357 lever gun 16 vs 20 inch barrel

[silverback57]

Guys I have been itching to get a 357 lever gun again.

Cant decide between 16 in or 20 inch.

Your input would be helpful?

Differences in fps, accuracy, ease of carry etc.

Thanks

[Old Savage]

I have a 16", velocity and accuracy are good. I also have 44 and 45 in the 20s. 16 is handier.

[6pt-sika]

I had Marlin 1894’s in 357 with 16 1/2” and 24” barrels . Both served their respective purpose . The 16 1/2” wore a scope and the 24” had tang sight again both for a specific purpose .

[AJMD429]

OK....about ten years back I had a great income and no time to shoot, so I bought guns I didn't wind up shooting much....

So my 357 Mag leverguns consist of a stable of six leverguns:

a couple Marlin 18" stainless 1894css's as an 'upgrade' to the blued 1894c I already owned.
three Rossi's in 16", 20", and 24"

I have NOT shot them all off the bench with carefully-developed handholds, choreographed and accuracy-tested....

But here are my thoughts:

1. The Blued Marlin 1894cs I keep in the safe, due to having a stainless pair, and figuring they can do everything the blued one does, and I'll save the blued one for re-sale someday when the price is right and my need it great.

2. The Stainless Marlin 1894css's I have are one 'untouched' that was bought as an 'accidental investment', since they were batch-produced, and I had to keep ordering repeatedly to only get 'out-of-stock', but on one lucky day I got TWO hits, and the other that is a 'shooter' (one of my three [link] >"Night Scout Leverguns". It is well-made, and I like the fewer, larger, parts aspect of Marlin vs Winchester/Rossi leverguns. I also like the top-mount scope/sight option. That gun I attacked with fine-grit emory cloth to tone-down the glare, and it wears a Burris Fastfire-II holosight, a LaserMax pistol laser, and a clip-on 200-lumen flashlight.



3. The three Rossi 92 'Winchester clones' are sighted differently:

a) the 16" wears a Marbles 'Bullseye' sight on the barrel that replaces the factory rear sight, and
b) the 20" wears a Williams FP sight drilled and tapped onto the receiver, and
c) the 24" octagonal wears a Taurus tang sight (clone of the three-times-as-expensive Marbles one).

Here is a thread describing the three different sights (with pictures):
https://levergunscommunity.org/viewtopi ... 31#p390174

The longer, octagonal-barrel one evokes 'vintage' levergun moods, and is fun at the range, and the excellent sight radius makes it a fun non-optical levergun that is pretty accurate with whatever I feed it. Maybe 4" at 100 yards, and that is likely limited by my old eyes and not the gun. Scoped I'm sure it would do better. The long barrel, especially with the smaller hole in it (versus a 44 or 45 caliber) means it is very muzzle-heavy, but that seems to help hold on-target, and for range use or for non-all-day hunting, I see no disadvantage to it, unless you're climbing a lot or in dense thickets that might catch longer barrels.

The medium round-barrel one should be the 'practical' one in that the Williams FP is the best non-optical sight IMHO, and is repeat-adjustable, to sight in for specific but changing loads. It is probably 2-4" at 100 yards if I put in the aperture (I usually 'ghost-ring' it), but it sure works for 'minute-of-deer'. I don't care for the balance of the 20" guns, though.

The 16" 'trapper' version wears the Bullseye sight, which is the FASTEST sight I've ever seen, as it is both a 'ghost ring' and yet has the smaller center ring that takes but a half-second more to center, if you want an accurate shot. I've not shot it at 100 yards, but at 50 yards hitting a soda can is eazy-peezy. The Bullseye is a 'drift-adjustable' sight like the factory one, with the usual 'elevator', so it is not one you can quickly adjust to a repeatable position as precisely as the Williams FP or a Tang sight with clicks, but typically all you change is elevation, and the elevator does have notches like the factory one. At 50 yards I can't shoot the difference between loads anyway, even barely noticing a difference between 357 Mag and 38 Spl loads.

Which of all these do I typically grab for a hike, or an 'informal' range-session......

The 16" Rossi with the Marbles Bullseye sight. It just 'fits' and is SO handy I think it is easier to carry than a handgun....!

The Marlin is just as handy, but seems a bit heavier, and since I have it set up for 'night scout' use, that's probably true. It is just fine during the day of course, and is a better-made gun than the Rossi, but the Rossi gets used more.

I seldom use the longer barreled ones, but if I do, it would be the 24" octagonal tang-sighted one, just because it is so different than the 16" one, whereas to me the 20" seems a compromise that lacks the handiness of the 16" and the potential accuracy/appeal of the 24" one. There is a certain 'nostalgia' I feel when flipping up the tang sight on a 24' octagonal levergun.

However, if I were just going for the 'utilitarian' goal of killing a whitetail for dinner, I would probably opt for the 20" gun, because I really like the accuracy of the Williams FP sight, which obviously could be installed on ANY of the barrel-lengths. I doubt that the accuracy difference would be significant between the 16" and 24" barrels, unless one were to be hunting squirrels or prairie dogs. As far as velocity, I'm pretty sure that 'decent' power can be had from the 16" with appropriate loads, and if one feels that it is 'marginal', I'd suggest going with a 44 Mag or 45 Colt instead.

In my hands, I doubt the 16" is losing me any hits or missing game I'd have hit with the 24" one.

I hope this helps.

[3leggedturtle]

Hard to decide between the 2. Buy whichever barrel length you find 1st. I have a 20" 357 carries snd shoots like a dream. Had 16" 45 Colt, was a great lightweight lever. You cant go wrong with either barrel length. Todd/3leg

[Paladin]

I am fond of the 16-inch guns and carry a .44 Mag and a .45 Long Colt often with red dot sights on them. The .45 is an older Rossi the was smoothed out by Nate "Kiowa" Jones and gets carried often when I run the dog. The .44 is a Marlin 1894 -C That I have been abusing for a very long time after my daughter said it was too heavy to hunt with.

[Tycer]

There’s no ballistic advantage to a 20” other than sight radius. My chronographed loads show no difference in accuracy and a slight loss of velocity with Lil’Gun in the 20”. Both Winchester 94’s and Rossi 92’s behaved the same.
The 16” balances better for me. A heavy octagon works better for me on running game.

[gundownunder]

You can add about 25 fps velocity for every inch of extra barrel length, depending on your load. With my silhouette load of 180 gr bullet and 14 gr of W296 my brother gets 1700 fps from his 24 inch Rossi, I get 1600 fps from my 20 inch Cowboy Marlin and another club member got 1550 from his 18 inch Marlin carbine.

If you plan to shoot with open sights then extra sight radius is a big help as your eyesight deteriorates. I have a 18 inch Marlin .22, a 20 inch Marlin 357, and a 22 inch Marlin 32-20, and I hardly ever choose the .22 to shoot as I struggle to focus on the front sight at that short distance.

Accuracy of the guns is mechanically not that different, but I found that a shorter gun is much more twitchy in my hands. A longer barrel gives a much smoother swing. My .22 was originally a 24 inch and with CCI mini mags, would shoot 5 shot groups to 4/10ths of a inch consistently at 50 yds, with a scope and off the bench. After I had the barrel shortened to 18 inch and recrowned it was still shooting to 4/10ths, but my off hand shooting was much worse, and that was 12 years ago,before my eye sight went to pot.

If you're in bush so thick that 4 inches of barrel is going to make a difference, I'd suggest you're in bush that is too thick to shoot in anyway. Also the shorter the barrel, the more noise it makes.

[crs]

Buy the 20 inch barrel if you plan to hunt seriously with it.

I have hand loaded .357 revolver and rifle with 110, 125, 140, 158 grain bullets and shot the hot Super Vel and other hot factory 180 loads and in all, the custom Douglas 20 inch barrel outperformed all shorter barrel lengths - PERIOD.
For me this is still a short , handy rifle and for a handier .357, I go to my 4 and 6 inch S&W M19 revolvers.


Different strokes for different folks.

[ollogger]

After 55 years of packing all sorts of guns around with bbl. from 20 - 26 in, I have 2 with 16 in bbl. on them
have one 357 with a 20 in. bbl. like it real well but the two with 16 in bbl. are a real treat to shoot & carry, sorry but one is a 45 colt in a Henry & the other is a 94 ae. in 30-30, but if you never had a shorty in any gun its worth while to try one out
my first one was a Rossi in a trapper, nice gun but the stock was to short for me, so it went down the road, the 2 I have now fit
like a glove, put a scope on the 94 ae & now I can hit a target at 100 yd, & make a decent group with it



ollogger

[Beaker]

My advice is if both are available for purchase, buy both!. Never hurts to have two, and in case you have a friend come along with you for recreational shooting.

[Old Savage]

Here is some data from ballistics by the inch.

Please note this is not the same data from the guns they tested including an 18" Buntline.. You can see in a comparison of their charts that that is different data.

I looked this up after getting a 16". Seems there is little practical difference after about 15". Not to say you could not concoct a load that would be better at 24". I was interested in factory ammo.

[crs]

I have seen that chart and others for many years. Ho Hum!

My 140 grain bullets were travelling 2200+. That load would leave a 6 inch hole in the offside of a whitetail deer. No need to follow a blood trail.

Naturally a person may choose to shoot the gun and ammo of his choice, as did OS.

PO Ackley documented his M1892 .357 160 grain bullet at 2135 FPS. PO was my kind of hand loader!

[mickbr]

I'd like to know where the data comes from directly for that chart. They list one chart with actual firearms but what is the reference for this one? I just don't find it matches reality myself, and several of their other calibres, 45 super and 22LR just to mention two. The red flag is the max velocity at 16", then dip in velocity bullets across the entire band at 17" 'but' then velocity increases across almost entire band for 18" again. It indicates a gun losing gas or blowing by was used for the 17" test. If cant think of another explantion unless we are saying laws of physics dictate 357 barrels go fastt at 16, slow at 17",but fast again at 18"... for all bullets.

When they finally cut a barrel down inch by inch from say 24" down and on a sealed action type, ' aka real ballistics by the inch' I will be interested.

I would agree no velocity gain for light loads like cowboy cast levels, but 40,000+ PSI and burning 16 grains+ powder??- that increases, or at least does for me. Whether its provides a practical advantage is open to discussion. I prefer longer barrels mainly as less noise for me and the dogs.

[KWK]

I'd like to know where the data comes from directly for that chart.

They mention they use a T/C, which will be a break open. These tests are separate from the ones they do for cylinder gap testing.

[KWK]

I'd like to know where the data comes from directly for that chart.

They mention they use a T/C, which will be a break open. These tests are separate from the ones they do for cylinder gap testing.

[mickbr]

Fair enough but still the same problem, if you have a certain barrel length being slower across all tests and all bullets, there needs to be an explanation, especially if the bullets are all accelarating again by 18"...

we don't know for example that it doesn't continue to climb, that 17" wasn't an anomaly. They need to expand their data to see what is happening right up the scale to 24" to iron out what is happening.

[Ray]

"Ah, Ballistics !"

is what Dean Grennell used to exclaim when questions on the inconsistency of chronograph data would arise.

Earnest and valiant attempts like the ballistics by the inch people are disdained and impugned when the reader doesn't agree with the results or doesn't think that enough loads were tested.

That was a lot of shekels and time and effort to run those tests. once the cut has been made there is no going back. If you all think that you can do better, have at it.

And.......

" Every gun is a law into itself. "

Most often attributed to Mister Taffin but it is thought to be original to Colonel Townsend Whelen.

Please read this......

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/ballisticians.htm

[Old Savage]

crs, typed you a nice extended message, then it was lost.

We have all had fast and slow barrels. What then is the standard to be trusted? I have had 16, 18.5 and 20" .357s. The 20 was in the 1845 with factory 158s range. Reading Ken Waters with an 18.5 where we know the pressure standards those two guns were in the same relative range as is the data in the chart. Seems about a 5% loss for 4", not significant to me in practical application. Now on the ho hum chart for me is velocities running the pressures up. In the handiness range I have a Rem Mod 7 that will do 2700 with 140s which is another realm ahead. Not sure where Ackley ran his pressures but straight wall cases would seem to be outside his developments.

[COSteve]

Done

[Old Savage]

The answer would seem be handle both, see which you like because there is not a lot of ballistic difference.

[mickbr]

"Ah, Ballistics !"

is what Dean Grennell used to exclaim when questions on the inconsistency of chronograph data would arise.

Earnest and valiant attempts like the ballistics by the inch people are disdained and impugned when the reader doesn't agree with the results or doesn't think that enough loads were tested.

That was a lot of shekels and time and effort to run those tests. once the cut has been made there is no going back. If you all think that you can do better, have at it.

And.......

I can't disagree Ray, but I think BBTI is big enough to handle a few queries. Also if their data is used in discussions beyond the barrel lengths tested, I would think they appreciate someone points out it may not be entirely applicable.

[COSteve]

Done

[Old Savage]

Have you tried the 16"? I have 92s in 16" and 20". I like both. Not interested in long range target shooting with the .357 that is a horse of a different color in the 16-20" question. I get why you like it and there are no doubt ballistic advantages with the right loads. Guess it has to have practical application for my interest. Now if I had friends playing that game sure. Sight radius for me 16-20 has not demonstrated a practical difference, with a long Mauser 7.65x53 yes

Personal taste.

On the velocity by the inch issue, I was interested in what the .357 can reach in 16". So, pleased to see it reaches the 1700+ plus area which in the 100 yd range puts it at pistol power+ at the muzzle which makes it viable for deer on down. .

I also like my 30-30 with 26" barrel just because.

[AJMD429]

When they finally cut a barrel down inch by inch from say 24" down and on a sealed action type, ' aka real ballistics by the inch' I will be interested.

I think somewhere a writer did that with a Contender or Encore, or maybe a Handi-rifle, for several cartridges. I don't know which ones though.

[COSteve]

Done

[Old Savage]

indeed MM does V. Didn't have any of the same issues you note. But, I am widely flexible on gun styles. Well ... a few things I don't care for but not involved here. Have not tried the 24". I have tried the variations from 18" to 28" in 45-70 and like the 22" better than the 26".

[Blaine]

The answer would seem be handle both, see which you like because there is not a lot of ballistic difference.

+1
In Spades.

[silverback57]

Well I went with a 16 inch blued model.
Waiting on it to be shipped.

Can't wait to get it out to the range

Thanks to all who replied.

[silverback57]

While purchasing this gun from Steve's guns I have had the pleasure to speak with Steve on several occations.

He is a great guy to speak with.

[1894c]

I have two Marlin 1894c (.357-mag), both have a 18.5" barrel. As I always like a 16" barrel the 18.5" barrel is a good compromise. The standard Marlin 1894c is easy to carry, well balanced, and a good option to hunt with... :)

[Tycer]

While purchasing this gun from Steve's guns I have had the pleasure to speak with Steve on several occations.

He is a great guy to speak with.

Yep. Great choice of place to order. Starting off with the best is always the perfect decision.

[ChuteTheMall]

All the cowboy action shooters seem to prefer the 20" over the 16".
Not for the increased velocity.
Not for the longer sight radius.
Just for the ten round capacity.