386 NG vs 327 2" for concealed carry

[tobar8]

The specs say the 327 N frame is about 3/4 of an inch shorter than the 386 K frame. Which do you think would be easier to conceal?

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/im...rms/170245_large.jpg

 

[tobar8]

The specs say the 327 N frame is about 3/4 of an inch shorter than the 386 K frame. Which do you think would be easier to conceal?

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/im...rms/170245_large.jpg

 

[Guest]

Might be shorter, but it's wider. In my opinion, the width of the package is going to be more critical than length. The most comfortable way to pack a larger gun is IWB, so the barrel length (within reason ~ up to 4") isn't at all critical since it's going to be inside the pants. It's the overall width of the gun and holster that will factor into comfort, so the L frame with a nice Bladetech holster will work fine. I've carried N frames as well, but the L will be marginally easier to carry. Don't forget a quality heavy duty belt to distribute the weight comfortably.

 

[thomasinaz]

As Smithnut says; If you're carrying IWB then the thinner one will be easier to conceal, regardless of the extra 3/4" length. I just got a lightweight N frame with 1 7/8" barrel, and am finding that little extra cylinder width really shows up inside the waistband. It's shorter, but feels bigger than a 2 1/2" K or L frame.

 

[tobar8]

Thanks guys for the advice. What I need is a very well-concealed firearm, otherwise I'm not going to carry it. I think I'm going to take a look at a Kahr Mk40 in .40 S&W. A friend has one and like it very much. 5.5" by 4" roughly. less than 1" thick.