There is a member here that has done a side x side comparo. Whichfinger did this awhile back. Im not shure if he has a 9"barrel but he has 3, 4, and 6" barrels. might try a search of his old posts. DR

 

I did the comparison with .22 Mag, but it should still be valid.

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=421819

 

Thanks! That was interesting reading!

I'm still curious about the 9" barrel rough rider, though. Anyone on here ever try one out? I was at a local gun show recently and saw a rough rider revolver at one of the booths. Just from looking at it from a distance I guessed that it was the 9" barrel but I was wrong. It was only a 6.5" barrel. That makes me really wonder about the longer barrels. I guess you do get a better sight radius and higher bullet velocity, but it's got to be more cumbersome.

Anybody try one?

 

I have a Ruger with the long barrel, its not very handy to carry. one of my sons adopted it as I never warmed up to it. the length made it easy to shoot from a bench. but not much fun to carry. DR

 

Had the Buntline version of a Colt .22 for years. Accuracy was super, but I second the thought that it was a pain to carry in a holster.

 

It looks like Heritage Manufacturing makes Rough Rider .22 models with barrel lengths from 3.5" to 9" long. I sent an email to Heritage asking if they had done any side-by-side comparisons of the different barrel lengths and "Miss Fire" replied that they had not.

If I understand correctly, a bullet fired from one of the longer barrels should have a higher velocity than one fired from a shorter barrel. Also, you should get a better sight radius from the longer barrel at the expense of making it possibly more difficult to carry around.

Has anyone out there done any side-by-side comparisons of the different Rough Rider models?

Any thoughts?

I read a book written by Ed Matunas, a well known author, professoional gun smith and headed Lymans balistics lab for 6 yrs- you get the idea- he said a revolver shooting 22 long rifle high velocity amo with a barrel length much over 6&1/2 in. long actually looses velocity because of the lost preasure between the cylinder and barrel. From this I would guess the 9 in. barrel has less velocity than a 6&1/2 in. barrel. Although it may still be more accurate.

 

I have the rough rider in the 6 1/2 and 9 in both and have squirrel hunted with them both,I cant see any difference in them, as far as being accurate I think they shoot the same. I do agree the 9 in. is a little more hassle to carry,but both are nice guns for the price.

 

It looks like Heritage Manufacturing makes Rough Rider .22 models with barrel lengths from 3.5" to 9" long. I sent an email to Heritage asking if they had done any side-by-side comparisons of the different barrel lengths and "Miss Fire" replied that they had not.

If I understand correctly, a bullet fired from one of the longer barrels should have a higher velocity than one fired from a shorter barrel. Also, you should get a better sight radius from the longer barrel at the expense of making it possibly more difficult to carry around.

Has anyone out there done any side-by-side comparisons of the different Rough Rider models?

Any thoughts?

I have a 3/12 inch, two 41/2 inch and the 6 1/2. The 6 1/2 inch will hit tin cans at 55 yrds shooting off a bench. The other 3 guns shoot about two feet off center at 25 yrds.