357 : 20" or 24"?

DSCN0899.JPG
Before my half-mag trapper became the half-mag trapper, I did the half-mag with the 20" (19"?) barrel. I've always liked the half-mag Winchesters. Maybe I should have left it that way, but got the trapper bug one day and said: "what the heck?" Before I cut the barrel down I took it on a couple of bear-hunts, this is one of them. But no regrets, the half-mag trapper is super-light, which I think is the main advantage of a very short barrel. As far as "handy", I don't see/detect/feel much difference. I like the balance of a 20" better, with my 16" I have to put my little finger through the trigger guard when carrying it at my side one-handed, for it to balance. With a 20", or longer the balance is forward of the trigger guard, which I like better than having a finger in the trigger guard. (no danger of course with the hammer on half-cock...but still...)
 
I believe I've read that in .357 mag, the prefered barrel length[rifle] is 16", as that is the optimal burn length for said cartridge. Anything longer really does no good for .357.
No link, just something I seem to remember reading.

It may not do the cartridge any good, but in terms of a shooter, extra length can provides better balance, less objectionable noise, and greater sight clarity for some shooters.
 
Jusr going by the Opening Post: ".... Im going to buy an Inox Puma .357. There are 2 to choose from: 20 inches, normal barrel and a 24 inches and bull octagonal barrel. ... My intended use is for teaching classes and HD in some situations. ..."

For home defense, the 20" would be more maneuverable inside a home. Unless you're "home, home on the range."
I have 20" Puma levet action rifle.
 
As someone else mentioned, the ballistic advantage of a longer barrel in a pistol cartridge depends on bullet weight and the powder. A light bullet pushed by a fast burning powder won't see as much gain as the heavyweights and slow burners.

I like that .44 Mr. P89DCSS, probably a bit lighter than the same gun in .357". I'd load that sucker with 300 grain bullets and use it for everything and anything. If I ran into Grizz, I'd take his lunch money away, give him a wedgie, and send him crying home to his mama.
 
It may seem “stupid” now but I am sure at the time it was the right decision for you. I sold a Colt Combat Gov’t series 70 for $285 in ‘88. I was unemployed and my family needed food. I regretted it for a long time. I no longer do. It was a good decision at the time.

I have only seen two of those Centennial Muskets in real life. One was at a gun show for what I thought was a very reasonable price at the time. I cannot remember what the seller was asking for it. It was not excessive. Trouble was, I was on a limited budget and I was acquiring guns for Cowboy Action Shooting and I could not use 30-30 for SASS. I wish I would have bought it anyway. I just loved the way it looked.
The second one I saw was in a collection and not for sale “at any price” per the guy that had the collection.

Yep, I was a young guy (well under age 30) and was the father of three. What I wanted for me didn't count for much at the time.

.
 
I agree with those with shorter barrel. You get to a point of diminishing returns. .357 in a 16-20 barrel is superb up to 100 yds which is really the limit and 50-75 yds is more appropriate. I have a Henry with a heavy 16" and it is my favorite off hand gun for target shooting up to 200 yds.
 
I have Winchesters in 16"-30" There are uses and benefits for all lengths-
The 24" gives me a better sight pic for my aging eyes- and the 24"-26" while being a bit front heavy is steadier for off hand shooting-

It is really about personal preference - I find that the longer barrels help me hit better at longer distance -
 
Back
Top