686 .. 2.5 or 3 inch?

[Boriqua]

Probably a stupid question but ?? I had a 586 L comp at 3 inches and loved it and sold it like a jerk. I have a 629 44 mag and love it and now want a 686 for carry and range fun. Besides concealability ..What if any other differences are there in muzzle velocity and so on. What are just your impressions if you have fired both?
Alex

 

[Boriqua]

Probably a stupid question but ?? I had a 586 L comp at 3 inches and loved it and sold it like a jerk. I have a 629 44 mag and love it and now want a 686 for carry and range fun. Besides concealability ..What if any other differences are there in muzzle velocity and so on. What are just your impressions if you have fired both?
Alex

 

[cometpx4]

I have owned and fired both and presently own a 5inch which is up at Smith having some custom work done. Get the 3inch. its better balanced, has the full size ejector rod and for firing magnum rounds its a better package for soaking up a little recoil. i think its the perfect size.

 

[bmcgilvray]

I'd want the full stroke of the 3-inch ejector rod. The extra half-inch matters but little for concealed purposes.

 

[Snapping Twig]

I had a 2.5" and the short rod was an issue to me. Should have kept it, but all the same I'd get the 3" if I had it to do over.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Originally posted by Boriqua:
Probably a stupid question but ?? I had a 586 L comp at 3 inches and loved it and sold it like a jerk. I have a 629 44 mag and love it and now want a 686 for carry and range fun. Besides concealability ..What if any other differences are there in muzzle velocity and so on. What are just your impressions if you have fired both?
Alex

Always get 3 inch instead of 2.5 when talking about 19/66 or 586/686. I also prefer the 3 inch in the 10/64 and 13/65.

 

[Top Sergeant]

My CCW revolver is a 4" 686 in a Forbus paddle. The additional 1 inch gives me that much more aiming comfort and the velocity also increases. The added weight absorbs recoil also. In the field I carry it in a Bianchi 5L holster.

 

[wjh2657]

I have a 2 1/2" 686 and love it. I recently qualified for TN HCP with it and scored 100/100. Instructors were amazed with accuracy at 25 yards! It has a really sweet trigger. My reason for short barrel is my 65 year old eyes and the fact that it is primarily a nightstand gun with .38 +P ammo. The short barrel makes it easier to see the front sight and makes weapon easier to store and draw from small drawer. If I was buying one to shoot at longer ranges or carry on belt, I'd want 4" or 5" if they make sich a critter.

 

[ladder13]

there were probably alot more 2.5 inchers made than 3 inchers.

 

[Gamer]

I've got a 2 1/2 with the finger groove grips and it shoots really smooth. I find the recoil low, compared to my 642 .38 special.

Guess it's due to the weight huh?.

As previously mentioned I'd say the 3" would be a touch more accurate and give you a little more velocity overall too.

 

[Centenniel]

I love L Frames, especially the 686. I have a 2.5" and it is a fine revolver, but I'd trade it in a heartbeat for a 3". My other 3" revolvers, a 13,60, 64, and a 65 are about perfection in my opinion.

 

[WaterburyBob]

I would go with a 3" over a 2.5 inch for the reasons already stated above, especially the longer ejector and the better balance.

 

[meh92]

I can't imagine there's a significant difference in velocity with 1/2" of barrel. However, the full-length ejector rod of the 3" version has real benefit, especially as the cylinder gets dirty and casings start to stick a little.

Of course, holsters might be a little difficult to come by as the 3" is not nearly as popular. There's nothing which says an open-bottom holster or a 4' version won't work, though.

I vote for the 3" version.

 

[Geronimo Jim]

Three inch only because of the ejector rod.

 

[sw357nm]

I prefer the 3-inch, but only you can decide what feels right to you. There is no correct answer, and don't worry about what other people carry. Both are truly great revolvers.
John

 

[ishootblanks]

3 inch for reasons already stated.

 

[Big Mike]

3 inch.

 

[Boriqua]

Thanks Boys ... I had the 586Lcomp .. which I sold like a fool so am looking at a new 686 in stainless to ease my pain

 

[Boriqua]

One last questions... Can the 686 take a steady diest of .357 or is it one of those "practice with 38 and load with .357.

I would probably be firing alot of .357 at the range.
Alex

 

[Stainz]

It is a real .357 Magnum - and should stand up to a diet of SAAMI spec'd ammo quite well - especially heftier rounds (I hate those nuclear 110-125gr .357 Magnums - bad experience with a friend's 340SC and some same weight range CorBons - big 'ouch'.).

As to 2.5" vs 3"... I am a gun-slut - either would be nice for me! As I shoot mainly .38s and similar loads in .357 brass, the short rod wouldn't be much of a problem here.

Stainz

 

[casingpoint]

I can't imagine there's a significant difference in velocity with 1/2" of barrel

Yes, there is. By most accounts, about a 10-15 per cent drop in velocity. Not much up front, but when squared for KE, it makes a notable difference on paper. This, and the magnum round ejection issue favor the three inch barrel.

Shooting 38's in a 357 chamber also has a ballistic loss associated with it, although someone opined the other day that has been reduced by improved cylinder design. Sounds a little hoaky to me. I have been unable to gather reliable figures on the prospective velocity drop, new cylinders or old. This drop has been rated at between 10 fps and 50 fps. Maybe somebody here has the facts.

 

[BigGuns]

3" They just are the coolest in every way!

 

[shawn mccarver]

Originally posted by Boriqua:
One last questions... Can the 686 take a steady diest of .357 or is it one of those "practice with 38 and load with .357.

I would probably be firing alot of .357 at the range.
Alex

The L frame guns are made for a complete diet of .357s, so blaze away to the extent your pocket book, your wrists and your ears can stand it. The gun, I predict, can handle all magnums better than most people (not speaking of you here, just generally).

 

[Boriqua]

Uh Bigguns ...that is an awesome collection !!!
I'm 45 yrs old but can I be your adopted son! I had a model ..60? I think it was and it froze up shortly after buying it. Sent it in and they were great but I got a note back in the box that said practice with .38 and carry .357. I had fired about 100 rounds of .357. I like my 629 because I feel just fine shooting .44mag and its not going to break. Good hefty gun and just a blast, literally and figuratively to shoot.
Alex

 

[S&Wcamaroman]

Ditto, Nice collection B G

 

[BigGuns]

Originally posted by Boriqua:
Uh Bigguns ...that is an awesome collection !!!
I'm 45 yrs old but can I be your adopted son! I had a model ..60? I think it was and it froze up shortly after buying it. Sent it in and they were great but I got a note back in the box that said practice with .38 and carry .357. I had fired about 100 rounds of .357. I like my 629 because I feel just fine shooting .44mag and its not going to break. Good hefty gun and just a blast, literally and figuratively to shoot.
Alex

Sure, if I had you when I was 3! Have one gone to college now, so have spare room, too. Turning it into trophy/man/gun/game room at present.

I had all those out in my back yard to take pictures one day, and it started to rain. snapped a few pics before running them insdide.

Always had a thing for 3 and 5" barrels.

So, still voting for 3", though not always easy to find holsters

 

[Titan]

I did a LOT of research and shot a lot of other people's guns in deciding on my first handgun purchase.

I had settled on the 686+ with 2 1/2" barrel and was ready to jump on a new model when S&W announced the return to production of the 3 inch barrel.

I never hesitated!

For the longer ejection rod and the fact that 3" splits the difference between 2 1/2 and 4 inch barrels and is simply a better compromise for CCW and range fun, I went with the 3 inch and have never regretted it.
.