The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 14, 2011, 10:40 PM   #1
ZVP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2009
Posts: 1,102
Barrel Lengths?

Does anyone know WHY??? barrels are cut to odd fractional lengths?
Why not just cut them at 4", 5", or 6"?
It really makes no sense to have the fraction!
Any ideas?
ZVP
ZVP is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 06:27 AM   #2
Doc Hoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Naples, Fl
Posts: 5,440
Read an article yesterday...

...about barrel lengths.

It was refering to smokeless loads in barrel lengths of 20 to 30 inches and muzzle velocities all over 1500 fps so it may have little applicability. The jist of the article was that for the tests and research that the author did, barrels that are shorter or longer than optimum length by an inch can degrade MV by fifty fps.

The length of barrels on our revolvers may the the original manufacturer's best estimation of optimum barrel length for the anticipated load.

I have never had occassion to read the content of the contracts that the government used to acquire revolvers for use during the War of Northern Aggression but the length of the barrel may have been specified. If it was specified the choice of length wold likely have considered all of the factors that influence barrel length including how easy it is for a soldier to handle the revolver. (Which, in battle, might be more important than optimum MV.)

The historians or scientists in the group will endorse or correct my guessing (which is all that it is).
__________________
Seek truth. Relax. Take a breath.
Doc Hoy is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 06:37 AM   #3
B.L.E.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Somewhere on the Southern shore of Lake Travis, TX
Posts: 2,603
Why is it important for a barrel to be exactly a whole number of inches long? Are you using the barrel as a measuring stick? My guess is that a lot of peacemakers had 5 1/2 inch barrels because that length just worked well. Five was a little too short but six was a little too long.
B.L.E. is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 08:02 AM   #4
mykeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 8, 2006
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,772
Quote:
It really makes no sense to have the fraction!
I don't understand that. Why does it 'make no sense'?
mykeal is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 09:04 AM   #5
NoSecondBest
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2009
Location: Western New York
Posts: 2,736
What's the difference? Who cares? Does it really matter to anyone?
NoSecondBest is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 09:45 AM   #6
Tanker6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 193
Ok, waaaaaay back when, I took an engineering class in college (insert your remarks about "they had colleges back then? here ) which a good portion of it was about ballistics. I actually enjoyed this part of the class.

At any rate, we were often tested to use the formulas to calculate the optimum muzzle velocity for a given round -- this was usually associated with an artillery or tank cannon round, but the process is the same. For instance, they would provide the caliber (say, 117mm) and the data for the round itself and we would have to calculate the best muzzle length in which to obtain the optimum muzzle velocity.

It would seem to me that these formulas and calculations were available to Sam Colt, et. al. back in the day and they utilized them. Of course, when you're engineering a new model pistol, you can also play with the charges, caliber, etc. to get something that you're looking for. And, other factors will also come into play. For instance, if you design such and such caliber, with such and such charge, the barrel thickness will need to be such and such in order to withstand the pressures. Thicker barrels will produce more weight which may not be optimum for a carry piece.

Then, let's not forget the idea of marketing to the actual user. I may want a shorter barreled pistol because of ease of carry or concealment and I'm willing to live with a lower muzzle velocity because of this trait.

Of course, it could also be the "whim" of the designer. I mean, why are the Colts, etc. 4 3/4" and Ruger had to have 4 5/8"? Is the 1/8" that much difference?

Inquiring minds and all that.....
Tanker6 is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 10:04 AM   #7
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stuart, VA
Posts: 2,473
Quote:
What's the difference? Who cares? Does it really matter to anyone?
Does to the OP, and I'm kinda curious if there's some technical reason myself, so there
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 11:27 AM   #8
zullo74
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2009
Posts: 374
I'd like to know too.
How did the military decide what barrel lengths to order for their contracts? So in my case, I care!
zullo74 is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 11:39 AM   #9
Smokin'Joe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2010
Posts: 211
I think the military wanted longer barrels so the gun could be used like a carbine with the addition of the removable stock. After all, the soldiers were not Quick Draw cowboys.
Smokin'Joe is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 12:11 PM   #10
BigBrute
Member
 
Join Date: September 14, 2011
Location: Missouri
Posts: 47
My 2 cents would be that it's simply the sweet spot the manufacturer found. I recall stories about the Brits in WWII trying to shorten the Lee-Enfield to make a "jungle carbine" but they made it too short. The reports the got back were that the recoil and jump of the rifle was so drastically increased as to make the rifle almost unusable.
So, presuming this story is accurate, fractional barrel lengths may be just where it became most practical or comfortable. I dunno, food for thought...
BigBrute is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 01:15 PM   #11
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
Probably the same reason a 2x4 is not 2" by 4". They remove material as part of the manufacturing process. They also want to get the maximum number of barrels from a given piece of barrel blank.

If a barrel blank is 36" long and they cut it into 12 pieces you have already lost over 2/3 of an inch just from a 1/16" saw blade. Then lets say that they have to take an eighth of an inch off both ends as part of the process to get the barrel the desired shape. By now that barrel is only 2.875" in length.

To me, that is the most likely reason. They make the different length barrels whatever length gives them the most barrels from a blank.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 03:24 PM   #12
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,824
I wonder if the Quarter-Master had any say? Do the 7 1/2" Colt Peacemaker fit the Rem 1858 flap holster?
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 03:38 PM   #13
zullo74
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2009
Posts: 374
Yes, and just about any single action revolver will fit in them.
zullo74 is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 07:44 PM   #14
robhof
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 16, 2007
Posts: 712
robhof

If any of the patents specified a barrel length, changing the length by a fraction would avoid patent infringment for a similiar gun.
robhof is offline  
Old September 23, 2011, 05:54 PM   #15
ZVP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2009
Posts: 1,102
And YES, it's important to ME!

Having read all the replies I can only surmise that #1 Preformance may have been one reason #2 raw stock cuts and waste might be it?
Whatever the reason, nearly everything in the Victorian era was done with "Flair, and just maybe the excentricy of having odd fractions made the guns appear "techy" and measured to the exact fraction...
Frankily, I'd prefer the actual 3,4,5,6,8" would be most pratical for Holster fit's.
JMHO
ZVP
ZVP is offline  
Old September 23, 2011, 07:11 PM   #16
MJN77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: on a hill in West Virginia
Posts: 789
Quote:
Frankily, I'd prefer the actual 3,4,5,6,8" would be most pratical for Holster fit's
So get out your hacksaw.
MJN77 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.04741 seconds with 8 queries