if 6in is great, what about 4in ??

[Tokarev]

My premise is this, if I can build a 6" gun that handles like an 5" and weighs what an 5" does but you gain an inch of sight radius where can you go wrong? I still have not met anyone that can truly call a shot that doesn't KNOW a 6" gun is a better tool after they shoot it. Ultralight isn't for everyone and ultralight is what I do in 6" guns, but the premise is the same regardless of who builds the gun.

There are some beautiful guns here, fellas. Thanks for posting the pics!

I, too, am interested in getting a 6" built and understand the concept behind the extra 1" of sight radius but I'm not totally sold on the idea.

What about going the other way and using a Commander? From some limited trigger time using a Commander in IDPA and L10, I know these guns seem to point and index a little quicker than a Government Model. Since most of our shooting is done within 15 yards or so, wouldn't it, in theory at least, be better to have a gun that cycles quickly, points good, and swings from target to target a little quicker than a longslide?

Since I've not yet shot a 6" gun I may be totally off track on this. If so, sorry to have wasted the bandwidth!

[Zerwas]

Since I've not yet shot a 6" gun I may be totally off track on this.  If so, sorry to have wasted the bandwidth!

Thread drift...

I too thought about this concept the same way you do. A long time ago, I used to shoot a Sig P229 in competition. I then picked up a Sig P226 (longer slide) and felt this would be a better fit for the sporting games because of the site radius. I found out I liked the shorter Sig P229 as I was quicker with it.

When it comes to the 2011 design, I can only say I highly recommend you shoot one and form an opinion as I did. I picked up and shot a 6" limited gun for the first time at this years area 3. Howard and Darryl D were in my squad at area 3 and I was hooked by the looks of their 6" pistols (basically a carbon copy of each other). I was interested in shooting those pistols to see what one felt like. To my surprize BOTH Howard and Darryl said "No problem"! My mind wandered back to the Sig Sauer pistols I had several years ago, wondering if I was going to feel the same about the 2011 design as I did the Sig's. I use a 5" SVI site tracker (which I love), but after shooting 2 of Howards pistols, it's like the 6" gun is CHEATING. That is why I currenly have have Howard building one for me. I was that impressed with the accuracy and overall handling of that pistol. A very predictable front site movement really sold me on it.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Zerwas

[splashdown]

It's not just about the 1" extra sight radius. You also get an inch of barrel which gives more velocity with the same load. Or, a lighter load for the same velocity. So the theory goes, if the gun is as light as a 5 inch gun and balances similarly, but you use less powder to make the same PF, and you get the extra sight radius, how can you go wrong. I personally haven't shot one, but it sounds good on paper. A commander length gun may handle fine, but it would take a hotter load to make the same PF.

I like the idea of the light 6-in gun so much that I'm having JPL Precision build me one, and oh will it be sexy. I can't wait to show it off, but it will be a while. I haven't even handed him the parts yet. I would've gone with Benny, but JPL is local to me and keeping a good local gunsmith in business is a good thing. Anyone want to trade a Fat Free for my SV Sight Tracker?

[Tokarev]

This is certainly an interesting topic and I'm sorry for the thread drift.

I'm sure if there wasn't something to be said for the 6" blasters, Todd and Robbie wouldn't be using them. But, with that said, if either one of these gentlemen showed up at a Nationals wearing a combat boot on one foot and a roller skate on the other, we'd see a huge upswing in skate sales!

[Larry White]

This is certainly an interesting topic and I'm sorry for the thread drift.

I'm sure if there wasn't something to be said for the 6" blasters, Todd and Robbie wouldn't be using them. But, with that said, if either one of these gentlemen showed up at a Nationals wearing a combat boot on one foot and a roller skate on the other, we'd see a huge upswing in skate sales!

That is pretty much a true statement. But if those two show up wearing a boot and a skate I suppect there is an avantage in there somewhere.

[Glshooter]

I've wondered the same thing. I shoot mainly production with my Glock but I seem to be much faster with the model 17 than I am with the 34. The 34 is a little more accurate on longer shots but overall my scores are better with the 17 due to the fasters times. After reading this I need to find someone with a 6 inch gun to try.

[Julien Boit]

This was an option I looked at because we are limited by the box rules. So 6 inches in a no go for us.

A commander sized pistol could allow you to play with mag capacity and longer mags by placing it differently in the box.

So far, I've never saw one

[eerw]

Have a friend that did shoot a commander for two or three years..because he thought it was quicker and shot it as well as a five inch gun..

he is a master limited class shooter.. and did his share of winning the local matches..

so for the right person and the right skill set..it can work..

[Merlin Orr]

I shot my Commander yesterday at our local match. I was about double the points down from my usual total.

[Larry White]

On some stages at minor PF the short gun may be a little faster. On courses with longer shots, steel and major PF the advantage swings in a hurry. All else being equal I think the 6in is a little better overall. I have seen a number of good shooters fire 10 rds thur a six and say its not for them, I dont know anyone who has shot 1000 rds in matches with a six that wants to go back to a five inch. I wish I could use a 6 in single stack, there is a diffrence.---------Larry

[eric nielsen]

Julien

A while back [maybe 2 years?] someone posted a photo of a 5.5" Standard gun for IPSC. Fits in the Box, just barely.

It looked just like an Edge, but longer. Guessing it was a bull barrel, not a bushing.

CoolGunFactor was very high on that one.

---

When STI first started in the mid-90s, a lot of the original Eagles were 4.5" guns. A few ppl shot them in matches but they went away quickly once the 5" guns were easy to find.

[dirtypool40]

Not meaning any disrespect Eric, I'd have ot see that in the box to believe it. I"ve had my 5" guns in the box, and if you get one of those Nowlin (et al) barrels that are maybe 3-4mm longer, you'll scrape the end going in.

Maybe something like a "bobtail" and shortened beavertail to gain some more room to the rear, but standard config, I'd have to see it.

Also, for me at least, an S_I with a light top end handles a lot like a LW Commander, and does feel quick like you were saying.

If there were going to be minor PF and all close shots (IDPA?) I could see trying it out.

On another note we have a buddy who is convinced of this (4" faster) and I'd like to winning, I no one tells him different.

[Julien Boit]

You must think of a pistol made by HPS in Germany.

It was a kind of hybrid length, around 5.5 inches.

The beavertail was trimmed as well as the magwell to gain a little length on the barrel.

Burchwaffen did a similar job called the "Heavy Nose" STI Heavy Nose

[dirtypool40]

HA!! I knew it.

[EricBudd]

Julien

A while back [maybe 2 years?] someone posted a photo of a 5.5" Standard gun for IPSC. Fits in the Box, just barely.

It looked just like an Edge, but longer. Guessing it was a bull barrel, not a bushing.

CoolGunFactor was very high on that one.

---

When STI first started in the mid-90s, a lot of the original Eagles were 4.5" guns. A few ppl shot them in matches but they went away quickly once the 5" guns were easy to find.

Maybe the CZ IPSC Standard (now renamed the Tatical Sports)? It has a 5.5 barrel and, I think, fits in the box.

Eric

[Julien Boit]

Here is the HPS :

You can see the chopped beavertail and magwell.

[chp5]

I like the idea - especially for IDPA. I like how the Glock 22/17 handles better than the Glock 34/35. It's a personal thing and you will only know by experimenting in practice with a timer.

[Radical Precision Designs]

Somewhere in the '90's when the power factor (USPSA) was 175, many shooters avail themselves of the "Commander cycling length advantage". Shock buffers galore was the norm. not just for the "buffing service" (needed for 175 PF and lower rated recoil springs), but to also limit the travel. Limiting the travel accomplished two things: 1st., it prevented/assisted your gun from going into slide lock, and 2nd., it shortened your cycling distance. Some shooters would put enough buffers to mimic/match the Commander cycling length, and cut the recoil spring accordingly, or even use Commander length recoil springs. With this, the use of "extended" ejectors became also the norm. A lot of experimenting has been done over the years, which has brought us to the present day.

Semi-auto cycling pistols require a balance for everything to work just right, and fit your taste. This is where the crux of the whole thing is at. Be it 4.25", 5", 6", or any variations of each. Power factor (genuinely observed: eliminating the "sandbaggers") is the limiting factor. The use of the right cartridge load, to maximize the performance of the length of your barrel ... and transfer that impulse to your hand within your "control" ability, will dictate whether you succede/like/dis-like with that specific combination. It is really a combination of your gunsmith's prowess and your hand-loading abilities. Balance these, and you've got a winner.

One thing is for sure: as barrel lentgh increases, so does your ability for smaller hit grouping ... and calling your shots. If you can match the feel/balance of all three gun lengths being equal ... the advantage will go to the longer barrelled gun. This is a fact, as shown by actual firearms "evolution", starting with the 6' (feet) long flint-lock to the present.

Actual range max./min. used within a stage will tend to control things on individual stages. But the real point where it applies to our "game" is that the gun that can shoot EQUALLY well at extra short or extra long distances will have more "cookie points" overall on your hit factor. Splits and transition (times) speed/accuracy results is where it is at. If a gun was proportionally "scaled" and balanced within its size, and shot the same cartridge loading, which one do you think would perform better with it ??? Actual PF achieved with an optimum performing load is the key. The longer barrelled gun will have an advantage. If per chance the perceived handling is equal, then where would you go ?? This is for the "game", not for CCW. If CCW is your goal, then that's a different story. I build both, and optimize each gun to the individual purpose. Just so, IMHO.

[shooting for M]

Just wondering if anyone has noticed being any slower on medium distance targets i.e 10-15 yds with a longer sight radius. I realize that some of it has to do with the guns balance, but even at the same weight do you have to work a little more to get an "accetable" sight picture with a longer barrel? I'm sure that with some has tried this with all the new 6"ers out there. I'm not looking to switch, I haven't realy even shot my limited gun yet, but it seems like shorter is faster, and longer is more accurate. Anyone have any practice data to rebuff this? I have no opinion really either way, just wondering.

Jason

[Larry White]

No noticable diffrence. The real key for transitions is the center of your chest, and thats the same regardless of barrel length. Unless the gun is so heavy that you cant start or stop it its a non issue.--------Larry

[dirtypool40]

Here is the HPS :

You can see the chopped beavertail and magwell.

not a bad idea...... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[eric nielsen]

You're welcome Venry.

DP will be in your shop within 10 days.

[dirtypool40]

Here I am crying about the world shoot, but it looks like I can have my cake and eat it too. Hell, I like the medium sized EGW magwell anyway, maybe we can trim one of those down to fit, and use a short "warp speed" style hammer, and a trimmed bevertail and then the only difference will be mags.

Might be on to something..... hmmmmmm

Edited November 19, 2007 by dirtypool40

[Zerwas]

You are ALWAYS thinking arent you DP!!! I'd prefer the radius of a 5.501" barrel pistol.... I think that would give you better odds at hitting those tiny poppers at 35-40 yards.

[dirtypool40]

it's funny I preach all the time about simple, reliable equipment, but I will admit I am always searching for that perfect combination for me.

I still don't know if I like a light gun. I just know when I switched to one I started seeing improvement. On the other hand I also started practicing 3x weekly for the first time ever, so who knows?

I know I like the "feel" of middle weighted, NON nose heavy guns, but the jury is still out.

I do know that anything hleping soften up 175pf loads and making that tiny amoeba easier to "two alpha" ain't a bad thing.