3" versus 2"

[ISCS Yoda]

Over time I have seen many, many folks clamor for 3" barrels, rave about the old 3" barreled revolvers, and simply sing the praises of 3" barrels.

I have yet to determine the attraction. Are they supposed to be better looking than a 2", 2.5", or 4" barreled guns? Do they shoot better? They certainly can't conceal better. Fill me in please - I want to know WHY I should want such a revolver.

Seriously - I want to know.

 

[ContinentalOp]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I like 3" K-frames because they feel really well-balanced in my hand. With the same loads and grips they have a little less muzzle flip than 2" K-frames. They're also more comfortable to carry IWB than 4" K-frames. I will admit, though, that for concealed carry I'd actually lean towards a 2" K-frame while the 3" K-frame is probably a better all-around gun, i.e., concealed carry, home defense, range use, etc.

I will also add that I think the 3" K-frame does look better balanced to me than other barrel lengths. Similarly, I think 4.25" 1911s look better than 5" 1911s. But that's just an aesthetic preference of mine.

I don't have an opinion on other frame sizes because I've never handled them with 3" barrels.

 

[robertrwalsh]

I also like 3" K-frame RB guns. They look good to me, they feel good and they point GREAT. I carried a 3" model 64 for some little while. I liked it just fine.

 

[helmsp]

For me its asthetically more proportioned and feels more balanced.
And, most importantly, you have a full ejector rod. With a short ejector rod I occasionally had stuck brass if I didnt clean the cylinder properly. This can be a bad thing if you need to reload quickly due to...

 

[Hapworth]

It's all personal preference in the end, but the advantages to me of the 3" guns -- K-frames, specifically -- are:

1) Full length extractor rod for more positive extraction
2) As concealable as its 2" counterparts, but with...
3) Better ballistics for good penetration and expansion, yet...
4) Clears the holster faster and more comfortably than a 4"
4) Ideal overall balance

Individually the differences are small but for me do add up to a meaningful improvement. Can I work happily with a 2" snubby or a 4" service revolver? You bet -- they're all good to go. But given a choice, I'll usually take a 3" for an ideal do-everything size.

 

[ContinentalOp]

And, most importantly, you have a full ejector rod. With a short ejector rod I occasionally had stuck brass if I didnt clean the cylinder properly. This can be a bad thing if you need to reload quickly due to...

I had forgotten about that point but it's one I agree with.

 

[Outlaw2013]

I like big bore snubs purely based on the ridiculousness of them. And I suppose the looks. I love the looks of S&W snubs. If they happen to have a special trait like unique barrel, or lightweight profile or other limited/special edition feature then I am particularly interested.

 

[federali]

Concealment

Gun length has the least effect on concealment. The dimensions one must be concerned with are width and height. That extra inch of barrel over a 2" are of little or no consequence.

As others have said, you have better ballistics, the 3" may be fired more accurately yet the sights are faster to align than a 4" and, you have the full-length extractor rod.

 

[gen3guy]

It's mostly subjective. I have a 3" Model 13-3 that does conceal fairly well...in the winter. There's something about it that just looks right in my opinion. I bought it about the same time that the FBI was giving theirs up for auto pistols. I have to admit, that was part of the allure. I have a 4" Model 10-10, of the same vintage, to go along with it. I'd love to get my hands on a 3" 64 or 65. I think the 3" 686+ looks cooler than cool, although a 4" or 6" might be more practical. Us revolver guys are sometimes just odd.

 

[ContinentalOp]

Gun length has the least effect on concealment. The dimensions one must be concerned with are width and height. That extra inch of barrel over a 2" are of little or no consequence.

I agree barrel length has minimal impact on concealment, especially if carrying IWB, but it can have an effect on comfort depending on one's body type and possibly clothing. I could tell the difference between a 2" barrel and a 3" barrel when I'd sit down while carrying IWB, especially in the car.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Us revolver guys are sometimes just odd.

You get no argument from me on that score - I have a safe full of revolvers because I like them so much and some of them are the same - why? Because I like them. Especially 2" K-frames. But I never handled a 3", just a 2.5" here and there. Thus my question.

GRACIAS!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[HarrishMasher]

It is the best of both worlds.

A 3" barrel is a little longer than a 2.5" barrel, hence it is a easier to shoot better/accurately, almost as easy to shoot as well as a 4".

A 3" is much easier to carry concealed than a 4".

You also get a full length ejector rod, which makes ejection easier and more positive than a 2.5".

3" balances perfectly for me and handles very well. Especially K and L Frames.

Less muzzle flip than a 2.5", hence quicker follow-up shots.

I think a 3" revolver just looks right. Very aesthetically appealing.

 

[bigwheelzip]

Longest barrel with a round grip on a 686+. Helps conceal it.

 

[BB57]

As others have noted the ejector rods on most sub 3" barrels is too short to positively extract the case all the way out of the cylinder - a potentially bad situation in a self defense handgun.

I much prefer my 3" Model 60 to my 2.125" Model 60, or my 1 7/8" Model 36s.

My normal short barrel self defense load (125 gr XTP on top of 8.5 gr of Unique) 1250 fps in a 3" barrel - about 125 fps faster than in a 2.125" barrel.

The extra 7/8 inch of barrel makes less difference with a .38 +P load (7.5 gr IMR 800X under the same 125 gr bullet) with velocities of 1050 fps and 930 fps respectively, an 80 fps difference.

With 158 gr target loads (3.4 grains if Red Dot) the difference due in average velocity to barrel length is only about 4-5 fps - not a significant difference.

However, if you look at the velocities above, you'll note that 2" .357 Mag performance in the 2.125" barrel is only about 75 fps faster than the 3" .38 +P velocity, so for me, carrying a 2" .357 Magnum made no sense when I have the choice of a 3" barrel.


I have not noticed any difference carrying the extra 7/8" of barrel, the major issue is just having to special order holsters to fit it.

I also prefer the adjustable sights on my 3" Model 60, they allow me to place bullets precisely on point of aim, and the rear sight picture is improved with the adjustable sights. I've never had any issues with them snagging in IWB carry. That isn't to say they are more accurate than the fixed sights on my 2.125" Model 60 or my Model 36s, but they are a little faster to pick up, and they are readily adjustable.

Then there is also the issues of balance and aesthetics. I find a J-frame with a 3" barrel to have both better balance and better looks, particularly when you install a large enough grip to comfortably shoot .38 +P and .357 Magnum loads.

 

[wbraswell]

To me, it's all about the handling. The 3" HB K-frame is a natural. I can get it on target faster than any other revolver I've ever shot. To me, it is balanced, and I don't find the 2.5" M19 and M66 have that. The 4" standard barrel comes close. My nickel M13 with Ahrends boot grips is my favorite K.

 

[jack the toad]

It's all personal preference in the end, but the advantages to me of the 3" guns -- K-frames, specifically -- are:

1) Full length extractor rod for more positive extraction
2) As concealable as its 2" counterparts, but with...
3) Better ballistics for good penetration and expansion, yet...
4) Clears the holster faster and more comfortably than a 4"
4) Ideal overall balance

Individually the differences are small but for me do add up to a meaningful improvement. Can I work happily with a 2" snubby or a 4" service revolver? You bet -- they're all good to go. But given a choice, I'll usually take a 3" for an ideal do-everything size.

+1
That's why I prefer them...

 

[firebreather]

It's all personal preference in the end, but the advantages to me of the 3" guns -- K-frames, specifically -- are:

1) Full length extractor rod for more positive extraction
2) As concealable as its 2" counterparts, but with...
3) Better ballistics for good penetration and expansion, yet...
4) Clears the holster faster and more comfortably than a 4"
4) Ideal overall balance

Individually the differences are small but for me do add up to a meaningful improvement. Can I work happily with a 2" snubby or a 4" service revolver? You bet -- they're all good to go. But given a choice, I'll usually take a 3" for an ideal do-everything size.

When you add to this the HB versions of the K frames help dampen recoil considerably over a 2" or 2.5" wienie barrel pretty much makes the 3" HB the best choice for a carry for a concealed carry revolver.

Rob

 

[candjhorses]

Once you shoot one of the 3" K frames you'll know what the attraction is. To me the 3" has all the benefits of a 4" with the concealability of the Snub nose.

 

[jaymoore]

2" K frame is too big for my pockets. J Frame is about right there, but needs the wee barrel.

The 2 1/2" barreled K frames' only advantage seems to be that it's generally associated with an adjustable rear sight.

A well regulated 3" fixed sight K frame? Ideal concealable belt holster revolver! Doesn't seem to translate so well to the L frame, where I prefer a 4" barrel.

This thread needs photos. (If even mediocre ones...):

Extractor length not so important- If you have a 9x19!

Old SK/CP Pachmeyers seem to go well with the RB 3". About the only Pachmeyers I still use.

Oddly, this one has yet to win much affections at home, but it's older brother is regularly used by the family (below).

But then there's the I frame. Just seems about perfect like this!:

No 3" barrels need apply.

 

[Kifaru]

Ditto what others have mentioned, and I'll add that the 3" has a longer sight radius. Also, depending on your mode of carry and your body type, a 3" gun can be more stable in the holster. The longer barrel works much like the keel on a sailboat. That said, the two-inchers sure are quick to get on target. And I think they look pretty cool too. Actually, I like 'em all.

 

[jculloden]

Jodie Forster had one in Silence of the Lamb, that's why I like them.

 

[629shooter]

If we are taking about three inch K, L, and N frames, you gain a full-length ejector rod. A big plus, when it comes time to reload in a hurry. Besides that, they shoot like their longer barreled counter parts.

That said, a 3" J-frame doesn't do too much for me. If I want to IWB/OWB carry I might as well step up to at least a K-frame.

If I could find a 60-10 to try, I might change my tune.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I don't think I could pocket carry a 3" J-frame the same way I carry a short barreled J-frame. My 642 with a 1.875" barrel vanishes in my pocket. A K frame 2" doesn't work in my pocket at all. Interestingly, I have wood banana stocks on my 638 and they make pocket carry impossible, too. Only boot grips seem to work well.

Someone said we need pictures:

Smith & Wesson Forum - ISCS Yoda's Album: Revolvers - Picture

Smith & Wesson Forum - ISCS Yoda's Album: Revolvers - Picture

I tote that 638 around a lot; I use it as my car gun, sometimes I carry it in a "murse", to wit, a "man purse" - usually an over the shoulder, olive drab, military messenger bag. Sometimes I use a cool looking leather bag, depending on where I'm going, etc. In either case, however, I can carry way more gun if I choose to carry off body (I'm VERY damned careful with those bags if they're "loaded"). Anyway, my point is the 638 never goes in my pocket - that banana butt sticks right out.

I think I need a 3" J and K for my overall collection but for EDC I have to stick with the tiny 642.

 

[flagman1776]

I carried my 36-1 IWB when I "drove" a dispatch desk, rare plainclothes duty, OD. 3" is easy to shoot well. When carried in a vertical holster (or FBI cant) the barrel length does not matter but cylinder & grip size does.
I carried my 3" 66-2, OWB OD. Easy to carry & shoot well.

I have / had a couple of 3" Lew Horton N frames. I don't care for the feel of the light barrel of the 624, like the HD of the 657. Never owned a 3 1/2" N frame but I'd like to.

 

[Richard Simmons]

For me it's looks and or balance. I like a 3" barrel more often than not over a 2" or 4" but I also like a 5" most time over a 4" or 6"/6.5". Sometimes it's neither. One of my grail guns would be a 3" Model 38 or 49. Not sure that length looks better or feels better. For those models it's more about rarity. I just don't see those models in that barrel length too often.

 

[old tanker]

Another vote for the three inch!

I like the looks and feel of a 3 inch barrel. There was a 1975 vintage square butt, heavy barrel Model36-1 languishing among the tactical tupperware in the LGS last week. When the young'un in the black "perfection" T-shirt finally figured out what I was talking about when I said, "Let's see the revolver..." I made an offer, he stammered, I said, "Do you want to sell it or display it?" Guess he figured it was ruining his neighborhood, but the sock drawer refugee is here now! Barely a turn line. Three hundred bucks out the door, but the girlfriend seems to have taken a shine to it.

Luckily, a hundred years ago, someone thought a 3 inch Police Positive Special would be handy. If she lays claim to the J-frame, I still have the Colt. Plus the same Bianchi 5BHL holster that fits the Police Positive fits the old first generation Charter Arms Bulldog as well. There's something to be said for big, soft 245 grain bullets over 6.5 grains of Unique!

 

[scout II]

Here is a family picture of my S&W 3" K frame guns I posted about a little while back. Who wouldn't love these. Plus they look like they mean business. The top left gun is my model 65-5. Top right is a 10-8 in 38 special with factory target grips that match what the original box has marked on it. The middle left is a nickel 13-2 and the middle right is a 13-4. The bottom two guns are both 13-3's.

IMG_6498_zpsvhzkokyr.jpg.html]

 

[Shorty 45 MK2]

I've not shot a 3" K-frame but have handled them at LGS's and at shows, so this is not the most informed opinion.

But I prefer the 2" K-frames as personally I can tell little deference in getting good hits shooting SD drills next to a 4" and that the snubs tend to be a good $100 or so cheaper than the 3" versions in similar condition. Also haven't had an issue with ejecting spent brass (so far. knock on wood.) and lastly I tend to carry my 2" 64 appendix IWB so the shorter barrel length is better.

All that being said I still want a 3" fixed sight K frame, so I might just be bitter.

 

[Edknn123]

My model 36-1 is so much easier ti aim and fire than my 442. Not sure if the 3 inch barrel helps the recoil as much as the extra 6 1/2oz but is sure helps helps that the site range is longer. I can carry both, but the 442 makes up for recoil with ease of concealment.

 

[Nemo288]

Not all 3"ers have the longer ejector rod. The 396 is an example.
My only snubs are in 44 special so I have no experience with anything smaller.
But I do think the 3" does balance the weight and looks of the L frame 44.
(Nothing will balance the look of a Bulldog)

As far as performance the gain per inch is the most from 1" to 2" and second most from 2" to 3" and so on.
This can be important especially with the big, slow 44 bullets.