That last guy, making the comment about the old guy, sheesh. I guess I qualify, but I still hate the word....old. But to the topic at hand; if you are not going to shoot over 275 to 300 yards, the 22 inch barrel is every bit as good. The main reason everyone is making shorter barrels these days is the lighter weight. Most hunters prefer less weight. The ony other advantage is slightly quicker handling in cover and on running game.
Within reason, the physics/ballistics say....the longer the barrel the more complete the powder burn; hence slightly more feet per second and power/range. The previously-posted statements about a "slightly" longer twist in the barrel are also true.
I shoot a lot. Back when I had only one hunting rifle I took a great many deer and elk with a 22"-barreled .270. I have now acquired several hunting rifles. The expensive ones are topped with Zeiss or Schmidt & Bender optics and I handload my own recipes. With a 26"-barreled .300 Weatherby, I'm getting 3485 fps using 168 grain bullets. They are deadly to 600 yards +. (They're certainly deadly much farther, but I very rarely shoot farther.) I practice hundreds of shots each year with each rifle, which is of infinitely more concern than the barrel length. In a 24" .300 Weatherby, I get about 75 fps less. It's accurate to the same distances, just with a slightly greater mid-range trajectory. Either weapon has sufficient power to kill an elk substantially beyond my realistic ability to safely take the shot.
In the real hunting world, where most people are less fanatical than I, barrel length matters very little. Pick the gun the appearance of which you like (seriously). If weight and quick handling are important, lean toward shorter barrels. If sitting and shooting a long ways is important, the longer barrel is superior. Good Luck, from one of the OLD GUYS.