TexasCHLforum.com

For instance, the Ruger Max 9 claims a 3.2 inch barrel length. The Glock 48 claims a 4.2 inch barrel length. In both cases approximately 1 inch of that is the round itself. Only the portion from the bullet nose to the muzzle is legitimately actual barrel that engages the bullet with the rifling to create the spin and direct the trajectory. My .02 and YMMV.

AdioSS wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 10:54 am I’m not sure quite what you are saying. The pistol barrels I have measured have all been from the breach face to the muzzle end. That part is the barrel. Same as shotguns & rifles. Revolvers hold rounds differently, in a rotating cylinder outside of the barrel, but the actual barrel length is still measured the same way.

I don't accept that those are the same thing. The revolver does not measure any of the length of the ammunition round. That isn't and shouldn't be part of barrel length. The barrel is a tube with rifling cut into it to impart spin and direct the trajectory of the projectile. The portion holding the round plays no part in that. Revolver barrel length measurements give true length, non-revolvers exaggerate the true length.

Apparently every manufacturer measures their pistol barrel length from the rim of the cartridge so their short barrel is significantly shorter than their claim. Revolvers appear to have accurate barrel length claims. I subtract 3/4" from any pistol specs as I pretty much only consider 9mm so it's accurate for that and close enough for anything else.

I'm sure they have some argument about different length rounds depending on bullet selection or something but they could report the length of the rifling in the barrel and be more accurate.