View Full Version : 22" barrel length in 6.5 x 284 too short?

04-17-2011, 01:04 PM
I'm looking to get a new Savage in 6.5 x 284, but the barrel length is only 22". Has anybody had any experience with this caliber and barrel length? I'm a little worried that the reduced velocity will cancel out the benefits of this loading. I can get a 24" barrel, but the gun weight goes up from 6.9 lbs to 8.5. Your thoughts?

04-17-2011, 05:17 PM
I would get the model 111 long range hunter if I was to get a 6.5-284. It only weighs like 8.6 lbs and has a 26" barrel. I don't think the ballistics will be much better than a .260 with only a 22 inch barrel, I have seen good ballistics out of a 24 but a 26 is awesome with the heavier bullets.

04-17-2011, 06:04 PM
You know, I've been looking at the 111lrh, but I really don't like the muzzle brake and it's not needed. Anybody know if the barrel length is 26", plus the 2" muzzle brake or is it 24", plus muzzle brake? I'll be packing this rifle in the mountains and 8.6 lbs plus scope is a deal breaker. I can't figure out why Savage doesn't make that barrel 24" standard in the 6.5 x 284? Anybody know if they have a custom shop for special orders?

04-17-2011, 06:45 PM
I just read in another forum that it is a 24 1/4", the brake makes it 26". are you really stuck on the 6.5-284 in a savage? Remington made a .264 win mag in a model 700 cdl weighs like 7.5 lbs with a 26". I like mine. It's a couple hundred fps faster than the 6.5-284. I think they discontinued it but I was at a gun show today and seen 6 brand new ones for only 700 bucks each. I almost bought one but already have one. I'm not sure about special orders, just have to call them I guess.

04-19-2011, 09:32 AM
topdog, the Newest Savage bolt gun is under 6 lbs. with an accutrigger, not sure of the calibers offered or the barrel length. Looks like a sweet light rifle, with a REAL wood stock.

04-21-2011, 09:15 AM
To fully utilize the case capacity of the 6.5x284 you need a 24"+ barrel that is if you are using hunting weight bullets. The savage lightweight hunter is a 20" tube. And for a thousand bucks! I would rather lug around something that weighed a pound more and have the extra length. Not to mention you gain 30-50fps with every inch of barrel length. That'll add up after 4-6". If your gonna go that short of a barrel get a 6.5 swede or a 260 remington there more efficient in smaller barrels than the 6.5x284.

04-21-2011, 01:40 PM
Well, I couldn't agree more! Wish Savage offered a 24-26" barrel in a hunting weight rifle. Why they went with the 22" barrel, I'll never know! I may have to go up to 8.6lbs, if I buy the Savage in this caliber. Thanks for all the input guys. All good stuff.

04-22-2011, 07:29 AM
It depends on how far you want to shoot. Nosler suggests not going under 1800 fps and my load runs out of gas right at 800 yards. I have a 26" barrel but with a 22" you may want to think about using a lighter bullet and pushing it faster. Maybe a 120 TTSX or the 130 AB. A 120 Barnes X bullet is going to kill them just as dead as a 140 Accubond. If you do want to use the 140 AB.. with 2800 fps at the muzzle, you will dip down to 1800 fps at 700 yards with about 1000 ft-lbs energy.

I say.. If you want the rifle, by all means get it. Less velocity? Sure, but you can work it out. It obviously wasn't built for long range purposes. But, I'm assuming you won't be shooting over 600 yards so you should be fine.

04-22-2011, 11:48 AM
I have a 6mm Remington with only a 20" barrel and it shoots like a dream from 300 and in. At about 350+ it starts to behave on it's own.

04-24-2011, 01:36 PM
All good stuff, guys! Thanks for your input.