3” Revolver Thoughts

[Linejudgemick]

I have never understood the concept of a 3" J-frame, except for the collector value. The J is supposed to be VERY concealable. That extra inch ruins the concept IMHO.

But for L frames, well, that's different. I have 4 in different barrel lengths but this 3" 686+ is just the bee's knees perfection:

I have a 642 P.C. Talo and a 3" 686+ and agree. I believe there are valid reasons for longer barrels on larger frame revolvers, but the 3" 686+ is just sweet!

 

[American1776]

Most people carry J-frames in the pocket. a 3 inch J frame is much harder to do this with. I can get my 3 inch SP101 into my front pocket, but it's not as comfy as a 2 incher.

For a belt gun, the difference betwixt a 3 and 2.5 inch isn't much. The difference between a 4 and a 3 inch *can* be meaningful with larger frames (L and N), both in weight and balance.

 

[Fastbolt]

The first J-frame I ever bought was a nickel M36 3" HB/RB. It wasn't my first choice, but back in those days the demand for J's was so great that they didn't sit in display cases for very long. Especially in shops that catered to LE. It was the only M36 model I could find, and M60's were even more scarce in my neck of the woods.

That 3" snub shot virtually as well as my 4" duty revolver, and it made using the 158gr LSCWHP +P (my preferred load in those days) pretty comfortable.

The other 3" S&W revolver I own is a M65, which I inherited from the estate of a close friend when he passed.

As others have mentioned, one of the practical advantages of the 3" S&W models over the 2"-2 1/2" models is the full length extraction of empty cases.

Using older style HP loads, like the LSWCHP +P (also called a LHP), having that extra 1/2"-1" of barrel length might make a difference in degree of potential expansion (or some expansion, versus none), too.

 

[Borderboss]

I've not seen the reason for a 3" J-frame. They look out of balance. I've always thought of the J-frame as a pocket/ankle gun, and the 3" barrel defeats both of those uses.

I think 3" K-frames look great and balance really well for a carry gun. I think the guns are easier to conceal than a 4" version, but I know that's subjective and could be handled with certain types of holsters. For the holster styles I like to use, the 4" is too long.

For L-frames, I have a 2.75" model 69 and a 4" model 586. I bought the 69 for concealment in a tactical pack, so the 2.75" was perfect while the 4.25" would have been too long. On the other hand, I think the L-frames look best in a 4", so that's why the 586 has a 4" barrel. But that would only be used by me in a non-concealed, outside-the-waistband type of holster.

 

[Fastbolt]

One other thing I've noticed now and again is that "average" female shooters seem to do better shooting a 3" J-frame than a 2". Dunno if it's psychological, or they just liked the extra bit of weight and forward balance.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Since you asked...

I think the 3" K-frames are the best-balanced carry revolvers. Not too big, not too small, not too long, not too short. It handles well. It carries well. The 3" barrel provides a full-length ejector rod. Out of the guns I've sold, my 3" 65 is the one I regret the most.

I don't really have an interest in L- or N-frames. The only L-frames that interest me are the.44s, the 3" 696 or the 2.75" 69. N-frames are too big for me.

The only J-frames that interest me are the 2" guns. The J-frames' biggest strength is their concealability. A 2" J-frame can be carried in a belt holster, shoulder holster, pocket holster, or ankle holster. A 3" J-frame can be problematic, at best, in some of those methods, and, to me, doesn't offer a significant advantage over either a 2" J-frame or a 3" K-frame.

I will add that I also like 2" K-frames. I used to have a 2" 64. Very handy size. Fast out of the holster. An added advantage of the 2" K-frame is that in the event of an attempted disarm, you'll have much more leverage over the gun than your attacker since you've got the full-size grip in your hand and your attacker has a little 2" barrel. For similar reasons, the 2" J-frame is considered one of the most difficult guns to disarm. For me, the 2" K-frame offers some of the concealability advantage of the 2" J-frame with some of the shootability of the 3" K-frame.

But nobody really has a "wrong" opinion. We like what we like, and prefer what we prefer, based on our needs/wants and intended usage.

TL;DR: 3" K-frames are ideally balanced for carrying and shooting, 2" J-frames are ideally suited for concealment.

Just my opinion.

Never overlook the value of that full-length ejector rod! That is one thing that the little snubbies really suffer from, especially when you have a case or two that wants to stick in the chamber(s) and make you life difficult.

The full-length ejector rod is a definite plus for the 3" S&W revolvers.

 

[TheHobbyist]

Been through this song and dance on many occasion, OP.

I've owned and shot most of them. LH, factory small-batch runs, etc.

As others have mentioned, 3" can heavily depend on the variant (frame size, particularly), and a person's experience and usage.

In trying to be objective, I will say that I have found it to be as good as the user. Shorter sight radius lends to unforgiving shot characteristics and marksmanship.

It seems like every 5 years or so, I vary between long-barrel revolvers and short. My only solution has been to buy most, keep the best, and don't look back.

 

[ddixie884]

It is my personal opinion that a 3" J-frame is the best when used with a conventional holster. The 2" is for pocket carry with or without a pocket holster. If you add a conventional holster the concealability edge of the 2" J-frame is lost. JMHO-YMMV.............