When you ask about .357, which 357? Hardcast? Plated? Jacketed? 125 grain? 180? WWB? Buffalo Bore max loads? All of these will give different answers.
That's an interesting question, Aspade. I hope we can explore it further. I don't have any good answers yet to your question, but it will help me further shape this question ... and the answer to it.
Here's a bit more background on the question. This is long, so if you're short on time, but interested in the optimal barrel length question, you can skip it. It doesn't have a large bearing on the answer to the question of optimal barrel length anyway.
Mo's post above hit most closely to my motivations for considering this.
Emphasis is mine.
To me a 357 in a rifle/carbine = handy
Handy = light and small, less likely to get left behind. A 16-18" barrel would best represent that niche. With a screw driver the stock could be removed and the rifle could be stowed inside of a backpack or duffle. <snip> Paired with a pistol it would simplify ammo needs. <snip> While it certainly wouldn't be my first choice for a hunting rifle I sure wouldn't feel overly handicapped by it. It would be perfect for trips that a rifle isn't likely to be used but would be nice to have around should an unexpected shooting opportunity arise.
I currently own a Marlin 336 in .30-30, and plan to use it for deer hunting, hopefully this year. I also partially "own" (it's still in layaway) a SW 65 in .357 (3" barrel). (I bought it to replace a 686 with 4" barrel, which I found to be too long and unwieldy for my needs ... see below.)
I just returned from a 4 day camping trip to the place where I hope to spend the month of September, and hopefully all of summer 2008: in the great American outback at the edge of the Great Basin desert,
where the sagebrush meets the Ponderosa pines. The area is very rugged. The camp site is primitive, and miles off the beaten path, yet with enough logging roads coursing through the area to insure that at least a few humans come through, some of whom are ... um, shall we say, not the kind of folks I'd prefer to hang out with.
My camps in that area are not set up
at my truck, but rather about a quarter to a third of a mile from the truck. I pack in all my gear to "base camp". (I prefer not to sleep at the truck, but like to keep a buffer should unexpected visitors stop by in the night looking to plunder. I'm still close enough to the truck to watch over it - the truck's alarm would alert me to trouble, but I'm tucked away safely, not visible from the truck - yet it's still close enough to walk out to restock supplies (food and professional tools) from the truck.
Further, I do a LOT of hiking in the area - it's tied to what I do professionally. I carry a small overnight backpack with minimalist survival gear. (Over the next few years, I anticipate similar projects in several places in the west.) While I feel confident that the 65 will meet my needs for up close SD, it won't do for that deer that I might stumble on during deer season while I'm out doing my professional work. And, I'd like the extra confidence that a rifle would loan to SD.
I could carry the 336, but that's extra ammo, and a pound heavier than an 1894C, not to mention larger (mostly longer, at 38.25").
So, finally to my reasoning: packing in with 65 and 1894C could be an ideal combo for this situation: both shoot .357M/.38spl, so there's no need for two kinds of ammo. When I'm actually hunting - that is, a day or afternoon where I'm specifically seeking deer - I'll carry the .30-30. But for those times that I'm focused more on professional stuff, the 65/1894C combo could be just the ticket. (Dave Markowitz has been nudging me in that direction for quite a while; I'm finally beginning to "get it".
)
But of course, although already "one dandy little rifle, light and fast handling", an 1894C would be potentially even more so - and easier for me to portage with pack - with a 16" barrel (total length 33.5") than with it's stock 18.5" barrel (total length 36"). It just strikes me as being one mean little beast.
(I'm planning to cut down my Marlin 39A (.22LR) from 24" to 16" or 18" for the same reasons: easier portability, faster handling ... that's been discussed elsewhere and I won't repeat it here ...)
But, if cutting an 1894C down is going to have a significant negative influence on ballistic performance,
I'd think long and hard before doing it.
OK, that's my reasoning behind this project.
Thanks for opinions, and even more so for any pages about ballistic comparisons (chrono data) for .357 Mag carbines with barrels in the 16 - 18.5" range with various types of ammo.
Nem
