Inbetween barrel lengths

G

Gunzo

New member
When buying a da rev you basically have 2 choices, 4 or 6". With a single action you now have more choices, but just a few years ago, with Ruger you got 45/8 or a 61/2-71/2.

I've allways liked the inbetween. My favorite Colt SAA is a 51/2. The 5" mod 27 Smith lured me even though the frame seems to be too large for a 357. I bought a 625 Smith for IPSC REV class, but it was really the 5" barrel that got me. When I heard Ruger made a short run of 51/2" Bisleys, I did'nt let my dealer rest untill I had one. I guess I've made my point.

The debate is always preset: which GP100 or 686 to get, 4 or 6''. Would'nt it be cool if there was a 5? Gunsmiths do this, but close to the price of another gun for the work. So what is it with the manufacturers? They are always looking for something new or different to make our eyes sparkle, so why not a 5"?

Am I alone on this?

Gunzo

I also think about 21,23,&25" rifle barrels too, but I guess thats another thread.
 
Two of my favorite wheelguns could be termed "in-between" lengths. My PC-13 and my dear departed Model 13 "FBI gun" with their 3" barrels and my 625-4 with the 5" tube.

Fine, handy lengths for their respective jobs and frame sizes.
 
Gunzo

Facts cannot be disputed-----any of em
Whatever you 'like' is a whole nother worm which is let loose whenever barrel length questions arise.........
The best barrel lenght for a 357 magnum is the orignal 8+"
That cartridge was tested with several barrel lengths and the length the engineers settled on was the above mentioned.

Any barrel length OR deviation from the orignal load data(the small rifle primer, 2400 powder, copper coated hard cast SWC bullet and the patented(by WW Super-X) extra heavy roll crimp)
simply means that you do not have a true 357 magnum------
The FBI was the first to put the then new gun and cartridge to the real test.
A 5" version was used in the Fla. Ma Barker shootout.
My State DPS--which I joiined in 1969--was the first to be issued the N frame 357 and with the 5" barrel.
Our first DPS Commissioner was a just retired US Army Col. who co-ordinated various weapons and munitions from, all the major firearms and ammo manufacturers of the day.
He worked in conjunction with Winchester Western and Smith and Wesson in the development of the 357 magnum.
We caried,and used, the md 27, 5" from 1938 until 1993--when our state made the mistake of switching to a semi-auto handgun.
****************************************************
I have spent the last thirty years in an attempt to master that caliber and gun. I have come to the conclusion the following.....
'IF' you will stick with the 158grn SWC and duplicte the real load data and don't go any shorter than a 6"barrel then the overall performance will approach the energy of the first loads and long barrel length.
So------if you choose a 4"or shorter barreled gun then you will be strangling the throat of the cartridge.
Many calibers-such at the fine 45 long Colt are not as adversily effected--energy wise--if you shoot it in a 5".
I hardly carried my issue 5" 27--(except for standing inspection)
I used the 6" 28.
Keep in mind that the long barreled N frames with the real ammo will 'approach' the lower energy specs of the 44 mag---BUT-- that energy is greatly reduced when fired in a 4" or shorter barrel.
Bottom line
My 6" N frame with real 158 gr SWC ammo will go
1400+fps.
That is the basically same velocity of the now factory 125 grn hp fodder when fired in a 4" gun.
My CCW gun is my 6" 28 and you know which ammo it is stoked with.
Don Mallard
 
Mid size barrels

I have had several Security-Sixes, and still like the 2 3/4" barrel best- it just balances well. Wish Ruger never quit making those.
 
Season's Greeting's All,

Of my two heavy weight revolver's, S&W's 629-5 and 686-5;
the .44 magnum shows off with the Classic looks of the 5"
barrel, while on the other hand the .357 magnum is fitted
with a 6" tube. I like both guns very much; although they
serve two entirely different purpose's. Like my friend Don
Mallard stated earlier, "I too have spent 30 some odd years
trying to master these brute's". I will continue trying, as I
have not acheived everything that these firearms are capeable
of?

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.
 
" The 5" mod 27 Smith lured me even though the frame seems to be too large for a 357. "

I think the 27 (N) frame is quite right for .357mag. It allows for plenty of meat in the cone end of the barrel and the cylinder walls. Most recent over the counter .357mag ammo is pretty limp in comparison to that available in the days before ever smaller guns were marketed in the caliber.

Used to be able to get .38special ammo that was not to be fired in anything less than an N frame gun.

Ls and Ks are wonderfull but not for full boogie .357 loads.

Sam......6 inchers rule.
 
C.R. Sam,

Seen Georgia Arms "Deerstopper" loads? 158gr GDHP @ 1400+ fps. 'Bout as close to an "original recipe" .357 Magnum load as you can get over the counter these days.

(They were developed because back in '95 the state of Georgia changed its handgun hunting regulations to "any caliber, any barrel length, as long as the load makes 500 ft/lbs @ 100 yards".)
 
Georgia Arms' "Deerstopper"...AAHHH...FINE ammunition...
ALMOST as much FUN to fire as ORIGINAL "Super Vel"...as far as the blast, flash and recoil, I mean...
FWIW, I had an OLD box of W-W .357 Mag 158-gr. LSWC given to me by an old friend of my Dad's about 25 years ago...box dated ammo as being from late '50's-early '60's...flattened primers, difficult extraction in my then-new Model 19...No, they DO NOT load 'em like that from the factories no mo'....liketa' see someone fire THOSE loads--or the ORIGINAL "Super Vel"--out of one of today's "Titanium Wonders"-!!!...but NOT ME!!!...mikey357
 
The Super Vels got their performance through relatively light bullets at higher velocities rather than from higher pressures. Tho snappy, they weren't particularly hard on guns.

Sam
 
Sam-----

.......made a trip to the DPS 'Vault' today just to locate the Super Vel in 357--which is there for ID purposes---whatever...
They were 110 grn hp.
I distinctly remember some handgunners-back then- who thought the 357 had been 're-invented' when those high velocity (not higher pressure as you correctly pointed out) light weight rounds were born...........
Those well intending shooters used the same logic --concerning the Super-Vels--as 'some' 9mm shooters use today---to wit: "...oh the veloctiy of these Super Vels 357's in 110 grn sjhp 'generates (whatever advertised energy) and therefore they have more energy/power than the original 158 SWC loads"!
The 9mm hnadgunners of today want 'desperately' for the little 115 grn hp projectile to be in the same league-energy/power wise as the 125 grn 357 mag.
I see posters on various gun forums use that logic a bunch these days.
The facts are still the same
The 38 special and 9mm have about the same effective man stopping results.
The vunerable 38 special -and the gun it was designed to be fired in are revolvers----which are more reliable
The semi-auto's come with one bit of 'Range Instructions' which revolvers do not need and that is how to clear a jam!
Don Mallard
 
... this just in

S&W currently makes the 686+ in a 5 inch hi-vis model (fiberoptic sights) It is a stocking dealer only gun but is listed on S&W website. I have seen one and like it. Not quite as much as I liked the TI traker from Taurus though. The S&W sells for 450-475 depending on area and it was available the last I had my dealer check.
 
When I started this thread, I was simply curious about the number of people that liked a 5" barrel on a revolver, caliber unspecific. But the thread seems to have turned into "If you don't have an 8"+ barrel on a 357, you don't have have a 357". Or " the 357 ammo you buy today is wimpy".

With that and several other interesting comments about 357 barrel lengths on my mind it took a day or so to realize that I hand'nt bought 357 ammo since I had started reloading 25 years ago. Then, out of nowhere, I rememberd I also had a chronograph someplace, so off to the shop.

My goal was not to push the velocity to the magic 1400+fps mark(my past records showed that was'nt a problem) but to load something fairly stout an check a couple barrel lengths. Nothing fancy or drawn out, just a quickie test with loads that showed no signs of pressure and buttery smooth extraction.

12 shots Sierra 150jhc, Win. sm. pistol primer, Ruger GP100, 6" avg. vel. 1342fps.

12 shots Sierra 150jhc, Win.sm.pistol primer, S&W M66, 4"
avg. vel. 1312fps.

10 shots 160grn. swcl. Win. sm. pistol primer Ruger Blackhawk 61/2" avg. vel. 1377fps. (less powder in this load too)

Well???? 30fps drop from a 6 to a 4" barrel! That would put a 5" 15fps off a 6. Don't guess I'll worry too much about an inch or two of barrel. Man, beast, or hard cover would'nt know the difference.
The lead bullet was faster, as all my earlier test have confirmed, if I want speed with bullet wt., I'll go with hard cast lead.

I KNOW that this test was NOTHING ENGRAVED IN STONE, it was nowhere near involved enough to include the hundreds of variables that exist. Speaking of one variable, the Smith has a .006" cyl. gap, the GP100 has .007". Powder & weight not listed for obvious reasons, but it was'nt 2400.
One more thought arose while I was shooting: If I needed to load the 357 to it's maximum pressure and needed an N frame to do it, why not go to an N frame with bigger holes. The 44 mag. MT. gun probably weighs no more than any M27 or 28, and has 50% more energy than any 357 I could conjure up.

Thanks guys for waking me up! Had a fun day, hope you did too.

Gunzo
 
This is what a thread is all about-------new INPUT!
It is good and I always learn when i read
I thought -30 years ago-- that "I" would shoot full time and then "I" would get to the bottom of all 'this gun and ammo'mess--------wrong! A man just can't live long enough to do that......
I know that now.
I shoot my old favorites.
I try new loads, new powders,ect
The Quest continues-----The Beat goes on---I live and I learn----that is good.
Don Mallard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top