Question about pistols

[starmac]

This is going to sound dumb to some of you guys with a lot of pistol experience.
I have two 44 mag pistols, both with 7 1/2 in barrels, I have thought that a shorter barrel would be handier to carry, but do not really even notice mine riding the four wheeler or on foot. I tend to not even notice I have it on, so beside that reason is there any other advantage to having a shorter barrel.

I had been kind of wanting one to try, before I traded for my last one, but the deal on it, I couldn't pass up.

[Larry Gibson]

If you're asking about shortening the barrel of one you have.....I wouldn't. I'd simply get another with a shorter barrel. That way if you like the shorter barrel you can sell one of the longer ones if you want. If you don't like the shorter barrel you can sell it. Either way you won't take a hit for shortening the barrel when selling one or the other. I prefer a 6 - 6 1/2" barreled revolver for strong side belt wear/carry. In the shoulder holster i notice no difference between the 6 to 7 1/2" barreled revolvers.

If you just want to buy another shorter barreled .44 do you really need my justification?

Larry Gibson

[NickSS]

The only difference that a shorter barrel makes is less velocity and greater felt recoil. The reason for shorter barrels is easier portability and lighter weight. If the long barrels are not in- convenient stick with them. I have a bunch of 4 inch barreled guns as they are easier to conceal and lighter in weight but to tell the truth I use longer barreled guns for hunting and serious target work. As for snub nosed guns they are purely self defense at short range/

[starmac]

I have no thoughts of shortening one, I was just curious as to was there any advantage to a short barrel, besides carrying. I am not talking about concealed, but just in the outdoors.

I am always looking for sweet deals, but if there is much more felt recoil, I would rather stick with what I have. My old dragoon has wood grips and I don't have enough strength in my hands anymore, to keep it from busting my knuckles now. lol

[Kraschenbirn]

I'd say it depends, mostly, upon what and why/where you carry. For hunting/boondocking, I personally perfer a heavy-to-medium frame, 6" (or longer) revolver, most likely carried in shoulder rig. For (as Jeff Cooper phrased it) "social occasions", I prefer a 3"-4" medium-frame (like an S&W K-frame or a Ruger SP-101) in a strong-hand, high-ride carry. In no case, however, would I consider cutting down a long barrel simply for conveniece of carry. I'd much rather buy (or swap for) something that meets my specific needs that turn a perfectly good sixgun into an oddity with a (very!) limited future market. Just my opinion.

Bill

[waksupi]

I would never cut one down. The only place a long barrel is a problem, is when you are driving.

[Multigunner]

For a belt gun or riding in a shoulder holster I prefer a long barrel. My 1851 Navy replica is exceptionally well balanced and quick to put on target.
My S&W 59 just plain feels too short. I've considered getting an extended barrel for it with screwed on compensator just to improve its balance.

The Ruger .22 auto pistols are the same way to me. The standard length barrel is just too short for good balance. When I fired a Ruger Clone with longer barrel it felt lighter in the hand, though that pistol had a bull barrel.

The few times I've fired a short barreled .44 magnum DA revolver these felt fairly well balanced because of the shear mass of cylinder and barrel. A 5 inch barrel would be about optimum for most .44 Magnum DA revolver frames and grip styles.
7.5 inch SA .44 mag revolvers would replicate the Colt calvary or Frontier revolvers in balance. Nothing wrong with that. A circa 5 inch tube would also be fine. It depends on overall robustness of the frame, grip, and cylinder.

[subsonic]

If you shoot FAR with your pistols, the short sight radious allows for more elevation adjustment. I tend to carry on my strong side, and you notice barrel length more when carrying that way. And short barrels are just cooler looking. I tend to be a "less than 5.5" barrel purchaser, with most falling in the 4" range. There is a power level where I feel that recoil is actually less with the shorter barrels, but it's at much more than store bought .44mag levels.

[Thin Man]

Starmac,

There are a lot of variables between longer (7.5" or more ) barreled revolvers and shorter (4-5") barreled models. Consider each of these in light of how you would ususally carry and/or use the firearm:
1. Shorter barrel means a slight reduction in weight. Less fatigue, handier, more likely that you will have it with you rather than leave it behind.
2. The weight savings also causes increases in felt recoil. The amount of weight you give away (going from long to short) and the intensity of the load will factor together in this issue. If you are staying in the same caliber as firearms you are already using, and are comfortable, this transition is not greatly significant.
3. Shorter barrels will give you more options on where and how to carry the firearm. The longer barrels suggest a shoulder or cross-draw carry, short can be belt carried beside your shooting hand.
4. Shorter barrels are faster to remove from the holster.
5. Short barrels recoil more up than back, long barrels tend to recoil more back than up.
6. Short barrels have a louder muzzle blast than longer barrels.
7. Shorter barrels result in a shorter sight radius (distance between the front and rear sight). Accurate fire with a shorter barrel is improved by greater concentration on the front sight, also trigger management.
8. Shorter barrels are faster to get on target and track a moving target.

The above are some of my own observations having carried various firearms in the same calibers, but different barrel length. NONE of this is written in stone, and others may disagree on any/all of this. Your own experiences may be different than mine. Someone earlier suggested for you to team up with a friend who already has a firearm in your caliber choice, but a shorter barrel, and take it out for a test drive. That was an excellent suggestion. Know what variables exist, note your experiences and make your own decision on whether a short barrel would work for you. Good luck with your venture.

Thin Man

[olafhardt]

There is an idea being put forth in these posts that simply is not true. Short barrels do not recoil more than long barrels unless you are using a load whose velocity varies little with barrel length which is seldom the case with magnums. The recoil of the gun is proportional to the weight of the bullet times the velocity of the bullet. If the increase in velocity is greater than the increase than the increase in weight caused by the longer barrel, the longer barrel will kick harder. I have a 3" and a 5" model 60 s&w 357 magnums. The 5" kicks noticeably harder especially with hot loads.

[subsonic]

In the short barrel vs long recoil debate: It is commonly accepted that perceived recoil increases with the short barrel. This is not always true, as I mentioned above. The weight difference, velocity change, and leverage from the boolit in the barrel when it starts to rise, all effect this "recoil perception". The greater the disparity in weight and power, the more skewed things become. IME, for most folks shooting common caliber steel framed guns with all other things equal, the short barrels seem less pleasant.

[starmac]

Thanks for everyones info and opinions, what I have works fine as far as the carry part, even on long days it is comfortable. I don't think I would notice a weight difference with a 2 in shorter barrel.
As far as more likely to carry a shorter one, this might be true in town, but this is not my town gun anyway. When I am out and about, it kinda goes on and comes off with my pants, so as long as I don't lose my pants, I should be fine. lol

[9.3X62AL]

My revolver collection contains 4 examples of 5" or longer barrels for every example having a 4" or shorter barrel. Autopistols are about the same, with 4" being the divide line.

[Shuz]

Starmac,
While I'm sure no expert, I have been shooting and reloading for the .44 mag revolver since 1963. Perhaps my experience will be of some benefit to you. I began with a Ruger 6-1/2" Blackhawk flat top. When the Super Blackhawk became available, I bought one of those in 7-1/2". Sometime in the early 70's, "Dirty Harry" came out, and I bought an 8-3/8" S&W Model 29. I shot these three revolvers with nothing but cast boolits and enjoyed them a great deal. During that time, I found that I tended to shoot the 6-1/2" gun more than the others. It just seemed "right". It definitely was easier to carry in a hip holster. Somewhere in the early 80's I traded the 8-3/8" Smith for a 6" or maybe it was a 6-1/2" Smith, and I found I shot it much more than either of my Rugers. The feel and action of the Smith; compared to the Rugers, was as much responsible as the bbl length, as I reflect upon it now. Then came the Ruger SS 5-1/2" SBK! Wow I liked this gun! It carried well, shot well, especially with the higher Patridge front sight I installed. That sight blade enabled me to shoot the heavier cast boolits. I found I shot that gun much more than the others. Sometime in the early 90's I decided to try the new Smith Classic DX 629 series in 5" bbl. I put a set of Bomar sights on one and competed in IHMSA with it for years. On the other 5" DX, I mounted a Leupold EER 4X scope. What a combo! Then I rationalized, that if 5" bbls were so good, maybe a 4" would be better?! Voila! a 4" 629-4 Mtn Gun entered the stable. Now this gun was my favorite! Am I fickle or what?
I continued to shoot the 4" Mtn Gun more than any of the others in the arsenal, largely because of the Patridge front sight I installed, as well as the 11lb Wolff RS spring that gave it a 32 ounce trigger.
When the 4", 26 ounce,S&W 329PD came out, I just had to have one. I shoot this one a good bit, in fact enuf rounds have been put thru it to have it sent back to the factory 2 times to have the top strap shield replaced. But I find I carry this gun more than I shoot it now.

As I've grown older, I notice my eyes don't focus on the front sight the way they used to, so I compensate by using a Merit optical device or Hi-Viz type front sight and find the shorter bbl lengths to be better suited to my needs. Hope this helps!--Shuz

[pdawg_shooter]

I am with Larry on this one, 6 or 6 1/2 fits me perfect for a carry gun. That said, I spend a lot of time and miles with a 4" Python strapped on. I can just hit more, at longer range with it than any other handgun I have ever owned. There aint anything out here in western Kansas a .357 wont handle. I do use my 44s when deer hunting but for everyday packing I go to the Colt.

[shotstring]

One thing that hasn't been talked about much in this thread is balance. With certain models, longer or shorter bbl lengths can affect the balance so much that a person might find it unacceptable.

For me, an example would be a Colt SAA. The 4 5/8 balances perfectly for me, is fast to draw and fast to line up on target with. The 7 1/2 inch just feels all wrong to me. It feels nose heavy and doesn't balance well in the hand at all. But I like the look. So over the years I kept buying the 7 1/2 inch guns and then selling them when I couldn't stand actually using them. Then when I forgot how they felt in my hand, I would buy another one and have to sell that later as well.

Ruger Super Blackhawks and Freedom Arms and their like are a totally different ballgame. The 7 1/2 inch guns balance fine and are a joy for me to shoot. With most other designs, I prefer a 4 or 5 inch bbl, including Colt Government models. A long slide 45 is just a slow cumbersome firearm in my opinion.

[bobthenailer]

It sounds like the perfect excuse to buy another handgun , heack ive founed enough reason to buy a 3", 5", 6", & 6 1/2" 44 mags had a 8 3/8 but there to long and heavy !