RufusG
Member
Question is in the title. Always seemed a little redundant to me. I see both lengths are offered in the full size, 4" only in the compact. Will a 4.25" (or longer) barrel work on the compact frame? Thanks.
So why are there both 4" and 4.25" barrels?
- Thread starter RufusG
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
gfors
SWCA Member
It's a Canadian thing.
Less than 4.25 not legal for import.
Don't know about swapping out barrels.
Less than 4.25 not legal for import.
Don't know about swapping out barrels.
Yep, some Canuck concluded that 4.25” barrels are less deadly and harder to conceal. Looks like there will be more 3” Pythons available for us Yankees. 
gwpercle
Member
If going from 4" to 4.25" so a gun would be harder to carry ... why not a 10" or 12" minimum length ... but the REAL reason is to limit the guns from makers in the USA ... a lot of makers aren't going to make two models of guns ...one just for the Canadian market .
It's all about limiting access to handguns ...NOT about .25" being safer or harder to conceal . That's just the excuse they spew out to the masses .
Who said " Americans are so gullible ! " Vladimir Putin and he is so right it isn't even funny !
Gary
It's all about limiting access to handguns ...NOT about .25" being safer or harder to conceal . That's just the excuse they spew out to the masses .
Who said " Americans are so gullible ! " Vladimir Putin and he is so right it isn't even funny !
Gary
Quasi-humorous quips don't help answer the OP's question. Canada designates classes of firearms. Those with barrels less than 105 mm fall in to the prohibited bucket. This is 4.13" hence the 4.25" barrel length on some US firearms.
Classes of firearms | Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Classes of firearms | Royal Canadian Mounted Police
smoothshooter
Member
With the restrictions on handguns up there, how big could the Canadian market be?
What about all the Americans that have close-fitted leather holsters made for 4” barrels that won’t fit 4 1/4” barrels?
Soon, maybe now. All we will get is 4.25 in. barrels. They won't make 2 lengths......Checked the catalog specs lately?
Once upon a time, I was looking for a spare barrel for a Sig that was 3.9". I found a listing for one that said 106mm and wondered why? Found out about the Canadian restrictions.
ppkaprince98
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2021
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 46
So why are there both 4" and 4.25" barrels?
Yes, i bought a 4” frame and put the 4.25” slide on it and it works fine.
I may be wrong but i think both those guns use the 4” lower from the factory.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, i bought a 4” frame and put the 4.25” slide on it and it works fine.
I may be wrong but i think both those guns use the 4” lower from the factory.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
cmj8591
Member
I think they keep the 4" in the line up so that it doesn't throw a monkey wrench in police acquisitions. Duty equipment is geared towards the 4" so If a large department purchased new guns and no 4"ers were available, it might be a big logistical problem. The 4 1/4 let them export for the Canadian markets. The new 19 and 66 are offered with 4 1/4. So is the new Python. A lot of Canadian security firms still use revolvers so I guess there is enough of a market to change the 4" revolvers to 4 1/4.
4.25” barrel and guide stick out about .25” from the front of a 4” slide…
Scoured the internet for. 4.25 barrel and guide rod, only to find out the that I purchased a FDE 4” optics ready slide from the gun show. Also learned upon receiving the parts that one of my guns is a 3.6” compact. Just happened to be the one I intended to put the new slide on….
Last edited:
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Yes, i bought a 4” frame and put the 4.25” slide on it and it works fine.
I may be wrong but i think both those guns use the 4” lower from the factory.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would seem to me that just puttin g a 4.25" barrel in the 4" slide would make more sense economically that machining a whole new slide length. But hey, I'm just a lawyer
Yes, i bought a 4” frame and put the 4.25” slide on it and it works fine.
I may be wrong but i think both those guns use the 4” lower from the factory.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you use the rail on the frame as a reference, it appears that the frame/lower is the same for every barrel length for a specific caliber, including the 4.6" and 5" if available.
I knew/know all that. Means we have compromise. And lose our 4" guns. Be easier if they just welded a nut on the front of the guns going to Canada.
Sheepdogged
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 300
Here's my take which I believe is accurate.
It took a LONG time for Smith to release a 4" answer to the Glock 19. I believe 4.25" was chosen because it was close to the G19, slightly more concealable than a G17, yet legal in Canada. The 4" came after about a decade of people asking for it (mostly for the grip). A little extra sight radius and a little more concealability is always welcome in my opinion. If I was an LEO, obviously I would go with a 4.25". Concealing appendix, I'd rather a 4" with a full-grip. If I was carrying IWB at 4:30, I'd rather a compact grip. If I was concealing OWB I would rather 3.6", etc.
I commend Smith because it gives us a lot of options, but the truth is that it was born from compromise. The original M&P9s were 3.5, 4.25 and 5" if memory serves me correctly. I had one of the first 3.5" compacts, but I've owned everything but a 5" at one time or another. The 4" enabled Smith to compete more directly with the Glock 19. If they had deviated too much from 4.25" in favor of a 4.5", for example, holster & parts compatibility would become more of an issue.
It took a LONG time for Smith to release a 4" answer to the Glock 19. I believe 4.25" was chosen because it was close to the G19, slightly more concealable than a G17, yet legal in Canada. The 4" came after about a decade of people asking for it (mostly for the grip). A little extra sight radius and a little more concealability is always welcome in my opinion. If I was an LEO, obviously I would go with a 4.25". Concealing appendix, I'd rather a 4" with a full-grip. If I was carrying IWB at 4:30, I'd rather a compact grip. If I was concealing OWB I would rather 3.6", etc.
I commend Smith because it gives us a lot of options, but the truth is that it was born from compromise. The original M&P9s were 3.5, 4.25 and 5" if memory serves me correctly. I had one of the first 3.5" compacts, but I've owned everything but a 5" at one time or another. The 4" enabled Smith to compete more directly with the Glock 19. If they had deviated too much from 4.25" in favor of a 4.5", for example, holster & parts compatibility would become more of an issue.
Last edited:
sipowicz
Member
So then why is my Marlin 39A called a “Mountie” when it’s the shorter barrel version?
panther
Member
Don't forget about the 3.6" version. I picked up one of those recently. It's the same length as my 1.0 M&P9c. But it has the 2.0 compact grip frame, uses the 15rd mags.
I like the feel of it, it's a nice option, except North of the border.
I like the feel of it, it's a nice option, except North of the border.
Yup. That is why Ruger revolvers are 4.2" barrels, not 4"
pantannojack
US Veteran
"Could it be the metric system?" I mean the quarter pounder.
Similar threads
