Snubby accuracy is equal to longer barrel accuracy???

[Halo is for Kids]

I’m going to throw a hypothetical at you and the idea is to remove all human/shooter error.

Let’s say you have two nearly identical all steel 22lr revolvers, the only difference between the two:
-One has a 1 7/8’ barrel and one has a 6 inch barrel.

Now each revolver, has an identical rate of twist, is similar in weight, has an identical scope mounted and sighted (negating sight radius), and will be fired from a ransom rest in SA. All shooting will take place in an indoor range at 25, 50, and 100 yards (no wind).

1. So all other factors being equal, is a snubby’s inherent accuracy equal to a longer barreled revolver?
2. Will the rate of powder burn in either barrel be more consistent?
3. Will velocities be more consistent in either barrel length?
4. Will the rifling of either barrel spin the projectile with more consistency.
5. Will the harmonics of either barrel be more consistent.
6. What factor will have the greatest effect on accuracy?

My assumptions:
1. The longer barrel will be more accurate, but only slightly so.
2. The powder burn might be more consistent from a longer barrel.
3. Due to a more consistent powder burn the velocities from the longer barrel will have a lower ES.
4. The rifling of the longer barrel will spin the projectile with more consistency.
5. The harmonics of the longer barrel will be more consistent due to the greater mass.
6. The more consistent powder burn in the longer barrel will have the most effect on accuracy.

 

[Ed Ames]

The longer sight radius is the biggest difference. It's not that the gun is inaccurate, it's that it's very hard to aim.

I shot a S&W M37 snubby .38 one time that could hit anything I could see well enough to aim at out to maybe 75 yards (though I was holding high at that range to account for drop). It was an eye opener doubly funny because not only was it shooting better than quite a few "accurate" guns but it was billed as "barely able to hit the side of a barn from the inside" by the owner.

When you get into all that other stuff... innate accuracy... the short barrel will mean a slower projectile which means faster drop which may or may not be called inaccuracy. a shorter barrel will be much stiffer for the weight and will have a much much higher harmonic frequency that is less likely to induce inaccuracy, the powder burn probably goes to the longer barrel but after a certain point the difference will be noise.

My $1.95

 

[George Hill]

Barrel length has nothing to do with accuracy. In fact the shorter-stiffer barrels can often be more accurate. Just look at the Encore Pistol and compare that to a full length rifle. All the bullet needs is just enough to impart a spin. If it is, great. The longer barrel will only help to pile on the velocity.
Velocity and accuracy have little to do with eachother. Neither does sight radius.
Now when you factor in Human Error, faster and longer sight radius makes it easier for people make hits with... hence a lot of misunderestimating about barrel length in handguns.

 

[dfariswheel]

Back in the late 1940's and 50's there was a man who hit the big pistol matches.
He'd bet shooters that he could out shoot them with his revolver at 50 yards.

They could use their 6" barreled target revolvers, and could shoot them single action.
He'd use his 2" barreled Colt Detective Special, and he'd shoot double action.

He always won.

To be fair, he had a Detective Special that was in PERFECT adjustment and was sighted dead on at 50 yards. He had mastered that gun and was just plain GOOD with it.
People just refused to believe that a 2" revolver fired double action could beat a 6" fired single action.

Some years ago, Massad Ayoob was giving testimony in a court case, and did some shooting at 100 yards with various snubby revolvers to prove that a short revolver was dangerous even at a distance.
He and his helpers got acceptable hits on target with the short barrels, and with the Detective Special they actually got good groups.

 

[jfh]

6. What factor will have the greatest effect on accuracy?
​

Answer: How much you practice. Period.

The limitations of the pistol, round, and related items are miniscule compared to your mastery of the firearm--as the Ayoob anecdote above demonstrates.

There's an excellent discussion about handgun accuracy going on over in "general discussions" --http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=313786

Jim H.

 

[Jackal]

Long story short. The short barrel has the same inherrent accuracy as a longer barrel. The only difference is the shooters ability to use that shorter barrel.

 

[TheGunGuru]

Everyone is correct. I have many revolvers and have been dealing with this issue for a good long time. The best answer is practice, as jfh has said. With that said, generally speaking a longer barrel will be more accurate.

Ammunition is another factor that can effect accuracy, I have a Smith and Wesson 340SC AirLite revolver in 357Mag that will not fire federal Premium Personal Defense in 130gr worth a damn but will shoot the same federals in 158gr.

At first I assumed this was a bad day at the range...that I was a little out of it...so I repeated the process...shooting as I always do and it was constantly inaccurate. The difference between the shot loads was quite large...the 158gr slugs were in a group of about 14 inches at 25 yards. The 130gr slugs were in groups of about 6 inches at 25 yards. I even went so far as to let my god friend, and fellow revolver shooter, take his best shots. The groups he got were similar to mine.

This may be a fluke, a problem with my gun or my shooting habits...which is unlikely given my 100,000 shots a year of practice. However, if this is possible that my gun is that picky, then it is possible other guns have the same picky-ness.

 

[BlackBearME]

will not fire federal Premium Personal Defense in 130gr worth a damn but will shoot the same federals in 158gr

the 158gr slugs were in a group of about 14 inches at 25 yards. The 130gr slugs were in groups of about 6 inches at 25 yards.

TheGunGuru,

Am I reading that right? You say that the 158 is better than the 130, but then tell me that you got better groups (unless i've got this backward -which I might, it is almost 0600 - it seems that 6 inch groups would be better than 14 inch groups at the same range) with the 130. Did I miss something?

I'm going to sleep now, I'm doubting my comprehension Maybe it will make sense when I wake up.

 

[jfh]

Bear with me a bit: When I got my CHL earlier this year, I resolved to carry a revolver. Conferring with friends with permits lead to the decision to carry a lightweight j-frame. That lead to the decision to buy an M&P 340 for carry and a 640 for alternative carry and practice. I committed to gaining a solid proficiency with the 340--but the cost of my preferred PD ammo (Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel 38+P 135-gr. JHP) is about $1.00 per round. That has lead to a reloading development project--to find satisfactory "replica" rounds to shoot.

That lead to testing three different bullets and (so far) eight different powders to find the round that most closely replicates the feel of that Speer load. In all, I've fired over 5000 rounds in the last four months--perhaps 4000 through the 640, 800 through the 340, 300 or so through an M60, and maybe 100 through a 686.

Both the 640 and the M&P340 are equipped with CT laser grips--the 305 on the 640, and the 405 on the 340.

That's enough detail--I now feel realistically acclimated to 'the shooting experience' of the two 2"-barrel revolvers. The DAO pull is now natural, and I actually can group better with the 640 than the M60 at ten and fifteen yards in benchrest shooting.

Although marksmanship accuracy was not sought in the reloading test rounds, I am convinced that the 640 and the 340 are capable of at least 1" groups at ten and fifteen yards no matter the cartridge or reload component combination. That is, of course, far better than the needs for self-defense use. The practical accuracy issues of shooter skill are much more important than the characteristics of the tools.

Having said that, I will say that I had action jobs done on both the 640 and 340 immediately after their purchase. I come from a marksmanship background generally and a 1911 / semiauto history recently, so I wanted to have one variable (action) limited in my habituation. I also am a (former) instructor / teacher, so I have an interest in skill-development.

Because of my aging eyes, I have found the CT lasers to be both an invaluable aid for accurate shooting and for correcting grip and trigger-control deficiencies, not to mention habituation to point-shooting techniques.

As I review the OP's comments, I see that my response here really doesn't answer his question--e.g., I've reasserted that the variables in accurate shooting don't remove the shooter from the equation, but reassert their importance. Others with more of an engineering background may have more to add to the discussion.

Jim H.