December 12, 2017, 12:09 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 379
|
barrel length
Why do gun-makers make handguns, especially revolvers, in such odd barrel lengths? There has to be a good reason for making barrels 1 7/8 inches instead of 2 inches. Or 3 1/16 inches instead of 3, or 4 5/8 instead of 4 1/2. Etc. I tried converting the lengths to millimeters, and they come out in odd fractions there, too. I do understand the recent Ruger revolvers with 4.2 inch barrels - they're making sure they can sell them in Canada. But the others seem just plain weird. So what's the purpose of making those odd lengths?
|
December 12, 2017, 01:11 AM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,850
|
Some times its to comply with a law, or a rule, sometimes its for ease of tooling, or simply because its what the maker wants to do.
The only one I know about for sure (documented in various histories) is the S&W change from 8 3/4" to 8 3/8" waaay back when. They were looking at the bullseye market with their long barrel guns, and NRA target rules specified a certain maximum sight radius. The 8 3/4" gun exceeded that, 8 3/8" was within the rules so they switched to that length, and its been their standard "long" length ever since.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
December 12, 2017, 07:43 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2001
Location: central IL
Posts: 769
|
Odd barrel lengths? There is nothing odd about barrel lengths. But you need to describe them somehow someway.
|
December 12, 2017, 10:30 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 2015
Location: new england
Posts: 1,159
|
The 4 5/8 is due to the length of the ejector rod housing on many/most single action revolvers.
it is better, in my opinion to calculate or determine a barrel length for a 'reason' (balance, ballistics, sight radius, carry, manufacturing cost) than just pick a round number in inches. Not to imply all these numbers offer any clear advantage over 1/2 inch either way, but; there often is some reason or rational. |
December 12, 2017, 12:22 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 8,518
|
Standard "1911" barrel lengths, for years, were 5", 4.25", and 3.5" for Government, Commander, and Officers.
Today, most makers have gone to 5", 4", and 3", and other than maybe saving some materials costs, can't see a good reason for the change? Also, barrels are often not exactly the length specified. I bought a "four inch" pistol that measured 4.12" in length, which made it .02" too long for competition in a four-inch division.
__________________
Runs off at the mouth about anything 1911 related on this site and half the time is flat out wrong. |
December 12, 2017, 03:18 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
|
The S&W 357 Magnum was originally offered with an 8 3/4" barrel, later reduced to 8 3/8" to comply with NRA Centerfire rules. The 357/Model 27 was also offered with a 5" barrel. A combination of what the manufacturer offers and what the buyers demand.
|
December 12, 2017, 09:07 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 2,989
|
Per 44AMP:
Quote:
Bob Wright
__________________
Time spent at the reloading bench is an investment in contentment. |
|
December 12, 2017, 09:08 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,809
|
With revolvers the minimum barrel length is determined by the ejector rod housing. The maximum length is sometimes determined by rules in place for range games limiting the max length.
In some cases it is law. A 4" barrel is quite common here, but recently Ruger started making them 4.2" to meet the minimum length to be legal in Canada. There is no reason to offer 4" for USA sales and 4.2" for Canada.
__________________
"If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong" Winston Churchill |
December 13, 2017, 12:55 AM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,850
|
Quote:
Being as they were "NRA" sanctioned matches, shot NRA standard targets, etc., its quite possible people just assumed they were NRA rules as well.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
December 13, 2017, 08:19 AM | #10 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,473
|
The original question remain valid.
It's not just revolvers. Take the venerable 1911, for example. First came the M1911 with a 5-inch barrel. Then Colt came up with the Commander, at 4-1/4 inches. And then came the Officers ACP at 3-1/2 inches. One might think that would pretty well cover the market, but look around at 1911s on the market today. Somebody added 3-inch barrels to the mix, but that's still a round number. And then somebody (Springfield Armory?) slipped a 4-inch barrel length into the mix. There's at least one 1911 maker who builds their compacts with a 3-1/8-inch barrel. Both of those options baffle me. There are VERY few holsters made for those barrel lengths, so you have to buy a holster for a longer model and hope the empty space doesn't get crushed. I have yet to see a rational explanation for why gunmakers occasionally go rogue on barrel length. |
December 13, 2017, 11:26 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,426
|
I do think that it is sometimes seemingly arbitrary, or based on aesthetics.
But, as mentioned in various ways, it can also be based upon rules, law, or data. The Ruger SP101 3" in .327 Federal, for example, was initially offered with that barrel length because that was the shortest barrel length that provided muzzle velocities high enough to achieve the 500 ft-lb energy minimum for big game and/or Mtn Lion hunting in certain states, with the initial factory ammunition offering (American Eagle 100 gr SP). So, by going as short as possible, while retaining 'big game capability', Ruger was essentially releasing three revolvers in the same product: One small enough for concealed carry. One that .32 caliber fans would think made a great 'kit gun'. And one that was legal for big game.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
December 13, 2017, 01:20 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 379
|
But, FrakenMauser, that SP101 barrel is not 3", it's 3 1/16". Aguila Blanca sees it - the question is still, "Why that extra 1/16 inch?" Does that fraction add to the ballistic performance? Remember, too, that the SP101 had a 3 1/16" barrel in .357 long before the gun was offered in other calibers. I have one of those, and I do get that the longer barrel, compared to the 2 1/4", makes a better platform for .357. That still doesn't clarify why they added 1/16".
|
December 13, 2017, 01:30 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 379
|
Just sent an email to Ruger with this question. Maybe they'll settle it for us.
|
December 13, 2017, 10:06 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,426
|
Quote:
(Educated guess.)
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
December 14, 2017, 05:07 AM | #15 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,473
|
Quote:
Back to my example: In the 1911 world, why do almost all 1911 makers offer a 3-inch model, but one or two offer a 3-1/8-inch model instead? That's not tolerance stacking -- they advertise them as 3-1/8-inch. The extra eighth of an inch of barrel certainly doesn't generate any appreciable increase in muzzle velocity, so why buck the tide and make a pistol that's an orphan as far as size goes, and that nobody makes holsters to fit? Last edited by Aguila Blanca; December 14, 2017 at 02:49 PM. Reason: fixed typo |
||
December 14, 2017, 07:43 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 123
|
I'm a bit curious about this myself. The somewhat generalized answers already given in this thread do make sense though.
There are all kinds of "what were they thinking when they made that decision?" type questions that surrounds the world of firearms. I think it's all just part of something that has been part of this world for hundreds of years where certain kinds of thinking just simply are accepted and no longer have answers. Why fold the metal 26 times instead of 25 times (or 27 times) when making a sword? It's the same with shotgun shells. The only people that understand what a 'dram' actually is are those that make shells and pharmacy technicians. But it's a hold-over from years gone by. It can make things rather confusing sometimes. I'm sure that the 1/16" has a reason. Beretta is well known for making certain changes that only the family knows why. Last edited by Prndll; December 14, 2017 at 08:26 AM. Reason: After thought |
December 14, 2017, 08:14 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 19, 2016
Location: Atlanta, Georgia area
Posts: 455
|
Yes, this is a problem. I personally solve it by refusing to buy ANY firearm that lists a length that includes a fraction of an inch.
Problem solved. |
December 14, 2017, 01:39 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,453
|
More about marketing than anything else. In the 19th Century, everybody knew .44's were S&W and .45's were Colts, but it was marketing.
"...sell them in Canada..." Yep. Our idiot government wiped out an entire class of handgun by arbitrarily picking 4" as the minimum barrel length for any handgun(along with no .25 or .32 calibre except for specific target pistols.) not just revolvers. Ruger opted to add the .2" just like they were open to a short run of No. 1 rifles in .303 Brit.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count! |
December 14, 2017, 02:23 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 2,989
|
Arquebus357:
Quote:
I am briefly saddened by knowing what you are missing. O.K. grief over. Bob Wright
__________________
Time spent at the reloading bench is an investment in contentment. |
|
December 14, 2017, 02:54 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,426
|
Quote:
The question posed directly to me was very specific to a brand, model, and particular variation - as was the proposed answer. And, in many subjects, discussion of individual facets of a concept can lead to a greater understanding of the whole. One cannot understand a society without knowing some individuals. Do the 3-1/8" 1911s have something different about them? Sight location, porting, guide rod, spring type, frame material, etc.?
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
December 14, 2017, 03:32 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 379
|
Ruger Customer Service replied to my question:
Manufacturing purposely makes them a tad long so that we never fall below minimum barrel length specs. I don't buy that. It still doesn't address a 1 7/8" barrel on a snubbie. And if they advertise my SP101 to 3 1/16, and it actually measures out at 3 1/32, I might still cry foul and demand a refund. [I wouldn't, but somebody might.] |
December 14, 2017, 05:49 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,426
|
Quote:
The extra 1/16" is BONUS!
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
December 14, 2017, 05:55 PM | #23 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 13, 2017
Posts: 429
|
I agree with OP. The numerous different lengths is confusing but more of a curiosity to find out why.
|
December 14, 2017, 08:11 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 379
|
FrankenMauser - They're listed at 3", not 3-1/16".
By golly, you're right. Has it always been listed like that? How else did we all get it in our brains that 3 1/16 was correct. Thanks for pointing that out. |
December 16, 2017, 01:57 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,295
|
I cant see how ~1/4" makes a difference in ballistics but I can see how ~1/4 inch shorter 'might' make a difference in the draw.
I agree with Aguila, recently I wanted a CCO size 1911 but found many in that class weren't true CCO's with 4" (Springfield) and 4.2" (Sig C3) barrels... all I could think about was, why? and how difficult it would be to find a holster for a 4" ish barrel 1911 when any commander size holster would have worked.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
|
|