357 lever gun 16 vs 20 inch barrel

Ballitsics by the inch shows the 357 is optimized with the 16 inch barrel and actually might lose fps with a longer barrel.

Alot of research on the various forums tends to have less info on the ballistics and concentrate on ease of handling etc.

Some discuss hand loading where one can reach better potential from a 20 inch barrel.

I had a 20 inch years back but thinking about picking one up in 16 inch this time around.

Looking for the ruger forum input.

Having had both, I kept my 20" Rossi 92 because of the longer sight radius. As I age (now 58 years old), I find it harder to focus on the front sight on shorter barrel rifles. May not be an issue with you now, but it will be if you keep the rifle long enough....

I hand load so I can work up loads optimized for the 20" barrel. With the 357s case capacity optimizing for a longer barrel isn't the challenge that it is for the 9/10mm. The longer sight radius is also a plus particularly for hunting and target or competition. OTOH if it's going to be for home defense or car carry the shorter barrel is likely better.

The 20" barrel also provides a couple of more rounds in the magazine, which may or may not be of importance to the user, unless you are in a firefight. My Henry .41 Magnum rifle holds 12 rounds of 41 Special when fully loaded. Too may years of John Wayne, Chuck Connors, and other Hollywood types using 92 Winchesters. Bob!!

Yes my eyes are struggling as it is. Maybe a good red for would be the future. How do the hotter rounds fair in the revolvers? Gp100 and six aeriea.

Only a chronograph will tell you the whole story, but as a broad generalization, a smaller charge of a fast powder is better for a short barrel, and a larger charge of a slow powder will give a higher velocity in a longer barrel.

I prefer the handiness of the shorter 16" barrel on my Rossi 92, having owned them in 16", 20", and the 24" octagon barrel rifle.

Its all a trade off, handiness for reduced sight radius & mag capacity.

But one unknown & a minor disappointment with my 357 trapper was a reduced length of pull. I didn't know that going in. It could be a like or dislike, according to your size, or how much handiness you want..

Mine's a whole lotta fun, I know that..

Ballistics between 16" and 20" isn't that important with a .357. Now if you were talking 30-30 that might be a factor. So.... you are left with handling and capacity. Pick what you like.

My 24" Winchester isn't that handy and I don't need more than 10 rounds to shoot targets. I have considered having the barrel cut down to 20" just for aesthetics.

I am part of the group that says handling is most important. Way more than fps difference between 16 and 20. That handling difference is a personal thing with no right wrong answer. My advice do not buy til you have handled each. Check out the sight picture, the swing and point/aim between the two. How are you going to shoot it and at what? I like the way a 20 inch Octagon barrel points and holds over a shorter lighter barrel and the longer sight plain is nice. I shoot the 92 mostly offhand at 50 yds. Clay targets struck into a hillside are a easy hit.

In reality the bigger noticable difference will be in....
-Capacity
-Handeling
-Sight Radius

I have owned both a 20" and 16" Rossi 92's. I much prefer the 16" and with the Skinner rear sight I mounted, sight acquisition is not an issue. JMO.

Dave

Over the years I've fiddled about with a bunch of lever guns mostly in 357, 44, 30-30, 22Mag. The big difference to me has been handling. Depends on what you are trying to shoot how much the sight matters. Currently I have a Henry mares leg in 22mag. Sight picture is pretty useless but it's fun to snap shoot. Back when I was substance hunting sight picture was a big deal, but I don't do that no more!

However I find I don't get any feel for handling unless I can handle the gun.

Deleted

After I acquired my Rossi .357 16" carbine, I found that it preferred heavy bullet loads. I was using Bullseye for reloading, and knew there were better powders for the loads I wanted. I spent a lot of time searching reloading forums and other sites to see what others were using, and on the basis of flexibility of charge, thermal stability, and good, but not necessarily top velocity, I chose Alliant 2400. I replaced the rear sight with a Marble's Bullseye aperture. It works, and is considerably cheaper than the Skinner. I suppose an extra 4" would get me another 100-200fps, but as is, it is very handy and better in an indoor confrontation.

I split the difference with the 18" tube on my JM 1894C. In my experience, powder selection is going to make a much bigger difference for both accuracy and velocity than anything else. Mine does superbly with medium speed powders like Unversal, HS-6, and Accurate No. 5.

Handling rules IRL. From a bench, everything is relative.
Took black bear no. 1 & 2 with my 30-30 trapper. They work just fine in the dark woods near the St. Lawrence, despite any "reduced" velocities.

I recall a Marlin 9mm Camp Carbine that actually lost velocity attained by a Hi-Power MkIII. Certainly didn't have any significant increase (Federal 9BP), so I guess it all depends on particular barrels, loads, etc.

+1 for the Marlin 1894c with it's 18.5 bbl, it's a very good "split the difference" choice. I have one and I love the size and handling of it. Mine's not a JM but a 2018 remlin, I have no complaints. With the right loads it will shoot pretty darn flat. 125 grain bullets will shoot over 2000 FPS, it is plenty potent with excellent accuracy.

Deleted

I would go for a 24-26" octagon barrel with nice wood and maybe some checkering...and a nice tang sight.