686+ 2.5" vs 686+ 3" ?

I would like to get a .357 to shoot and carry occasionally later. I prefer the larger L frame to the J because they fit my hands better. I also like the 7 round capacity vs 5 on the J models. Is there any pro or con on the 2.5" vs the 3" versions?

The 3" models have full-length extractor rods, helping extraction when using magnum rounds.

I'm a big fan of the L-frame as well.

And the longer sight radius is a plus for shooting.

I went through the same decision making recently and ultimately decided and ordered a 3 inch + model from Buds. Main reason was the full length extractor rod.

I have a pre-lock 2.5" and I love it. I have both 3" and 2.5" 357 mag K frames and have never had an issue with the 2.5" guns ejecting the fired casings. I do think the 3" full lug barrels look better on a L frame. Love the 7 round capacity too. One of these days I'll get around to finding a pre-lock 4" 686+ to match my snubbie.

Is the accuracy the same?

Accuracy from a rest and steady hand should be the same. Accuracy from an unsupported/ standing hold will be better with the longer sight radius. For a shooting gun that is not carried often then go with the longer barrel. If you plan on shooting a lot then go with a 4 or 5 inch. Your groups will be tighter and more rewarding. Of course we don't know your carry needs and such but shorter barrels are more difficult to shoot accurately due to the shorter barrel and reduced weight. A slight move of the barrel is magnified with shorter barrel vs the longer. But, from a rest the short barrels are also very accurate. You do lose velocity with the shorter barrel. You gain recoil and blast too. Longer barrels are more pleasant to shoot in 357.

Personally I would go with the 3".. They seem to balance very well and just plain look better in my eyes. I have an L and K frame in 3" and both are accurate and versatile on the range or in the field. At 35' the accuracy of my 3" revolvers rivals that of any of my 4"er's and for me, the 3" guns naturally point directly on target so if it came to a SD situation, I would opt for the 3" gun everytime.

If your question regarding conceal-ability, get a hammerless J-frame, then go buy a 3" L-frame for fun.

Super Dave said:

Accuracy from a rest and steady hand should be the same. Accuracy from an unsupported/ standing hold will be better with the longer sight radius.

Click to expand...

The longer sight radius benefit should be the same standing or from a rest. A ransom rest is another story, but hand held on sandbags still relies on the shooter's ability to align the sights.

I have some experience with both of these Models of the S&W 686. And I would suggest the 3 inch barreled model, the sight radius is better and its balance is much better.

Super Dave said:

Accuracy from a rest and steady hand should be the same. Accuracy from an unsupported/ standing hold will be better with the longer sight radius. For a shooting gun that is not carried often then go with the longer barrel. If you plan on shooting a lot then go with a 4 or 5 inch. Your groups will be tighter and more rewarding. Of course we don't know your carry needs and such but shorter barrels are more difficult to shoot accurately due to the shorter barrel and reduced weight. A slight move of the barrel is magnified with shorter barrel vs the longer. But, from a rest the short barrels are also very accurate. You do lose velocity with the shorter barrel. You gain recoil and blast too. Longer barrels are more pleasant to shoot in 357.

Click to expand...

Yes, this about sums it up.

I would tend to agree with The longer sight radius argument if we were talking 2.5" vs 6" barrels. But a 1/2" isn't enough to really matter.

In my hands a 2.6" barrel is definitely an improvement in accuracy vs a 1 7/8" barrel. I would be willing to bet that I could shoot a 3" barrel better than a 2.5". That's a 25% increase in length.

Personally, I like the cosmetics of a 2.5" barrel better than the 3". As a close-in self/home-defense weapon, I like the shorter barrel because it points easier and projects less barrel out there for a BG to grab. In a home defense situation, the target distance will probably be in the 10 to 15-ft range, therefore, no precise aiming, just point and shoot.

I went back & forth over the 2.5" vs 3" decision for nearly a year before I found a 2.5" that I liked. Here it is with Hogue grips.

Bob1943 said:

Personally, I like the cosmetics of a 2.5" barrel better than the 3". As a close-in self/home-defense weapon, I like the shorter barrel because it points easier and projects less barrel out there for a BG to grab. In a home defense situation, the target distance will probably be in the 10 to 15-ft range, therefore, no precise aiming, just point and shoot.

I went back & forth over the 2.5" vs 3" decision for nearly a year before I found a 2.5" that I liked. Here it is with Hogue grips.

Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative but in a self or home defense situation if the bad guy has been allowed to get close enough to grab your weapon you're already well behind the eight ball. (Training can help mitigate that problem to some extent but obviously training can't remediate every situation.)

The only reason I bring this up is because when I was on SRT we never carried a short barreled handgun or firearm, (well, short shotguns and MP-5's), but the point is that you had to consider in advance how to both deploy as well as protect your weapon in case of a close-quarters contact. So, I don't really think the 1/2" of extra barrel on the 3" is likely to make the difference in such a situation. (With all due respect.)

There is one area where the 2.5-inch gun has an unquestionable advantage....... holster selection. Everyone and their brother makes a 2.5-inch holster. The 3-inch..... not so much.

Not exactly the same comparison but close...

My two carry guns are an L-Comp and a 2.5" 686+, both pre-lock.




I find both to be superb carry guns. IMO they both balance the same, and feel the same when shot. The 686+ is a bit more accurate. In fact, it's one of the most accurate guns I own. The one and only draw back is the short ejection rod on the 2.5". But then I'm not a total believer in the value of a speed reload. I'm much more favor of going to cover and reloading from a very concealable speed strip. I know, I'll take flak for that last comment but I'm not aware of any situation where a speed reload made a difference. What has? Tactics and preparation (e.g., Miami FBI Shootout).

Keith

Who knew that 1/2 an inch could make such a difference Interesting thing that the 3" is favored over the 2.5 inch with regard to the 686 but the 3.5" is favored over the 4" in the big 27. The ONLY objective difference other than the personal preference of the owner is the extractor rod difference-and in real life that is marginal at best). Ain't nobody gonna make me believe that there is ANY statistically quantifiable difference in accuracy between a 2.5" and a 3". It's all about looks and personal preference (which IS a legitimate reason to pick one over the other). Just don't try to tell me with a straight face that you can shoot better with just a half inch longer barrel

CAJUNLAWYER said:

Who knew that 1/2 an inch could make such a difference Interesting thing that the 3" is favored over the 2.5 inch with regard to the 686 but the 3.5" is favored over the 4" in the big 27. The ONLY objective difference other than the personal preference of the owner is the extractor rod difference-and in real life that is marginal at best). Ain't nobody gonna make me believe that there is ANY statistically quantifiable difference in accuracy between a 2.5" and a 3". It's all about looks and personal preference (which IS a legitimate reason to pick one over the other). Just don't try to tell me with a straight face that you can shoot better with just a half inch longer barrel

Click to expand...

I agree. There is no practical difference in accuracy from a 2.5" versus a 3" barrel. The past few weeks I've been shooting a lot of .38 special rounds from a 686 with 2.5" barrel and a similar revolver with a 3" barrel and I cannot tell any practical difference in accuracy. The main difference in the two from a functional standpoint is the ejection of the spent shells. I have to use my fingers to pull some of the shells the rest of the way out of the 2.5" version after using the ejector rod. If you were carrying all the time and reloading fast was high on your priority list the full length extractor of the 3" would be a plus. On the other hand I've never heard a story of a problem in a defensive situation due to a shorter ejector rod so from a real-world practical standpoint the short ejector rod of the 2.5" is probably not an issue either. Therefor you must decide between the 2.5" versus the 3" based upon the single most important factor, and that would be the "cool-factor."

The 686 plus, whether a 2.5 or 3" is going to be a lot of weight to wag around on your person in a concealed manner. A 2.5 or 3" K frame is less weight by a fair margin. The one round difference in capacity isn't going to help you much in a gunfight. A quick reload will negate that difference. Statistically speaking the average gunfight involving police will be around 3 rds fired and if statistics were kept on civilian shootings involving confrontations it's probably similar.

If you are wondering what it will be like to carry the 686 plus, take 3 1lb lead bars and put them in your pocket and walk around for a bit. You will then have an idea. Except for the movement of the lead bars in your pocket, the weight of a fully loaded 686 Plus in a holster will be similar.

I don't like that kind of weight myself and prefer a 2.5" 66 in a belt holster as one of my carry options. I own a 3" 686 and 3" 66 and still go for the 2.5" when I want to use that size weapon. I also have a 637 J frame that I use on occasion and a Colt Defender .45acp that I use on other occasions. My choice is dependent on where I am going, how I am dressed, and how long I will be gone for.

As for sight radius, velocity of round etc, there isn't much difference in any of them at the ranges from 3' to 35'. These aren't target pistols and while I think you need to be able to center punch your target to at least 25 yards (not feet) with the weapon you carry, the shorter barreled guns will do that easily if you do your part. I also believe as Massad Ayoub has stated on occasion that you need to know where your weapon of choice shoots at longer ranges out to 100 yards. Not because you should be engaging targets that far away but just in case the time comes when you may be forced to try. Of course he was talking about uniformed LEOs. But I still do fire a few rounds at a 100 yard silhouette every year just to make sure I can hit it. It's not hard with a K frame and .357 magnum ammunition. It's not easy with a J frame and 38 spec ammo.