This thread was inspired by the thread about the S&W Model 60 with a 5-inch barrel over in the revolver forum.
I've been playing around with handguns for over 40 years having been through quite a selection. I'm not done by a long shot but I've had to slow down a bit. I want to learn as much as I can about, well, all of them. Among other things I've noticed a trend over the years. Handguns are getting stocky and I'm not sure it's a good thing.
There have been short barrelled handguns around since there have been handguns, though the Philadelphia Deringers really were the beginning. Then came the Remington derringers and even Colt made a few (relatively) short barrelled models. After the turn of the century there were lots and lots of short barrelled pocket revolvers, some of which would make Davis and Jennings proud of their products. But there were always long barrelled versions of small pistols and revolvers. Sometimes the larger revolvers were cut down, sometimes literally, but short barrelled large autos were in the future mostly. One version of the 1900 .38ACP was called a pocket model.
These days a long barrelled, small frame revolver is nearly extinct and for that matter, many full size automatics barely have 4" barrels. Why do I think that the fact the 1911 has a five inch barrel is something that keeps it popular? I hate to admit that I don't have one and that my own 9mm has only a 3 1/2-inch barrel and that's what started me to thinking about this.
It doesn't follow that a longer barrel is going to have a thinner slide like 1911 type pistols and they may or may not be easier to shoot. But the sights are a little farther apart, which may help, and they usually have a better balance, though that doesn't follow either. But unless carried horizontally in a shoulder holster or in a belt holster under a short jacket, the short barrels don't really contribute anything. In theory there is a lower velocity and there may be more blast with a short barrel. But I suspect you would only notice more blast, all other things being equal, if the barrel were really short, and I also suspect that there is more variation in velocity between identical pistols than between barrels with only an inch difference in length.
I know, highly theoretical stuff, mostly of little consequence, but I just wonder about trends. A Colt 1903 now seems to have a long barrel, though I admit other .32s and .380s from the same period sometimes had shorter barrels. Times change. Now it seems like a Browning Hi-Power is a small pistol with a long barrel.
I've been playing around with handguns for over 40 years having been through quite a selection. I'm not done by a long shot but I've had to slow down a bit. I want to learn as much as I can about, well, all of them. Among other things I've noticed a trend over the years. Handguns are getting stocky and I'm not sure it's a good thing.
There have been short barrelled handguns around since there have been handguns, though the Philadelphia Deringers really were the beginning. Then came the Remington derringers and even Colt made a few (relatively) short barrelled models. After the turn of the century there were lots and lots of short barrelled pocket revolvers, some of which would make Davis and Jennings proud of their products. But there were always long barrelled versions of small pistols and revolvers. Sometimes the larger revolvers were cut down, sometimes literally, but short barrelled large autos were in the future mostly. One version of the 1900 .38ACP was called a pocket model.
These days a long barrelled, small frame revolver is nearly extinct and for that matter, many full size automatics barely have 4" barrels. Why do I think that the fact the 1911 has a five inch barrel is something that keeps it popular? I hate to admit that I don't have one and that my own 9mm has only a 3 1/2-inch barrel and that's what started me to thinking about this.
It doesn't follow that a longer barrel is going to have a thinner slide like 1911 type pistols and they may or may not be easier to shoot. But the sights are a little farther apart, which may help, and they usually have a better balance, though that doesn't follow either. But unless carried horizontally in a shoulder holster or in a belt holster under a short jacket, the short barrels don't really contribute anything. In theory there is a lower velocity and there may be more blast with a short barrel. But I suspect you would only notice more blast, all other things being equal, if the barrel were really short, and I also suspect that there is more variation in velocity between identical pistols than between barrels with only an inch difference in length.
I know, highly theoretical stuff, mostly of little consequence, but I just wonder about trends. A Colt 1903 now seems to have a long barrel, though I admit other .32s and .380s from the same period sometimes had shorter barrels. Times change. Now it seems like a Browning Hi-Power is a small pistol with a long barrel.