3" or 4" 357mag

[Certaindeaf]

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.

These days it seems every gun "reviewer" offhands it at steel at 15 yards and it's all

 

[OldBroad44]

These days it seems every gun "reviewer" offhands it at steel at 15 yards and it's all

Yes. Serious Ransom Rest testing became rare, and I quit reading gun mags. In that era there was a lot of handgun hunting, nearly all done with revolvers or single-shot pistols. And much interest in silhouette shooting. As semiautos became higher capacity and more popular, the Ransom Rest tests vanished. The semi autos looked ridiculous compared with revolvers in Ransom tests. And people handgun hunting medium or bigger game with revolvers had no desire to switch to semi autos because it was clear from Ransom Rest results that the semi autos were not accurate enough. Exception: .22 caliber semi autos such as Ruger Mark Is and IIs and others made fine guns for hunting rabbits and small game. Other than the .22 target/hunting semiautos, semi autos were ordinarily just tested at 25 yards or less offhand and deemed great if they merely kept everything on the chest of a human outline target.

This was before the era of 10mm, and some of those are designed for hunting. The Automag in .357 and .44 was around then, but I never saw Ransom Rest tests of them. I always considered that suspicious. That is, I suspected if these semiautos shot as well as .357 mag and .44 mag revolvers we would have been seeing those tests.

What do the Ransom Rest results of the 6" .357 mag and .44 mag revolvers mean in the hands of a human hunter in the field? How well did the better shooters do with revolvers in the field? As I summarized, a good 6" Colt, SW, or Ruger could hold 5-6-shot Ransom Rest groups to just under 2" at 50 yards with optimal ammo for the gun. From a few decades of reading reviews including the equivalent tests done by human shooters shooting offhand, my summary is most generally good shooters doing such reviews but by no means competition level, shooting one of the good Colt, SW, or Ruger 6" revolvers offhand SA can get 6-shot groups averaging 4 - 5" . That is, there was about 2"- 3" of additional group size added by the human. (The best shooters can do a little better from bench rest, and from bench rest with a scoped gun can shoot at or near Ransom Rest levels-- that is essential reduce the human-caused variability to zero. But I'm considering only unscoped revolvers and less stable positions here.)

The standards used by most revolver shooters hunting medium game such as deer, hogs, or black bears is you need to be able to keep your shots within a six inch diameter circle at the distance you plan to shoot at. In my experience, being able to do average groups of 4 - 5" translates into being able to keep all shots within three inches of the point of aim, group after group, day after day. YMMV. So this means I can shoot deer up to 50 yards away, but not more. But what if I was shooting a semi auto or inferior revolver that is tested by a competent human shooter and gives 6" groups on a human outline target at 25 yards? That would be a 12" group at 50 yards. That is I couldn't reliably hit a deers vitals at 50 yards. My maximum range would be 25 yards. Problem is, the 50 yard range allows me to get deer almost as easily and efficiently as a good rifle man with a good rifle shooting in my favorite area. 25 yards would make it much harder. It would cost me about three or four times as many hours per deer. I'd do it if I had to. Not as recreation.

The area I hunted is in the coastal mountains. Down in a valley. An area I know thoroughly. The deer are moving around in the morning. Its foggy. Visibility is only about 50 yards. So if the deer is out of my 50 yard limit I cant see it anyway. And rifle shooters have no advantage. By about 10 am the fog clears. The deer head for their resting places higher up and vanish by the time the fog lifts. But while the fog is thick the deer feel very secure tiptoeing around in the fog quietly munching stuff and being very casual about a human nearby. At least if they are about 25 or 30 yards away. However the fog is whispy and treacherous. It occasionally lifts and reveals a deer standing still within 50 yards, completely aware of but unworried about me. I'm as often as not sitting in the open, my back resting against a tree, my butt on a 2" thick gardening pad I bring for the purpose, the revolver in my hand resting in my lap. I'm not into strenuous hunting. I dont look like a hunter or predator. I look unarmed. I dont even look at the deer obviously until I'm actually firing. The instant I see the deer, if the distance and orientation are okay and the shot is safe I lift the gun and fire in one swift motion before the deer has even realized he's now visible.

The area where I hunted, most riflemen took their deer before 10am and at distances of 50 yards or less. And the deer were mostly feeding or moving around in the fog. But some guys hunted the clear cuts higher up where the fog lifted earlier. They would catch the deer as they came to bed down in the clearcut. Their shots were often 100 yards or more. That wouldn't have worked for me. Most deer I saw would be out of range for me and my revolver. In addition, I hunted alone and the clear cuts were very rough. If I did manage to shoot a deer very far into a clearcut, how the he!! would I get it out of there? I also have to admit to feeling sorta exposed and unsafe in or near a clearcut in deer season, too. I prefer to avoid hunters. I felt a lot more comfy running around in the foggy lowlands, nice and invisible, like the deer.

 

[lcb97269]

I am looking at getting a revolver, it's going to be 357mag to match my Contender, it is going to serve as a fun gun, trail gun, house gun and occasional carry gun, I dont want a J frame sized gun, so what do you guys like for this purpose, price around 1,000 give or take but the cheaper the whatever you're comfortable with better thanks have a great day.

 

[21tango]

I am looking at getting a revolver, it's going to be 357mag to match my Contender, it is going to serve as a fun gun, trail gun, house gun and occasional carry gun, I dont want a J frame sized gun, so what do you guys like for this purpose, price around 1,000 give or take but the cheaper the better thanks have a great day.

I am very fond of my s&w 686 plus 3-5-7 3 inch. Easy to carry while sitting vs a 4 inch and plenty accurate. It is not light but i only carry it on hikes.

 

[DeanMk]

I am looking at getting a revolver, it's going to be 357mag to match my Contender, it is going to serve as a fun gun, trail gun, house gun and occasional carry gun, I dont want a J frame sized gun, so what do you guys like for this purpose, price around 1,000 give or take but the cheaper the better thanks have a great day.

S&W model 66
Ruger GP100
Considering the criteria you laid out for owning that gun, you could probably stretch the barrel length to 6" and it would be fine.

 

[Cerberus Group]

If you're going to pack a revolver, then weight and barrel length is a factor. So a Smith' 19 or the like in 2 or 3 inch barrel is something to consider.

For consistent magnum shooting, a large N frame or the like is needed...ran several K and L frames in the ground.

One make I've not yet seen mentioned...Dan Wesson, with the changeable barrel lengths.

Not quite N frame size, more of a L+, but hold up to magnum rounds quite well.

I prefer the original model 15 or 15-2 from 80s-90s vs the newer made specimens.

You can still find the original in different barrel lengths, or the Pistol-Pac with 2, 4, 6 and 8 inch barrels.

 

[Lead Ball]

Okay I have decided to go with a new model 19 clasic I know from a collectors point of view that might not be the way to go but for me and what I want it is I like the new design and the lock doesn't bother me I just now need to decide on the 4" clasic or the 3" carry comp anybody have experience with both of these thanks

 

[titsonritz]

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

View attachment 1188694

That is a 2.5" barrel, I'd wager. A 3" barrel is long enough for a full length ejection rod, that does not appear to be. But hey, it is common for guys to exaggerate the length of their barrel.

 

[jakk586]

The claim to fame for the 3" 357 was allowing a full extractor stroke. So unless you want the absolute shortest defensive 357 possible, I think you'd be happier overall with a 4" or longer barrel. The longer barrels have a lot going for them. Like a longer sight radius, more recoil absorbing mass, greater terminal effect on target and a better overall balance that can help settle the sights on target.

Models to look for:
S&W models, 13, 19, 66, 586, 686, 27, 28

Ruger models, "Six" series, speed, security and service. The GP-100 is the quintessential overbuilt ruger 357. Damn near indestructible. Buy one and your grand kids will love it.

Don't overlook the single action guns from Ruger, the Vaquero and Blackhawk. For an occasional carry and range gun, they are quite fun.

 

[Jay Walk]

Okay I have decided to go with a new model 19 clasic I know from a collectors point of view that might not be the way to go but for me and what I want it is I like the new design and the lock doesn't bother me I just now need to decide on the 4" clasic or the 3" carry comp anybody have experience with both of these thanks

Ball,

That's awesome, my buddy inherited one of those from his Father. Was never fired so we broke it in after more than 50 years.
It shoots incredibly well.

 

[titsonritz]

Models to look for:
S&W models, 13, 19, 66, 586, 686, 27, 28

Forgot 65

Anymore I'm thinking the 10/15/64/67 > 13/19/65/66.

 

[jakk586]

Well, he asked about 357's so I didn't mention th 10, 15, or 64 and 67. Although I agree. The 38 spcl is perfectly adequate for carry and range use.

 

[titsonritz]

Well, he asked about 357's so I didn't mention th 10, 15, or 64 and 67. Although I agree. The 38 spcl is perfectly adequate for carry and range use.

and K-frame appropriate.

 

[cosmos mariner]

Forgot 65

Anymore I'm thinking the 10/15/64/67 > 13/19/65/66.

Out of curiosity, why would you choose the .38 models over the .357?

 

[titsonritz]

Out of curiosity, why would you choose the .38 models over the .357?

in a K-frame

 

[cosmos mariner]

in a K-frame

Yes in a K frame. Why would you choose 38 over 357? Is it just the weight factor? Obviously, you can shoot 38 out of the 357 K frames, so would the advantage be in the shorter cylinder?

 

[Certaindeaf]

Yes in a K frame. Why would you choose 38 over 357? Is it just the weight factor? Obviously, you can shoot 38 out of the 357 K frames, so would the advantage be in the shorter cylinder?

9/10 of the time, people that actually carry smaller frame magnums carry .38 or .38+p in them so..

 

[titsonritz]

Yes in a K frame. Why would you choose 38 over 357? Is it just the weight factor? Obviously, you can shoot 38 out of the 357 K frames, so would the advantage be in the shorter cylinder?

That was a statement, not a question. Because 357 is too much juice for the k-frame, it gets beat to hell. Yes you can shoot 38 out of 357 but if you have a 357 you'll shoot 357 out of it and if doing most of the shooting with 38 then you get carbon ring and 357 sticks like crazy. The k-frame in 38spl are good shooters and will last for along time with heavy shooting, 357s not so much. If I'm going to have a 357 I want a gun that was designed to handle it rather than one that was retrofit for it.

 

[gmerkt]

 

[gmerkt]

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.

I don't know if this has been mentioned here yet. Aside from accuracy / group size, barrel length in revolvers can result in point of impact changes. Which of course can be offset on revolvers with adjustable sights. But given the same weight barrel and same ammunition, a four inch bbl. will shoot a bit lower than a six inch. As explained to me, a bullet fired down a six inch bbl. spends more time in the bore than a four inch, thereby giving more time for the bbl. to rise in recoil as as the weapon pivots in the hand. This involves very small amounts of time, probably not much noticeable between a three and four inch .357 as posed by the OP. I used to notice it a lot with older, police-type revolvers having six inch barrels and using ammo fired at .38 Special velocities.