How important is barrel length?

P

Pond James Pond

New member
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
"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).
 
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
 
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.
 
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!!
 
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.
 
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! :p
 
And the scope should be on a rifle.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doyle said:
So Bob,I take it you wouldn't want to give my Remington XP100R in .260 a spin.
Click to expand...

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
 
And the scope should be on a rifle.
Click to expand...

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