Minimum barrel length?
- Thread starter kannonk
- Start date
- Status
random guy
New member
Any reasonable length, if you get my meaning. 
You may have to be more specific.
Are we carrying this handgun? Concealing it?
Shooting at bullseye targets? Squirrels? Pop cans? Deer?
Handguns are full of compromise and we need to know the purpose.
You may have to be more specific.
Are we carrying this handgun? Concealing it?
Shooting at bullseye targets? Squirrels? Pop cans? Deer?
Handguns are full of compromise and we need to know the purpose.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
New member
Revolver or auto?
I need a 4" revolver, but I have seen good shooting done with a 3".
In automatics, I really want a 5", I am just not quite as accurate with even a 4.25-4.5" barrel and its shorter sight radius.
I need a 4" revolver, but I have seen good shooting done with a 3".
In automatics, I really want a 5", I am just not quite as accurate with even a 4.25-4.5" barrel and its shorter sight radius.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
20-inch.
I have a 16-inch AR-15 but I think a standard 20-inch would be more accurate beyond 200 meters.
I have a 16-inch AR-15 but I think a standard 20-inch would be more accurate beyond 200 meters.
JoeSixpack
New member
Im sure there is a minimum length for rifling to have any effect but for the most part it appears accuracy problems are the fault of the shooter with most guns.
I think 4in barrels are probably the sweet spot for service/conceal-ability both applying to revolvers and semi's, But I don't think they're anymore accurate than say 5-6 inch barrels.
it's just larger guns have longer sight radius which makes alignment a bit easier.
That's one reason rifles are easier to hit with (at short range) than handguns even with iron sights.
The further the rear and front sight are (and you can still see obviously) the better.
I think 4in barrels are probably the sweet spot for service/conceal-ability both applying to revolvers and semi's, But I don't think they're anymore accurate than say 5-6 inch barrels.
it's just larger guns have longer sight radius which makes alignment a bit easier.
That's one reason rifles are easier to hit with (at short range) than handguns even with iron sights.
The further the rear and front sight are (and you can still see obviously) the better.
Jim Watson
New member
Dean Grennel liked to show off his accuracy with a 2" .38.
He had five of them, each tagged with the load and range it was zeroed for.
He had five of them, each tagged with the load and range it was zeroed for.
What I've found makes the most difference for me, isn't the actual barrel length, its the sights, and often the trigger pull. Short barrel guns often have coarser sights, even crude one on some guns, and some have none at all, to speak of. Trigger pull on short barrel "pocket" guns usually isn't the best for fine accuracy, either.
Nor were they ever MEANT to be.
Back before age and "the glorious result of a mis-spent youth" affected my physical ability, I could ring the 200yd gong on the rifle range with about any pistol you gave me, ..eventually. Decades of practice with my 7.5" Ruger Blackhawk made it relatively easy, I thought. With other guns, it would take a few sighter shots to find the right sight picture, and with some guns getting that sight picture (repeatable) was a lot tougher than others.
I've got a Colt Agent .38 snub, which, compared to my Ruger 'Hawks or S&W N frames, the rear sight seems wide enough to drive a truck through. This makes it easier to use fast, but more difficult to use precisely. And I think it would still be that way if the Colt had a 6" barrel instead of the 2.5".
And, don't leave out the trigger. It's more important to precision work than the sights are (to a point, of course). I can shoot "better" using a gun that has poor sights and a great trigger than I can with a gun that has great sights and a poor trigger. (ok, maybe not a lot, but enough to be able to notice)
Nor were they ever MEANT to be.
Back before age and "the glorious result of a mis-spent youth" affected my physical ability, I could ring the 200yd gong on the rifle range with about any pistol you gave me, ..eventually. Decades of practice with my 7.5" Ruger Blackhawk made it relatively easy, I thought. With other guns, it would take a few sighter shots to find the right sight picture, and with some guns getting that sight picture (repeatable) was a lot tougher than others.
I've got a Colt Agent .38 snub, which, compared to my Ruger 'Hawks or S&W N frames, the rear sight seems wide enough to drive a truck through. This makes it easier to use fast, but more difficult to use precisely. And I think it would still be that way if the Colt had a 6" barrel instead of the 2.5".
And, don't leave out the trigger. It's more important to precision work than the sights are (to a point, of course). I can shoot "better" using a gun that has poor sights and a great trigger than I can with a gun that has great sights and a poor trigger. (ok, maybe not a lot, but enough to be able to notice
)RoughDivider
New member
1 7/8" it's the shortest barrel I've shot out of. Love that model 36.
bedbugbilly
New member
Define "reasonable accuracy".
Are you talking SD distances - i.e. 21' or less? 25 yards? 50 yards?
And what caliber are you talking about? You seem to have a fixation on the 32 ACP so is that what you are thinking of?
I get reasonable accuracy out of my W & W Model 36 in 38 Special with a 1 7/8" barrel at self defense distances. With my S & W Model 36 with a 3" barrel, I get better accuracy at longer distances.
I have revolvers in every barrel length from 1 7/8" snubbies to 7 1/2". All give "reasonable accuracy" depending on the distance I am shooting and the caliber of the handgun. My 45 Colt with the 7 1/2" barrel gives excellent accuracy at 50 yards with a 255 grain lead bullet - much better than my 3" 38 special with a 3' barrel will give at that distance with a 158 grain lead bullet.
Not trying to be difficult but it all depends on distance and caliber. If I were looking at just 38 Special and could only keep one of my 38 specials, it would be my S & W M & P (65 years old) with the 5" barrel. It gives "reasonable accuracy" at both sSD distances as well as longer 25 to 50 yard shots - with a 158 grain lead bullet.
Are you talking SD distances - i.e. 21' or less? 25 yards? 50 yards?
And what caliber are you talking about? You seem to have a fixation on the 32 ACP so is that what you are thinking of?
I get reasonable accuracy out of my W & W Model 36 in 38 Special with a 1 7/8" barrel at self defense distances. With my S & W Model 36 with a 3" barrel, I get better accuracy at longer distances.
I have revolvers in every barrel length from 1 7/8" snubbies to 7 1/2". All give "reasonable accuracy" depending on the distance I am shooting and the caliber of the handgun. My 45 Colt with the 7 1/2" barrel gives excellent accuracy at 50 yards with a 255 grain lead bullet - much better than my 3" 38 special with a 3' barrel will give at that distance with a 158 grain lead bullet.
Not trying to be difficult but it all depends on distance and caliber. If I were looking at just 38 Special and could only keep one of my 38 specials, it would be my S & W M & P (65 years old) with the 5" barrel. It gives "reasonable accuracy" at both sSD distances as well as longer 25 to 50 yard shots - with a 158 grain lead bullet.
Longer sight radius does make a difference, but you can offset that difference by practicing.
Having said that, short barreled J frame size guns are for self defense. Self defense means close range and they are plenty accurate enough for that.
Then its about concealment, ease of carry, and how fast you can get it into action.
But still, with a bit of practice one could get fairly accurate with a short barreled gun.
Having said that, short barreled J frame size guns are for self defense. Self defense means close range and they are plenty accurate enough for that.
Then its about concealment, ease of carry, and how fast you can get it into action.
But still, with a bit of practice one could get fairly accurate with a short barreled gun.
Cheapshooter
New member
14". Scoped Thompson Center Contender Super 14 223 Remington. 1" group @ 100 yds.
Isn't it really relevant to what you are shooting, and why?
I voted doesn't matter to me.
Isn't it really relevant to what you are shooting, and why?
I voted doesn't matter to me.
MandolinMan
New member
I'm learning that guns are often more accurate than the shooter behind them, especially when one is fairly new to shooting, as am I. Also, I see that people often fail to distinguish between the accuracy of the gun itself and the accuracy of the shooter.
I personally don't feel comfortable carrying a gun for defensive purposes that I can't make consistent hits with at 25 yards. I shoot mainly pistols, and find that I need about 3 inches of barrel to achieve this accuracy.
I personally don't feel comfortable carrying a gun for defensive purposes that I can't make consistent hits with at 25 yards. I shoot mainly pistols, and find that I need about 3 inches of barrel to achieve this accuracy.
The OP is in Canada and probably cannot even own a gun. Plus some of suspect he is way under age to even own a gun. He has been asked twice what his age is and refuses to answer. Its good he is interested in guns but I don't think any information you give will ever be used. Isn't 4+" the minimum for a handgun in Canada?
Badgerstate
New member
4" for me. Anything less than that is kind of useless for anything more than about 15 feet away.
jglsprings
New member
I guess me and my 1 7/8" j frame don't make the grade.
It's the Indian, not the arrow.
16" AR? / 18 1/2" 12 gauge? 4" service auto/revolver
Anything I'll carry concealed - my problem is leaving it home because I'm tired of hauling something heavy around. So the little J frame winds up being the go to gun.
It's the Indian, not the arrow.
16" AR? / 18 1/2" 12 gauge? 4" service auto/revolver
Anything I'll carry concealed - my problem is leaving it home because I'm tired of hauling something heavy around. So the little J frame winds up being the go to gun.
Last edited:
- Status