Is the weight a reason for getting shorter barrel revolvers?

[Onty]

Pics and price on Redhawk?

See PM, regards.

 

[Randyzzz]

Choosing a handgun by mission is the proper discipline in my opinion. However- weight can definitely affect your performance and comfort level in shooting and carrying. A shorter barrel is easier to conceal and easier to manipulate in cramped quarters such as in a vehicle. But a gun that is uncomfortably heavy for you probably means you won't carry 100% of the time.

My in-town EDC is usually a HK P2000SK in 9mm. It's light and easy to conceal, and with 13rd mags I never feel under-gunned. With 2 spare mags I have 40 rds total on board. However, if for some reason Oregon gets to implement its 10 rd mag limit, I'll switch over to my HK45C. Less capacity but much bigger holes.

Now, for out of town or hiking, I carry one of my single actions. I have usually carried my 4 5/8" .357. With age and injuries I do find that it's a heavy chunk. So I purchased a blue .357 Vaquero 5.5". I am replacing the steel grip frame with an aluminum one to lighten the load. I feel 5.5" is the optimum barrel length. Aesthetically I prefer it also. If I had the spare coin I'd purchase one of Bobby Tyler's lightweight stainless .45 Vaquero builds. Now that would be the best of both worlds. I may just try and build one myself.

 

[Hvymax]

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

I'm a fan of shoulder rigs

 

[Yoter]

Shorter barrel for ease of carry and sometimes better balance.

 

[Onty]

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

Beautiful revolver!

Grips, where did you purchase them?

 

[Stantheman1986]

I had a blue 6" half lug GP100 and it felt so much more "right" than my full lug. I don't know why I sold it. I wanted a stainless one and never got it, I'm happy with both my full lug 6" GPs, they both have optics on them

At one time, 6" revolvers like the S&W Highway Patrolman were the norm. 6" S&W M&Ps and 10s were common and the 6" Security Six was popular with a few State Police agencies. The civilian revolver market tended to follow the police market. 6" was perfect to make use of the .357s velocity and up until the 1960s or so, revolver training was focused on primarily Single Action with Double Action being for "quick draw point blank" shooting. The 6" was more conducive to accurate shooting for the Bullseye style shooting of the day

Police Officers being seated in cars most of their day , .38 becoming the norm and LE agencies getting away from .357 , military revolvers like the S&W Victory and Colt Commando made 4" seem like the best "all rounder" length. Plus shooting styles and training went more to a "combat" style vs stationary target shooting with Weaver , Bill Jordan etc. pushing a more aggressive and efficient gun fighting skill set.

I think people like full size "snubbies" more for cool factor, or maybe woods carry. "Tactical " is in now and snubby .357s and .44s sell better than the 6"-7" revolvers that younger guys see as "Fudd" guns

 

[357 Terms]

Beautiful revolver!

Grips, where did you purchase them?

I found them on eBay, they came from Thailand.

 

[eveled]

I think for most people it's how it feels. A person might not really know why it doesn't feel right, it just doesn't. Weight balance ergonomics all play a part.

 

[JParker47]

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.

SAY WHAT? All steel handguns are heavy weight regardless of the barrel length. . I prefer a 3" SP101/357 for trail hiking in a Gunslingers K holster. I had a fun time with a Ruger Bird Head in a Doc Holiday set up. boys will be boys. watch out sisters. HA (the bird head cut the crap out of my thumb web)

 

[Stantheman1986]

Short barreled revolvers are easier and faster to draw, which is why most "serious" CAS shooters use 4 5/8" or 5.5" Vaqueros . You won't see many, if any of the more "HC" 7.5" barrels on any CAS revolvers unless the shooter just likes them and isn't a "champion".

My 2.25" SP101 is an easy, quick draw from an OWB holster , as are my Redhawk snubbies. It's just physics, the less tube that you have to clear out of the holster the easier it is to draw. Granted, 99.9999% of us will never be in a scenario where a split second quicker on the draw will matter but I will have cleared the holster and fired 2 shots from retention with an SP101 before a skilled, seasoned shooter gets a 6" .357 out of the holster and on target

 

[HW11]

For me the sight radius is shorter. It is easier to get a clear sight picture.
With progressive or bifocal glasses the closer two points are together the better they focus Clearly.

 

[Onty]

SAY WHAT? All steel handguns are heavy weight regardless of the barrel length. . I prefer a 3" SP101/357 for trail hiking in a Gunslingers K holster. I had a fun time with a Ruger Bird Head in a Doc Holiday set up. boys will be boys. watch out sisters. HA (the bird head cut the crap out of my thumb web)

As I said: "I understand that some folks for warriors reasons like shorter barrel revolvers." And I respect that! If for CCW, I would also go for a short barrel SP101, but 327.

However, some of us like 6" revolver. And on the end of the trail, or a long day, there is a big difference if handgun weighs 35 oz, like Security Six or S&W M19/66, or 45 oz, like S&W 586/686.

As for bullseye shooting, there is a reason why very popular revolver is S&W M14, with its 35 oz.

 

[WV460hunter]

I personally like an 8⅜ or longer. I like a chest rig and the increased length of barrel for me is all about hunting. When matching a revolver to a mission the longer gives me better aim faster bullet and reaches out further and for me I like the weight out front . Not to mention . When hunting I have upon several occasions used that longer barrel to rest on a backpack or a log and took a shot. I do alot of dumbell arm exercises to keep up the strength in my arms and at 51 I feel like I am as strong as I was at 30. I really think it is a matter of not only matching the gun to the mission but also the person. One must never use a weapon they are uncomfortable or unable to weild.

 

[gnappi]

Weight as a reason, yes but for me not THE reason. I bought a little 4 3/4" bright polished stainless birdshead Cimarron in .357 mag and I like shooting it so much I decided to tackle the nose heavy issue on my blackhawk which I did not like shooting much.

My 6 1/2" blue BH in .357 was very nose heavy made so in part because Ruger used an aluminum grip frame. Some may feel that added weight up front helps tame recoil, and in general (for hard kickers) I agree but the .357 is not a hard kicker except maybe for the most recoil sensitive. So I removed the painted aluminum grip frame, plastic grips and replaced it with a super blackhawk (squared trigger guard) stainless grip frame and laminated wood grips which helped a lot.

I then found a 6 1/2" stainless barrel (as a bonus I can replace the front sight insert on it also) and my gunsmith is going to cut it down just past the ejector rod housing which should take off another two ounces or so off the nose. I'm thinking it will be or will very close to be ideally balanced.

I did a lot of other things namely replacing all blue parts with stainless, which won't affect weight or balance but after the barrel is chopped down, I'll shoot it a lot more. Another side benefit is the BH will now fit the leather I got for my Cimarron

 

[wproct]

My thinking will vary. For target shooting and accuracy I really like the sight radius and heft of a 6 inch bbl revolver. However, on some revolvers my thinking goes a different direction, and a lot of it is cosmetics. I just love the looks of a single-action revolver in 4 5/8 inch barrel length, same as the ejector rod housing. Then I also really like the looks of a 2 1/2 inch bbl on a Smith & Wesson model 66.

 

[oldcrab]

I bought my 3" Wiley Clapp 2 to complement my 6" 357.
I want both for these reasons:
6" is more accurate because of longer sight plane, and is considerably more powerful with full-house loads. (Additional 275fps faster than the 3")
3" is much more "handy and balanced" for close-up issues and has tritium night sights

So I'm liking both for different purposes.