Barrel Lengths?
- Thread starter ZVP
- Start date
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).
...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).
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.
NoSecondBest
New member
What's the difference? Who cares? Does it really matter to anyone?
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.....
) 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.....
So in my case, I care!Smokin'Joe
New member
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.
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...
So, presuming this story is accurate, fractional barrel lengths may be just where it became most practical or comfortable. I dunno, food for thought...
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.
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.
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
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