is there any accuracy difference form a 3" to a 4" barrel when you are shooting at 25 yards? I was think of getting a SW 686 in 3" for home defense, a gun that both my wife and I can shoot. The 3" is a little lighter than the 4", heavy enough to help with recoil and it does not eject shells like semi's which bothers her. our public range target distance is 25 yards which more than likely be the only place it will be fired. anyone have shooting experience with these barrel lenghts?

There will be no appreciable difference in accuracy or precision barring any defect with either barrel length. However, a longer sight radius does help when seeking precision from a particular weapon. Sight radius is not dependent upon the barrel length. Without going into serious details I can say with confidence that having a 3 inch barrel will in no way decrease the effectiveness of your weapon for the intended purpose.

No real difference in the accuracy from the barrel. I do, however, find a 4" barrel just about perfect as far as handling and shootability. I would take a 4" over a 3" any day.

Personally I like the 3" for SD. I think it is just "handier" than the 4" but doesn't have the short ejector rod the 2" bbls have.

At 25 yards my 6" and 3" shoot about the same size groups if they're shooting the same ammo. At longer ranges the 6" has a clear advantage -- especially with 357 magnum loads.

3" is a bit easier to conceal and draw rapidly but the 4" is a very well balanced revolver that shoots accurately.

My agency's issue gun years ago was a 3". In theory there is no accuracy difference between that and a 4", but practically speaking the 4" is much more forgiving and usually a better pointer as well. It also gives a little more velocity which never hurts. It doesn't matter much for plinking or target shooting but under pressure I would rather run a 4incher. I carried one concealed for most of my career and liked it very much.

A thought: if a 3" is the choice I think the M60 S&W in either .38 Spl. or .357 is a darned good gun and a nice compact package to boot.

They will all do if you do.

This has been my dilemma for a couple months. I see myself carrying, but also want to be able to shoot and practice, relatively comfortably, at the range. I've pretty much settled
on the 3" for it's ease of carry over the 4", and will put up with it at the range.

You could get the 3" 686, as well as a 4" or 5" police trade model 10 for fun at the range. Best of both worlds and still relatively inexpensive. Plus you give yourself a lot more options for your home defense plan with two guns.

Good point. However, I fear, your "relatively" is way different then my "relatively"..........

Sight radius is dependent on the barrel length, if the sights are on the barrel?

In any case, there will probably not be a noticeable difference in accuracy between a 3 and 4" 686. If you are not planning on carrying it I would opt for the 4", however.

__________________
Alan
SWCA 2023

There might be a slight practical difference, but it could be either way, depending on your wife's eyesight and your eyesight, your wife's experience and style, and yours. Usually, in the 3" bbl - 4" bbl range, one might expect the 4" to have a slight advantage, but it is definitely not always the case. For reasons stated above, the 3" is often a great choice.

I'll not bore you with the (very) messy mathematical details, but there is a way to calculate the probable difference. Given 20/20 shooter eyesight and the difference in sight radius between a 3 inch and 4 inch J-frame Smiths, the shorter gun should, on average, produce 0.12 inches larger 5-shot groups at 25 yards.

Ed

Thanks guys for your input.

Long story short, Wife loves her 586 4" and I prefer my PC shop M13 3".... answer.... 2 night stands !

It is just barely possible that in the 3 - 4 inch barrel range, the mathematical calculations are relevant. However, in the summer of 1931, then-Major Julian Hatcher fired a "possible" at the British Nationals at Bisley with an H&R pistol with 8" barrel rather than the customary 10" barrel, with Ensign Harry Renshaw taking second place with a 98, using the same H&R pistol. The following year, interest in short-barreled H&R pistols increased considerably. Walter Roper subsequently did a limited study of the effect of sight radius on accuracy (three shooters, extensive shooting with more than one sight radius), and concluded, IIRC, that the shorter sight radius was better for one (top) shooter, longer for another, and unclear for the third. Roper reports all of this in his book Experiments of a Handgunner. There was also published an article by him in the September 1946 American Rifleman, in which he noted that after over a hundred shooters purchased short-barreled H&R pistols, a majority of the 65 who reported back to him reported better scores with the short pistol.

It seems quite clear to me that the arithmetic involved is often less important than other variables in the individual shooter, and the actual practical result can usually be determined only by extensive experimentation.

Get the 3 1/2 inch barrel, the best of both worlds!

__________________
Vaya con Dios

Baised on my experience I would say, "most likely no".

You would have to test a bunch of 3" vs. 4" to reach a positive conclusion.

I can say this, I had a 2.5" Mod 19, that at 25 yards would shoot as good as my 2 custom 6" PPC guns. It was a tack driver.

I do seem to shoot a 6.5" 44 Mag a little better at 25 yards, and much better at 50 yards than a 4".

520Fan,

I actually agree with you on this. Back when I did a lot of serious target shooting I had a Mod 46 with both a long and short barrel. I found I preferred the shorter of the two. It's easier to keep both front and rear sight in focus when they are closer together.

My calculations are based on the (somewhat) questionable assumption that the shooter is able master that task as well as keep the target in focus. (A Merit eye disc helps a lot here!) Since a person with 20/20 eyesight can resolve one minute of angle, the rest is pure probability and arithmetic.

The point in my earlier response was to demonstrate that any theoretical advantage for the longer barrel was so small that it was bound to get lost among all the other shooting variables.

Ed

For "minute of grapefruit" at 25 yards, my 3" vs 4" 629s have no practical difference in accuracy.

There is considerable difference in muzzle blast though, using the same 900-1000 fps 240 gr SWC loads with the same powder.

Recoil is insignificantly different in my hand. Accuracy on paper targets is virtually identical.

The anticipated muzzle blast does tend to affect my accuracy more out of the 3" though.

When using identical 44 special loads in the 3" and 4" from the bench at 25 yards, there is no significant difference in my own test.

I don't have 3" 38 cal to test with 4". Probably the 38 level loads have little difference in muzzle blast. I'd expect 357 level loads to exhibit the same kind of blast characteristics as the 44 mag experiment.

Personally I prefer the 3" barrels for belt carry.

__________________
Dum vivimus Vivamas

Groo here
The difference in accuracy between a short and a long barrel has more
to do with the way you see the sights than most anything else.
Most shooters who are near sighted will go to a shorter barrel
[closer to the eye ] as they age,, far sighted will go to a longer.
Got to see the front sight well!!!!!!!!!!!

Or just say NUTS and mount a reflex sight.

From a purely engineering standpoint, with a one piece barrel the shorter barrel will actually be more accurate than a longer barrel. When a barrel is attached to the frame at just one end it becomes in effect a Cantelever Beam. Since a bullet transitting the barrel will cause that beam to bounce like a diving board, a shorter barrel will be "stiffer" in it's response and the end will deflect less during the transit event. I suspect that if a 2 1/2 inch 686 and a 6 inch 686 were both equipped with a good handgun scope and fired from a rest by a real good shooter, the short barrel would just trounce the longer barreled gun in group size. However, in order to prove this out completely, each gun would have to use a load that was optimized for the barrel length. Because Harmonics can have a distinct effect on any vibrating system and barrels do vibrate in response to a bullet transitting them. Ideally you want a load and bullet mass where the end of the barrel is passing through it's Neutral position when the bullet exits the muzzle. Ask anyone who's worked up loads for long range rifle shooting, just a 100 fps difference in velocity can make a distinct difference in group size downrange.

Now, if you are still young enough that you don't need to cheat with Optics, Sight radius Rules. Even the eagle eyed pro who never even smells caffiene will shoot more accurately with a longer sight radius. However, since most of us don't fall into the eagle eyed, caffiene free, category, I don't think the difference between a 3 or 4 inch barrel will be very noticable. The plain truth is that most of us can't come close to shooting to the accuracy our guns are capable of. Fact is for offhand shooting almost all of my practice is spent at 15 yards or less, for anything longer I look for a rest because most days I'm just not as steady as I would like to be.

I too am debating on a 3" nice and tidy verses a 4 or even a 5".
Seems most of the "visibility" while trying to conceal is the handle anyway.

Added barrel length adds weight but also adds speed and I expect gets more spin???

My gunsmith told me that .45acp like to tumble after a certain distance.
Bad news for someone contemplating buying a Kimber Ultra raptor or similar.

I'm wondering if a little added length gives better speed of revolution on the bullet allowing further distance and accuracy before the "tumble" starts?

I expect if your shooting FTX hornady ammo thats pointed cutting through the wind rather than "bucking" the wind may help too.

With that being said... I now wonder if .45 acp is still ok to get or whether I should consider 10mm "seems those are never ultra though" or maybe .40mm?
.40mm's shoot like pussycats, so I'm not afraid of the idea of shooting a 10mm.

Maybe thats cause I cut my teeth with my first pistol being a .460

Seems just about the time I think I know what I want, I learn more and am glad I waited.

There is NO appreciable difference in accuracy @ the range you describe between two good revolvers. I have a 2 1/2" 686 that prints one ragged hole groups @ 50 ft. off the bench. Can't get much better than that.........

__________________
'Nam 1968-69.DAV,VFW,NRA Inst.