Snub-Nosed .357s, What's The Best Barrel Length?

[AK103K]

Oh, and 2.75 for the 357's for me.

 

[AK103K]

3" is just pushing it I think.

 

[Old Dog]

Three inch barrel is the sweet spot for me. Although the 66-4 in 2.5" trim is close runner-up to the 3" Model 13 for me...

The new King Cobra is working out well, too.

 

[AK103K]

Im not normally a Colt fan, but I do like the looks of that Old Dog.

 

[Armored farmer]

I like my 2½" s&w66.
It carries well, and it shoots great. I don't see any need for a longer barrel unless velocity is your goal.

 

[commygun]

I gave up on trying to make a handgun be more than one thing a long time ago. So I have snubby .357’s for concealment, 4” .357’s for open carry, and (at one time but no more) 6” .357’s for target and hunting. I lusted after a 3” GP-100 for a long time but never quite got around to buying because of the nagging thought that it didn’t really make sense for me.

I think being a big pocket carry guy taught me this. For years I tried to find the most gun that I could conceal in, and draw from, a front jeans pocket. Sure, a Kahr MK40 or a Ruger LC9 or a j-frame, could be made to work, but they weren’t that comfortable, and they weren’t that accessible, and they looked like a brick in the pocket. So, yeah, the ideal pocket gun (that I’m willing to pay for, anyway) is probably a .380. And the little 9’s and .40’s and .357’s go IWB. And the full size autos and revolvers go on the belt. And all is right with the world in commygun’s gun-land.

Still, I wish I’d bought one of those blued older-style 3” GP-100’s when I had the chance....

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Of which new powders do you speak?

Word is, which I can't confirm, that powders that show the highest speeds in regular barrels also show the highest speeds in short barrels. That means something like 296/H110/2400 in the 357 Magnum, and they've been around forever.

"forever" LOL!!! Well, for some of us "forever" wasn't all that long ago.

H110 was introduced to the market in 1962.
W296 (reformulated 295P) was introduced in 1973.
2400 is the only "older" smokeless powder named (1932).
H110 and WW296 ARE the more modern canister powders optimized for "magnum" handguns.

Compared to Unique (1900) and Bullseye (1898), Red Dot and 2400 are youngsters. The real question is: which canister powders are the box-ammo manufacturers using and how do they compare to what was available to them (THEM, the factory box-ammo makers, not hand-loaders) in the pre-Super Vel (1963) days?

Don't forget, it was the introduction of the Super Vel .38Special which augured-in the short-barreled magnum craze.

 

[bangswitch]

Beautiful S&W 66, but why would Smith make the barrel so very short and yet leave the grip sticking out so far? Wouldn't it make more sense to turn the grip back toward the frame?

I can't see how you could curve the grip toward the frame any more than it is, without destroying your grip on the gun. It would put your hand and wrist in a terribly awkward angle to handle the recoil. Unless you go to a J or I frame, the 2-1/2 inch round butt M19 or M66 is as compact a revolver as you can get in .38 caliber.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I can't see how you could curve the grip toward the frame any more than it is, without destroying your grip on the gun. It would put your hand and wrist in a terribly awkward angle to handle the recoil. Unless you go to a J or I frame, the 2-1/2 inch round butt M19 or M66 is as compact a revolver as you can get in .38 caliber.

Unless you buy a Colt D-Frame or a Charter Arms small fame. But, that would mean buying something other than a S&W...

 

[Jonesy814]

I think 357 starts to shine in a 3" barrel from a velocity point of view but no matter what, I have it covered

 

[Jonesy814]

I can't see how you could curve the grip toward the frame any more than it is, without destroying your grip on the gun. It would put your hand and wrist in a terribly awkward angle to handle the recoil. Unless you go to a J or I frame, the 2-1/2 inch round butt M19 or M66 is as compact a revolver as you can get in .38 caliber.

Almost. A 2 inch model 10 is slightly more compact and still 38 caliber

 

[Rexster]

I used to really follow the ballistic data, for the various loads, in the several barrel lengths, looking for results obtained by specific gun writers, who seemed to have no agenda. I became satisfied that 4” of barrel still provided a realistically thorough burn, to enable ~1400 fps with the better 125-grain duty loads. This seemed particularly true with the Ruger GP100, perhaps due to something about the bore, and perhaps due to consistent barrel-cylinder gaps. Separate from that data, I came to agree with those who asserted that 3” and even 2.5” barrels did not lose too much velocity, with .357 Mag ammo, to remain effective, in real-world street incidents.

I used a Federal 125-grain JHC, in a real-life defensive incident, using a 4” GP100, in 1993, which did nothing to shake my confidence. In hindsight, I should have “grandfathered” my 4” Ruger GP100, and 4” S&W K-Frames, as duty handguns, in 1997, rather than going along with the autoloader flow. I worked for a PD that required us to own our duty firearms, except for the shotguns loaded loaded with less-lethal, and, some special-unit weapons. After 1997, I could not turn back the clock, and return to revolvers, unless I maintained their “grandfathered” status, but, well, I had started another “1911 phase,” and had decided to try full-1911-immersion, for all handguns larger than a J-snub back-up. (After three years of concentrating upon 1911 pistols, I managed to reach the point at which I could shoot a 1911 very nearly as well as a GP100 or K/L-Frame, on a good day, with all the planets lined-up just right. Then, I pulled my GP100 from the safe, and fired a fast-paced qual, and, in spite of three years not training with the GP100, or any other mid-/large-frame revolvers, fired an aggregate group that made me wonder why I had ever set aside my duty revolvers. Sigh.)

Notably, I found that medium-large-frame revolvers seem to carry comfortably with plenty of barrel mass hanging well below the belt line. I tended to like carrying 4” revolvers, concealed, if that meant an outside-the-belt holster, at 0300-0330, or 0830-0900. I have learned to appreciate shorter-barreled .357 revolvers, when carrying forward of the hips, to allow more clearance for my legs, when sitting and squatting. Wearing a revolver forward of the hips used to be a second-gun thing, but I am experimenting with some amount of forward migration of my “primary” carry position. On the rare occasions that I wear a horizontal shoulder rig, in this hot, humid SE Texas climate, I also find a short barrel to be desirable, for concealment.

Of course, pocket and ankle carry work best with the snub-length barrels. Neither method has been common for my primary weapon, but I have used both for for second and third guns, up to and including the SP101 in size. Keep in mind that an ankle gun can be quite accessible, if one has fallen, or has been knocked down. With no weight on it, a leg can be more-readily moved toward the waiting/reaching hand.

Other than adding a bit more desirable amount of heft at the muzzle, to damp recoil, and just a bit more sight radius, I see little difference between the various 2” to 3” barrel lengths, when handling my 2” K-Frames, 2.25” to 3” SP101 five-guns, 2.75” Speed Six, and 3” GP100. Of course, only my SP101 revolvers allow an apples-to-apples comparison, due to the identical frames. Should I ever manage to obtain one of those rare true 3” Speed Sixes, I wonder if I would be able to discern any practical difference, as I readily can with 2.25” and 3” SP101 revolvers. Balance and heft are meaningful, so I do not doubt that some shooters do feel a difference.

 

[Confederate]

I became satisfied that 4” of barrel still provided a realistically thorough burn, to enable ~1400 fps with the better 125-grain duty loads. ... I came to agree with those who asserted that 3” and even 2.5” barrels did not lose too much velocity, with .357 Mag ammo, to remain effective, in real-world street incidents.

I think you made a good call. But do you know of any shootings by fellow officers using these barrel lengths with that ammo?

I worked for a PD that required us to own our duty firearms....

Why was that? What drove that policy in the department? Did you have an armorer who could fix problems with your firearms?

I had started another “1911 phase,” and had decided to try full-1911-immersion, for all handguns larger than a J-snub back-up.

How about the 1911? Do you know of any shootings by officers using 1911s? And if so, do you know of any malfunctions? How about the efficacy of the .45ACP? What ammo did you use in your department?

Other than adding a bit more desirable amount of heft at the muzzle, to damp recoil, and just a bit more sight radius, I see little difference between the various 2” to 3” barrel lengths, when handling my 2” K-Frames, 2.25” to 3” SP101 five-guns, 2.75” Speed Six, and 3” GP100. Of course, only my SP101 revolvers allow an apples-to-apples comparison, due to the identical frames.

The 3-inch SP101 would have been a perfect gun had not Ruger, true to form, not added so much steel to make it a klunker. I tried a 3-inch and hates to use the worn out phrase "boat anchor," but dammit, Ruger stuffs steel every place it can get away with, to the point it can add no more! If Ruger put out a 3-inch SP101 with a skinny S&W Model 10 barrel, it would be a run-away sensation with both cops and civilians. But the 3-inch SP101 as it is today, it's a...a...boat anchor. Ruger execs fail to acknowledge that many people carry guns more than they shoot them. And like their stupid instruction manual warning, they'll never change.

BTW, the Ruger 3-inch Speed-Six is phenomenally superb. The 2.75-inchers are great; the 3-incher is perfect, though, or pert' near!

..

..

 

[entropy]

I like 2 1/2 & 3", always wanted a 3" Python, but don't buy lottery tickets very often.

 

[Monster Zero]

I have a 3" model 65 that I love.

The best centerfire handgun I've ever owned was a 65 with a three inch barrel. I could actually hit stuff with it.

 

[Rodfac]

Three inches (3"), in this man's world and for daily carry, make it a J-frame Smith M-60. For belt carry in the back country...make it four inches (4") for the better sight picture re: accuracy.

The 3" tube allows just enough barrel length to get a good usable sight picture/alignment out to 25 yds, but is still concealable under a loose shirt tail or coat. Get a good, make it a great, hi-ride OWB holster, and dress accordingly. Here's my daily 'go to town' rig with a M60 Smith .357 mounted up. 3:00 to 4:00 position with just a bit of forward rake to allow a good firing grip while the gun's still in the leather...and with a semi-covered trigger guard.

Worn a bit farther back on the hip allows the tip of holster to be tucked into the rear pocket...especially good with jeans and 4"-5" bbl'd Smiths.

Rod

 

[Rexster]

I think you made a good call. But do you know of any shootings by fellow officers using these barrel lengths with that ammo?

Why was that? What drove that policy in the department? Did you have an armorer who could fix problems with your firearms?

1. I mostly followed Mas Ayoob, as he was familiar with shootings by officers from two or more major agencies/departments.

2. It is common, in many parts of the USA, for officers to own their own duty firearms. It seems to be the norm in Texas. There was an S&W armorer at the academy, when I was a cadet. He was a sworn officer, one of the firearms instructors. That later expanded, with several of the instructor/officers being armorers for the brands authorized for carry.

 

[SwampWolf]

So what is your choice for a perfect snubby .357?

I don't know about you, but make mine a 3-inch.

As I reflected in another THR thread, once again I hear that a 3" barrel revolver can properly be dubbed a "snub-nose"- a description a moderator on another gun site took me to task for by claiming that never in his life had he ever heard of a revolver having a 3" barrel being defined as a snub-nose when I said that I have one. Well, I still think of my Colt King Cobra with a 3" barrel as being a snubbie, if but barely.

 

[Rexster]

How about the 1911? Do you know of any shootings by officers using 1911s? And if so, do you know of any malfunctions? How about the efficacy of the .45ACP? What ammo did you use in your department?
..

Yes, there have been plenty of shootings involving 1911 duty pistols. I am not personally aware of any 1911 malfunctioning during line-of-duty shootings. ,45 ACP usually works effectively. We bought our own ammo, too, within guidelines. In 1911 pistols, I used 230-grain Hydra-Shoks and 230-grain Gold Dots.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

As I reflected in another THR thread, once again I hear that a 3" barrel revolver can properly be dubbed a "snub-nose"- a description a moderator on another gun site took me to task for by claiming that never in his life had he ever heard of a revolver having a 3" barrel being defined as a snub-nose when I said that I have one. Well, I still think of my Colt King Cobra with a 3" barrel as being a snubbie, if but barely.

Well I think you have the right of it and my support for the theory goes like this: back in the day, Colts brought out the Detective Special in a 3”, S&W brought out a Chiefs Special in a 3”, and those were always called snub-nose revolvers because they were shortened - snubby - versions of the standard patrolman’s side-arm, the Police Positive and Regulation Police, respectively. If someone wants to disagree that’s fine. I’m not any kind of an expert on the topic, just applying some logic and common sense.

 

[LoonWulf]

the only "stubby" I have is a 2.75" barrel, still doesn't feel like a stuby tho

 

[Grizzly2]

Back when revolvers were issued the lgs that dealt with the PD and County told me that the J frame 3" was usually carried by officers who had a hard time qualifying with a 2".

I wonder if since the FBI was using the 3" model 13, NYC went for the 3" Ruger.

I like 3" except for when I want to carry in a jacket pocked and then it must be 2" and small frame.

I always thought I'd carry a 3" K frame until I realized the weight was more than I wanted for all day carry even though I'm sure it would help with accuracy as the range became longer. For that reason, I carry small frames in both 2" and 3".

 

[chicharrones]

I'm trying out a 2.5 incher. It has a grip so big and thick that it belongs on a longer barreled gun.

View attachment 984806

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Maybe it's kind of important to remember WHY the .357Magnum was developed in the first place: to shoot into steel-bodied cars and through steel doors.

The old police .38Spl loads were a big improvement over the older .38S&W for rural policing, where range was a factor, but in the big metro areas, where crowded streets and tenement housing presented too many possibilities for injuring innocent by-standers on sidewalks, in shops, or even in their own homes, the .32S&W Long and .38S&W rode on the hips of beat cops for decades and did the job. Prohibition changed a lot, post-WW2 America changed even more, and the drug cowboys changed policing around the world - and then there were domestic Marxist terrorists and the socialist revolutionaries... Basically, the .357Magnum became essential for policing; but, as a civilian, how many of us really NEED to shoot into a moving car or through a steel door? How many of us are facing down dozens of heavily armed Cartel drug enforcers or Marxist-Socialist revolutionary foot-soldiers on a daily basis? If you really NEED to carry a revolver for shooting through cars as a civilian walking around in daily life, not looking for trouble and not wandering through the worst of neighborhoods "just because," and a .38Spl or .380ACP just won't suffice, then we're looking at a far worse case of societal rot than ANY handgun will cure.

Just my opinion on the subject as someone who doesn't carry a gun concealed on their person in public. That's just not how I make my living.

 

[chicharrones]

Just my opinion on the subject as someone who doesn't carry a gun concealed on their person in public. That's just not how I make my living.

I don't carry concealed in public as part of my job. I carry concealed in public because of the sketchy areas I travel through and to for my job. Seems like I spend way too much time in worn out hotels in questionable parts of towns lately.

But really, crime doesn't just happen in bad parts of town. I've seen it in good parts of town as well.