Barrel lengths-- how long is long enough?

[calypsocoral]

Not a criticism, more of an observation, but I can't help but notice that the standard-issue barrel length nowadays, from Savage, Remington, Browning, and most of the other "big names" is about 22 inches.

I've noticed that a lot of the ballistic tests performed by the ammo manufacturers (Olin, Hornady, Federal, Remington, et al) are performed with guns that have a 24" or longer barrel.

If I'm considering a cartridge that is on the long-ish side for a standard-length action (.270Win/.280Rem, .30-06, 8x68S, etc), at what point would a longer barrel length produce "diminishing returns" (when the gain in velocity and energy are no longer enough to justify the encumbrance of a longer barrel)?

I ask because a fellow hunter, a guy who has pointed me in the right direction pretty consistently, once told me that you need to get a longer barrel length in order to get the most out of a longer cartridge, and that shorter barrel lengths make more sense for shorter cartridges because of their more efficient burn. And the caliber for my next bolt-action (I'm looking at CZ550 American) that I have my eye set on is either .270 Winchester or .280 Remington.

Thanks in advance for your input!

[jameslovesjammie]

I read a study once where someone took a 30" .223 barrel and cut the barrel down in 1" increments.  The really long barrels actually had lower velocity than a standard length barrel. 

Now, with a .270/.30-06 case capacity...I would say that 26" is probably as long as you would want to go.  24" will gave nearly the same velocity, and a 22" would even be handier.  The 26" will get you about 100 fps more than a 24", but the 22" will probably only lose 50 fps to a 24".  So from a 22" to a 26" barrel, you will probably lose 150 fps or so, but you will GAIN a rifle that is much handier, lighter weight, and will actually have a stiffer barrel (read accuracy potential).  150 fps does not really matter that much on game.

Also remember that when you read reloading manuals and see that the measurements are in a 24 or 26" test barrel, these are usually test barrels fitted to universal receivers.  You will only truely know how fast or slow a load is by shooting it over a chronograph. 

[m39nut]

Many years ago the Remington Model 7 and the 700 Mountain rifle were the same barrel profile except for the extra length at end. The 7 was always much more accurate since a shorter barrel is a stiffer barrel. I never heard of anybody losing an animal due to lack of velocity from a 7 due to its short barrel. Because of this I would always take a 22 or 24" barrel over a 26" in a non magnum action. I also wouldn't hesitiate to use a 550FS with its very short barrel for hunting, particularly East of the Mississippi.

[jameslovesjammie]

And the caliber for my next bolt-action (I'm looking at CZ550 American) that I have my eye set on is either .270 Winchester or .280 Remington.

.270 Winchester?  You mean only THE greatest cartridge of all time!!!    Seriously though, I am a huge fan of the .277 cal.  Here is a video I made back in 2003 of my Dad dropping a small whitetail buck.  The bullet performed perfect: through both shoulders and lungs and was sitting inbetween the fat and hide on the far side of the deer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WhZKnOEoSQ&feature=g-upl&context=G242c044AUAAAAAAAAAA