99% OT, and a little boredom: Revolver Barrel Length

M

munk

Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
15,742
A True Friday Night I'm Awake and They're Asleep Thread:

We spend some of our pre-buy anxiety wondering about blade length. Is that 20" Sirupate just a little too long to carry comfortably? Is the 18" better? Will it cut the same amount of wood? No? How much less?

All of my shooting life, er...that bracket of time where I knew and reloaded and fired firearms, I have never had a conventional handgun with a barrel length more than 7 1/2" I am always talked out of it.

I can tell you what 'they', and I, said: ( I wonder how much it sounds like a Khuk being discussed?)
"The ten inch is too long. You won't be able to get it out of the holster in time- if there's ever an attack or something. So why are carrying the extra weight? If you got the 7 1/2", you could still reasonably carry it with you when kicking around the countryside, it would hunt fine, and in an emergency you'd still be able to get it out fairly fast, though not as fast as a 4" to 6" barrel."

Well, I say, if I did someday have enough money to buy a Ruger Super Redhawk in 480 calibre, the longer barrel would give me a better sight plane, less percieved recoil, and a modest increase in velocity. Plus, plus, I say, "It will look an awful lot like the cannon on a WWl or ll battleship."

That's important, you know. I like those old battleships. Boom. Boom.

Boom Boom Boom



munk
 
I did have a blued Super Blackhawk in 44 magnum with ten inch barrel once. I sometimes wonder why I let it go. It was the only 44 magnum I ever had that I enjoyed shooting. Just enough extra weight and hang to go along with the rotation of the handle in your hand, to ease the recoil.

Interestingly enough, it's been pointed by at least one historian out that Wyatt Earp's SAA was probably a 10" barrelled job. He and his brothers were bouncers from the old Barbary Coast before they were brought in to clean up towns instead of bar-rooms.

The 10" wasn't that much over the standard 7&12" military length and with Wyatt's propensity for "buffaloing" or using the barrel as a sap, it would be long enough to keep the extractor rod away from the "working" part.
 
Just like with khukuris get several that fit different roles. Sure the shorter barrels might be faster draws and they will be lighter (12" sirupati) but when you need a slightly heavier more accurate gun use the longer barreled variety (16" chiruwa). The 18" ak would be closer to a revolver with 12"+ barrel and a stock, while a 20"+ khuk would be more like a rifle. They have their uses but speed isn't one of them.

Of course my experiance with firearms involves hunters safety, one deer and about 20 birds (mallard, green wing teal, quale, grouse). I have only fired a hand gun during hunters safety and they were .22 revolvers.
 
I also had a 10 1/2" Super Blackhawk for a while, bought in the late 70's. A friend of mine loaded up some special hard cast 300 gr. loads for it that were real pig medicine. If I had had a good crossdraw holster for it I might have liked it more, but it was just too long for me. I have a 7.5" 3-screw Old Model Super Blackhawk with the dragoon style steel frame and old Ruger Super-blue, Super-polish that they did on all their Old Models up until they were discontinued in 1972. It is far more accurate that I can hold it, and after shooting close to a thousand rounds through it I could regularly nail a 16 oz. soda can hanging from a tree at a measured 80 yards. I haven't fired it in a few years though, as the old ones are just getting too valuable to shoot much. Many guys used to buy these and have them converted to 5.5" for riding on horseback, which is a great idea but better done with a New Model of course.

My Redhawk is also a 7.5" length, and seems well balanced at that length. It's nicest feature is quick change front sights, and it is currently setup with a V-Notch rear and an elevated gold bead front sight, which really helps its accuracy.

Guess it depends on the person; I've known some guys that couldn't hit anything with an 8 3/8" Smith target revolver shooting .38 softball loads, while other guys could hit all day with a snubby!

Regards,

Norm
 
If it makes you feel better munk I've never had a handgun with a barrel of longer than a Blackhawks 5 1/2 inch tubes. I've always felt that handiness was more important than the little extra velocity or increased sight radius the longer guns offered.

Like all things in life there are trade offs.
 
I have had what seem to be a dozen or so 44 revolvers over the years. For carry comfort I have been drawn to around 5 1/2 inches give or take. For my hunting and shooting pleasures I have always loved Rugers 7 1/2 inch length.
I have used a Ruger Redhawk with the 7 1/2 barrel for the past 10 years or so. I had a custom Ruger Blackhawk by Magna Port and a IMI Desert Eagle at the time I got this Redhawk. I shot all of them together and realized I could shoot so much better with the Redhawk that I sold the other two to finance another firearm need of the time. The Redhawk has proven to be a great hunting firearm. Deadly accurate with its little 2x6 scope on it now and a set of smooth houge wood grips.
The only real long barreled handguns I have ever used are the T/C line. I have had a few of those over the years with 12" to 16" barrels. They are a fun gun and a cool way to shoot 45/70 in a 12" package. They are light for their length though and some of the calibers I have owned have tried to punch a hole in my face with the barrel upon firing, especially the 375 winchester! Ouch!! :rolleyes: ;) I find the revolver more to my liking for hunting now.
 
Longer barrels are more fun for shooting and give much higher velocities with slower powders. They may not help as much with faster powders and lighter bullets.
I am talking from experience with 357s.
I had a 6" Smith that had less blast than a 4", and was nice on the range. It gave higher velocities with most full power loads.
It was not as handy as a shorter barrel. For target work or for hunting, a longer barrel is great. I thought of a 6" as long, and have never had a heavier caliber with a longer barrel.
Once you get a really long barrel and heavy, large caliber gun, you can start to approach the weight of a light lever carbine. At that point, you are probably better off with the carbine.
 
See? I'm going to be talked out of it. I have no problem shooting with accuracy any of my revolvers, from 4" to 7 1/2"

IT's true, the main feature a handgun offers is HANDINESS. A Redhawk with a 9 1/2" barrel is not going to be 'handy'.

I've thought of putting a sling on it.

I own a single shot 30/30, and 32/20, both with 14" or so barrels.

What a shame I'm not rich and can get two.

I still think shooting a 10" Redhawk would be a lot of fun.


But, a ten inch sitting in the safe because it's too long to take hiking is no fun at all.
Talked me out of it again.
Norm, I have a similar shooting stunt where I put 12oz cans on the ground about 65 yards away, and keep blasting them until they're behind a berm or too far to see. Today it would probably have to be closer as my eyes are not good.
munk
 
munk said:
See? I'm going to be talked out of it. I have no problem shooting with accuracy any of my revolvers, from 4" to 7 1/2"

IT's true, the main feature a handgun offers is HANDINESS. A Redhawk with a 9 1/2" barrel is not going to be 'handy'.

I've thought of putting a sling on it.

I own a single shot 30/30, and 32/20, both with 14" or so barrels.

What a shame I'm not rich and can get two.

I still think shooting a 10" Redhawk would be a lot of fun.


But, a ten inch sitting in the safe because it's too long to take hiking is no fun at all.
Talked me out of it again.
Norm, I have a similar shooting stunt where I put 12oz cans on the ground about 65 yards away, and keep blasting them until they're behind a berm or too far to see. Today it would probably have to be closer as my eyes are not good.
munk
Click to expand...


Well, see I cheat a bit there Munk! First, 16 oz. cans are amazingly easier to see at a distance. Also, I hang the cans from an oak tree at the end of this cul de sac where I shoot against a mountain, hanging down at eye level. The gun just naturally wants to line up at the tree at that height, and picking out the big can hanging down there when everything else is green or brown is fairly easy.

With the cans on the ground I don't do nearly so well. I find it much more difficult to line up against the ground and usually end up shooting in front of the can and just peppering it with gravel.

I'm not saying it's easy, but easier than shooting them on the ground. Just shows how accurate the old revolver still is. I need to send it Hamilton Bowen though along with my Blackhawk convertible. Both have some base pin jump and other small problems on both and could use a tune up by a good revolver guy. Trouble is with all the cowboy action nuts out there now, all the good revolver smiths are super-booked!

Regards,

Norm
 
Norm,

I'm just sorry we don't live in the same State so we could shoot together.

There's a lot of folks in this forum it would be great to shoot with. 45/70, Rusty, Spectre, Raghorn, Semper fi, we could even design a shooting bench for Yvsa. There's Nasty, Heber, RoadR....the list goes on and on. I shouldn't have listed anybody because the list just keeps going and I wouldn't want to leave anyone out.


The people I enjoy most are sort of gun nuts. Loons. A pal and I once spent most the time picking up brass and seeing what other shooters in the area must have been carrying. The little things, I guess. This pal and I kept hitting a rock at some 'fur' distance, and there was none of the competitive aggression so often felt. Looseness, I guess, is the main thing, relaxing and having a good time.

I haven't had anyone to shoot with for a long time. That's a bummer.


munk
 
That's a cool link, Samoand. (now I've picked up some slang; how long before I say, 'bitchen"? )

There was a write up in either Shooting Times or GunsnAmmo; forget which.

Yeah- that's probably the package to have instead of the .500
Except I don't want one.
The Smith weighs almost as much as a small rifle. A revolver should be handy, otherwise....

I'm not really interested in the most power you can get from a thing held in one hand. The 480 to me is the perfect big bore handgun round. It delivers a substancially greater blow than does the 44 mag, is carryable, packable, and has quick follow-up shots. The recoil is very acceptable. Good round and a good gun to put it in- Super Redhawk.

If I had a 460 or 500, I'd want them in a light, short, semi-auto carbine.
Now, THAT's A GREAT IDEA, and I sure hope someone does it soon, as a lot of people feel the same as I about this. A carbine chambered for either round would be amongst the best ever made. I couldn't think of praises enough for such a package. Rusty might even buy one.


munk
 
munk said:
...
Except I don't want one.
...
munk
Click to expand...

I'm with you here. Someone who lives in a rocky area could want one over carbine - shooting a firearm with one hand could be an advantage if you also have to balance or climb. But I don't live there. So.. I'm with you here.
 
Yes.
I know the Smith big bores have a place, and it's good to see them, but they do not share all the attributes for which one carries a revolver in the first place.
And I really have talked myself into the 7 1/2"
It'll be lighter than the 44 mag. And I CAN carry it hiking without too much hassle.




munk
 
Get the durn 10/10.5 inch barrel and if you don't like it sell it to ME, dagnabit!

All the others have missed the point. It's more accurate because it kicks less, and is thus fun to shoot. If it's fun to shoot and not something to fear, then YOU learn to shoot it better and thus feel free to concentrate. Put it in a crossdraw and it'll be quick to get out.

You can disprove the accuracy and packability by clamping it in a Ransom rest and the shorter barrels with be stiffer, thus more theoretically accurate, and you can pit it against the clock which will show the speed of the shorties.

It don't matter how accurate the other guns are theoretically if in practice you shoot the long barrel better. And the ease of faster drawing ain't that much of a difference. Listen to the little voice that tells you something hinky is going on, and you can beat the quickdraw artists by having it pre-drawn, leveled, and cocked. And behind a big thick bullet stopping tree or rock. Trying to out draw a cocked gun sighted on the center of mass is a fools game. Especially if you pull the trigger and then yell " Don't shoot! ".

You talked yourself int the 7&1/2 inch barrel, now talk yourself back our of it.

Edit: PS: There's something about living in the old time gold rush ghost town vicinities that makes you dig out the stories of what really did happen in the gunfights way back then. You learn the guys that survived picked their time and they were ready and determined before the proceedings got initiated.
 
Wow.
One way of looking at it: the 7 1/2" will never be the quick answer a 4" or 5" proper wilderness gun is. So how much more unwieldy in a holster is the 10 going to be? What a wish-wash I am. There is no 7 1/2" that is 'quick'

Rusty, I fired the 7 1/2" Ruger 480. I bought a couple boxes so my friend and I ( a minister, go figure) could shoot together one afternoon. It was a lot of fun. And the recoil is exactly what you'd expect; a BOOM and a push. It doesn't rip your hand back. There is no jolt going down your spine. That's because the case is of standard size, with normal magnum operating pressure, and the .475 diameter being perfectly suited for the amount of bullet weight and powder capacity. In other words, it is like hitting the base ball on the right part of the bat.

The reason longer barrels are thought to be more accurate than shorter one's is because the sight plane is longer. If you sight the same way as you do with a 4" revolver, the greater distance between front and rear sights on the longer barrel means you have alligned them more precisely. There is no difference in accuracy between a shorter or longer barrel, but the longer can be sighted more precisely, all things being equal.

I never heard of the receiver/barrel stiffness issue. I understand the principle, but have to wonder if it makes any difference.

If I got the longer one, I could always chop it down to 6", and that would even be a better carry than the 7 1/2"

I doubt very much a dealer is going to have a 9 1/2" 480 Ruger Super Redhawk on hand to compare to a 7 1/2" model. But as for balance; since the .475 hole is so much bigger, it is only a supposition that it will balance like the 44. In fact, it will not balance like the 44.


munk
 
Dunno. I reckon the .41 and the .45 Colt are the larger pistol calibers I'm interested in. I reckon 3 to 5" is perfect barrel length for me on these babies. A 4" bl model 57 or model 25 just feels...right. Beautiful. Smooth, lovely. Perfect.

Well, you know. Different strokes, and all that. I'd love to have a 14" bl Contender carbine, though...too bad it's so unsporting and dangerous. :rolleyes:

John
 
I got to put my 2 cents in on this thread. :)
As my eyes age, I can't seem to get the front and rear sights in anything like sharp focus at the same time with a long barrel. Sight plane length is one accuracy factor, but eyesight is another. I made a bunch of apertures out of electrician's tape with a 1/16" punch and that helped a lot on the range, but not a viable option in an emergency, fer sure.
For me 5" is about the limit for sight radius, unless I get eye surgery.
I envy you young guys :rolleyes: A 10" barrel would be wasted on me :D
 
Wow, again- I hadn't thought of that. Bri in Chi: Are you near sighted or what? I'll check it out with my revolvers today and see.

I wouldn't mind putting a aperature or even red dot sight on- but the simpler the better for carrying.

edit- yes, there is a problem but I don't know it's better with a short barrel.

munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top