Author Topic: 5 1/2" .44's  (Read 1303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline mcwoodduck

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7983
  • Gender: Male
Re: 5 1/2" .44's
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2010, 02:24:59 PM »
As far as I can tell the 7 and 8" barrels were made because the front loading hand guns were that same over all length.
They were that long so they could be used as a club when empty.
I do not think you will see a vast diff in velocity from the 8 and the 5.5" barrels.

Offline StrawHat

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Gender: Male
Re: 5 1/2" .44's
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2010, 01:38:55 AM »
I believe the majority of the revolvers were sold with the 7 1/2 or 8" barrel because that is what the Army wanted when they ordered them.  Colts would sell other barrel lengths (Keith commented on a 6" 1851) but by and large most folks were happy with what the Army thought was good.  Some guns got cut down by their owners but by and large the guns stayed the way they came from the factory.  It wasn't until the Army decided to modify the Model P to a 5 1/2 barrel for the artillery that the idea of different barrel lengths on full sized revolvers started to catch on.  The small framed 31s were offered with a variety of barrel lengths as standard.

We are seeing a lot of short barrel replicas because that is what the suppliers think will sell.  Same as we see a lot of replicas of guns that were not produced in great numbers.  Because of this, some think they were common back when they were originally made. 
"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"  Winston Churchill

"A law without a punishment is merely advice."  anonymous

Offline simonkenton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
Re: 5 1/2" .44's
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2010, 05:57:49 AM »
Although there is a loss of velocity with the 5.5 inch barrel, it is not too much.

John Wilkes Booth used a Deringer with a 2 inch barrel and he got the job done.
Aim small don't miss.

Offline jlchucker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
Re: 5 1/2" .44's
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2010, 06:28:33 AM »
I believe the majority of the revolvers were sold with the 7 1/2 or 8" barrel because that is what the Army wanted when they ordered them.  Colts would sell other barrel lengths (Keith commented on a 6" 1851) but by and large most folks were happy with what the Army thought was good.  Some guns got cut down by their owners but by and large the guns stayed the way they came from the factory.  It wasn't until the Army decided to modify the Model P to a 5 1/2 barrel for the artillery that the idea of different barrel lengths on full sized revolvers started to catch on.  The small framed 31s were offered with a variety of barrel lengths as standard.

We are seeing a lot of short barrel replicas because that is what the suppliers think will sell.  Same as we see a lot of replicas of guns that were not produced in great numbers.  Because of this, some think they were common back when they were originally made. 

What you say may be true about the longer barrels.  I had my Remmie cut to 5 1/2 inches and found it handier to carry, but not by much.  I had it cut before they started selling them that way.  Over time, I figured out that I maybe should have left well enough alone.  The shorter barrel made no real difference at all for casual shooting purposes.  I use my Remmie as an occasional woods-walking piece--and shoot it at least as much as my 357 S&W's.  I even had a 31 with a barrel somewhat longer than 4 inches once.  Nice plinker.  One thing with shorter guns though--at least with the Colt style ones, the loading lever is shorter, and that means loading is done with a little less leverage.

Offline StrawHat

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Gender: Male
Re: 5 1/2" .44's
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2010, 02:01:05 AM »
The longer barrels are definately easier to carry!  I cut an 1860 to 3" and found it to be a royal pain to carry in a period style holster.  I finally ended up using a pancake style.  The short barrel was accurate enough to use at much longer ranges than many thought it would be.

As for the short loading lever, with the 3", I just removed it.  I have a 5" barreled Walker, for it I used a cheater bar over the lever arm, until I removed the lever.  A real howitzer, but even with the shortened barrel it will never be a quick draw firearm.

I have a variety of C&B Pocket Colts (36s) with 5 1/2" or 6" barrels.  They are a blast to shoot.  Just got a 31 so have no experience with it.  Looking forward to a range day but it appears unfired so I may just sell it and buy a more user friendly version.

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"  Winston Churchill

"A law without a punishment is merely advice."  anonymous

Offline Rangr44

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
Re: 5 1/2" .44's
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2010, 03:47:20 PM »


I actually like my shorty better than the longer barreled one I had, and so gave the long bbl 1860 to a good friend for his milestone b-day last year.

.
There's a Place for All God's Creatures - Right Next to the Potatoes & Gravy ! !