Is the weight a reason for getting shorter barrel revolvers?

[Onty]

I understand that some folks for warriors reasons like shorter barrel revolvers.

However, I would like to know did any of you purchase shorter barrel revolvers just because of the too much weight of longer barrel revolvers?

If I remembered correctly; several years ago was article about Ruger and their marketing. One of executives in Ruger Marketing was telling that at one moment they noticed a surge in sales of 4" GP100, and drop of 6". When data were compared with sales of 4" and 6" Security Six revolvers, they found no correlation. After some research, they found that for a number of customers 6" GP100 was too heavy, so they turned to 4" revolvers. Well, Ruger started manufacturing some GP100 with half underlug.

If you check weights of 6" GP100 and S&W 586/686, you will find that they are about the same as 5.5" Bisley or SBH in 44 Magnum.

I do have 44 Magnum 7.5" Redhawk and 7.5" Bisley, but when those two revolvers are compared, Bisley is IMO way better balanced. Redhawk is a great revolver, however, with 54 oz, and muzzle quite heavy, nah, too much for me. On top of that, even with some peppier loads, Bisley is "gentler" on hands. Couple cylinderfulls no difference, but more than that, the difference is noticeable.

For that reason, Redhawk is for sale. For sale is also 6" 686; 45.4 oz is more than I want on 357 Magnum revolver.

 

[hittman]

My first ever revolver was a 4 inch Security Six. Seems to fit me very well.
I feel very little difference with the 6 inch Security Six.

The full lug 6 inch GPs feel VERY nose heavy and uncomfortable to shoot. I've only kept the one I have because it's a "D" s/n and with the box, etc.

The extra unbalanced ( to me ) weight is why I don't have any Redhawks over 5.5 inch either.

Like most things, it's personal preference, what you get used to, your shooting style, and more.

So, I avoid the longer barrels as they're uncomfortable, and unnecessary since I don't shoot long ranges.
I buy 2 inch to 3 inch revolvers because I like the appearance and generally shoot 25 yards or less.

 

[357 Terms]

Like most things, it's personal preference, what you get used to, your shooting style, and more.

This.
My 6in Security six feels better balanced than a 6in GP or 686.

My 5.5 Redhawk feels similarly well balanced.

My favorites are my 4in and 3in GP's
They feel, to me, just right.

 

[Bob Wright]

As for my choice, I chose the 4 5/8" barrel Blackhawk. Why? First of all it is more comfortable when seated, at home, church or whereever. Especially when driving. That fact, plus it is less noticible when coveded by a vest or sport coat. All of this plus the fact that is is slightly faster than a 5 1/2" clearing leather should the necessity arise.

That's my take on the choice.

Bob Wright

 

[seasterl]

I think it might depend on who the customer is. If they want the revolver for self-defense, carry, or law enforcement, then the compact and light weight trumps with 4" barrels. Given that most of those are in 357/38Spl, the small bore means more barrel weight compared to 44/45 bores, so 4" is better than 5.5". (5.5" in 44/45 would be great, but not as popular as the ubiquitous 357/38.). I think most hunters (representing fewer sales by comparison) go for 44/45 cal and 7.5". And if you're in the dying breed of IHMSA shooters, then all your revolvers are 9-10.5" barrels, and these don't exactly fly off the sales shelf.

 

[Rclark]

My answer is 'no'. Weight isn't a factor. It is what feels right ... and looks right ... and/or what your eyes are most suited for. Plus what you are going to 'use' it for. For example 5 1/2" is my favorite Single Action barrel length. For me it just works. I don't handgun hunt, but if I did, I think I'd prefer the longer sight radius of a 7 1/2" barrel. For personal concealed carry I prefer a shorty like the Bulldog .44 Special. Comes down to personal preference really and intended use.

 

[noahmercy]

All depends on the "mission"...I have wheelguns with barrels from 1 7/8" to 7 1/2", with weights from one pound loaded to over four pounds loaded. Concealed carry in lightweight summer clothes is made easier by small/light guns. I prefer a longer tube for competitions where long shots may be encountered due to the greater sight radius (only applies to open sights, obviously), and I also favor 5 1/2"+ barrels for hunting due to higher velocities and- again- ease of making a more precise shot.
I will say that with "magnum" rounds, I find follow-up shots quicker with a shorter barrel/lighter pistol due to it being easier to arrest the upward momentum.

 

[Paul B]

I never gave it much thought other than my two Redhawks were too damn heavy. I have a 5.5" and 7.5". On Single actions, I've always favored the 4.75" length of the Colt. The one gun I regret not buying was a Ruger Flattop .44 magnum that had the barrel cut to be flush with the ejector housing. It also had a very nice action job. The only difference was he thought his gun was worth $25 more than I was willing to pay. Still kicking myself on the boo boo.

For me, barrel length depends on what I'm doing. General roaming the desert usually went with a shorter barrel but if hunting with a handgun then I would go with a longer barrel. Toward the end on my desert and local mountain hiking I went with a 4 5/8" Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 mag. or 5.5" Super Blackhawk Bisley in .45 Colt with Linebaugh level handloads.
Paul B.

 

[dannyd]

Also depending on what you train and dry fire with. The GP weights 3 lbs and the TC one weighs little over 4 lbs. So, I shoot my three 6 in GP's the most because the weight doesn't bother me.

 

[woodperson]

Short barrels are certainly easier for carry than long barrels. Unless you are going to hunt with it with iron sights barrels over 6" do not seem to add much utility.

 

[hittman]

Now that I think about it, I'd guess it's actually more BALANCE than weight for me. Yeah, weight is a factor but feeling nose-heavy bothers me more.

 

[rugerguy]

over the years the basic differences were 4 inch was a "duty" gun and 6 inch was a 'target' now that so many of us prefer something "handiier" to carry the 3 inch fits the bill far as I am concerned, and I used to carry a 5 inch full sized 1911 most of the time, then hot weather , on the bike, the much smaller Berettas were the "nice" sized pocket guns, now its a toss up was carrying a 3 1/2 nch Sheriffs model ( yes in a single action) mainly cause our friend the late Bob C carried his Colt SAA most often, and yeah I had to buy my first months 2 gen Colt SAA 5 1/2 in on a 38 special, BUT its worth way too much to be a carry gun..............tossup between the 3 inch S&W K frames , round butts, 3"GP-100 or the short barrel Speed Six but after a go around with Ruger over the "Six" series DA revs, no more for me...got rid of all of them even the early 9 mm and that was one of my first ones way back when we had our first shop in Cleveland in the mid 70s......bottom line its preference and what YOU can handle and hit the target with, "comfortably" ..............

 

[Hvymax]

You give up so much velocity and accuracy going snubby. 3" is decently practical. 4"-6" is solid multi purpose.

 

[Hebraist]

I appreciate my 2.5 inch GP100 as an EDC option precisely because it isn't nose-heavy. The weight sits in my hand, making it feel as though I have better control of it. Whatever I lose in velocity is of minimal concern to me. And the shorter barrel's mechanical accuracy is still greater than my practical accuracy.

 

[amishjeff]

For that reason, Redhawk is for sale. For sale is also 6" 686; 45.4 oz is more than I want on 357 Magnum revolver.

Pics and price on Redhawk?

 

[Hvymax]

If Ruger shortened the LCR frame and cylinder for 9mm and added a 3" barrel it would be a perfect carry piece.

 

[MHtractorguy]

I carry a 357 for critter control. I live on a farm. I carry a revolver at home and in the big city. Different critters, same mission. Barrel length was a factor to me. I wanted to keep a 4 inch barrel. Weight is also a consideration. I carry a 4.2 inch SP101, which is much lighter and a little bit slimmer than a GP.

 

[contender]

Weight has never been an issue when it comes to MY personal selection of any firearm. The job I plan to use the gun for determines the barrel length.

 

[Hvymax]

Well weight can become an issue with how your pants ride. You have to adapt your entire wardrobe around a larger, heavier gun. I can drop a compact optic equipped lightweight into my Cargo Pocket with no wardrobe discipline at all. Barrel length under 6" shouldn't be an issue at all IWB. If I want to carry a full size steel frame IWB/OWB I need a proper reinforced belt to start with.

 

[DGW1949]

I've been carrying/using steel service-sized semi autos for years, so no, weight doesn't bother me much. In fact, I find the weight rather comforting. Plus, I find heavier guns easier to shoot well....Barrel length though, that's different matter. If the barrel of any certain sidearm is too short, and I don't have a use for it. Too long, and it starts getting in the way of daily activities. The best carry option for those is probably a shoulder holster, but then how ya gonna hide it without some sort of jacket?....If I was a handgun hunter, I might see the question(s) differently, but I ain't so all I have to go on is my own training and experiences as related to carry and defensive uses.

DGW