For short ranges, the shorter sight radius really is immaterial. Theoretically a factor, but a very minor one.JMO and I realize I tend to tick people off.
What is the attraction with snubby big-bore revolvers???
They're hard to hold on to, hard to recover and hard to hit anything with. With short sight radius (if you use the sights at all) you can do a cylinder dump and not hit a damn thing. Then you're screwed...
Most of them have "flinch" built right in.
And how much power does a 44Mag have when fired from such a short barrel?
Gun companies don't sell what makes sense, they sell what they think shooters will buy. Does a snubby 454 Casull or 460 S&W make sense???
Is the convenience of a small gun worth carrying what may not save your life?
I'm getting a Glock 40. Nylon chest rig or shoulder holster that's out of the way. Underwood 220g Hard Cast probably has more energy (6") than the 44M from the short barrel. It holds 16 of them, and the pistol is controllable and accurate enough you can relax and aim your shots. For proof, check youtube.
Edit: and another idea, I'd bet that the 220g 10mm penetrates farther than any 44 from a short revolver, and with bear penetration is the name of the game.
Finally, the Glock only costs about $700; it's less than most quality revolvers.
When comparing one pistol to another, energy is not the best factor. Relying on energy would have one using a very light, but very fast load (since velocity is squared in the energy calculation). And we all know that is not the right answer to a bear fun. When comparing pistol rounds, momentum and cross section are a better judge.
Magnaporting makes muzzle flip quite manageable.