barrel length vs velocity vs convenience

[The Alaskan]

My first post here, although I've read others' musings from time to time.

Planning the purchase of a Ruger Redhawk 44, but am in a conundrum over choosing a barrel length. I travel in bear country frequently enough, and more often than not, I carry a Winchester 94 in 44 Magnum, so I'm looking for a matching revolver. I have already ruled out the longer barreled Redhawks as they are bulky, slower to draw, and I already have the rifle. As I see it, I can choose amongst a 2.75", 4.20" and 5.5" barrel.

I have three main concerns: loss of velocity (and thus penetration) in the shorter barrels, the inability of powder to burn completely in the shorter barrels, and the time required to draw and present the gun with the longer barrels. Overall weight and "convenience" of carry are secondary concerns. These guns are already so expensive that I will be selling other guns to fund this purchase, so price isn't really a concern.

How much power am I going to lose going from a 5.5" barrel to a 2.75" barrel? Is it significant enough to even be concerned about? Is the 4.2" barrel a "happy medium" or is it a compromise where I get none of the benefits of either the shorter or longer barrel? Also, I'm concerned about muzzle blast and an additional loss of power/penetration caused by unburned powder in the shortest barrels. I would like to carry the same round for both rifle and revolver, which currently is a hand-loaded, 312 grn, cast lead wide flat nose bullet made from wheel weights. 23 grains of H110 (an almost full case) and large pistol magnum primers. That gives me about 1600fps from the 20" rifle barrel, but 110 is a slow burner, I'm afraid most of my power will be lost in muzzle blast. That may be a problem in any length barrel.

Lastly, the time required to draw the pistol and have it ready to use is a concern; a gun strapped in a holster isn't worth much. I've never done a lot of quick draw work. Am I gaining a lot by going to the shortest possible barrel, and is that enough to warrant the losses discussed earlier? Again, is the 4.2" barrel a "happy medium" or is it too long to draw quickly/pack easily (and yet not long enough to give the advantages of a longer barrel)?

Sorry for the long-winded post. I know there are enough topics in there to fill several thread,but I just wanted to cover all my bases (and make an impressive first post.)

 

[JohnKSa]

Here's the best resource I know of for determining velocity as a function of barrel length.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html

Their resource suggests that going from 5.5" to 2.75" will cost 200-300fps in the loads they tested. They didn't test anything like your 300+ grain hardcast bullet though.

 

[MrBorland]

I've never done a lot of quick draw work. Am I gaining a lot by going to the shortest possible barrel,

An efficient draw and hit on target is more a software issue than a hardware issue. If you've "never done a lot of quick draw work", the 2.75" barrel isn't going to suddenly endow you with a speedy draw. It takes practice, but with that practice, you should be able to employ a 4.2" gun about as quickly as the shorter one, IMO.

I'm no expert on carrying bear-defense guns, but I'd opt for the happy medium - the 4.2".

Since you've got the lever gun, it's a moot point, but personally, I think the idea of having a matching revolver and lever gun that share ammo is a bit overrated if both guns are for serious use, as each might have different loads for best efficacy.

 

[joneb]

Anther vote for the 4.2", sitting with the gun on your hip will be more comfortable.

 

[rcmodel]

Get the 4.2" gun.

It is the best compromise between velocity loss, portability, and an ear splitting muzzle blast you won't like at all from the 2 3/4" barrel.

rc

 

[jdub3]

I'd get the 4" with the 5.5" coming in a not too distant second.

 

[codefour]

As the owner of both the 2.75 & 4.2 inch, it depends. Here is why. The 4.2 is just a great all around revolver. If I could only have one gun, it would be my 4.2 inch Redhawk. IMO, the most versatile gun ever made.

Concealed carry and the 4.2 is hard to do. I am a large man making it easier to conceal large guns but the 4.2 still leaves a large outline. It shoots great though.

The 2.75 conceals much better and is easier to carry. The grips are smaller but are also rounded. The rounded Redhawk grip frame will make finding after market grips very hard.

The 2.75 can be hard in the recoil department. My 4.2 has custom wood grips that helped reduce felt recoil very much. I fired the buffalo bore 340 grain +P+ loads in both. The 2.75 was more punishing. But I can do it. I am not recoil sensitive.

I love the Ruger Redhawk. They are brutally strong. Install a set of Wolfe springs and the trigger gets much better

Just a heads up, I bought my 4.2 years ago. The 2.75 had to go back to Ruger. It had a bent frame.! They fixed it and it shoots great. But it was alarming.

 

[The Alaskan]

Well thanks for the input folks. To be honest, I'm surprised so many liked the 4" gun. I was feeling like it would be one of those things that is mediocre at many tasks and excellent at none.

The ballistics chart helps; thanks.

I'm not really concerned about concealed carry or EDC or anything. This is strictly a wear in the field, outside my coat, kind of thing. I don't carry an EDC gun.

Codefour: why do you say "most versatile gun ever made?"

 

[rcmodel]

Consider that folks who carry guns all over the country for a living (cops) carried 4" revolvers, and now carry 4" - 5" auto pistols.

If the trade off for a shorter or longer barrel was worth the advantage, or disadvantages, that's what they would be carrying.

rc

 

[gotboostvr]

As far as the "most versatile" comment, I'm inclined to agree.
As with 44 specials it'll still hit like a 45acp but have little recoil. Great for plinking!
Load it up hot and it has enough power for anything you're likely to encounter.
You can always load a powerful revolver down, but you can't "go up".
and semi autos are limited to an even more narrow performance envelope.
I'm partial to a Smith 29 4" myself, but the redhawk is a great choice i wouldn't mind having in my rotation.

 

[The Alaskan]

I languished for a while over the debate of S&W 629 vs Ruger Redhawk, as I've always been partial to S&W. What it came down to was a.)the ability to handle a steady diet of hot hand loads and b.) long haul reliability. The Rugers are well cherished up here in Alaska for their ruggedness. I plan for all my guns to go to my only child some day, as most of them came to me from my father.

 

[codefour]

Codefour: why do you say "most versatile gun ever made?"

The .44 Magnum can be loaded with mild specials to elephant stoppers. The .44 Mag has been used in a Redhawk to stop elephants (7.5 inch barrel). It will do anything you need it to within handgun range (bow range). It can be carried, concealed, hunted with, plinking etc. Many will say "my rifle will shoot X number of yards farther" etc, but can it be carried concealed or in a holster on your hip? It is just a very versatile round. I dropped a 300 lb boar with one round out of my 4.2 inch RH that I had in a holster under my shirt. It was a moderate loading of 2400 over a 240 MBC bullet. The shot was 40 yards. The bullet passed clear through and the boar was dead almost immediately.

I love S&W revolvers too. I do not own a 29/629. If I ever did, it would be for plinking and nostalgia reasons. Yes, Smiths are smooth. I have several Smiths in .357 Mag, especially the L and N frame. But in the .44 Mag world, the Ruger is just the John Deere of stout revolvers. I have heard of people abusing their Redhawks with handloads well above SAAMI into very unsafe territory but the Redhawks survived. A S&W would not. Rugers will not go out of time with a large dose of stout loads. Smiths will get out of time and shoot loose over time. I am not startring a 29/629 vs Redhawk debate. So please do not think that is what I am implying.

 

[The Alaskan]

LOL, no you aren't starting a 629/RH debate with me; I'm already sold.

I misunderstood your earlier assertion. I thought you were saying RH in 4" bbl was most versatile, but I think what you were saying is 44 magnum cartridge is most versatile.

 

[gotboostvr]

Oh I'll be the first to admit if you want to shoot alot of heavy weight bullets over big charges of slow powder something ending in "hawk" is the go to choice!
I mostly shoot cast 240 grainers over unique.
We don't have big bears here in Ohio outside of the zoos.
i do let loose with a few cylinders of 2400 encouraged boolists here and there and the Smiths handle them with ease. All my charge weights are within book max though.
YMMV

 

[Lucky Derby]

I have the 4.2" although in .45 Colt flavor. Great revolver. I think you'll find that if you are not concealing it, the 2.75" really offers no advantage. The 5.5" does offer some increase in velocity & shootablity, but at a cost of handiness, which since you have the rifle anyway, is kind of a moot point. so another vote for the 4.2"
You obviously load for the rifle and have a pet load for it. Good. I would recommend working up an optimal load for the revolver as well. Keep the revolver loaded with it, the rifle loaded with it's load. Any spare ammo could be devided between the loads. In a pinch either load could be used in either gun, but at the start, both guns would have the best.
When my father was a cop, his sidearm was a .357 Magnum. His BUG was a .38 Special. The .357 was loaded with Magnums. The .38 with .38s, of course. All the spare ammo he carried was .38 so it could be used in either gun should the need arrise. Perhaps not the optimum load for the .357, but it would work. Same principle here.

 

[The Alaskan]

Well, the load I use in the rile is less of a "pet load" and more like something I worked up in haste (actually, I copied it from a friend), but it seems to shoot accurately enough (under 2" at 100 yrds) and has lots of energy, so I use it.

At some point I probably should look at switching to 4227, which burns faster (especially since I can no longer find 110). But yeah, neither gun is going to perform up to its potential with a cartridge that is either designed for another gun or designed to be all things for all guns.

Given that I don't always have that 44 rifle with me (I often will carry either a shotgun for birds/fowl or a 243 for caribou or I'm fishing), then it's probably best for the revolver to have its own ammo.

 

[Cee Zee]

I take it from your name that you are talking brown bear defense. You may be right that a Ruger might be a better choice for brown bear defense but that's really only true if you intend to do a lot of practice with your carry round. You can fire a few of the heavy loads in the 629's, just not a lot of them. That's my understanding. You can practice with .44 special if you want and carry your Smith with a +P+ load. It's a choice that you may not want to make but it could work as long as you don't fire those heavy rounds until you really need them.

I have a 629 for black bear defense. Obviously there's substantial difference. As for barrel length with the right holster you can certainly draw longer barreled revolver pretty fast. If you've seen Bob Munden in action you will know that even long barreled guns can be fired ridiculously fast. Practice determines your speed more than barrel speed. Sure if you're at the cutting edge you might be able to squeeze a slight bit more speed from a shorter barrel but aim is your real challenge when dealing with a charging bear. Generally people seem to have time to draw their weapons if they're carrying a handgun in a holster. I carry an 8 3/8" barreled 629 and I don't worry about speed of the draw. I can actually draw it pretty fast. I use a tanker holster that I carry almost like a cross draw holster. And drawing from that type of holster is plenty fast enough even with a long pistol.

I'm not trying to talk you into something you don't want. I'm just wondering if you're thinking too hard about a couple of inches. I can't see it making more than a few 10ths of a second of difference if you practice like you should. I've worked on drawing my Smith. I bought it from my brother when he needed to raise some money to fix his lawnmower. I actually intended to sell it then the bears showed up in my neighborhood. So I just went with what I had and I don't think it's a bit of a problem.

 

[CraigC]

The 4" is the best compromise of portability and utility. Velocity in big bore revolvers is highly overrated.

 

[strambo]

I also vote for the 4" especially since you have the carbine, otherwise maybe the 5.5." 2.75" just seems too small for an on the belt woods gun and too big to conceal so I don't see the point.

 

[joneb]

At some point I probably should look at switching to 4227, which burns faster (especially since I can no longer find 110

I think h-110 would be fine in a 4", with heavy bullets 2400 would be my choice.

 

[X-Rap]

Perhaps the most sought after and pricey S&W revolvers are the 3" models. I wont argue that the 4" has been the gold standard for uniformed LEO during the reign of the revolver but 3" or the 2.75 Ruger is a nice compromise in carry/concealability and controlability. You already have the carbine that maximizes your velocity potentials so I would look hard at the alternative options in which you might carry the hand gun.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I have revolvers from 2" up to 8". If I could only have one and planned on it being carried in a hip holster, it would be a 4".

 

[Water-Man]

Get that Red Hawk and load it up with some Garrett 44 mag Hammerheads.

 

[Tallball]

Another vote for 4".

I shot a short-barreled one once. I was hiking/camping with a family friend in the Superstition Mountains. It was almost dark outside. George (RIP) had his brand-new short-barreled 44 magnum with him. I think it was a S&W with a barrel about 2.5" long. We were plinking as it was getting dark and he offered to let me shoot it. Each shot made a ball of fire like a small pumpkin. That was FUN.

But you don't really need a big explosion happening only an arm's length away from your face when you have other things to worry about, such as a charging bear. Four inches seems more sensible.

Here is my 44 magnum. They don't make these anymore.

 

[buck460XVR]

At some point I probably should look at switching to 4227, which burns faster (especially since I can no longer find 110).

IMR4227 is actually a tad slower than H110/W296.