barrel lengh

[irold]

Don't know about the "whys " or " how comes " ,  the only fact I can relate to is my own personal experiences.  That being said , I can shot my 4" redhawk at 25 yards all day and do well.  I stretch it to 75 yards and my shooting begins to get iffy......Same with my 2 1/2 inch 686 , close range it shoots really well, start stretching it , beware....with my 44-
 9 " SRH , with irons , along with my 454 SRH , 71/2 "  loaded with 45C  ( again with irons ), 50-60 even 75 yards are acceptable. I'm speaking open sights , off hand, with a two hand hold,  I'm figuring it has to be the barrel length ,  hence my opinion...long barrels are better shooters in general at longer yards.  I'm sure there's those of you that shoot every day for several hours a day, that will argue the point, but I think that is a fair statement.       For hunting , I'd say buy a 6-71/2........personal protection, 21/2 to 4 ....Good shooting !

[MePlat]

To the contray some of my best offhand groups at 100 yards has been with barrels of 3 to 4 3/4 inches.  I had a S&W 3 inch 45 ACP revolver that I shot extremely well with at a hundred.  8 and 9 inch groups.  Not just one of each either.  Of course that was sevearal years ago when I was shooting 4 and sometimes 5 days a week with guns from a 22 to 454 Casull too.
I can't do it now with either short or long so I will blame the gun and ammo for right now as I just know it can't be me.
I shudder to think what I could have done if I would have had a 10 inch match barrel on that 45 ACP revolver years ago.

[kennisondan]

i like shorter barrels like 5.5 inches or 6 inches... 4 3/4 is  still ok for me... I used to use 7.5s all the time but they are too hard to carry and work with... I can shoot about as well with one as the other... I used to shoot better ... period. and happened to use longer barrels then.. now ease of carrying trumps alll and practice will take care of my shooting ability
dk

[kennisondan]

ya know I was thinking last nite in bed .. and it came to me that a lot of the problems folks have with the different length barrels could be they get a shorter barrel and leave the front site the same width as on a longer gun.. leaves less room for light on the sides of the front site; so thinning it down like LLloyd does is probably pretty smart...
just thought I would point that out fore I forgot it again...
dk

[Glanceblamm]

Ya just can't beat those fine sights for target. I handled a friends 7th Calvary era 1873 Springfield trap door not too long ago and those sights seemed to be fine enough to shoot a fly off a Squirrels head. I have and early 50's model
Savage bolt gun in a .22 that is set up the same way.
Problem with the fine sights is that they can tend to disappear in the darker woods on the smaller targets. I think the manufactures above knew that years ago as both of those arms have a gold bead up front which helps out a bunch.

[jk3006]

I like my 4 5/8 bisley .45.  I shoot it as well (or maybe just slightly worse) than my 7.5 inch super redhawk.  With the 7.5 inch barrel it is slightly barrel-heavy for me, which is a tad uncomfortable.  With a 9.5 barrel I feel like I'm trying to hang on to an 8-pound mallet by the end of the handle.  Ok, maybe not quite that bad.  The 4 5/8 is perfect for me.  Count me in on the short barrel revolvers. 

[S.B.]

Personally, I like the shorter barreled SBHs and prefer the 4&7/8" barrel of today's guns?

[petemi]

Just a side note.  Yesterday I emptied six 158 gr. JHPs from my 6.5 in. Blackhawk at an obsolete 20 gal. propane tank at 10 yards.  All 6 bounced off.  I shot 1 round with my .357 Handi rifle with a 22 inch barrel at the same distance.  The bullet from the rifle blew through the front side of the tank, penetrated the back and lodged there.  That tells me it has at least twice, perhaps more,  the energy from the 22 inch rifle than it has from the 6.5 revolver.  I'm saying energy, not velocity.

[MePlat]

PETEMI:   What is anything new about your results with the revolver and the rifle.

[petemi]

PETEMI:   What is anything new about your results with the revolver and the rifle.

Asolutely nothing new.  The point I am trying to afirm is that the shorter the barrel, the shorter the sight radius, the greater the chance for sighting error and the less velocity and energy.  I thought all that was fact long before this, or did I grow up on he wrong side of the tracks?

[MePlat]

Who said you were incorrect.  Even I said that the longer barrels will increase velocity etc..  But to say a barrel say 5 1/2 inches will ALWAYS shoot the same given load faster than lets say a 4 5/8 inch is not true.  The reason I say this I have a load that will shoot faster in my 4 5/8 inch Blackhawk than it will in my 5 1/2 inch blackhawk.
Barrel length YES it can affect the shooting of some even though it is physiological.    There is no mechanical way a sight radius automatically will make you a worse or a better holder.  That is in your nerve and muscle  system  If you can align the sights on a 12 inch radius you can align them on a 6 inch radius.  In other words if you can shoot you can shoot if you can't you can't.
If you believe in your mind enough that a short radius is a bad shooter than you will believe it enough to let it affect your shooting.  You will not try as hard as with a longer radius because which will affect your shooting but it in not a mechanical  issue it is physiological just like a hypochondriac can make them selves sick  (short radius) then a sugar pill (long radius) can make them better.

I hope this will help you understand that there is a certain mind game in the shooting sports just like some people are superstitious about other things too.  May if you carry a rabbits foot while shooting you will do better too. 

[petemi]

I'm sorry, but I disagree.  If you're a hair off with an eight inch barrel, you're two hairs off with a 4 with the same sighting error.  And yes, some folks shoot them really well. 

I, for one, am not too lazy to carry a 6.5 Blackhawk hunting; a seven pound rifle isn't too comfortable either, but it gets the job done.  Besides, whoever said hunting was to be warm, dry and comfortable must have seen it on T.V.  It certainly isn't here where lugging a big, heavy rifle and revolver on snowshoes helps keep you warm when it's 10 below and snowing so hard all you can see is a dim outline of the two track you're trying to follow.

It has nothing to do with HOLD.  If we all held correctly, all the time, a three inch barrel would shoot as accurately as a ten.  The point I'm trying to make (repeatedly) is that a 1/16 inch error in sighting with a 6 inch barrel or a 3 inch would put the 3 inch twice as far off at the target.  If you don't believe it, graph it.

I'm weary of the subject, see y'all later.        Pete

[Glanceblamm]

Good Read, those last four and mebe we should run through it all again
I am glad that ya kinda-sorta came together. This is tough cause the Internet has a great poker face and we would probably do much better face to face when hashing things out.
That will be .50 cents please

I am going to lean in Meplat's direction...I have a pair of identical calibers but one tube is 4" while the other is 7-1/2". The sights are identical and when I can maintain the correct sight picture it doesnt seem to matter which one is in my hand. The 4" (IMO) has the advantage of balance & pointability and that may just be enough to offset any slight difference in aiming error for myself.

petemi, a rifle is much easier to shoot than a handgun until one learns how to shoot the handgun. At that point, it seems to be more of a problem with the individual than with the equipment.

If you're a hair off with an eight inch barrel, you're two hairs off with a 4 with the same sighting error.

This Is A True Statement. Even if you are siding a building, a mark that is (not too far) off plumb at the far end will result in a very unlevel line.

If we all held correctly, all the time, a three inch barrel would shoot as accurately as a ten.

Another true statement and I think that we are starting to get somewhere (IMO) on those short barrels verse long. Some people have a harder time than others lining up two objects on a short radious than two objects on a longer one. Nothing wrong with this, it is just the way it is. Even if one can line up the shorter radious, they can become quickly dillusioned by poor results just like when firing a handgun for the first time. Some do learn how to do this though while others will give up even with a 10" in hand.

[blhof]

I had my Dan Wesson 357max at the range the other day.  I started to shoot at the gong at 200 yds with the 6" barrel rang 2 of six shots.  I switched to the 10" barrel and rang 5 of 6 with the same rounds.  Now at 100 yds or less I can get 4" or better off hand with the 6" barrel and about the same with the 10", but I'm a lot more tired after 30 or so rounds and a lot shakier with the 10" barrel.  For stand hunting or long ranges with a monopod rest I use the 10" but for carry or long hikes; the 6" is the way to go, until I get a 4" and try it.

[S.B.]

blhof, that's meraculous accuracy. I'm jealous! 4" groups at 100 yards off hand? Wow!
Steve