I have long believed the once offered 3.5" and 5" N-frame S&Ws were the perfect barrel lengths for that size. I owned both at one time but sold or traded them off when I got back into single actions for the second time.
All is not lost for you S&W fans. I have a 1938 Heavy Duty 38-44 with a 5" barrel, a 1927 2nd Model hand-ejector in 44 Special with a custom 4.5" barrel, a M-25 Mountain Gun in 45 ACP with a 4" barrel and a 1952 Heavy Duty with a 4" barrel. (smiley face goes here)
Small frame for carry: 3" barrel
Small frame for targets: 5-10"+
Medium frame: 4-6"
Large frame for hunting or targets: 5-8"
**************888
I have a 3" 357 Ruger SP-101, and I feel like this is about perfect for a carry revolver. Much easier to hit with outside of a few yards than a snubby, and with a significant ballistics advantage.
I bought my first snubby, a 38 LCR. I think it's too short. I don't feel like an extra 1.125" in barrel (for a 3" barrel) would make it any harder to carry. I don't understand why 3" isn't more popular. Also, even with a fast-burning powder, there's still quite a flash of the powder burning outside the barrel.
I have a 4" S&W 19 in 357. I can see why a 4" barrel is popular as a duty weapon. That extra inch in sight radius makes a big difference in accuracy past 5 yards, but doesn't carry too much of a penalty in draw speed. I agree though; it's too long for CC.
5.5" and up are a great way to shoot accurately. I had a 6.5" barreled S&W 29 that was just sweet. (but magnums shot it loose pretty quickly) Traded that for a Ruger Redhawk with the 7.5" barrel. It is a tack-driver, but noticeably barrel-heavy. I think the 6.5" barreled S&W 29 with the partial underlug was a better choice. Good balance and a long enough sight radius to be really accurate. I would like to have another Redhawk with something between 4" and 7.5". Maybe another 44 Mag, but with the 5.5" barrel? ← I say that, but I just can't justify it, since speed of the draw is never an issue for a 44 Magnum for me. Maybe the 45 ACP in 4.2"? Nah, I already have a S&W 625 that size. (though the Redhawk has a better DA pull than the 625, believe it or not!)
I think caliber makes a difference, too. For example, a 22LR or 22WMR with an 8" barrel and fine sights and a light barrel makes more sense than a bigger caliber in that barrel length. Similarly, a 357 or bigger Magnum makes no sense in less than a 4" barrel. (IMHO)
Honestly, I think the 4" is the best compromise for most of them. The X frame, though, looks a little silly with the 3" plus compensator. I wish S&W would put out a 5" uncompensated gun, shamelessly copied from John Ross.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.