View Single Post
 
Old 06-29-2016, 11:18 PM
Mr.Harry Mr.Harry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 1,063
Liked 1,509 Times in 650 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDC View Post
Contrary to what many seem to believe the shorter barreled guns (less than 4") are much more difficult to shoot well than longer barreled guns. I challenge the assertion 99% of us can shoot a 2 1/2 or 3" gun as accurately as a 5, 6, or 8 3/8".

The short barreled guns require more practice to master and their lighter weight with its accompanying recoil and muzzle blast makes practice a much less enjoyable thing.

It's interesting to me that the discussion seems to involve issues of shooter comfort rather than optimum effectiveness in a life threatening situation.

Ranges in the outdoors can require a longer sight radius to achieve adequate accuracy. A charging sow black bear with cubs, even fifty or sixty yards away, can be on top of a hiker in a second or two. The sooner a person can cap off effective and accurate rounds the better their chance of survival.

The fact is when you reduce the effectiveness of your firearm you also diminish its usefulness in the field...

I hunt black bear and I'm often in bear country for other reasons. I always carry in the remote and rugged Pacific NW woods -- but optimum comfort is among the lower considerations on my priority list.

If you believe a serious threat could be a possibility keep a 4" plus on your hip. I often carry a 5" 629 when fishing or hiking or a 500 when I'm hunting. Don't even notice them with the right holster gear...

JMHO
Ditto this. I wouldn't go shorter than 4". And I would go 629. 5" might be perfect, but I like 6". I think 8 plus becomes unwieldy.
Reply With Quote