# Barrel Length



## JONSCH (Jun 13, 2008)

which barrel length (not for carry) would you consider the best balance of accuracy and balance/holding comfort?


----------



## James NM (Jan 4, 2007)

Gonna depend on which gun you're talking about.

A small frame pistol will balance better with a shorter barrel. A large frame pistol will balance better with a longer barrel. For example, a Keltec P3AT balances nicely with a 2 3/4" barrel, and a 1911 balances nicely with a 5" barrel. However, if you put a 5" barrel on the Keltec and the 2 3/4" barrel on the 1911, the balance is not so nice anymore.

Since you discounted carry, the main reason to go with a longer barrel in a handgun is velocity, and thus power.

The perceived accuracy improvement actually comes from the longer sight picture, not the barrel length.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

About 24", with the .30-'06 cartridge loaded to about 3,000fps. and a 165-grain, boat-tail bullet.
Oh-you were asking about *pistols*! Sorry. :smt083

Barrel length itself is not the most important issue in accurate pistol shooting. Sight radius is.
...And a steady hand, and a smooth trigger press, and superb breath control, and a bunch of other, non-pistol factors.
You'd be surprised at what kind of accurate long-range shooting a short-barreled pistol can do...in the right hands, that is.


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

James NM said:


> Since you discounted carry, the main reason to go with a longer barrel in a handgun is velocity, and thus power.
> 
> The perceived accuracy improvement actually comes from the longer sight picture, not the barrel length.


As has been covered before on this forum, poor horse, Velocity gained by additional barrel length is inconsequential as you only get about 20-30fps per inch of additional barrel length.

Also, accuracy improvement actually does come from a longer barrel in the sense that you cannot really have a longer sight radius unless the pistol is longer as a whole. I've never seen a 7" sight radius on a 2.5" barrelled pistol. The longer the barrel, the longer the sight radius.

I also think that accuracy comes much more from how tight the gun locks up and shooter skill and comfort with the gun. I've had shorter pistols I shoot better than longer pistols even at longer ranges. Either way, buy a pistol that fits what you need it to do, for instance if you are looking for a range gun for precision shooting/bullseye, I'd say get something longer, if you are looking for something to conceal well, the obvious choice is something a bit smaller.

Zhur


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 9, 2006)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Barrel length itself is not the most important issue in accurate pistol shooting. Sight radius is.


I've read this a lot, and I wonder why no one has yet developed a rear sight that slides out toward the shooter, giving the shooter an extra few inches, and a longer sight radius ...

Hmmm ....

Anyone know a good patent attorney?

WM


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Answers for *zhurdan* and *Wandering Man*:
1) Olympic-competition .22 Short pistols are, or used to be, arranged with their magazines up in front of their trigger guards, _à la_ Mauser. This gave a much longer sight radius than their barrel length (restricted by regulation) would otherwise allow. Short barrel, long sight radius.
2) In NRA pistol competition, it used to be common to see front sights cantilevered out in front of a pistol's muzzle by a couple of inches. I don't know if this is still done.
3) Having a slide-out front (or rear) sight, to increase sight radius at will, leads to lots of other complications, not least of which is a difficult-to-suppress tendency to wiggle. I bet you'd lose more than you'd gain. Besides, _for most shooters_, the small increase in sight radius would be overcome by their (relatively) poor technique.
Practice makes lots of sense, but gadgetry won't make up for lack of practice. "There is no miracle cure that will absolve you from having to practice, if you want to be a superior shot." -Michael Harries


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Wandering Man said:


> I've read this a lot, and I wonder why no one has yet developed a rear sight that slides out toward the shooter, giving the shooter an extra few inches, and a longer sight radius ..


It's been done in reverse: http://www.calzaretta.com/scans/52-s.jpg and http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=99596844. This used to be somewhat common on pistols used in NRA 2700-type pistol matches.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Mike;
Yeah, that's what I was writing about.
But it's a _fixed_ extension, not retractable. *Wandering Man* wants to invent one that'll give it to you both ways.


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

@ Steve

I do recall seeing one of those competition .22LR's at one point but never looked into them when the owner told me how much it cost. I couldn't justify a .22LR for my needs at the price point he mentioned. Pretty neat looking gun though. As I recall (it's been about 8 years) it was a Russian design. Good point though, I wouldn't have recalled it had you not said something.

Zhur


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Mike;
> Yeah, that's what I was writing about.
> But it's a _fixed_ extension, not retractable. *Wandering Man* wants to invent one that'll give it to you both ways.


Not sure when such a device would be practical.

A defense gun doesn't need a long sight radius, since shots are almost invariably at very close range. Heck, some people even argue that a defense gun doesn't need sights at all.

There's no reason not have a long barrel on a hunting gun, which gives you both increased sight radius AND a velocity edge.

Competition guns almost uniformly wear optics now, and even those that don't wouldn't need a retractable extension, since competition guns by their nature just go from shooting bag/box to the firing line and back.

Maybe I am missing something...?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> ...Maybe I am missing something...?


Yup. Go back and read the previous posts, Mike.
On second thought, don't. It's not all that important.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Hmmmm. Okay. I read the posts again. I still don't see how a retractable sight extension would be practical on a defense, hunting or competition gun.

Possibly I am being unintentionally dense, which is hardly a rare condition with me. Help me out here.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

The point I think you're missing, Mike, is that it _wouldn't_ be practical at all.
(I'll quote myself: "Having a slide-out front (or rear) sight, to increase sight radius at will, leads to lots of other complications, not least of which is a difficult-to-suppress tendency [for it] to wiggle. I bet you'd lose more than you'd gain. Besides, for most shooters, the small increase in sight radius would be overcome by their (relatively) poor technique.")
That's why I wrote that it wasn't _really_ necessary for you to review the previous posts.
I think that the subject has been demolished to everyone's satisfaction.


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 9, 2006)

:smt179 :smt179 :smt179

Hijack over?

Sorry Jonsch.

WM


----------



## hberttmank (May 5, 2006)

For all around use but mostly just the range, I prefer the 5 inch on autos and revolvers. It is the best compromise of balance, ease of carrying, and accuracy to me. For a gun dedicated to hunting I like a longer barrel and for CCW a shorter one.


----------



## JONSCH (Jun 13, 2008)

i realize there is a thread for expert vs elite on the Heckler koch page...but im still really wondering how much difference the extra inch of barrel length makes. Ive only shot the expert. someone said theres no point of them making the elite because theres no difference between it and the expert accuracy but those guys at HK arent stupid of course there is a difference. but how much.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

JONSCH said:


> ...but im still really wondering how much difference the extra inch of barrel length makes...


In the hands of the normal, average shooter, one inch of barrel or sight radius means very little. It probably makes no difference at all.


----------



## JONSCH (Jun 13, 2008)

so the elite is made only for professionals?


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

A pro makes the difference no matter the gun. I see it at the range all the time. It's the old Indian not the Arrow deal.:smt033


----------



## Teuthis (Apr 9, 2008)

*Sights*

I think having some kind of sight path at one's disposal is better than none for self defense. But minimal sights are quite enough, even out to ten yards or so. Point shooting is eye/hand coordination and does not even use the sights.

What you are talking about is for target shooting and that has already been done, as we have read. And who would have time and presence of mind to pull out the sights before engaging an active foe? Just something else to go wrong.


----------



## Don357 (Dec 4, 2007)

*Perfect Balance*

It really depends on the type of gun. Some auto's achieve the "perfect balance" with a 4" barrel, such as a Sig, or a metal frame 4000, 5000, or 6000 model S&W, some with a 5" barrel such as a 1911 or a CZ75, Some revolver's do it with a 2" to 4", or even a 6" or 8" depending on the grip. Actually, "perfect balance" is a matter of personal preference.


----------



## JONSCH (Jun 13, 2008)

Because if "the one inch doesnt make a difference" between the HK expert and elite, why not just get the regular USP. Its just one inch shorter then the expert. "just one inch", right??


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

JONSCH said:


> Its just one inch shorter then the expert. "just one inch", right??


That's the ticket!

Honestly, it comes down to shooting whatever gun you buy, alot. Sight radius, gizmo's, barrel length, trigger pull, bullet weight... all that stuff, sure it plays a roll, but every time I pick up a different gun, I have to shoot it just a little bit different. So, why not buy what you want, that will fit the purpose of what you want it for, and shoot the piss out of it until you get good. That's what I'd suggest. If you ever need help deciding if smaller barrels can be accurate or not, google Bob Munden.

Zhur


----------



## JONSCH (Jun 13, 2008)

gun makers produce longer barrels/sights just to fufill someones barrel fetish, and not because they have the capability to be more accurate. They should only make 3 inch barrels because a great shooter can do just as well with a 3 inch barrel as they can with a longer one. 
----->>>This is what I gather.


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

You are missing the point.

Shooters are just as common as oxygen molecules. They differ in so many ways that it is unfathomable.

Task specific shooters will pick the tool that gives them the best advantage. The HK Elite has much more going for it than the basic 3" revolver. If you can afford to pay for a spendy auto, then go for it if you think it will benefit your mission.... mission meaning anything from mall ninja to top operator in Afghanistan. Pistols are just as selective as their users. 

Picking a barrel length based on others opinions is like choosing underpants from Victoria Secrets when all you want is good ball support. My point is, if you are looking for someone to give you the magic answer from their years of experience, then you need to put the time in just like they did to see what works best for you and what you need. 

If I were to come to a gun forum ( no offense intended) and ask what the best shooter is... it'd be like asking a Victoria Secrets model what she'd recommend. She is obviously going to recommend what works best for her, nothing more, nothing less.

Shooting well is about shoot often, and with as many different platforms as possible. 

Rent some, try some, buy some. 

Pistols are a personal matter. For instance, Mike Barham might offer up a Glock, whereas I'd offer up a Kimber. I'd bet a case of beer that I could out shoot Mike with Kimbers, but he'd own me with a Glock. Doesn't mean that we are better or worse shooters, just what fits us. I shoot Glocks well too, but I shoot Kimbers better. 

I personally like my Victoria Secret underpants to be loose around the junk, but others might like it high and tight. 

Overall, I'd recommend trying before buying, that's all.

Zhur


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 9, 2006)

zhurdan said:


> If I were to come to a gun forum ( no offense intended) and ask what the best shooter is... it'd be like asking a Victoria Secrets model what she'd recommend. She is obviously going to recommend what works best for her, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I personally like my Victoria Secret underpants to be loose around the junk, but others might like it high and tight.
> 
> Zhur


Ow! Ow! Ow!

Just had a vision of all of us in V. S. underpants!

Take it away! Please! Take it away!

WM


----------



## Vanguard1987 (Aug 2, 2008)

*Thanks Zhur*

Zhur, you're the man. I've been waiting for someone to give me good advice on this subject. I am going to be buying my first handgun ever and could not decide on a longer (fun at the range) gun or a shorter gun suited for c.c.

I had been thinking that a shorter gun that I can carry would be accurate and fun at the range if I practice with it enough. I just needed someone with experience to confirm that. I'm going to own several guns someday but only want one right now. I'm not going to carry a gun unless I am an expert shot with it so that makes the case even more. 5" and even 4" barrels seem impractical for c.c. to me.

I just want someone to tell me that I will eventually be nailing that steel popper at 85' with my Para carry (or something like it) with practice. If I'm understanding you, you're saying it is possible. Having success at the range will increase my desire to practice so I'm trying to give this thoughtful consideration before spending a lot of $$$. I guess renting and shooting is the best place to start.


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

Being able to shoot like Bob Munden takes a lot of practice, like thousands of rounds per week. He does that for a job basically, along with his 'smithing work.

I have a Kimber Raptor II that I can shoot with the best of them, but I seriously doubt I could hit a balloon at 300 yards like Mr. Munden does with a .38, but that is also very impractical for my purposes. Up close, 20 yards or so, I can put a bullet right where I want it to go, with a 3" or 5" barrel, I have both. My point about shooting different guns is just that it comes down to comfort and how it feels in your hands. A comfortable gun is just as important as any other aspect, because if it recoils so damn hard that it's uncomfortable to shoot for you, then you are less likely to practice a lot, therefore you will not become proficient with it, and that would be a huge waste of money. I own many different pistols, some I bought before I thought, basically I thought they were really "cool", others I bought with a specific plan in mind. Those ones seem to get shot a lot more than the "cool" guns I own. Kinda weird how that happens huh? hehe

Zhur


----------



## Vanguard1987 (Aug 2, 2008)

*How about Para's LDA*

Okay, I've mentioned Para because I'm intrigued by the light double action trigger (LDA). However, it seems like Para has fallen off the face of the earth in recent years. The dealers in my area say, "we don't carry Para anymore...".

Have you ever shot a Para with the LDA? If so, have you shot a short barrell vs. a long barrell? I'm looking at Para as a cool gun with a classic 1911 look but updated with modern technology. I want the smallest gun I can shoot comfortably/accurately.


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

I think that when certain guns "disappear" from gun store shelves, it has more to do with the retailer not wanting to be a preferred dealer. A lot of times, "preferred dealer" status comes with a high price tag. For instance, I believe that to be a Stocking Kimber dealer, there is like a $10000 up front cost, that you pay to Kimber, then they send you guns and take the amount of the guns off of your $10000 until it's used up, then you need to re-up with them to maintain dealer status. It's like paying for a line of secured credit so they will keep sending you guns. 

The Para's have probably disappeared in you area due to something of this nature, as I see Para's all the time for sale.

The LDA is pretty slick, I don't own one, but I've shot them, and I must say, I don't know that I could have gotten used to it. I only shot about 150 rounds thru it though. If possible, go to a range where they rent guns, it's still the simplest way to get some hands on time with different weapons.

Zhur


----------



## Vanguard1987 (Aug 2, 2008)

*LDA Discussion*

I've pulled the trigger on the LDA on three models (just in the store dry fire) and thought the trigger was good. Seeing the hammer move, however, is a little distracting.

You've shot this gun 150 more times than I have, what did you find troubling about it?

Also, for a first handgun, do you think it's wise to stick with a classic 1911 style (like the Paras) or do I need to live in 2008 and look at something modern like the Springfield Armory XD or XDM?


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

In all honesty, I'd recommend something along the lines of a Glock for a person just getting into defensive shooting. The reason I mention that, and I know Mike is going to giggle a little, is that the 1911 CAN be a picky pistol and until you get some serious trigger time, and practice malfunction clearing, it probably isn't the best pistol to start off with. Now, I'm not saying that 1911's aren't reliable, I personally have two Kimbers that I have to try really hard to get them to hickup. Either way, the Glocks are just more simple, and fail less with shooter error. Glocks are ugly, in comparison to some beautiful 1911's, but they do a damn good job of putting rounds down range without (as many) faults.

The only issue I had with the trigger on the LDA was that after 150 rounds, there was no way that I'd be used to it. It'd take a heck of a lot more rounds to get used to it, that's all.

I've got a Springfield XD compact in 9mm (wifes pistol) and I like shooting it, but for some reason, I can't understand why Springfield added all those moving parts that do very little to actually make the gun function. (aka loaded chamber indicator, why do I need that when I should be assuming that it's loaded all the time, and checking when I pick it up anyways. Grip safety, it doesn't need it because it already has internal drop safetys as well as a safe action trigger. Bidirectional mag release, if you look at the mechanism, it's fairly simple, but it does have more parts than a regular reversible mag release, I like simple with less parts, except when it comes to my pretty 1911's hehe)

The Glocks are just simplicity and function, no pretty pretty. Load mag, rack slide, wait for reason to make it go bang.

As I've said in other threads here, picking a pistol is a very personal choice, I've given you some of my opinions, but please go out and handle a few, shoot a few more, and spend a good amount of time making a decision, because a good fighting pistol isn't just an expense, it has the potential to be the difference between life and death. To steal a line from Indiana Jones... "Choose wisely"

Zhur


----------



## Vanguard1987 (Aug 2, 2008)

*Thanks again*

Very good. You have identified my weakness for the beauty of a 1911. That's just the gun I think of when I think of a handgun. The Glocks and XDs are ugly to me but you're right about looks having nothing to do with accurate shots down range.

I'll try to get to our range this weekend and see what they have. Thanks again for all the great advice.


----------

