Why do gun-makers make handguns, especially revolvers, in such odd barrel lengths? There has to be a good reason for making barrels 1 7/8 inches instead of 2 inches. Or 3 1/16 inches instead of 3, or 4 5/8 instead of 4 1/2. Etc. I tried converting the lengths to millimeters, and they come out in odd fractions there, too. I do understand the recent Ruger revolvers with 4.2 inch barrels - they're making sure they can sell them in Canada. But the others seem just plain weird. So what's the purpose of making those odd lengths?
barrel length
- Thread starter reteach
- Start date
Some times its to comply with a law, or a rule, sometimes its for ease of tooling, or simply because its what the maker wants to do.
The only one I know about for sure (documented in various histories) is the S&W change from 8 3/4" to 8 3/8" waaay back when. They were looking at the bullseye market with their long barrel guns, and NRA target rules specified a certain maximum sight radius.
The 8 3/4" gun exceeded that, 8 3/8" was within the rules so they switched to that length, and its been their standard "long" length ever since.
The only one I know about for sure (documented in various histories) is the S&W change from 8 3/4" to 8 3/8" waaay back when. They were looking at the bullseye market with their long barrel guns, and NRA target rules specified a certain maximum sight radius.
The 8 3/4" gun exceeded that, 8 3/8" was within the rules so they switched to that length, and its been their standard "long" length ever since.
The 4 5/8 is due to the length of the ejector rod housing on many/most single action revolvers.
it is better, in my opinion to calculate or determine a barrel length for a 'reason' (balance, ballistics, sight radius, carry, manufacturing cost) than just pick a round number in inches. Not to imply all these numbers offer any clear advantage over 1/2 inch either way, but; there often is some reason or rational.
it is better, in my opinion to calculate or determine a barrel length for a 'reason' (balance, ballistics, sight radius, carry, manufacturing cost) than just pick a round number in inches. Not to imply all these numbers offer any clear advantage over 1/2 inch either way, but; there often is some reason or rational.
Standard "1911" barrel lengths, for years, were 5", 4.25", and 3.5" for Government, Commander, and Officers.
Today, most makers have gone to 5", 4", and 3", and other than maybe saving some materials costs, can't see a good reason for the change?
Also, barrels are often not exactly the length specified.
I bought a "four inch" pistol that measured 4.12" in length, which made it .02" too long for competition in a four-inch division.
Today, most makers have gone to 5", 4", and 3", and other than maybe saving some materials costs, can't see a good reason for the change?
Also, barrels are often not exactly the length specified.
I bought a "four inch" pistol that measured 4.12" in length, which made it .02" too long for competition in a four-inch division.
Bob Wright
New member
Per 44AMP:
I've heard that, too, many times, except I heard it was the USRA rules, not the NRA? I belonged to the old United States Revolver Association (USRA) many years ago. It was headquartered in Springfield, Mass. at the time.
Bob Wright
I've heard that, too, many times, except I heard it was the USRA rules, not the NRA? I belonged to the old United States Revolver Association (USRA) many years ago. It was headquartered in Springfield, Mass. at the time.
Bob Wright
With revolvers the minimum barrel length is determined by the ejector rod housing. The maximum length is sometimes determined by rules in place for range games limiting the max length.
In some cases it is law. A 4" barrel is quite common here, but recently Ruger started making them 4.2" to meet the minimum length to be legal in Canada. There is no reason to offer 4" for USA sales and 4.2" for Canada.
In some cases it is law. A 4" barrel is quite common here, but recently Ruger started making them 4.2" to meet the minimum length to be legal in Canada. There is no reason to offer 4" for USA sales and 4.2" for Canada.
you could be entirely right as to where the rule originated. I don't know, but realize the possibility that "NRA rules" could have been used as the descriptive phrase, incorrectly.
Being as they were "NRA" sanctioned matches, shot NRA standard targets, etc., its quite possible people just assumed they were NRA rules as well.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The original question remain valid.
It's not just revolvers. Take the venerable 1911, for example. First came the M1911 with a 5-inch barrel. Then Colt came up with the Commander, at 4-1/4 inches. And then came the Officers ACP at 3-1/2 inches. One might think that would pretty well cover the market, but look around at 1911s on the market today. Somebody added 3-inch barrels to the mix, but that's still a round number.
And then somebody (Springfield Armory?) slipped a 4-inch barrel length into the mix. There's at least one 1911 maker who builds their compacts with a 3-1/8-inch barrel. Both of those options baffle me. There are VERY few holsters made for those barrel lengths, so you have to buy a holster for a longer model and hope the empty space doesn't get crushed. I have yet to see a rational explanation for why gunmakers occasionally go rogue on barrel length.
It's not just revolvers. Take the venerable 1911, for example. First came the M1911 with a 5-inch barrel. Then Colt came up with the Commander, at 4-1/4 inches. And then came the Officers ACP at 3-1/2 inches. One might think that would pretty well cover the market, but look around at 1911s on the market today. Somebody added 3-inch barrels to the mix, but that's still a round number.
And then somebody (Springfield Armory?) slipped a 4-inch barrel length into the mix. There's at least one 1911 maker who builds their compacts with a 3-1/8-inch barrel. Both of those options baffle me. There are VERY few holsters made for those barrel lengths, so you have to buy a holster for a longer model and hope the empty space doesn't get crushed. I have yet to see a rational explanation for why gunmakers occasionally go rogue on barrel length.
FrankenMauser
New member
I do think that it is sometimes seemingly arbitrary, or based on aesthetics.
But, as mentioned in various ways, it can also be based upon rules, law, or data.
The Ruger SP101 3" in .327 Federal, for example, was initially offered with that barrel length because that was the shortest barrel length that provided muzzle velocities high enough to achieve the 500 ft-lb energy minimum for big game and/or Mtn Lion hunting in certain states, with the initial factory ammunition offering (American Eagle 100 gr SP).
So, by going as short as possible, while retaining 'big game capability', Ruger was essentially releasing three revolvers in the same product: One small enough for concealed carry. One that .32 caliber fans would think made a great 'kit gun'. And one that was legal for big game.
But, as mentioned in various ways, it can also be based upon rules, law, or data.
The Ruger SP101 3" in .327 Federal, for example, was initially offered with that barrel length because that was the shortest barrel length that provided muzzle velocities high enough to achieve the 500 ft-lb energy minimum for big game and/or Mtn Lion hunting in certain states, with the initial factory ammunition offering (American Eagle 100 gr SP).
So, by going as short as possible, while retaining 'big game capability', Ruger was essentially releasing three revolvers in the same product: One small enough for concealed carry. One that .32 caliber fans would think made a great 'kit gun'. And one that was legal for big game.
But, FrakenMauser, that SP101 barrel is not 3", it's 3 1/16". Aguila Blanca sees it - the question is still, "Why that extra 1/16 inch?" Does that fraction add to the ballistic performance? Remember, too, that the SP101 had a 3 1/16" barrel in .357 long before the gun was offered in other calibers. I have one of those, and I do get that the longer barrel, compared to the 2 1/4", makes a better platform for .357. That still doesn't clarify why they added 1/16".
FrankenMauser
New member
Production tolerance stacking allowance.
(Educated guess.)
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Don't get hung up on one brand or one model. The question was general.FrankenMauser said:
Back to my example: In the 1911 world, why do almost all 1911 makers offer a 3-inch model, but one or two offer a 3-1/8-inch model instead? That's not tolerance stacking -- they advertise them as 3-1/8-inch. The extra eighth of an inch of barrel certainly doesn't generate any appreciable increase in muzzle velocity, so why buck the tide and make a pistol that's an orphan as far as size goes, and that nobody makes holsters to fit?
Last edited:
I'm a bit curious about this myself. The somewhat generalized answers already given in this thread do make sense though.
There are all kinds of "what were they thinking when they made that decision?" type questions that surrounds the world of firearms. I think it's all just part of something that has been part of this world for hundreds of years where certain kinds of thinking just simply are accepted and no longer have answers. Why fold the metal 26 times instead of 25 times (or 27 times) when making a sword?
It's the same with shotgun shells. The only people that understand what a 'dram' actually is are those that make shells and pharmacy technicians. But it's a hold-over from years gone by.
It can make things rather confusing sometimes. I'm sure that the 1/16" has a reason.
Beretta is well known for making certain changes that only the family knows why.
There are all kinds of "what were they thinking when they made that decision?" type questions that surrounds the world of firearms. I think it's all just part of something that has been part of this world for hundreds of years where certain kinds of thinking just simply are accepted and no longer have answers. Why fold the metal 26 times instead of 25 times (or 27 times) when making a sword?
It's the same with shotgun shells. The only people that understand what a 'dram' actually is are those that make shells and pharmacy technicians. But it's a hold-over from years gone by.
It can make things rather confusing sometimes. I'm sure that the 1/16" has a reason.
Beretta is well known for making certain changes that only the family knows why.
Last edited:
arquebus357
New member
Yes, this is a problem. I personally solve it by refusing to buy ANY firearm that lists a length that includes a fraction of an inch.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
More about marketing than anything else. In the 19th Century, everybody knew .44's were S&W and .45's were Colts, but it was marketing.
"...sell them in Canada..." Yep. Our idiot government wiped out an entire class of handgun by arbitrarily picking 4" as the minimum barrel length for any handgun(along with no .25 or .32 calibre except for specific target pistols.) not just revolvers. Ruger opted to add the .2" just like they were open to a short run of No. 1 rifles in .303 Brit.
"...sell them in Canada..." Yep. Our idiot government wiped out an entire class of handgun by arbitrarily picking 4" as the minimum barrel length for any handgun(along with no .25 or .32 calibre except for specific target pistols.) not just revolvers. Ruger opted to add the .2" just like they were open to a short run of No. 1 rifles in .303 Brit.
Bob Wright
New member
Arquebus357:
Well that sure lets you miss out on some fine revolvers: Colt SAA's and New Frontiers, with barrels running 4 3/4", 5 1/2" and 7 1/2", Ruger Blackhawks running 4 5/8", 5 1/2". 6 1/2", and 7 1/2". And these in such luscious chamberings as .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and .45 Colt. And small bores in .22 R.F. and .357 Magnum.
I am briefly saddened by knowing what you are missing.
O.K. grief over.
Bob Wright
Well that sure lets you miss out on some fine revolvers: Colt SAA's and New Frontiers, with barrels running 4 3/4", 5 1/2" and 7 1/2", Ruger Blackhawks running 4 5/8", 5 1/2". 6 1/2", and 7 1/2". And these in such luscious chamberings as .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and .45 Colt. And small bores in .22 R.F. and .357 Magnum.
I am briefly saddened by knowing what you are missing.
O.K. grief over.
Bob Wright
FrankenMauser
New member
Your question was general.
The question posed directly to me was very specific to a brand, model, and particular variation - as was the proposed answer.
And, in many subjects, discussion of individual facets of a concept can lead to a greater understanding of the whole. One cannot understand a society without knowing some individuals.
Do the 3-1/8" 1911s have something different about them? Sight location, porting, guide rod, spring type, frame material, etc.?