Any consensus on the proper, way to measure the length of the barrel of the revolver?

Nestor

Nestor

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.7%
313   1   0
Location
too close to Calgary
I'm currently trying to figure out what is the right answer here.
Asking You, since I came across two, different ones and I'm confused.
Any help would be much appreciated.
First:
from the muzzle end to the face (front) of the revolver's cartridge cylinder.
Second:
from the muzzle end to the breech end.
I'm talking legal, Canadian, up to date interpretation here.
Thanks!
 
Nestor said:
I'm currently trying to figure out what is the right answer here.
Asking You, since I came across two, different ones and I'm confused.
Any help would be much appreciated.
First:
from the muzzle end to the face (front) of the revolver's cartridge cylinder.
Second:
from the muzzle end to the breech end.
I'm talking legal, Canadian, up to date interpretation here.
Thanks!
Click to expand...


Sadly, it's number 1. For reasons that defy explaination, the legal definition of a revolvers barrel length excludes the chamber in Canada. If we measured revolver barrels the same way we measured other firearms, most revolvers with more than 2.5 inches of rifled barrel would measure 105mm+
 
According to my "Canadian Restricted Fireamrs Safety Course, Student Handbook"

"The barrel length of a revolver is the distance from the muzzle to the breech end immediately in front of the cylinder"

M
 
Last edited:
So, the small gap between the cylinder and breech end is excluded from that measurement?
That would be my understanding and this is the interpretation that I found on the CBSA website.
Thanks!
 
Canuck223 said:
For reasons that defy explaination, the legal definition of a revolvers barrel length excludes the chamber in Canada.
Click to expand...
I am sure that it was done to specifically prohibit 4" revolvers. I would say they came up with a list of what they wanted to ban first then developed the regs around that.
 
The small gap between forcing cone and cylinder face IS included in the overall barrel length....whoopee they act like they threw us a .006" bone. Logically it SHOULD be to the BACK of the cylinder!
 
Master-G said:
I am sure that it was done to specifically prohibit 4" revolvers. I would say they came up with a list of what they wanted to ban first then developed the regs around that.
Click to expand...

That is very likely, yet as I learned over the last few months even those, strict regulations aren't exactly working all the times either.
Here is the proof:

IMG_3885.jpg


Both revolvers, pictured here are restricted.
Obviously not all 4 inchers are equal under Canadian gun laws.
 
handofzeus said:
The small gap between forcing cone and cylinder face IS included in the overall barrel length....whoopee they act like they threw us a .006" bone. Logically it SHOULD be to the BACK of the cylinder!
Click to expand...

Ok, I think that this gap may be a bit bigger than that on perfectly fine revolver. I believe S&W says anything up to .012 is within spec. That 0.1 mm can make a difference between prohibited and restricted :)
 
handofzeus said:
The small gap between forcing cone and cylinder face IS included in the overall barrel length....whoopee they act like they threw us a .006" bone. Logically it SHOULD be to the BACK of the cylinder!
Click to expand...

Would you care to name the source for this interpretation?
 
Master-G said:
I am sure that it was done to specifically prohibit 4" revolvers. I would say they came up with a list of what they wanted to ban first then developed the regs around that.
Click to expand...

I have seen comments mention that Alan Rock went to the RCMP with various scenarios of "if we do this, how many guns does it affect?" types of questions, with the goal being to prohibit the most guns possible with the least amount of legislation.

No idea how credible these comments are, but the regs certainly look like they took the approach you mention, as there is no other logic or rationale that I can see in how the law was written.


Mark
 
In Alberta the Verifiers (the only measurement that counts imho) are taught to measure from the muzzle to the cylinder face, which takes the place of the breech face in a revolver. Since the Verifiers use a rod and not calipers, etc., with the adjustable sliding stop for their official measurement tool, they need a fixed object to butt into. Hence, the cylinder between chambers.

And yes, that can provide enough fractions of a mm for the restricted vs. prohibited measurement.

All stupid, I agree, either measure all handguns to the breech face or don't bother measuring, call them all handguns, legally owned with an R-PAL. None of this makes Toronto safer one way or the other.
 
gunzik said:
In Alberta the Verifiers (the only measurement that counts imho) are taught to measure from the muzzle to the cylinder face, which takes the place of the breech face in a revolver. Since the Verifiers use a rod and not calipers, etc., with the adjustable sliding stop for their official measurement tool, they need a fixed object to butt into. Hence, the cylinder between chambers.

And yes, that can provide enough fractions of a mm for the restricted vs. prohibited measurement.

All stupid, I agree, either measure all handguns to the breech face or don't bother measuring, call them all handguns, legally owned with an R-PAL. None of this makes Toronto safer one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Thank You. This is the information I was looking for.
 
Answer is at paragraph 84(2) of the Criminal Code:


Barrel length

(2)For the purposes of this Part, the length of a barrel of a firearm is
(a)in the case of a revolver, the distance from the muzzle of the barrel to the breach end immediately in front of the cylinder, and
(b)in any other case, the distance from the muzzle of the barrel to and including the chamber,
but does not include the length of any component, part or accessory including any component, part or accessory designed or intended to suppress the muzzle flash or reduce recoil.
Click to expand...

Hope this answers your question.
 
The CC definition would not involve the front face of the cylinder in the measurement of the revolver's barrel.
 
Just went through this trying to get a revolver changed from prohib to restricted and was informed that the Criminal Code, as mentioned above, is the "Correct" way to measure the barrel length of a revolver.

Funny, been doing it the other way for more than 10 years and told them so. I told them that I had been taught that way on both of my verifiers courses and so had every other verifier on both of the courses I attended!!

Scott
 
"Correct" doesn't really enter into it. The CC definition is the legal definition.
Functional barrel length would be breechface to muzzle face, but that is legally irrelevant.
 
Thanks for the Criminal Code Statute. But the OP was looking for the "correct" method, and that would be the CFC's interpretation of that Criminal Law, or their "correct" method of doing things. Again, for measuring barrel length, the Holy Rod is provided. To stop the Holy Rod, a cylinder face shall be used.

For once, the CFC's "correct" method provides a tiny little advantage. The S. 84's "immediately in front of the cylinder" has been interpreted as "butt the rod up against the cylinder". That's the only 0.1mm you'll ever get from them, I take that and am grateful.
 
Given enough cylinder slop and barrel cylinder gap, measuring from the cylinder face could give quite a head start on the measurement of the barrel.
Is a Russian gas seal Nagant measured with the cylinder cammed foreward or at rest in the rear position?
 
mmattockx said:
I have seen comments mention that Alan Rock went to the RCMP with various scenarios of "if we do this, how many guns does it affect?" types of questions, with the goal being to prohibit the most guns possible with the least amount of legislation.

No idea how credible these comments are, but the regs certainly look like they took the approach you mention, as there is no other logic or rationale that I can see in how the law was written.


Mark
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theory... but in this instance, it does look suspicious, 4 inch being a very popular length and all that. Making the minimal length just more than 4 inches (instead of just less than) was pretty arbitrary.

Someone commented that a lot of 4" .38 special used by police were going to hit the market (switch-over to semi-auto) and they wanted to avoid that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom