2" vs 3" .38/.357 revolvers

[Tennessee Cattleman]

A 2 inch barrel is easier to carry concealed, especially in a pocket holster, other than that a 3-4 inch barrel is better in every way in my opinion. My regular carry is a 2 inch Kimber K6S Dasa with the 3 dot sights, I can hit better with it than with some 4 inch revolvers.

 

[KenTheHunter]

The main thing to remember with any handgun is shot placement.

Don't disagree, but I do think the 3" point better, although they are somewhat heavier. Personally I switch back and forth between a 3"65 and a 2"10. The 10 is noticeably lighter while the 65 goes on target easier

 

[Well Armed]

Don't disagree, but I do think the 3" point better, although they are somewhat heavier. Personally I switch back and forth between a 3"65 and a 2"10. The 10 is noticeably lighter while the 65 goes on target easier

1. So how did you conclude it was the barrel length that was the difference in how well you could personally shoot each isolated example of model 10 and 65 you own?
2. Do they both have the same exact grips and sites?
3. Are the triggers exactly the same?
4. Are the cylinder gaps exactly the same?
5. Is the cylinder end shake exactly the same?
6. We already know they have different barrels and one revolver even if it's the same make, model, and barrel length might have different accuracy and like different ammo/weights than another. Did you factor that in?
7. What were your groups were you getting with each at what increments of distance?

Weights: Lets compare apples to apples because your Model 10 and 65 aren't.

1. We can compare a (26 oz) 2.25" Ruger SP101 to a (27 oz) 3" SP101. That's only a one ounce difference.
2. The lets compare the Taurus J-frame sized revolvers in various calibers. The difference between the 2" and 3" barrels are 1oz to 2 oz.
3. The difference in weight between the current S&W M60-15 in 2" and 3" is 2 oz.
4. The difference between the 2" vs. 3" Kimber K6S is only 2 oz., and keep in mind that's with the 3" having larger stock wood grips...
5. Then we can throw a monkey wrench in the mix where the 3" Taurus UL (UltraLite) is ounces lighter than their 2" steel frame revolvers, so would the 3" or 2" allegedly be easier to shoot in this case using your logic?

I own a lot of guns from a different manufacturers. I've fired even more. The difference of only an ounce or two has never made a noticeable difference. I can cite a bunch of popular semiautos from the Shield, Walther PPS M2, Hellcat, P365, and categories of single stacks, double stacks, compacts, etc. from different manufacturers and different models that are all within an ounce or two of each other respectively, and I've never heard a consensus that the small difference in weight was a factor.

 

[Riposte1]

Don't disagree, but I do think the 3" point better, although they are somewhat heavier. Personally I switch back and forth between a 3"65 and a 2"10. The 10 is noticeably lighter while the 65 goes on target easier

I like my 2" (approximate) guns fine, and I can shoot them well, but I admit, I like a 3" gun even better. I seldom carry a gun in a pocket, and on the belt I never notice the difference between 2 and 3 inch.

Riposte