So I am posing this especially for those who have had experience with say both the 5.5" and 7" S&W Model 41, and similar.

I have owned in the past a 5.5, shot very well......but do recall having shot an awful lot as a teen, with a S&W Model 790 .177 CO2 which as I recall, mirrored the long barreled Model 41. I shot that 790 Wonderfully - having modified it to boost speeds to well over 500 fps.

Anyone that has shot both models, or similar (such as a 5.5 vs 7" Buckmark Contour) or HS models want to share their experience in Shootability? Do you notice a significant difference in accuracy or precision for that matter, with the longer 7" or no? I realize each example is unique.....so one would have to have a large pool of samples to get meaningful data, but there are trends.......

I do recall a VERY Respectable competitive shooter back in my college days at the range who Really knew his stuff. He had tested HIS 5.5" in a Ransom Rest, and had his best groups going into 5/8" as I recall, guessing for 5 shots, but it MAYBE was for 10.......at 50 yds.........so I have no doubt the 5.5s will match, or darned near match a 7" for pure intrinsic accuracy if the given specimen is built properly and fed good ammo.

While on this topic, if one had a model 41, does one need to send it in to Smith to have an extra OEM barrel 'Fitted' to achieve optimum accuracy with that spare barrel that did not come OEM?

Anyone? Thanks.

I have found balance to be slightly more important than sight radius. This from having used a 9½" .22 for hunting... 5", 6", 6½", 7", and 10½" .44s... for hunting... plus 5½" and 4" target .22s.

And then there's front/rear sight sizes.

All that, in turn, has meant length by itself hasn't been the sole determinant.

-Chris

I have both the 7” with & without the aluminum compensator & the 5-1/2” both shoot too well to notice the difference. I plink with them & have never bothered to bench rest them on paper but in the context of plinking at short & long range they act more like rifles than pistols.

Balance is about the same since the 7” is slender & the 5-12” is thicker.

I also have a 4-1/2” slender barrel which does feel muzzle light.

I’ve always swapped barrels around on my two frames with no noticeable difference in accuracy but again, I’ve not tried to acid test the concept.

I’ve been lucky finding barrels at gun shows, so if you grab some spares you can have your cake & eat it too.

I remember chronographing b/t 5-12 & 7” didn’t make much difference.

7" is NOT intrinsically more accurate than 5.5". A 24" barreled rifle is NOT intrinsically more accurate than the same gun with an 18" barrel.

You need to understand that your premise that longer barrels are intrinsically more accurate than shorter one simply is a false premise.

In many, many cases, the shorter, stiffer barrel either pistol or rifle, maybe be more intrinsically accurate when fired from a rest, thus taking the shooter out of the equation.

Longer sight radiii help the SHOOTER to shoot more consistently. They have absolutely ZERO to do with making the gun more accurate.

MM

I've multiple 41's and extry extry uppers. Hint.

A red dot gives zero fhuqks and is without concession. Hint................

65BR: If you are going with the factory open sights and best accuracy is your objective then by all means go with the longer barrel version.
There will be an improvement in the accuracy YOU obtain with the longer sight radius.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I was just shooting both of the pistols you mention side by side.

I shot multiple 10 shot groups totaling a few hundred rounds with like lots of ammo.

These were offhand and I do not consider myself to be an elite pistol shooter, but I consistently shot the 5.5 better

Good posts folks - thanks!

MM - I agree with all you said, my OP said, "5.5s will match, or darned near match a 7" for pure intrinsic accuracy if the given specimen is built properly and fed good ammo."

I have always enjoyed shorter barrels on rifles, often 19-21 on Ctf rifles, and have a 77/22 with a re-fitted 10/22 Butler Creek bbl at 17" - shot a 10" more than 14" on TCs back in my youth, and felt a 12 or 12.5 might be a great middle of the road when it came to balance - 14 was too muzzle heavy.

But again, I have no doubt the 5.5s in a ransom rest can shoot as well as a 7. I DO feel......based on my experience, that the 4" gave far greater extreme spreads in speeds as the deviation based on drop, etc. just seemed noticeably larger than a 5.5 inch. I will have to get my Chrono set up to verify, the difference might tighten with match ammo, will see.

I have one ready to mount....I do much better with irons on handguns due to the larger sights vs a longer barreled rifle.....well my eyesight/focus is much better anyways.

For open sight work I am def leaning that way, thanks.

I have a couple 41s and a bunch more 22 handguns... wrong ammo, even if more expensive or better in other guns, makes all the difference with 22s. Right ammo, even cheap stuff may shoot extremely well in some guns.

Little 41 experience,this just applies to generic handguns MHO.

Assuming quality guns, equal mechanical accuracy, open sights.

I shoot much better with long barrels, faster with shorter ones.
Talking same guns 4" to 10" range.

The short radius lines up quicker, doesn't show slight misalignment as much, you are
quicker to be happy and pull.


The long is opposite.
The slightest misalignment shows, you take longer but shoot a bit better.

Get into optics and length won't matter.
SD is going to be more an ammo, other mechanical issue.
Headspace, firing mechanism... not length.

Everything I'm fixin to say only applies to me and each individual needs to determine whats best for themselves. In my case, I am a Bullseye shooter and I've shot thousands upon thousands of rounds thru a 41. I have found, for me, the 5 1/2" barrel gives me higher scoring targets. With the 7" barrel, I experienced groups that were not as tight as the 5 1/2" barrel and produced lower scoring targets. I always check my ammunition through a Ransom Rest at 50 yds, and there wasn't an accuracy difference between the two length barrels. Most accuracy differences I found were attributed to ammunition preference for each barrel.
Phil

"Intrinsic" accuracy aside, for Bullseye shooting, I've generally shot a 5-5.5" barrel better than a 7-7.5" barrel...............the gun I've used most & still have is a HS Trophy (Hamden) with a 5" bull barrel. I've tried about every longer barreled 22 at some time or another & prefer the shorter barrel.

As far as an individual shooting (vs a Ransom) balance & feel play a huge part in how well you shoot a given gun & the longer barreled guns sometimes just don't balance as good as the shorter barrel. I've tried to love M-41's more than the HS's but again, for balance & feel, I just always come back to the HS.

As to Stick's comments about red dots, I completely agree.................faster more precise & not as critical on sight alignment a traditional open sights.

JMHO

MM

Just picked up the Ruger 22/44 MKIV and need a quality dot sight. Suggestions?

Depending on the shooter’s eyes sight, longer sight radius does Not always equal more precision. Very individual.

Longer sight radius always benefits the shooter.

Think five foot level versus one that is four inches long.

Which is easier for the carpenter to square up a wall with?

Optics make this moot.

A Burris FF 3 is a good place to start. Very light, multiple mounting options. I have four, and no trouble so far. I also have several mounting plates that eliminate the need for a PIC/Weaver base, two for handguns, and one that clamps to shotgun ribs. Places the sight lower.

Only downside is that the battery cover is a certified bitch to get threaded properly.

Those with deeper pockets might look to an Aimpoint, I suppose.

Adding to my previous post, in theory, the longer sight radius should produce more accuracy with all other things being equal. However, I believe how it performs out of your hand trumps that.
Phil

All things considered no matter how long the barrel, for bullseye shooting, a red dot will make you more accurate.

Geesh you guys are going to cost me on some red dots, all these pics! LOL. No doubt, my eyes are not what they used to be.

I must say, I have shot my share of handguns, but no formal competition, and shoot a 5.5 more than anythingin 22...but must add I never took time to use many longer barrel models other than TC Contenders and a SBH 44. I shot numerous 357s 41s and 44s, more often with 4" but have to say I have dearly enjoyed the 657s in 6 and 6.5.

As to the HS vs M41, I am sure that is not atypical, many HS fans out there that shot them phenomenally well Was it John Lachuck, or something like that, who had an annual magazine, 'The 22 Rimfire' where he shot all types of 22s, rifle and handguns, I recall he shot an HS very well, it seemed to be one of his faves. Might have been a Citation. The old Hamden models were well built no doubt about it. I had a later Mitchell made in Ft. Worth Tx IIRC, it shot quite well, but had some F2F, and I believe I later found the extra mag solved that feeding issue. Regret selling that 4.5" SS model, it felt nice in the hand and the trigger was crisp, as were the sights.

Great posts folks! Enjoyed and appreciate them all.

Trick question! Square with tape, plumb with level.

No

For the majority of eyes yes, but
No.

Sure.

LOL

Nugget is cross eyed makes shooting a pistol difficult

Inbreeding?


Lol

🦫

Very nice! Are there holsters to accommodate the 617 with the holo sight? How does the gun group at 25 or even 50 yards?

Sure there are holsters for it. Most companies will make one for you. Kydex can be quickly acquired.

The 617 will group off a bench very well with wolf MT. It is what I used shooting silhouettes. Most of my shooting is offhand.
Shooting 10 pigs in a row at a little over 50 yards is not to hard with it.
The hard part is shooting turkeys and rams because of the hold over. It is sighted in at 50 yards. The hold over is about 11” at the 100 yard ram distance.
A very good revolver for sure, but my Ruger MKII is even better. The red dot sights really help me shoot better.

I wasn’t born in Oregon.. from the few doctor appointments I had as a young lad. The consensus is my beloved momma tried to perform a back room abortion and I suffered major trauma when I was in my beloved momma’s belly.

I think for most people the longer site radius helps. Hasbeen

Thank you. Is the Ruger MKII better right out of the box? Which barrel length does it have?

Yes and No, the MKII has a lot of work done to it. Trigger, extractor, and ejector. But it was very accurate out of the box. Great pistols that don’t cost an arm and leg especially used.

S&W 41s were always outside of my budget. I've owned several Ruger Mk II-III-IV guns in various lengths including 5.5, 6-7/8, and 10 inch. Throw optics on 'em .. I don't see any accuracy advantage or disadvantage to any of those barrel lengths. With iron sights, it's not accuracy exactly, it is "hittability". The best iron sighted handgun shooting I've done was with a 5.5" barreled Mk III. To me the choice is about "age of your eyes." You might get more hittability with the longer barrel if your eyes are "young" but if they are "old" and don't shift focus at different distances as quickly you may find it easier to hit things with the shorter sigh radius.

This one suits me to a tee.

Love it.

I've seen Tommy M. eat the heart out of a silhouette target at 50 yards with a 4" S&W M66. Yeah, it had been upgraded (guy in Louisiana back in the 60's and 70's, can't remember his name).
I was doing good to even hit the target! Much less punch the heart out. But Tommy usually shot 1500 .38 wadcutters a week! 😳
I could do it with my 9" Ruger "Single Six", but look at the difference in "sight radius".
So I know handgun accuracy is more shooter than firearm....not that gun quality isn't important.
I can still (I'm 72) shoot my 9" Ruger with scary accuracy...but not like I "usta"! LOL!

I'm impressed by shooters who can shoot short barreled handguns with superb accuracy...but I think lesser shooters can improve their accuracy with a longer barrel (sight radius).

JMNSHO!

For me, I have to agree. I bought a little S&W 317 when they came out. I thought a nice compact lightweight .22 would be great to carry, and it was! But I found it didn't balance well for me, I found it "twitchy" in my hands. I never could get it to shoot like I thought it should. I couldn't get past my lack of ability to shoot well with it, and it went down the road.

I would add that sight radius aside, longer barrels add weight to the barrel end (duh) and in my hands, balance better. My Ruger Mark I, Ruger Single Six, and S&W 17 all with 6 in plus barrels all shoot and handle better, for me. I think handguns are subjective and what may work better for me may not for someone else. Better to borrow or rent one and give them a test drive first.

Regards,
Manny

Great discussion/feedback and experience shared here.

Appreciate all who chimed in! Thanks.

A little late, but I find 6" Smith's in .22 to be right for me.
Longer barrels probably aim a bit better, and 4" may handle a bit better, but 6" seems to be my sweet spot.