3" or 4" 357mag

[Stomper]

But then one sister discovered cocaine.







Lol

Pretty much.

… and had a tucked penis all along!

 

[2506]

41 magnum is my favorite, terribly under rated by those who don't know...

Working in Alaska in the 80's a 12 Guage with 00buck 1st followed with slugs and if it came to the last ditch attempt the 41 magnum to stop a charging bear the size of a Volkswagen beetle...

My kingdom for a good 4" S&W 57 or 58

 

[CountryGent]

My kingdom for a good 4" S&W 57 or 58

S&W 57 appears to be in stock with at least one of the vendors linked from their listing.



(I can't justify another caliber, but dang, that's a beaut.)

 

[OldBroad44]

I like the S&W L-Frame (586/686) and the Ruger GP100 is probably even better for less money.

I have not noticed any remarkable difference in performance between shorter barrels out to 25 yards. Once the bbl gets longer than 4" you will notice the weight difference. The muzzle becomes heavy.

My 2.5" 686 is seriously muzzle heavy, even with its snubby barrel. I like muzzle heavy revolvers. My snubby 686 is pleasant to shoot even with full power loads.

However, unless you use ammo designed for short barrels, you lose a lot of power shooting a 3" .357, and end up with a load not much better than a .9mm from an equal barrel length. You wouldn't notice any difference in performance with ordinary ammo unless you were shooting through a chronograph where you would see a large drop in velocity with standard ammo with a 3" compared with a 4" gun. Or unless you were shooting into a medium that let you track penetrating or expansion of hps/ (bullet fired from 3" gun might not be going fast enough to expand). Don't shoot a 3" or less .357 and imagine you have anything more than a heavy-to-carry really-low-capacity 9mm. Special short barrel ammo is expensive unless you reload your own. $2 or more per round from Buffalo Bore.

Basically, it takes either a 4" or longer barrel or special expensive ammo to get .357mag performance from a 357mag revolver. Commercial SD ammo in .357mag is mostly designed for 4" barrels. (commercial hunting ammo in. 357mag is mostly designed for 6" and longer barrels.)

The good reliable .357s available today are SWs or Rugers, plus used Colts, but the latter are not usually available. Taurus has a bad reputation for quality control problems and bad or nonexistent customer service. Some people get a good Taurus and swear by it. Most of us say something like "Friends don't recommend friends buy a Taurus." If you can spend up to a grand you can get a good SW or Ruger. I recommend you do so.

The big choice is whether you want an under-lugged gun like the SW 586 or 686 (blue vs SS) or non-underlugged such as the SW 66. The balance is very muzzle heavy in the underlugged guns and they are heavier. The Ruger GP 100 is underlugged. The classic excellent used Ruger Security Six is not underlugged. I wouldn't turn up my nose at any of them.

 

[DeadGuyAle]

Lead ball did stipulate
"price around 1,000 give or take but the cheaper the better thanks have a great day"

Best in the $1000 range would be Ruger or S&W
Cheaper would be most others Taurus, charter arms...
Not sure what Ruger prices are these days but you can cross S&W M27off the list. M28 would be a maybe and well worn.
Have several S&W.357's and for general purpose use the 686 is tough to beat.
K frame M66, M19 or any of the others are all high quality guns.

Also have a Ruger SP101 in 9mm with a spring kit. The spring kit does help the trigger pull but it's no pre-lock S&W. Still a very good revolver with some advantages over the S&W design.

You might consider a .38 special, with modern ammo it's as good as a 9mm with better accuracy

 

[Lead Ball]

I just came across a nice 6" model 19 that spent its life in competition and only saw 38 specials, the guys that work there know the gentleman who let it go, and I trust that info. The front sight was cut to a partridge style and the rear sight was changed to a blacked out target blade and it has an amazing triger and locks up tight oh and the chambers were beveled for speed loading all done by a gun Smith, all for 750.00 out the door I think I'm going to adjust my barrel length options from 3 to 6 inches

 

[OldBroad44]

Some people might figure the 4" barrel is going to allow you to shoot more accurately than the 3" because of longer sight radius. Actually, if you are comparing apples to apples--two medium frame revolvers both with full size adjustable sights and smooth crisp triggers--other factors may be accuracy-limiting so the difference in barrel length doesn't matter.

For example, I used to have two Ruger Security Sixes, identical except one was a 2.5" snubby and one was 6". Shooting either one offhand at my favorite woods shooting spot's max range of 40 yards, I would normally get 6-shot groups of 4 - 5" in SA. I suspect a competition target shooter would have got better results with both guns, and better with the 6" gun than the 2.5" because of longer sight radius. But my vision wasn't competition-shooter league, even back then. On the long barreled gun the front sight was fuzzy in my sight picture. The sights were the same size on the short barrel gun but the front sight was closer to my eyes and less fuzzy. I actually couldn't shoot either gun any better from card table rest either. My vision wasn't good enough to benefit from the longer sight radius or a more stable position. Ability to see the sights was for me accuracy-limiting. To shoot a revolver better than that I have to scope it.

When people compare how they do with short vs long barreled revolvers, they are usually confounding lots of variables and blaming it all on barrel length. Usually the short barrel gun is a smaller frame size, weighs much less, has smaller and nonadjustable sights, and has an awful trigger pull. Nearly everyone will shoot the cr@ppy dinky little gun less well than the full size excellent gun, with the barrel length being only issue.

 

[Knobgoblin]

My kingdom for a good 4" S&W 57 or 58

And a lever gun in .41mag. That's on my top 5 list of unobtainable items.

 

[OldBroad44]

I just came across a nice 6" model 19 that spent its life in competition and only saw 38 specials, the guys that work there know the gentleman who let it go, and I trust that info. The front sight was cut to a partridge style and the rear sight was changed to a blacked out target blade and it has an amazing triger and locks up tight oh and the chambers were beveled for speed loading all done by a gun Smith, all for 750.00 out the door I think I'm going to adjust my barrel length options from 3 to 6 inches

Now you're talking!
Those older pre-lock Smiths are better quality than anything SW makes today. I stick with pre-lock Smiths not so much because of the locks but because of all the other deliberate downgrades SW made at the same time.

Now might you be interested in considering the 44mag vs 357mag ?
What if you are innocently minding your business out in the woods and run into a Sasquatch? I've never seen a Sasquatch, but ya never can tell.

 

[Stomper]

Some people might figure the 4" barrel is going to allow you to shoot more accurately than the 3" because of longer sight radius. Actually, if you are comparing apples to apples--two medium frame revolvers both with full size adjustable sights and smooth crisp triggers--other factors may be accuracy-limiting so the difference in barrel length doesn't matter.

For example, I used to have two Ruger Security Sixes, identical except one was a 2.5" snubby and one was 6". Shooting either one offhand at my favorite woods shooting spot's max range of 40 yards, I would normally get 6-shot groups of 4 - 5" in SA. I suspect a competition target shooter would have got better results with both guns, and better with the 6" gun than the 2.5" because of longer sight radius. But my vision wasn't competition-shooter league, even back then. On the long barreled gun the front sight was fuzzy in my sight picture. The sights were the same size on the short barrel gun but the front sight was closer to my eyes and less fuzzy. I actually couldn't shoot either gun any better from card table rest either. My vision wasn't good enough to benefit from the longer sight radius or a more stable position. Ability to see the sights was for me accuracy-limiting. To shoot a revolver better than that I have to scope it.

When people compare how they do with short vs long barreled revolvers, they are usually confounding lots of variables and blaming it all on barrel length. Usually the short barrel gun is a smaller frame size, weighs much less, has smaller and nonadjustable sights, and has an awful trigger pull. Nearly everyone will shoot the cr@ppy dinky little gun less well than the full size excellent gun, with the barrel length being only issue.

FYI- They invented these things called, "corrective lenses" for these types of issues.

 

[CountryGent]

And a lever gun in .41mag. That's on my top 5 list of unobtainable items.

I've seen Marlin 1894s in said from time to time on the used market.

 

[DeadGuyAle]

I just came across a nice 6" model 19 that spent its life in competition and only saw 38 specials, the guys that work there know the gentleman who let it go, and I trust that info. The front sight was cut to a partridge style and the rear sight was changed to a blacked out target blade and it has an amazing triger and locks up tight oh and the chambers were beveled for speed loading all done by a gun Smith, all for 750.00 out the door I think I'm going to adjust my barrel length options from 3 to 6 inches

Model 19 is the classic blued .357 and suspect $750 is a good price.
If you are new to the pre-lock S&W world hold on to your wallet. It's addictive
Drop the cylinder and look at the frame stamping for the dash number. Something like M19-x and let us know the rev.
pinned barrel models are the most sought after, don't remember if the 19 came with reassessed cylinders for the coveted P&R models.
Come with the original box, grips and sat by chance?

.38 special is fantastic round if you reload. .38 wadcutter loaded to around 750 FPS is accurate beyond reason and cheep to shoot.

 

[RVTECH]

don't remember if the 19 came with reassessed cylinders for the coveted P&R models.

Yes they did - up through the dash 4 model.

 

[OldBroad44]

FYI- They invented these things called, "corrective lenses" for these types of issues.

To see the sights and the target well I would need bifocals or trifocals. But my brain is not smart enough to use them. It refuses. So back then I had just one set of corrective lenses and the target was clear but the gun sights were fuzzy. These days I read without glasses, use midrange correction for working on computer or tasks at arms length, and distance lenses for taking a walk or driving or shooting. I can shoot pretty well without using the sights at all. So seeing the sights fuzzily is good enough. But it's still kinda important that I be able to see the target.

 

[kmk1012]

Math is the only thing in this world that cannot be twisted. A longer barrel pistol WILL be more accurate than a shorter barreled one in anyone's hand. Variables, such as sight width can effect results but, given a fair shake, such as apples to apples sight widths, the longer barrel will always have the advantage. @OldBroad44, I have seen too many people claim that a 3" is more accurate than a 6" because the sights weren't proper for a longer radius. If all things were equal, there is no way a shorter sight radius could be more or even as accurate as a shorter one. Now, as a side note, I'm more accurate with my 4" S&W 617 than any of my 6" S&W revolvers but not because of length; it's because of the proper sight gaps on my revolver.

 

[OldBroad44]

Math is the only thing in this world that cannot be twisted. A longer barrel pistol WILL be more accurate than a shorter barreled one in anyone's hand. Variables, such as sight width can effect results but, given a fair shake, such as apples to apples sight widths, the longer barrel will always have the advantage. @OldBroad44, I have seen too many people claim that a 3" is more accurate than a 6" because the sights weren't proper for a longer radius. If all things were equal, there is no way a shorter sight radius could be more or even as accurate as a shorter one. Now, as a side note, I'm more accurate with my 4" S&W 617 than any of my 6" S&W revolvers but not because of length; it's because of the proper sight gaps on my revolver.

Hi @kmk1012 --

The Security 6es I was shooting had exactly the same sights on the 2.5 barrel gun as on the 6" gun. That sight can't be optimal for both.

No, a longer barrel gun of the same make and model is not invariably more precise than a short barrel gun, not even when shot from a Ransom Rest. There's individual variability from gun to gun even within the same model run. Then when we add in shooters with different visions and sights all the same that give different sight pictures depending on revolver length there's room for lots of human-caused difference.

For example, you say you are more accurate with a 4" 617 than any of your 6" Smiths. That could be because the 4" 617 is more accurate than all your other guns, and would out shoot them even from Ransom Rest where human sight picture is not involved. However, you attribute your better accuracy with the 617 to "the proper sight gaps" on the 4" 617 and I susoect you are right. By this I assume you mean that in your sight picture the 617 has just narrow gaps of air between the sides of the front and back sight. That is optimal for precision if you can see those slender gaps. You obviously can. I probably couldn't see those slender gaps at all. I would probably would shoot your 6" guns better than your 4" .22 unless I modified the sight.

I normally find the sights on a 6" or longer SW or Ruger just right with gaps I can see. For a 2.5" gun the gaps are so small they are invisible to me and the back and front sight merge and are industinguishable. So I file the cut in the back sight to make the gaps much bigger, exactly the width I prefer. I don't have or use 4" guns, but if I did I would likely open the gap in the back sight a little, not as much I do on snubbies. After I file down the sight I just color it with black magic marker, then oil the sight. The modification is invisible.

 

[Paolung]

Colt's King Cobra might be up your alley.

 

[biggie24420]

I like the way my 3" 686+ looks. I carry OWB and it works well. heavy to carry but nice to shoot.

 

[Stomper]

Math is the only thing in this world that cannot be twisted.

Math cannot be twisted?

Here, hold my beer and watch this!

-Critical Race Theory

 

[OldBroad44]

Actually, @kmk1012 was right in that if you took a single 6" gun and fired it from Ransom rest for groups, then cut off two inches of barrel, and fired for groups again, the 6" version would be more precise than the 4" version if any statistically significant difference was found. Which it might not be without firing more rounds than was any fun at all. However, if you use two different guns, even of the same make and model, one with a six inch barrel and one with four inch, and fire from Ransom Rest, there's no predicting which would be more precise. This is because the differences between individual guns are large and the average drop in precision from 6" to 4" guns is small. And that's eliminating the human factor. By the time you add in the fact that different barrel lengths gives different sight pictures and different sight pictures affect different people's ability to shoot the gun differently, the effect of barrel length on precision of human-fired guns of various barrel lengths is really unpredictable.

I used to spend a lot of time reading Ransom Rest tests back in the 70s and 80s when gun magazines ran a lot of these. To summarize two decades, when someone tested a new model of a top notch revolver such as a Colt, SW, or Ruger in .357 mag or .44 mag, they would usually test three barrel lengths and many ammo brands. The best ammo brands with the six inch guns could usually get five or six shot groups just under 2" at 50 yards. The best ammo brands with the four inch guns would either get the same or very slightly less precision. Too small to be statistically signifcant. However, the difference did usually show up in the 2.5" guns. These typically had group sizes of 3 to four inches with the best ammo choices. And ammo mattered more. I especially noticed that the most precise ammo in the snubby .357 guns was normally a 158gr load, not a 125 or 110 gr load. I speculate that the short barrel of a .357 snubby cannot optimally stabilize a short bullet, but can optimally stabilize the longer 158 gr bullet.

Normally if it was any revolver other than a Colt, SW, or Ruger in the Ransom Rest tests the groups would be much larger. Sole exception-- Dan Wesson. The Dan Wessons usually shot better than the Colt, SW, or Ruger of equivalent barrel lengths.