Pondering.........

I've posed this on another forum, but will seek here:

The Colt Single Action Army was furnished regularly in barrel lengths of 4 3/4", 5 1/2" and 7 1/2". Other lengths have been available, but these are the most common. So, when Bill Ruger introduced the Blackhawk series of revolver, he chose to use 4 5/8" and 6 1/2" barrel lengths. The .45 Colt and .44 Magnum guns did utilize the 7 1/2" length. But the .357 Magnum and .41 Magnum retained the 6 1/2" length. Then when the Bisleys came out, they sported 7 1/2" tubes.

So what prompted Bill Ruger to determine they 6 1/2" length was best for the .357 and .41? And why 4 5/8"?

Bob Wright

It probably had little to do with what was best...whatever the reason.

I remember reading once that the reason for it was..... The longest barrels that could be cut from available blanks without a bunch of waste. I think it is a great compromise length when 5 1/2" is just not quite enough and 7 1/2 is a little too much. Also the 6 1/2" guns just look balanced to me.

I have also read in several places that the barrel lengths had more to do with how many barrels could be cut from the standard length of round barrel stock with the least amount of waste, than anything else.

The most efficient size was the 5 1/2" and the reason so few OM 4 5/8" .22 barrels were made, and even on the NMs.

I always assumed that since lower sales volume only justified making .41s in two lengths Bill split the difference between 5 ½" and 7 ½". Perhaps Bill thought 7 ½" looked out of proportion on old model .357s and Single Sixes, then the 6 ½" tradition was carried forward into New Model .357s.

We're the lengths of barrel blanks made in house or bought from a third party? Couldn't they just change the overall length of the blank from the start? In other words if they wanted to make 10 revolvers figure out the combined barrel length for the different models and order the appropriate length of blank?

Hondo44 said:

I have also read in several places that the barrel lengths had more to do with how many barrels could be cut from the standard length of round barrel stock with the least amount of waste, than anything else.

The most efficient size was the 5 1/2" and the reason so few OM 4 5/8" .22 barrels were made, and even on the NMs.

Click to expand...

THIS IS the correct answer to the question at hand. Furthermore WBR is on record testifying under oath in another matter that ALL the BBLs he bought and used back then on Ruger pistols were the SECONDS from the barrel factory and were sixty[60] cents per inch.

Kevin said:

We're the lengths of barrel blanks made in house or bought from a third party? Couldn't they just change the overall length of the blank from the start? In other words if they wanted to make 10 revolvers figure out the combined barrel length for the different models and order the appropriate length of blank?

Click to expand...

Manufacturers make barrel stock in standard lengths determined by shipping costs, lengths their machinery can handle, and other economic considerations.

The cost of special blank lengths would easily defeat the economics of how many barrels of each length that can be made from a standard blank length.

I have also often womdered this...

Choosing the 5-1/2" barrel for the original Single-Six probably had a lot to do with barrel length stock, since there's not much recoil/need for extra barrel weight.
Barrel lengths for the .357 Blackhawk and .44 Blackhawk though probably had more to do with recoil of the gun, since anybody making the .357 and .44 tubes would probably sell the same lengths of barrel stock in either caliber.
When the .357 Blackhawk came out, the original 4-5/8" length was probably something that made it handy and cut weight to a barest minimum, but was still manageable to shoot...and that length made it the length of the ejector housing. Then the 6-1/2" .44 Blackhawk came out, so an obvious need for a little extra weight on the end would have sufficed. By the time the Super Blackhawk came out, it had been decided the 7-1/2" length would be best for the .44 Mag. (Ruger didn't like the recoil of the .44 mag and in fact had Herb Glass do a lot of testing with the original .44 Blackhawk prototypes).
Ruger did base his Single-Six lengths however on barrel stock. As I remember it was something like two 4-5/8" lengths and one 9-1/2" out of one length of .22 stock, for a total of 18-3/4" plus saw kerfs. With two 5-1/2" and one 6-1/2" length you get 17-1/2" plus kerfs and with two 6-1/2" and one 5-1/2" you get 18-1/2" plus kerfs. Not sure if 19" was the length on their .22 cal barrel stock or not, but would have worked.
Chet15