(6" vs 4" barrel in a .357) What are the benfits of a 6"

[cleetus03]

(6" vs 4" barrel in a .357) What are the benefits of a 6"

I recently acquired a 6" Service-Six .357 Mag. Since I am new to revolvers, I was wondering what if any are the advantages of a 6" length barrel compared to a 4"?

I mainly ask out of curiosity as I rarely find new revolvers nowadays that are 6". The majority are snub length, 4" or 8" & longer target/hunting revolvers. I am competent enough to realize that 4" is obviously more easy to ccw or carry in general.

But I'm talking about ballistic wise differences. For example when compared to a 4" barrel does a 6" produce significantly;

1. less felt recoil?
2. lower decibel noise heard?
3. faster target acquisition?
4. increased velocity?
5. longer range to hit targets accurately?

Appreciate all the help & info yall can give me!

 

[General Geoff]

1. To an extent, yes. The longer barrel will make for a heavier gun, which will reduce felt recoil.
2. Theoretically yes, but any actual difference in decibel level is likely negligible due to the B/C gap.
3. This is directly related to (1). Initial target acquisition may be the same or possibly even slower due to the heavier gun taking slightly longer to raise into a proper sight picture. Followup shots, however, may take less time due to less felt recoil.
4. Yes, there will be a significant increase in velocity, especially with full-house loads in .357.
5. Absolutely. This is mostly due to a longer sight radius.

 

[pps]

The 2" difference in length might not have as much influence on velocity as one might think. Differences in bc gap, bore diameter variations or constrictions can influence velocity too. ymmv

 

[TAB]

longer site raidus = more accuracy.

think of it like this, you need to draw a strait line 4' long, you have a yard stick and a 1' ruller, which is going to be more accurate?

 

[General Geoff]

The 2" difference in length might not have as much influence on velocity as one might think.

By significant I meant 100fps, maybe 200. This also largely depends on the powder used, burn rate, etc.

 

[pps]

Understood, Geoff. I just brought up some other factors influencing velocity. My 4" Ruger consistently runs about 50fps faster than my friends 6" Smith. Go figure?

 

[General Geoff]

With the same ammo? How do your B/C gaps compare?

 

[pps]

Same ammo. If anything the bc gap on my Ruger was a bit wider than on my friends Smith. Again, I have no explanation. The bore on neither revolver has been slugged so no information there.

 

[General Geoff]

What kind of chrono are you running, and at what distance(s)? Are these full house loads, or milder?

 

[pps]

f1 chrony at 15 ft from the muzzle. The rounds used are hand loaded thompson designed swc (Lymann 358156) over 14 grains of 2400. My Ruger was at 1300fps (extreme spread usually about 10 to 20 with this hand load) and the 6" model 19 was about 50fps slower. My 5" model 627 came in almost identical to the 4" Ruger, this was before I fire lapped the 627.

Similar velocity differences were seen with my mouse fart 38 target loads 158gr hornady swagged swc lubed in lla over 3.4gr of bullseye...about 800fps from the ruger and 627, but about 750 from the 6" Smith of my friend...I have no explanation.

 

[ArmedBear]

The main difference is the experience of shooting the gun. Longer sight radius and different balance make for better practical accuracy.

It's slower to draw and harder to carry though.

I shot a friend's 8 3/8" 686 (discontinued now). It was WONDERFUL to shoot, much easier to hit small, faraway targets with than my otherwise-identical 4" 686 is. Not the best defensive piece, though.

 

[David E]

If the gun is intended for "general purpose," then the 4" wins.

If for hunting or long range shooting, the 6" is the better choice.

I'd look at the Bianchi Cyclone #111 holster for field carrying either one of them.

.

 

[General Geoff]

+1 on the Bianchi Cyclone #111. I use one for my 6.5" Smith 610, and it's a fantastic piece of leather.

 

[Oro]

The 2" difference in length might not have as much influence on velocity as one might think.

This is what chronos with real guns usually show. Tests with proof barrels and cut-down barrels yield inconsistent results. As a general rule, ALL other things equal, a guestimate of difference might be 75fps or less. It also varies quit a bit with powders type. It is a difference that, in any real practical sense, does not make a dramatic difference on ballistics and stopping power.

As to accuracy, the only definitive study I have ever seen that compared 4" vs. 6" barrels (Gun Digest did one in the '60s they re-printed in their guide to Combat Handgunning) found no measurable difference. They used S&W revolvers in 22, 38, 357 and 44 as I recall, one each in 4" and 6". They had experienced competitive shooters run the (then standard, not now) FBI combat course test and scored them. There was no advantage to 6" found.

While we all agree theoretically there is, no one can actually demonstrate it in the real world that I have found, and then one really good, thorough test disproved it.

Basically, I think ArmedBear said it correctly - it's experience, not the gun itself. His experience with 4" vs 8 3/8" makes more sense - now you have a real substantial difference to work with in sight radius and barrel length that can make a difference you can notice. 4" vs 6" just isn't significant enough. That is why so many people just opt for the carry convenience of a 4".

 

[David E]

Bolt a 4" and a 6" in a machine rest, you couldn't tell which gun shot which target.

If you are an accomplished shooter, then barrel length means less as far as accuracy goes.

A 6", however, makes it easier to extract that accuracy for most people, especially at distance.

 

[Cpt. America]

Got a 4" and a 6" I use the 6" for deer hunting from time to time.

 

[sterling7c]

The perceived recoil from my 6" S&W Model 27-2 is less than from my 4" Model 28. I find no practical difference in accuracy but the 6" 27 balances better for me. One man's meat as they say. Now I knew there had to be reasons why I dropped $$$ for a 625-2 ... maybe the 5" barrel was one of them

 

[ArmedBear]

I do think that 6" vs. 4" makes a significant difference in practical accuracy -- not at police-training style targets at 7-10 yards, more like bullseye targets at 25 yards.

I shoot my 6.5" Blackhawk and 10.5" Super Blackhawk at 50 yards offhand, and the results can look a lot like shooting a 4" defensive revolver at 15.

However, I think that a 6"+ revolver is more for target shooting, hunting and playing around. A 4" is quicker to point, easier to carry and draw, and works very well at defensive distances and speeds.

I was talking with an old cop I shoot pistol matches with. They used to provide their own weapons. He carried a 4" Python, but then went up to a 6" because it was easier to shoot at longer distances, and probably more importantly because it was a lot better for pistol-whipping thugs when he didn't want to have to actually shoot them. It was a different time, and they didn't have Tasers...

 

[Deanimator]

Higher velocity and longer sight radius.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Yes to 1, 4 and 5.

 

[Quoheleth]

The Biggest advantage

You forgot the El Numero Uno biggest advantage:

I recently acquired a 6" Service-Six .357 Mag. Since I am new to revolvers, I was wondering what if any are the advantages of a 6" length barrel compared to a 4"?

You own the 6".

Now take it out, shoot the hound out of it, and let us know how she runs.

Q

 

[devildog66]

I have a 6" revolver but ONLY because it makes it legal for hunting in many states, e.g., Ohio. If not for that factor, then I would only have 4" revolvers as the 6" just becomes too cumbersome in comparison for little to no positive gain in any of the factors mentioned by the OP. I could also see the value of a 6" revolver for specific target sport competitions where an incremental gain in one of the aforementioned factors could be valuable.

 

[outerlimit]

Same ammo. If anything the bc gap on my Ruger was a bit wider than on my friends Smith. Again, I have no explanation. The bore on neither revolver has been slugged so no information there.

Perhaps the grooves are wider in the rifling in the S&W barrel, allowing more of the gas to escape past the bullet. I assume neither barrel is chrome lined, correct? All things being equal, you should yield at least a 50fps increase with a 6" barrel vs. 4" with the .357 caliber.

I have some guns that have miniscule differences in barrel length, yet predictable differences in velocity as a result. But there are many different factors to take into account when judging this. That Ruger revolver of yours doesn't happen to have polygonal rifling does it? If so, that would help to explain the difference.

 

[Confederate]

I have a benign tremor that makes shooting longer barrel lengths difficult. I will generally shoot a 4-incher much more accurately than a 6-inch. A longer barrel length will give you 1) slightly better accuracy with open sights; 2) extra room to balance on a branch or other object; and 3) a little more velocity.

Back in the 80s, the velocity thing was a major issue in .357s, at least much more than it is today. Powders were slower burning back then and you could get a bit more punch. Still, there was the occasional fluke where a 4-inch would out perform a 6-inch, but that was because tolerances were better on the one than the other. Now this isn't as much of an issue.

For defense, a light, shorter barrel is almost always better, which is one reason I love the 4-inch Ruger Security-Six. Putting all the weight in full underlug barrels was a mistake, in my view. It made shooting at the range easier, but toting in the wilderness and picking up a sight picture rapidly were a little more difficult. Subsequent shots, however, are a bit easier with the full underlug.

That said, I love the weight and balance of the Security-Six. The stainless 6-incher was an astounding outdoor gun. That and the 6-inch S&W 66 were ideal.



The Ruger 6-inch Security-Six was an ideal outdoor gun.

 

[buck460XVR]

However, I think that a 6"+ revolver is more for target shooting, hunting and playing around. A 4" is quicker to point, easier to carry and draw, and works very well at defensive distances and speeds.

...............seems it up pretty well.