is an inch a big deal????
- Thread starter ratrodney
- Start date
In a Smith & Wesson, the 3-inch revolvers have a loyal following over the snubs because you still get a full-length ejector rod to help you punch out the empties. That absolutely does make a difference.
As to how much bullet velocity that you gain by a longer barrel? It's really different across the board by caliber and often, by handgun itself.
I'm the kind of guy who totally loves his revolvers and I have a heap of them and I shoot them a LOT, but I simply do not choose to carry them for defense... ever. So all of mine are mostly 4" and 6", with a couple of 7.5" thrown in for good measure. If it's less than 4" barrel, it's for someone else and nearly useless to me.
As to how much bullet velocity that you gain by a longer barrel? It's really different across the board by caliber and often, by handgun itself.
I'm the kind of guy who totally loves his revolvers and I have a heap of them and I shoot them a LOT, but I simply do not choose to carry them for defense... ever. So all of mine are mostly 4" and 6", with a couple of 7.5" thrown in for good measure. If it's less than 4" barrel, it's for someone else and nearly useless to me.
I don't know if it makes much practical difference but after buying a lot of guns over the years I've come to the conclusion, at least with D/A revolvers, that I like guns with 4" barrels. Nothing longer, not much shorter.
For S/A's I extend that line just a bit, to 4.5-5.5 inches.
The only reason for that, is I happen to like the way those lengths look.
I do keep one 38 "snub" with a 2" barrel as a carry gun, but have no interest in getting another one.
For S/A's I extend that line just a bit, to 4.5-5.5 inches.
The only reason for that, is I happen to like the way those lengths look.
I do keep one 38 "snub" with a 2" barrel as a carry gun, but have no interest in getting another one.
With most common carry methods (belt with holster, belt without holster, shoulder holster) the barrel is pointing downward and, while you don't want too long a barrel, a couple of inches either way make little difference in either concealability or draw time. For pocket carry in, say a sport coat, a long barrel would not be feasible.
Jim
Jim
I have 2 revolvers with barrels shorter than 4", a Ruger SP101 (3") and a S&W 642, but comparing the two is apples and oranges. With equivalent loads, the Ruger is more pleasant to shoot, but overall weight and the relative grips on each are more important factors than barrel length. The Smith can be pocket carried easily, the Ruger not so much.
For performance considerations, look here
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/index.html
For performance considerations, look here
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/index.html
I no longer own any revolvers but I've gone through a lot of different ones over the years. I can't claim any preference since after all, I don't actually own one. But I think "pointability" is a factor. It's part of a combination of features.
For sheer handiness combined with natural pointing ability, I liked 3" S&W K-frames. The ones with an underlug barrel were the best but I don't think they came that way in many models. I had two, however. One was a Model 65LS, probably the best of any S&W. It had plenty of power with the .357. I also had an almost identical Model 10, which actually had an underlug barrel. It was blue and in .38 special. It was supposedly a contract overrun for some South American police force. I also had a Model 10 with a 4 1/4" (or was it 4 1/2) barrel, which came with a similar story, true or not.
I also had a Model 642 with a 3-inch barrel that had possibilities but I found the trigger to be rather stiff (for a S&W). I also looked long and hard at a Model 60 with a five-inch barrel that I also thought had possibilities but it came and went before I bought one. I can't afford everything I want.
With a four-inch barrel, I thought only the heavy barrels pointed well but the so-called skinny barrels were faster out of the holster, if that means anything. Revolvers with 5-inch barrels used to be more popular and I had a couple of those, too. The S&W revolvers had skinny barrels (never had a Colt with a five-inch barrel) but pointed well. Of the two I had, the one that was the more beat up out shot the nicer one. I guess it was broken in or something. I also had one with a 6" barrel, which was new, but the long skinny barrel seemed positively gangly, if you can say that about a revolver.
So, yes, an inch is a big deal but there's more to it than that.
For sheer handiness combined with natural pointing ability, I liked 3" S&W K-frames. The ones with an underlug barrel were the best but I don't think they came that way in many models. I had two, however. One was a Model 65LS, probably the best of any S&W. It had plenty of power with the .357. I also had an almost identical Model 10, which actually had an underlug barrel. It was blue and in .38 special. It was supposedly a contract overrun for some South American police force. I also had a Model 10 with a 4 1/4" (or was it 4 1/2) barrel, which came with a similar story, true or not.
I also had a Model 642 with a 3-inch barrel that had possibilities but I found the trigger to be rather stiff (for a S&W). I also looked long and hard at a Model 60 with a five-inch barrel that I also thought had possibilities but it came and went before I bought one. I can't afford everything I want.
With a four-inch barrel, I thought only the heavy barrels pointed well but the so-called skinny barrels were faster out of the holster, if that means anything. Revolvers with 5-inch barrels used to be more popular and I had a couple of those, too. The S&W revolvers had skinny barrels (never had a Colt with a five-inch barrel) but pointed well. Of the two I had, the one that was the more beat up out shot the nicer one. I guess it was broken in or something. I also had one with a 6" barrel, which was new, but the long skinny barrel seemed positively gangly, if you can say that about a revolver.
So, yes, an inch is a big deal but there's more to it than that.
Does it make a BIG difference ? No. It will not be a "life or death" issue.
Does it make a SMALL difference ? Maybe. You will get more velocity out of a longer barrel, with a given load - usually. Also, a longer sight radius, so easier to shoot accurately with a longer barrel.
Does it really matter ? That's entirely up to the individual to decide.
I happen to be a fancier of 3" Smith & Wesson K-frames, myself. No logical reason for it, really. I like the full-length ejector rod, as opposed to the short rod on the 2" guns. I like the looks of the 3" guns, vs. the 4" or 2". I like the balance of the 3" guns, vs. the somewhat nose-heavy feel of the 4" HB guns. Somehow, they just look and feel "right" to me.
I cannot say that I actually SHOOT 3" K-frames better than any other barrel length. But, I certainly don't shoot them any less well.
It only matters in the sense that it matters to me. It may not "matter" to you. No problem - to each his own, as they say.
Does it make a SMALL difference ? Maybe. You will get more velocity out of a longer barrel, with a given load - usually. Also, a longer sight radius, so easier to shoot accurately with a longer barrel.
Does it really matter ? That's entirely up to the individual to decide.
I happen to be a fancier of 3" Smith & Wesson K-frames, myself. No logical reason for it, really. I like the full-length ejector rod, as opposed to the short rod on the 2" guns. I like the looks of the 3" guns, vs. the 4" or 2". I like the balance of the 3" guns, vs. the somewhat nose-heavy feel of the 4" HB guns. Somehow, they just look and feel "right" to me.
I cannot say that I actually SHOOT 3" K-frames better than any other barrel length. But, I certainly don't shoot them any less well.
It only matters in the sense that it matters to me. It may not "matter" to you. No problem - to each his own, as they say.
Last edited:
Doc Holliday 1950
New member
Hi Rod,
I'm probably the odd ball here.
1- 38 vs 357 vs 9.mm . Never shot a 9mm. But, I'd take the 357 2" over the 38 2" every time. The exrta weight of the 357 eats up the recoil better. This is the 38 vs the 357 shooting the same 38 or 38 special+P load.
2- As to accuracy, I've already stated that I'm more accurate shooting the 357
snub. I have absolutely no idea why. My other is a 4.2 " 357. This is 10 yards or less. Over 10 yards, I'll take the longer barrel.
Doc
I'm probably the odd ball here.
1- 38 vs 357 vs 9.mm . Never shot a 9mm. But, I'd take the 357 2" over the 38 2" every time. The exrta weight of the 357 eats up the recoil better. This is the 38 vs the 357 shooting the same 38 or 38 special+P load.
2- As to accuracy, I've already stated that I'm more accurate shooting the 357
snub. I have absolutely no idea why. My other is a 4.2 " 357. This is 10 yards or less. Over 10 yards, I'll take the longer barrel.
Doc
Over 40+ years of shooting, I've never noticed any difference between any of the barrel lengths you asked about either in recoil or accuracy.
With the Smith and Wesson K frames, the 2 1/2” barreled revolvers feels better in my hand than either the 2” or 3”. For some reason the 2” barreled revolvers feel small, and the 3” barreled revolvers feel much heavier.
I can tell SOME difference between a 2.5" .357 and a 3" .357 on the same frame. I can tell LOTSA difference between a 2.5" or 3" barrel and a 4" barrel. Oddly, though, I don't discern difference between a 4" 5" or 6" barrel. I can tell a difference between a 7.5" or 8 3/8" and the 4" - 6" barrels, but not so much between the longer 2 barrels.
bedbugbilly
New member
I have S & W Model 36 in both snub (say 2" although I think it is 1 7/8"?) and a 3". These are both J frames chambered in 38 special.
That said . . I carry on the belt and both carry very well. Both shoot well at SD ranges (21 feet). As far as recoil . . .I notice very little difference between the snub and the 3". I carry the snub more often than the 3".
The 3" is my favorite general carry "kit" gun - i.e. farm carry, woods, etc.
For range and plinking . . . my "go to" are my K frames - 4", 5" and 6" barrel lengths.
I don't shoot 357 anymore . . . my age and hands just don't like the punishment of that round.
In my SAAs - I have 4 34", 5.5" in 38/357. In 45 Colt - a 7 1/2". I like all of those barrel lengths and all are good shooters. Funny thing is . . . I don't care for 357 but I love my SAA 45 Colt. Go figure . . .
That said . . I carry on the belt and both carry very well. Both shoot well at SD ranges (21 feet). As far as recoil . . .I notice very little difference between the snub and the 3". I carry the snub more often than the 3".
The 3" is my favorite general carry "kit" gun - i.e. farm carry, woods, etc.
For range and plinking . . . my "go to" are my K frames - 4", 5" and 6" barrel lengths.
I don't shoot 357 anymore . . . my age and hands just don't like the punishment of that round.
In my SAAs - I have 4 34", 5.5" in 38/357. In 45 Colt - a 7 1/2". I like all of those barrel lengths and all are good shooters. Funny thing is . . . I don't care for 357 but I love my SAA 45 Colt. Go figure . . .
g.willikers
New member
My choice would be a four inch, maybe a three, in a good holster, on a good belt.
Then barrel length is less of an issue.
Pocket carry never seemed appealing for many reasons.
Sorry to add to the confusion.
Then barrel length is less of an issue.
Pocket carry never seemed appealing for many reasons.
Sorry to add to the confusion.
For what it is worth......
.........I have one centerfire revolver left, well my wife has something close to it. She has a Ruger Security Six and I have a bull barrelled Speed Six. Both are of the 2 3/4 flavor. We found both to be very accurate at the range that we practice at, which is 12-15 yards. As for power, at 2 3/4, I don't feel we're losing much. I still wonder why Ruger always came up with oddball barrel and grip lengths? Particularly grips.
.........I have one centerfire revolver left, well my wife has something close to it. She has a Ruger Security Six and I have a bull barrelled Speed Six. Both are of the 2 3/4 flavor. We found both to be very accurate at the range that we practice at, which is 12-15 yards. As for power, at 2 3/4, I don't feel we're losing much. I still wonder why Ruger always came up with oddball barrel and grip lengths? Particularly grips.
I have been through a number of revolvers, and think I have a stable set:
S&W Model 19-3 (Technically my wife's gun)- 4"- stays in her safe, she doesn't carry.
S&W Model 65-3- 3"- mostly a car or bedside gun, but I carry it sometimes. It is definitely my most versitile revolver, and much easier to carry than the 4" model. Yes, the extra inch does make a difference, at least to me.
S&W Model 640- 2 1/2"- this is my deep CC gun, the smallest gun in my collection, and works well IWB or OWB. It's full stainless, so not an easy pocket carry gun, but for quick trips out or in a jacket pocket, it does ok.
I've tried the 642 a few times, and no matter what, I find the extra weight of the 640 to make the gun much more shootable and accurate (for me) compared to the airweights. I've also had a few 6" Ruger Security Sixes, but the barrel just feels too long, unless I wanted to take up hunting (which isn't high on my priority list, at the moment).
If something happened, and I had to only keep one, I would keep the 3". I find that the 3" is a perfect compromise between size, shootability, and ease of carry. It feels balanced, points easily, and (as has been mentioned before) is the smallest S&W revolver with a full size ejector.
My advice, if you see a 3" revolver at your LGS- pick it up and try it, I don't think you'll be disappointed- I know I wasn't.
S&W Model 19-3 (Technically my wife's gun)- 4"- stays in her safe, she doesn't carry.
S&W Model 65-3- 3"- mostly a car or bedside gun, but I carry it sometimes. It is definitely my most versitile revolver, and much easier to carry than the 4" model. Yes, the extra inch does make a difference, at least to me.
S&W Model 640- 2 1/2"- this is my deep CC gun, the smallest gun in my collection, and works well IWB or OWB. It's full stainless, so not an easy pocket carry gun, but for quick trips out or in a jacket pocket, it does ok.
I've tried the 642 a few times, and no matter what, I find the extra weight of the 640 to make the gun much more shootable and accurate (for me) compared to the airweights. I've also had a few 6" Ruger Security Sixes, but the barrel just feels too long, unless I wanted to take up hunting (which isn't high on my priority list, at the moment).
If something happened, and I had to only keep one, I would keep the 3". I find that the 3" is a perfect compromise between size, shootability, and ease of carry. It feels balanced, points easily, and (as has been mentioned before) is the smallest S&W revolver with a full size ejector.
My advice, if you see a 3" revolver at your LGS- pick it up and try it, I don't think you'll be disappointed- I know I wasn't.
Last edited: