So I am curious as to others Experience/results. It seems a 4" Browning Buckmark just lacks to consistency of the 5.5" in an identical bull round bbl model. Now I have shot my share of handguns over my lifetime, but w/o chronographing, I have a strong suspicion that the 4" just had a great ES and SD with the ammo I was using, based on the difference in precision. I must add, the difference was Very noticeable at longer ranges - say about 40+ yards. The 4" seemed to give much less fps, I will have to break out my Chrono sometime to verify.

Anyone else experience this, with 22 LR or other rounds? I would think it likely applies to centerfire rounds as well, as you cannot expect say a 4" much less a 3" to consistently burn powder in say a 9mm round, much less a magnum class round. I know much boils down to shot to shot consistent velocity. IIRC, Wiley Clapp had a best load using a 140 Hornady JHP in a 4" GP100, giving as I recall - groups of less then .5" at 25 yds, but that is with a handload which likely was more consistent that much of the factory ammo. That said, no doubt short barrels CAN give great consistency, but that may be the exeption. That's not withstanding sight radius when using open sights, etc. which is more shootability than inherity accuracy.

Perhaps my experience in 4" would be different using target/match ammo, though I am not sure if it will cycle reliable, and the cost of ammo is hard to justify for it's purpose....informal plinking, closer range practice and snakes, etc.

Anyone?

I actually have those two models. I suspect accuracy is determined more by length of sight radius and weight distribution (balance and so forth)... both influenced by barrel length and configuration (lightweight vs. bull). IOW, not just length, but what length and configuration causes in turn.

And then yes, sometimes there are some ammo considerations, where seemingly identical barrels (bore, twist rate, etc.... except for length) don't shoot the same with a single ammo choice.

-Chris

I think what you are saying is that you can't shoot a short barrel as well as a longer barrel and you believe that is because the short barrel isn't as efficient burning the propellant powder as the longer barrel? And that Wiley Clapp had a load for the GP100 that shot into less than .5" @ 25 yards?

Hogwash... all of it. Yeah, the shorter barrel may be a bit slower than a longer barrel but that doesn't mean the velocities from the shorter barrel aren't consistent. You don't shoot the shorter barrel as well because of the shorter sight radius and you simply aren't as steady with the stubbier lighter gun. And that Clapp load firing six .357" bullets into less than 1/2" at 25 yards... I'm from Missouri, you'll have to show me that.

I prefer at least 1000fps and it seems a 6" barrel is needed for that. But I'm just a plinker/hunter not competition.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^

The only way to compare "accuracy" is via a Ransom or similar, rest.

MM

Lets look at this objectively,


I would suspect that if you had a larger sample size, you may have different results.

Only testing 1 or 2 guns (in each barrel length) against each other, then using what Wily Clap wrote really does not give you information that can be confirmed as accurate.

Even taking something as small as 5 or 6 guns with 4" barrels and the same with 6" barrels, and using a neutral sighting system such as a red dot, ( though still an extremely small sample size) would likely yield some results that were closer to objectively accurate, versus ones that confirm possible preconceived ideas a person (not saying the OP, just anyone in general) may have that they have and support existing bias.

A person may read up on testing and find evidence to see that even short barrel guns like a J Frame can be exceptionally accurate.

Here are some results from firing a J Frame, with a 1 & 7/8ths" barrel"

There is a 20 minute video made by the guy who did the test and I will post a link. Below that are the results for people who would rather just see the results.






Test: 20 yards with 38 special wadcutters.


3 - 5 shot groups -- average taken from the best 2 groups.

S&W model 36 Averaged 0.806in
S&W model 37 Averaged 1.553in


As you can see, in his notably small sample, the very small guns with short barrels were mechanically capable of excellent accuracy. His objective was not the same as the OP's but it does give an example of what is possible, and it eliminates a lot of human error in the testing.


Hope this helps.

Barrel length dies not define accuracy

John Barsness has mentioned numerous times through the years that its been proven that powder burns completely within a very short distance from the chamber (less than 1" ?) in rifle cartridges so no reason why pistol cartridges would perform any differently considering the faster burn rate of pistol powders.

I generally shoot just as poorly regardless of barrel length. That sounds bad, but allows me to feel comfortable with shorter barrels.

I chronographed some 22LR a few years ago. I was not looking for shot to shot consistency, but was checking for comparison to advertised velocity. I used a 4" barreled Ruger MK ll 22/45.. I was impressed with all the ammunition I checked. It was pretty consistent, and at least the brands I had that day were almost all very close to the listed velocity on the package.

Jwp475: I have been shooting pistols for way more than half a century now and, if I understand your posting correctly, I think YOU are wrong!
Longer barrels equals longer sight radius - thus less "sight mis-alignment" - thus better accuracy everything else (quality of ammunition, make of pistol, experience of shooter etc) being equal.
My latest (of MANY!) such proof is a pair of Smith & Wesson Model 686's I purchased used last year (2,022). I shoot the 6" Model 686 noticeably better than the 4" Model 686 using the same target quality 38 Special ammunition (both from the bench, for sight-in and off hand).
Again, if I understand your posting correctly, based on my experience, I disagree with you.
Longer sight radius means more accuracy when it comes to pistols and revolvers.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Sight radius does tend make a gun easier to shoot more accurately than a shorter sight radius on the same gun.

But that, in & of itself, does not make the longer sight radius gun more accurate.

There's a difference in how well you might be able to shoot a given gun vs how accurate any 2 guns might be due to barrel length.

A gun's accuracy is not dependent on how well YOU can shoot it.................just sayin'.

MM

I agree that increasing the sight radius should give the potential for better accuracy. But assuming we're putting optics on them, normally I'd say barrel length generally have no affect on accuracy. I did notice years ago that among a group of shooting friends, we found the 10" Ruger Mk II's to shoot considerably better than the shorter barrel length MkII's. These were scoped handguns and with multiple examples of various barrel lengths. I assume that the 10" barrels had the same barrel stock and manufacturing methods as the shorter barrels, but perhaps the 10" gave better stability to the bullets. I just know bench rest groups at 50 yards were much better with the 10" models.

I think this is like asking if putting a scope on a rifle makes it more accurate. It makes it easier to shoot it more accurately but doesn’t improve the rifle’s inherent accuracy. Semantics.

Exactly 💯 Accuracy of the pistol is inherent and how one shoots it doesn't change that. Put them in a Ransom Rest and loner barrel or not inherently more accurate

Discussing what you think velocity might be doing in this regard is pointless if you aren't shooting over a chronograph. You have no idea what is or isn't going on. If you ain't measuring anything but groups, you ain't learning anything. You're just making a WAG.

Generally speaking, shorter barrels can even be more accurate than longer bqrrels. I have a Beretta model 21 that backs that up.

I wouldn't expect to find a discernable difference in mechanical (Ransom Rest) accuracy, assuming both barrels are of equal quality and execution.

I was giving an example that WC shot very small groups with a Developed Handload, at 25 yds. I agree, that level of accuracy was stellar, not the norm, but it's what he reported, I believe for 5 shots.

As to my question on barrel lengths, a 22 is a very small bore, and given the ammo being used, Not match grade, certainly not handloaded ammo, the ES and SD seemed to be much greater in the shorter barrel and giving a noticeably less amount of velocity. I will have to chronograph the two and see if my hunch is correct. I think when you get to far less than optimal barrel length in a 22LR in my case, (10-17" is considered optimal from what I have researched), it seems based on my test results, that 4" was not giving the powder enough room to burn. I will test out my theory with a chrony when I can. I may be completely wrong.

I do strongly believe that in these two examples, the 4" will never match the 5.5, regardless if you put it in a ransom rest to remove all variables. If one cannot believe that, then that is saying for example, that a 1-2" barrel will equal a 5" in consistency, and I just cannot see it.

Thanks for the input by all.

Quite impressive, I will have to try more types of ammo to get more data. Thanks MS.

It's hard to argue with JB! Thanks.

I would be curious if you had an idea as to speeds with typical HV ammo, I am guessing 920-1000 would be typical. Surely when one looks at extreme spread and standard deviation on a given load, distance matters. Case in point, a LR is on average much more consistent shot to shot, then say typical WMR 'Magnum' ammo. Results also bear this out, extensive testing was reported on rimfire central out to 200 yds, and the WMR was very lackluster.......so as the distance grows, so too does the group size. I was shooting at 40 yds and beyond.

Again, I will have to test more ammo but would be interested in hearding from all folks as to what ammo they see solid consistent accuracy is the shorter barrels, particularly 4" models.

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks everyone, FreeMe and Sarge, all good feedback.

I have shot many shorter 22s- 4" M34, M17, 3.5" Astra Constable and Beretta 70s....an older blue 4" slab BM....but never compared them side by side a similar model in a longer barrel.

I will have to put more ammo thru this particular 4" and use a Chrony to test it, and compare same ammo for consistency in the 5.5"

No doubt there is a difference in intrinsic accuracy (such as using a ransom rest) and 'shootability' which often comes down to other factors.

Folks who have had favorable results in 4" or less 22's - if you care to share, I would be interested in hearing what ammo was working well for you. Thanks everyone for their feedback on this post.

I'd advise you to avoid discussing those terms until you actually shoot over the chronograph. Until then, it's all just guessing.


CCI standard, Mini Mag, and Stinger have always worked well for me. Green Tag, Federal Gold Match better in some. Every gun has different preferences.