Anything Wrong With Short Barrel Handguns?

[insin]

Everytime I am in my local gun shop I usually give the handguns a once over reguardless of what im shopping for. Everytime I do, I find that I almost have no interest in the longer barreled handguns. I dont know why, but the long 4-5+ inch barrels have less appeal to me then their shorter counterparts. For instance, I love the look of the glock 26 or 30 vs the full sized models. The snub nosed revolvers look much cooler then the large 5 inched barreled version. The Sub-compact and compact version always catch my eye, while the full sized ones are blah. I even think Ill pick up a Ultra Raptor II before one of the full sized 5"ers

So, then my question is, does one loose out on anything by purchasing a short barreled versions (compact and sub-compact version) compared to the full sized versions of handguns? Im sure that weight would have some effect on recoil, but is this all it boils down to? Is the loss of velocity substantial enough to rethink things?

Thanks,

[bu-bye]

Velocity and sight radius. The faster the bullet the better the SPLAT. The longer the sight radius the more accurate you, as a shooter, will be. Accuracy of the gun is really no different with a shorter vs longer barrel.

[maxicon]

Recoil control and accuracy are the 2 big differences. Muzzle velocity is generally lower out of short barrels as well, depending on the load and powder. You can get lots more muzzle flash from short barrels for the same reason, which can be good if you like pyrotechnic shooting!

The accuracy improvement is due to longer sight radius, not so much the longer barrel's effect on the bullet, and the extra weight makes a big difference. Plus, compact guns tend to have shorter grips, which makes for more difficult control as well.

In general, I find smaller guns harder to control. All my most pleasant and most accurate shooters are longer-barreled guns, typically heavy ones - 1911, S&W 586 6", CZ75B, Ruger Blackhawk. These are the ones that are a joy to shoot, and I take them out because they're fun and accurate.

The compacts - S&W 642, snubby Security Six, XD9 subcompact, SIG P239, P3AT - are ones I take out because I need to keep in practice with them. The main exception is my Makarov, which is a fun gun. It's not that small relative to its caliber, though.

max

[Ryan HBC]

The short versions will have:

- Severely decreased velocity and effectiveness
- Much more muzzle flip and harder follow up shots
- Decreased reliability in auto loaders, especially 1911 types

If you have to ask this question, you probably haven't spent much time at the range. 5" handguns are much more pleasurable to shoot.

[ohsmily]

Have you ever shot a handgun before? I am guessing that if you have, it has only been once or twice, because the differences between them would be apparent.

The shorter sight radius on snubnose or shortbarreled handguns dramatically decreases the ease of aiming precisely. Not to say that you can't be accurate with a short barreled handgun, but it is more difficult. Also, with a very short barrel, the bullet will not have passed through as much rifling and might not stabilize as well thus giving rise to less accuracy. Also, with such a short barrel, the pressure has not built up as much and significantly less velocity will result. Lastly, smaller, lighter weight guns have more felt recoil b/c of the reduced mass of the gun for recoil dampening.

NOTE: short barreled handguns are great and they have their place as being important for concealed carry and their general concealability.

P.S. while aesthetics does play a role in gun selection, don't let what is "cool" be your primary guide for gun buying, especially if you ever plan on using it for defense.

[bu-bye]

If you have to ask this question, you probably haven't spent much time at the range. 5" handguns are much more pleasurable to shoot.

That wasn't very nice or helpfull .

[ohsmily]

That wasn't very nice or helpfull .

Uh, I disagree with you. He was pointing out that the difference is OBVIOUS if you shoot handguns. He wasn't being insulting. It was "helpfull". Don't be so sensitive.

[Ryan HBC]

Geeze, got to tip toe in the tulips with some people around here.

[insin]

[bu-bye]

Uh, I disagree with you. He was pointing out that the difference is OBVIOUS if you shoot handguns. He wasn't being insulting. It was "helpfull". Don't be so sensitive.

Sorry, maybe I took it the wrong way

[Ryan HBC]

I was coming on with a bit of a superiority complex I guess. I'll try to be more useful:

I like my Para Warthog. It is a great subcompact that packs more punch than most full size weapons. And it looks mean! But I definitely don't want to bring it to the range with me every time. I'd take a full size 5" anything over that on range day.

The 3" is much less accurate, and has much more uncomfortable kick to it. Rapid firing is out of the question. It's picky with ammo, likes lighter, faster loads, and is very sensitive to limp wristing. Basically it is just harder to shoot, and the feeling I get when I pull my targets back are much less satisfying.

[Ryan HBC]

[luvtolean]

NO


(10 friggin characters)

[insin]

NO

What do you mean?

[luvtolean]

I mean your statement is false.

Specifically, accuracy is shooter and sight dependant, and precision (which is really what you're referring to when you speak of repeatability with a machine) is effected by barrel length, ammo, shooter and more.

Accurate and precise fire is the holy grail, and all of it is a factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy