The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 12, 2015, 04:51 AM   #1
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
How important is barrel length?

Here I mean in terms of accuracy.

As I understand it a long barrel will do two things for accuracy: Longer sight radius if shooting irons, and less bullet drop for a given load due to higher exit velocity.

So assuming the shooter can compensate for the latter, would a scope 4" (for example),not be just as accurate as a scoped 7.5" over a feasible revolver range ( eg 50-100m max)?

It seems to me that if the scope is providing a reliable aiming method, rather than the sight radius, then a shorter barrel could be just as accurate, assuming that it is not at a distance where its lower velocity projectile is dropping too fast.

Is this assumption/rationale correct?
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 06:55 AM   #2
micromontenegro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2010
Posts: 645
All things being equal (and they never are), a reasonably short (i.e. long enough for rifling to stabilize the bullet) barrel will usually be more intrinsically accurate, because- in a nutshell- it will vibrate less on shooting. Longer sight radius and more recoil dampening are the main reasons longer barrels tend to offer more practical accuracy.
micromontenegro is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 10:40 AM   #3
Gunfixr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2007
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 360
Once the bullet is stabilized, it's good.
Read up on elmer keith, he made quite a bit of shooting large bore revolvers with 3" and 4" barrels at 200+ yards accurately.
Gunfixr is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 11:06 AM   #4
walks with gun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2014
Location: northern Mn.
Posts: 271
These guy's are right.
walks with gun is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 11:31 AM   #5
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
Yeah, personally, I've never seen enough difference in barrel lengths to matter much, if at all, sights or scope.
The 4-5 inch barrel always seemed about right, revolver or auto.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez:
“Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”
g.willikers is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 11:38 AM   #6
Snyper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
As all have stated, accuracy is not dependent on barrel length once the projectile is spun enough to stabilize.

Longer barrels just give more velocity, up to a certain point, with most cartridges.
__________________
One shot, one kill
Snyper is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 11:42 AM   #7
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
One factor to consider for the "big boomers" is that the longer the barrel the less muzzle blast you'll notice. Muzzle blast (due to the flinching you can get from it) can affect accuracy.
Doyle is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 11:53 AM   #8
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
"I can't hit anything, so I gotta' get another gun, a longer barrel, different sights, a different caliber, a...."
"A poor craftsman blames his tools."
And my favorite:
"The choice of gun is the least of it."
(I'm probably wearing out that one).
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez:
“Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”
g.willikers is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 12:26 PM   #9
Bob Wright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 2,986
I've done a good amount of long range shooting with the handgun, out to 200 meters, even greater just plinkin'. My 7 1/2" Ruger Super Blackhawk has always been outstanding when great range is concerned. Once had a 8 3/8" full lug Model 29 that shot as well as a .30-30 rifle out to around 150 yards.

I've tried long range shooting with both 4 5/8" and 5 1/2" barrels and could never do as well. As to scopes, if I have to use a scope, I'll go with a rifle. These super power scoped handguns take the "handgun" out of the picture as far as I'm concerned. Now if that's your pursuit, fine, but like blackpowder, archery, and golf, just not my realm of interest.

Bob Wright
__________________
Time spent at the reloading bench is an investment in contentment.
Bob Wright is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 12:45 PM   #10
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
So Bob,I take it you wouldn't want to give my Remington XP100R in .260 a spin.
Doyle is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 01:01 PM   #11
22-rimfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,323
I can only tell you from experience as I believe the barrel length is all about personal preference. I can shoot my 8 3/8" M57 much more accurately than my 4" M57. Both are iron sighted.

As far as scopes go on handguns, I believe that is also a matter of personal preference. I have a SRH in 480 Ruger with a 2x Leupold scope on it that I use for hunting. The scope makes shooting slower unless it is snap shooting. But it does give you one sight plane which for older eyes may be important. The scope gives me more confidence in my sighting out past 50 yds with that revolver.

Red Dots and similar have really taken over the assisted sighting area with handguns depending on distance. Again it's personal preference. But under 100 yds, I would choose a red dot now over a scope for the most part.
22-rimfire is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 01:25 PM   #12
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
Very interesting, folks!

I am a little, yet pleasantly, surprised!

I have never seen a shorter barreled revolver scoped and so I assumed it was because a shorter revolver could not provide the inherent accuracy that a scope could exploit.

Based on comments here, that is not the case and if I can manage to get a scope mount for my Redhawk, I might be able to shoot further away, such as 100m.

Cool!!
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 01:29 PM   #13
tallball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2014
Posts: 2,444
I also do my best longer-range shooting with my 7.5" barrel Ruger Blackhawk.
tallball is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 01:43 PM   #14
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
Pond, James Pond.
Also, be aware that there will be more inherent sight steadiness in a longer barreled handgun over a shorter barreled one because of the added weight and its forward location. Nevertheless, if your intent is 100 yard shooting, a scope will likely be an advantage no matter the barrel length.
dahermit is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 02:25 PM   #15
osbornk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2012
Location: Mountains of Appalachia
Posts: 1,598
Quote:
Nevertheless, if your intent is 100 yard shooting, a scope will likely be an advantage no matter the barrel length.
And the scope should be on a rifle.
osbornk is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 02:37 PM   #16
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,755
Totally agree that mechanically speaking, a shorter barrel will absolutely be no less "accurate" than a longer one in revolvers, although I can't be sure that barrel harmonics are to be considered in a revolver in the same way that they would be in a rifle.

Certainly, I can shoot better and more accurately with a longer barrel and I would have to guess that is due to the increased sight radius. Simply put, it can be visualized more vividly by trying to point at a precise spot on a wall with either a ruler or a yard stick.

One little bit that hasn't yet been mentioned in this discussion...
When it comes to a scope or other optic on a large-bore handgun, don't forget that the recoil forces subjected to it are EXTREME and you introduce one new thing with a short barrel and you exacerbate the other--

a shorter barrel typically means less weight, which makes it a bit more difficult for most folks to shoot it well and it definitely subjects even more pounding to the optic. So buy a Leupold or something with a lifetime warranty.

The other thing you might consider if you are talking VERY short barrel is where the front of the optic is located in relation to the muzzle. Because I would imagine the hellfire & brimstone exiting that muzzle would simply wreak havoc on any optic that happens to also be near that muzzle. 7.5-inch barrel? No handgun scope will be near that muzzle. Snubby barrel? Maybe you destroy that optic in less than one box of ammo!
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 02:57 PM   #17
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
And the scope should be on a rifle.
I see this kind of answer a lot. It is short sighted when you are talking to people that live in other parts of the country. In my location there is not much you can hunt with a rifle, by law. So I am limited to slug guns or straight walled pistol ammunition. In this case a pistol with a scope, such as my .460, becomes more than just a long range paper puncher novelty. My iron sighted 6" and 8 & 3/8" revolvers are also, in my opinion, more appropriate for the job than my 5" and under revolvers.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 03:08 PM   #18
Bob Wright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 2,986
Doyle said:
Quote:
So Bob,I take it you wouldn't want to give my Remington XP100R in .260 a spin.
Now I didn't say that. Your gun, your ammunition, sure I'd give it a spin. But my money goes into a revolver.

I have never turned down an invitation to shoot a gun, of any type, from .17 r.f. to 106mm recoiless rifle.

Bob Wright
__________________
Time spent at the reloading bench is an investment in contentment.
Bob Wright is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 03:09 PM   #19
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
Quote:
And the scope should be on a rifle.
I don't get this either.

There are pistol scopes. They're designed for pistols.
Where is the logic that no pistol should carry a scope?
Or is it a personal preference that one would see extended to all others?
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 03:14 PM   #20
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,792
It depends a lot on the caliber and the intended use. Using optics can go a long way toward evening out accuracy. Trajectory at longer range can be compensated for by adjusting sights. That is with iron sights or optics.

The velocity may, or may not be an issue depending on the use. For paper punching, probably not an issue. But all magnum revolver rounds suffer significantly from shorter barrels. The published speeds you see are from 7.5"-8" test barrels. Shoot a 357 magnum from barrels shorter than 4" and you have a really loud 9mm load.
jmr40 is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 03:48 PM   #21
Snyper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
Quote:
I have never seen a shorter barreled revolver scoped and so I assumed it was because a shorter revolver could not provide the inherent accuracy that a scope could exploit.
I think a more likely explanation is that most scoped handguns are geared towards hunting, or long range targets such as silohuettes, and need longer barrels for the additional velocity/power, and in some cases to meet legal requirements

Here you cannot hunt with a centerfire handgun with a barrel less than 5.5 inches. They orginally wrote the law to say 6", but later changed it when so many protested due to the numerous 5.5" Ruger models.

If you want a real challenge, mount a scope on a Ruger MKII 22lr, and see how many squirrels you can kill.

It will teach you how to HUNT vs just how to shoot
__________________
One shot, one kill
Snyper is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 04:48 PM   #22
Paul105
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2007
Location: Montana
Posts: 343
I don't like scopes (or red dots) on handguns, but

I use them to test loads (old eyes). They actually make very handy packages on short barreled handguns, and depending on the gun will weigh about the same as typical hunting handguns with iron sights. They can be shot very accurately with a bit of practice especially from a rested position.
.
Here is a new S&W M69 (5 shot L Frame .44 Mag) with a 4 1/4" bbl and 4x Leupold pistol scope and Hogue 500 X Frame grips. It weighs 48.3 oz so equipped. A 2x Leup would be more practical for hunting and would reduce the weight a bit.
.

.
Freedom Arms m97, 3 1/2" round butt, .45 Colt. The gun/scope are 5 oz lighter than the above S&W M69 (for a total of 43 oz). Very nice little package quite capable of 100 yd hunting accuracy.
.

.
Not my personal cup of tea, but quite workable.
.
FWIW,

Paul
Paul105 is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 09:38 PM   #23
Bob Wright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 2,986
Pond. James Pond, said:

Quote:
There are pistol scopes. They're designed for pistols.
Where is the logic that no pistol should carry a scope?
Or is it a personal preference that one would see extended to all others?
That is my personal preference. My parameters for a handgun is that first of all, it be readily drawn from a holster and fired one-handed accurately very quickly at a close target. Second that it be portable enough that it may be carried all day in a good holster. My parameters include that the gun be no larger than a Ruger Super Blackhawk or N-Framed Smith & Wesson. And it should be of such size and pointability to permit a reasonable number of hits on gallon sized can thrown into the air. And of a caliber sufficient to perform the required task.

As to squirrel hunting, I've taken many bushy tails with iron sighted Colt or Ruger Single Action .22 rimfires.

These are the attributes I look for when considering a handgun.

Bob Wright
__________________
Time spent at the reloading bench is an investment in contentment.
Bob Wright is offline  
Old February 12, 2015, 10:43 PM   #24
Drm50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 10, 2014
Posts: 1,371
Short barrels

I'm not going to get in scope rhubarb cause I don't use them on pistols. I have
found in quality guns, the barrel length has nothing to do with accuracy. I have
sand bagged S&W snubbies and was surprised by the accuracy. I can't shoot
them off hand, but the gun is capable. On the other hand I was young and
dumb when I bought most of my magnum guns. I was into the longest barrel
I could buy. Later I found I could shoot a 6" just as well as 8 3/8" Under 5"
I start to loose accuracy off hand, due to sight radius. I have buddy that would
put a 36x on a 25 auto if he could. He has a 4" m-15 with red dot that he
can bust clays at 100yds all day, off bags.Take his bags away and he can't hit
bull in butt with a Buntline.
Drm50 is offline  
Old February 13, 2015, 08:13 PM   #25
gwpercle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 1,740
In theory a longer barrel should equal better accuracy , right ? Well you know what Yogi Berra said about theory !

I shot NRA bullseye matches with a S&W model 41, it had two barrels, a 5 inch heavy barrel and a 7 inch standard barrel . Guess which one I could consistently shoot better.....that's right the 5 inch.
Same thing with a Ruger MKI Target, I had a 6 7/8 ( almost 7 ) inch tapered barrel, my friend had the same gun with a 5 1/2 inch bull barrel.
Could consistently get better scores with the 5 1/2 inch barrel.

So, in theory the longer barrel should get better accuracy but in practice, in my case at least, the shorter barrels got better accuracy. Have no idea why , it just worked out that way!
Gary
gwpercle 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 07:43 PM.


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 0.11845 seconds with 8 queries