for the win but in relaity I think shorter barrels fit many short range hunters better. I think 22" is a nice compromise.

But I guess my biggest factor is are we talking handloads or factory?

All in all I say the long barrel for proper burn and velocity.

I think it depends.
In Theory the shorter fat barrel will be more accurate, will heat slower and will whip less.

That said If you are talking about only 3-4 shots then they both could be just as accurate.

If you were to compare a Kreiger Pencil barrel to an average OEM cut down sporter barrel then the kreiger could be more accurate
until it heats up.

If you get into AR15s or AR10s etc or another rifle without a floated handguard and shoot off a rest, bags or a bipod then the pencil barrel will have a greater tendency to move under weight.

Assuming (I know, I know) that a lightweight rifle is intended to be a carried, hunting rifle then the accuracy potential of either barrel when measured by shooting groups is very nearly a moot point.
My prime concern with such a rifle is whether the first shot from a cold, fouled bore goes to POA each and every time. It's nice if the second and subsequent shots also go to POA but in the hunting game that first shot is paramount.
If first shot accuracy can be obtained with either length then the ballistic advantage provided by the extra tube length is welcome.
I also think that the slightly more forward balance point afforded by a 24" tube is advantageous for steadying up on target when shooting offhand.

I don't consider a #2 contour to be a pencil barrel either. Especially if the bore size is such that you maintain at least .150" wall thickness at the muzzle.

For me, 22" is as short as I'll go and 24" is perfect.

Go with the longer barrel. Hunting is a one to two shot experience. If you have a long shot the 24 inch barrel will gain a lot of velocity over the shorter barrel. I have a Voere Titan with a sporter wieght barrel that will for three shots keep up with my GA Precision rifle. Any top barrel maker will make you a accurate shooting barrel. I would go for a Shilen but that is just me.

A 17" 260 will be able to get 120s around 2800fps, 140s around 2600fps, with moderate loads.

In the shorter tubes, Varget or 4064 might provide a touch more velocity than H4350.

I get 2700fps in my 20" 260 with 140gr Hornady HPBT and 43.0gr H4350 and LOVE it.

Most folks that say "if you want a short barrel get a 308" haven't ever tried a short 6.5 and are ignorant of its real-world performance capabilities.

Mathematically the short barrel will be more accurate. Reality shows that is usually the case as well but each barrel is its own entity and long barrels can definitely be accurate. At longer ranges the extra velocity from a longer barrel will help cover your inaccurate wind readings.


If you think a 17" barrel is not accurate at 500 yards you simply need to be around those that shoot them.

There's a lot of 6.5 Grendel shooters who regularly harvest game out that far with 16" to 18" carbines.

That short-barrel .260 Remington should do just fine. Just remember that hunting accuracy is different than precision long range shooting accuracy, so one might not be able to tell the difference.

Further, the shorter barrel will be a lot easier to move while hiking and riding. That factor will have a positive impact on one's ability to aim precisely after that long hike.

Short barrels work great. I have a Rem700 tac 308 20" that will pop eggs at 700yds. It is sub 1/4moa all day with my loads. I have a 16.5" heavy barrel model 10 that is showing excellent results at 400yds in the 1/2 MOA catagory. Its got some bugs to work out and hasn't had the range time I have on the 700.

Muzzle blast is stupendous! The 10 has a Mikulek muzzle brake that brings its recoil to almost non existent.

id go short, 20" is supposedly ideal for 308. The heavier barrel flexes less and stays cool longer. The 10 is 1.0" at the chamber and .890 at the threaded muzzle. The gun is def heavy but I can still pack it easily hunting and can plink all day long. The barrel was by Apache Gunworks. Absolutely top of the line from what I have seen with it and shot with it.

I put it in a Savage tuperware stock. Bedded the recoil lug with quik steel and filled in and packed tight the forend just to the tops of the ribs with quik steel total 10 bucks at Car Quest. I now have a stock with none or no noticeable flex. An action tight in the stock, and a barrel heavy enough that it does free float but wouldn't matter much if the stock touched.