Barrel length vs accuracy

[MarkCO]

Barrel length has almost nothing to do with inherent accuracy.

Absolutely false. Given the same profile, the shorter the barrel, the more accurate it is inherently. Powder burn rate, secondary recoil impulse and the reverse jet have an effect, but those can all be mitigated.

The shooters ability to use the firearm is affected by length in various ways, and lack of velocity can impact the stability out at distance thereby affecting functional accuracy.

Sight radius is of course a thing, and if one is relying on the barrel length to get a front sight further away from the shooter's eye, yes, that can affect functional accuracy. But with an optical sight, that is not an issue.

 

[Mike38]

Given the same profile, the shorter the barrel, the more accurate it is inherently.

I trust you have documented proof of this statement. Witness signed affidavits? Video on You Tube that we can watch?

You Ransome Rest tested a snub nose against a similar revolver with a 6 inch barrel at 50 yards and the snub nose shot smaller groups than the 6 inch?

 

[Jim Watson]

Absolutely false. Given the same profile, the shorter the barrel, the more accurate it is inherently.

In the revolver regime, maybe so; although Elmer Keith disliked barrels shorter than 4" because he said the muzzle blast of a heavy load would distort the base of a swaged factory bullet from the FBI favorite 3.5" Magnum.

But Dean Grennell wrote of having a row of Chiefs Specials each tagged with the load and range its fixed sights were correct for so he could demonstrate that a short barrel was not inaccurate. And Henry Stebbins wrote of the guy who owned only a Detective Special but knew it so well as to shoot NRA Expert.

And when it comes to rifles, the experimenters at the Texas Warehouse concluded that the optimum barrel length for their benchrest rifles was 21.75".

 

[rclark]

The only real test is to take a long barrel shoot it with a ransom rest, cut the barrel, recrown, and shoot again, and so forth. All guns shoot differently so using two will not really prove anything that I can see.

 

[MarkCO]

In the revolver regime, maybe so; although Elmer Keith disliked barrels shorter than 4" because he said the muzzle blast of a heavy load would distort the base of a swaged factory bullet from the FBI favorite 3.5" Magnum.

Don't disagree. That is accounted for in this statement...

Powder burn rate, secondary recoil impulse and the reverse jet have an effect, but those can all be mitigated.

Witness signed affidavits?

Endorsed as a ballistics expert in court and so I've signed plenty. Maker of what is considered to be one of the top (according to Recoil Magazine and other publications) AR15 barrels on the market with literally 55 gallon barrels of rounds downrange in testing.
Believe whatever makes you feel better, but facts are facts even if you want to throw shade.

 

[bamaranger]

accuracy

With handguns, a longer barrel is not mechanically more accurate than a shorter barrel, and varying the sighting system does not effect how "accurate" the handgun may be.

However, as a rule, longer handgun barrels are easier for us to "shoot" more accurately, as correct sight alignment is easier to obtain with the front sight further out, allowing better alignment of the system. Additionally as we age and our eyes loose their ability to focus up close, longer tubes are a wee bit more forgiving, for a while anyhow.

Practically speaking, 3" to 4 5/8" revolvers have always been my preference, due to their ease of carry in a strong side hip holster. Anything longer was a nuisance in and out of vehicles, ATV, chairs, etc. When longer barrels were popular, the old swivel holster was used to avoid the aggravation, and crossdraw and shoulder/chest rigs exist as well, but the swivel is an anachronism, and I never liked strapping up like a plow mule to carry a handgun. Crossdraw works if one does not expect to be in physical struggles, but I cannot warm up to the idea of presenting the handgun butt first to a subject as a duty firearm.

These days, I shoot a 5-1/2" Ruger Single Six or a 5" 1911 about the best WITHOUT my spectacles, but struggle with anything shorter. I am in the process of putting a red dot on a G20 and expect great things.....if the dot holds up.

 

[Mike38]

Endorsed as a ballistics expert in court and so I've signed plenty. Maker of what is considered to be one of the top (according to Recoil Magazine and other publications) AR15 barrels on the market with literally 55 gallon barrels of rounds downrange in testing.
Believe whatever makes you feel better, but facts are facts even if you want to throw shade.

Ok, sounds creditable. I take it you've done Ransom Rest tests to prove your comments? Care to share the names and contact info of witnesses? Any videos? At the least written documents?

If 2 inch barrels on a pistol were as accurate or more accurate, then why don't European style targets pistols have 2 inch barrels rather then the 5 to 6 inch barrels they normally come with? It would be cheaper for them to make and better for the shooter, right? Sight radius would not come into play because extended front sights that protrude beyond the muzzle are easy enough to make and install.

 

[rodfac]

Like other posters here, I'll chime in that add'l bbl. length will give you some extra muzzle velocity but will not affect accuracy with open sights. I'll also add that an extra inch or two, from 4" on, doesn't really add that much to useful velocity as some would believe, and makes the gun that much more difficult to pack around in daily use.

Skelton liked a 5" bbl., wrote about it often, and claimed it was the max length that still allowed comfortable belt carry on any modern conveyance, (tractor, 4x4, car or truck). Having carried a revolver on the belt for upwards of 55 yrs, I agree with him, but would add that weight makes an equally important difference.

My 5" bbl'd Smith M-629 with full under lug, is like toting an anvil when on the belt. My solution was to get a 'tanker' type of cross chest holster for hunting or extended carry. It works....but even then, from a weight point of view, I much prefer a 4" M-66, 19, or 67 for on the belt carry. Too, from an accuracy standpoint with open sights, I see no difference out to 50 yds using field shooting positions.

YMMv, Rod

 

[stinkeypete]

My bullseye .22 has a 4" barrel and Ultradot. It's an absolute tack driver made by Larry Leutenegger. From a rest, it outshot my 10/22 easily. Ragged hole at 50 feet.

But for rapid fire, I always shot better with my enormous IZH pistol. It weighed a ton, had a long barrel, and I got back on target faster. I sold the IZH and kept the TT Olympia clone.