octagonal barrels ?

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
9,675
Location
Dallas, TX
Are octagonal barrels more "historic" I've seen several in images on the internet lately. That an the Ovate barrel profile. But are Octagonal barrels more desirable or is it just a "fad" more or less. I know the Henry rifles have been using octagonal barrels for a while. But are the nice looking on revolvers? I think I read they have a greater surface area and won't heat up as quickly, and then will dissipate heat more quickly as well. But are there any other benefits to them?
 

CraigC

Hawkeye
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,197
Location
West Tennessee
Back in the days before readily available and affordable lathes, octagon barrels were easier to make. The barrels of American long rifles were done with large files in small shops in colonial America. While much larger British gunmakers could easily make round barrels. Many of the better long rifle builders did swamped barrels, which tapered inward towards the center and outward at each end. This tradition carried on through the various single shots and leverguns of the mid-late 19th century. In modern times, the octagon is more expensive to produce and is done so for traditional or historic reasons. IMHO, it looks spectacular on a single action and the custom JRH .500 I have in the works will have an octagon barrel. Steve's is probably the best looking stainless sixgun I've ever laid eyes on! Note the beautifully sculpted front sight base.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
9,675
Location
Dallas, TX
Oh wow! Thanks. oh my, I have considered having a 30 Carbine Blackhawk converted to another caliber and have seen the octagonal barrels as an option on different custom gun makers web sites.
 

stevem

Single-Sixer
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Northern CA
Thanks Craig. I am thrilled with how gun turned out and especially the front sight base. I told Jack I want a base similar to those found on a No. 1 rifle and that would take Freedom Arms blades. Jack actually had to make the cutter to get the No. 1 profile.
 

Bob Wright

Hawkeye
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
7,686
Location
Memphis, TN USA
Octagon barrels look out of place on Single Action cartridge revolvers, to me.

I had a Winchester Model 94 fitted with an octagon barrel and was surprised at how much weight that added!

Bob Wright
 

MaxP

Buckeye
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
1,012
Location
Virginia
Here's one I used to own, also built by Jack Huntington. It's a .500 JRH with an octagon barrel. I like the way they look.

DSC_2756.jpg
 

DGW1949

Hunter
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
3,916
Location
Texas
Bob Wright said:
Octagon barrels look out of place on Single Action cartridge revolvers, to me.

I had a Winchester Model 94 fitted with an octagon barrel and was surprised at how much weight that added!

Bob Wright

I agree with Mr Wright on both points, with "cartridge revolvers" being the qualifier for "looks out of place".
The 1851 Navy was/is a beautifull piece of machinery, mostly because all of it's lines sorta "flowed together", if ya get my drift. By contrast, I've never seen an octagon barrel on a more modern SA revolver that didn't look like it was an after-thought on how to use up some spare parts.

As far as adding weight goes....yeah, if that is the goal, adding an octagon barrel will certainly do that. I had me an octagon barreled '92 once, but between it's un-necessary wieght and it being way out of balance, I found it much too ungainly to put into service.
On the other hand, I can see where adding a lot of muzzel-weight to a hard kicking revolver could be a benifit to some shooters.

But hey, them's just my opinons on the matter, and it aint my money that's getting spent. If the next guy wants an octagon barrel on his six gun, then by all means...go for it.

DGW
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
9,675
Location
Dallas, TX
it's un-necessary wieght and it being way out of balance, I found it much too ungainly to put into service.

I can sort of see what you mean about being heavier, but how much more are we talking about? The difference between a round "normal" profile barrel and an octagonal barrel couldn't be that much.

And as far as looks go, Wow, they are beautiful, I had no idea. Something like that front sight; it would be possible on a round barrel but would look very different.
 

DGW1949

Hunter
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
3,916
Location
Texas
Kevin said:
it's un-necessary wieght and it being way out of balance, I found it much too ungainly to put into service.

I can sort of see what you mean about being heavier, but how much more are we talking about? The difference between a round "normal" profile barrel and an octagonal barrel couldn't be that much.

And as far as looks go, Wow, they are beautiful, I had no idea. Something like that front sight; it would be possible on a round barrel but would look very different.

The difference is a lot more than you may think.
A 20" 45LC '92 carbine with an octagon barrel weighs a full 1.5 pounds more than a 20" round barreled '92 carbine. And being's how all of that weight is forward of the reciever, that's more than enough to alter the gun's balance to the point that it does indeed become "ungainly" to use.

And speaking of balance...A lot folks consider a 4-3/4" SAA relvover to be one of the best-balanced 6-guns that was ever made. Others say that the 5-1/2" version is. I have one of each and wouldn't give you a nickle for the difference in the two.
Either way though, my point is that I wouldn't begin to change that aspect of my personal gun(s) just so's I'd have something different to look at.

But like I said before.....that's just my opinion.

DGW
 

REP1954

Blackhawk
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
959
Well it must be the weight saved by opening the cylinder to 45 Colt from 357 Mag must of made up for the added barrel weight. All I know is the weight of this gun and balance of it sure dose beat the 7 1/2" Super Blackhawk on the same features.
 

CraigC

Hawkeye
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,197
Location
West Tennessee
I guess it's good that we have choices. Personally, I think an octagon barrel is about the ultimate in elegant modifications that can be done to a revolver.

On weight, just as with round barrels, it's all about the contour. With single action revolvers, you're restricted by the platform as to how heavy or light an octagon barrel can be. The window is very narrow. For this reason, they are only slightly heavier than their round brethren. On rifles, it's a different matter as octagon barrels tend to be a significantly heavier contour than their round counterparts, on purpose. Particularly on leverguns, where carbines are meant to be light and handy, they have round barrels where "rifle" configurations often had octagons. Same for single shots. In muzzleloaders, an octagon barrel can range from the heavy Hawken type, meant to withstand heavy loads suitable for buffalo or the svelte, swamped long rifle (Pennsylvania/Kentucky) which may have a 42" or longer barrel but an overall weight of 7lbs. Meanwhile, the very slight increase in diameter between my .54cal Lyman Great Plains Rifle and .54cal Pedersoli Rocky Mountain Hawken adds up to a full pound.

How much that weight matters is completely subjective. Some folks balk at it, I don't have an issue hunting with a 9-10lb octagon barreled Hawken or a 8-9lb octagon barreled levergun.

IMG_0134b.jpg



The difference between this custom .54cal flintlock pistol by Steve Zihn (29oz) and my Lyman .54cal Plains Pistol (41oz) is not due to the shape of the barrels but to the much heavier contour of the Lyman.

IMG_2482b.jpg
 
Top