What a great site! I've been lurking for some time and have learned a lot about S&W's. I have a decent gun collection, but it is seriously lacking when it comes to the revolver dept. After all the lurking I have done on this site, I have concluded that a 686 is in the near future for me. I am just having a problem deciding between a 3" or a 4". I am mostly interested in how each of them balance and how comfortable to shoot. Any input would be appreciated!
686 3" or 4"
- Thread starter rotax1
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
bamabiker
Member
I don't think you could go wrong with either or both. I have a snub nose and a 4" and both are very nice shooters. And will get a 3" someday.
You would have to look hard for some negative comments about the M686 other than some guys don't like the full lug barrel.
Good luck with your choice.
You would have to look hard for some negative comments about the M686 other than some guys don't like the full lug barrel.
Good luck with your choice.
The snubbies are in somewhat of a resurgence these days, but I expect that will fade a bit. I like the 4" as the shortest revolver I'll have.
Skeeter Skelton felt something similar, as I recall, in pointing out that sight radius much below 4" rendered sight alignment much more critical (or magnified slight errors much more, however you want to look at it). Accuracy takes a hit. As to portability, he also made the point that a 4" revolver is just as easy to conceal as a 2 1/2" revolver - the hard part here is the butt end not the barrel. Finally, the short revolver is more difficult to control.
Skeeter Skelton felt something similar, as I recall, in pointing out that sight radius much below 4" rendered sight alignment much more critical (or magnified slight errors much more, however you want to look at it). Accuracy takes a hit. As to portability, he also made the point that a 4" revolver is just as easy to conceal as a 2 1/2" revolver - the hard part here is the butt end not the barrel. Finally, the short revolver is more difficult to control.
riverrat38
US Veteran
I went for the 3 inch model. If I had wanted a 4 incher, I would have bought a M10 or 64, since I shoot .38 Special. I looked for a 3 inch K frame, and no luck. I did find a couple of M65's with bids over $1000 on Gunbroker, but the bids didn't even meet the reserve price. I wanted a shooter in very nice condition, not a safe queen! So I bought a new 3 inch 686 plus. The weight is very near the 4 inch K frame, less than an ounce difference, and the balance is just right. I don't think the sight radius is a factor for me, as I can see the sight pattern better than I can hold, without using a rest. The 3 inch model has the full length ejector rod, while the 2 1/2 inch doesn't. I hand load, and any velocity that I lose over the 4 inch model can be made up with a little extra powder, since the gun is Magnum rated. I just received a set of Kim Ahrends grips, and really like the combo. The gun is as accurate as I can tell. Looks good, also. As far as concealed carry goes, the extra inch does make a difference for me. I think it depends on body build and wardrobe. And the extra barrel length does make a difference in how high I need to lift my old arm to clear the high rise holster, also!
rat
rat
TNFrank
Member
Didn't know there were making the L-Frame in a 3", that's great news as I've always like that length barrel. I did have a 686+ in 2.5" and it wasn't too bad for CCW but the cylinder thickness is always a killer on a 6 shot revolver for IWB holsters.
I'd say 3" unless you want to hunt with the gun then most places have a 4" barrel limit so you'd need a 4" to hunt with.
I'd say 3" unless you want to hunt with the gun then most places have a 4" barrel limit so you'd need a 4" to hunt with.
The 3 inch is a joy to shoot. Weight and balance are great in my opinion. Installing grips to your needs and liking will only improve the feel.
Be advised that finding holsters for barrel lengths other than 4 and 6 inch is a little more difficult. I own 3", 5", a d 7" revolvers. Most off the shelf holsters will have an extra inch of material, and custom holsters could have a little longer wait time.
Dauff
Be advised that finding holsters for barrel lengths other than 4 and 6 inch is a little more difficult. I own 3", 5", a d 7" revolvers. Most off the shelf holsters will have an extra inch of material, and custom holsters could have a little longer wait time.
Dauff
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,545
- Reaction score
- 863
If you have one 686, a 4" is probably the best choice. The extra 2 oz over the 3" makes a nice balance with full-sized grips and helps a little with recoil control. Recoil is actually not bad with the stock grips (Hogue rubber) and even better with hand-filling Ahrends Tactical grips. It's a little nose-heavy for round butt grips, so I settled on the round-to-square Ahrends version.
The 3" would be perfect with round butt, or even boot grips. There's nothing wrong with the sight radius or recoil control, as witnessed by the Hickok45 video, whacking the gong at 80 yards. This one is on my short list, rather than the 2.5" with the half-length extractor.
Neither are well suited for IWB. The thick cylinder tends to stick in the holster due to belt tension needed to keep a 40 oz revolver from sagging. A pancake holster is about as good as it gets for concealment - I have an Alessi CQC. The grip is not a particular problems, since it's held in close. Nevertheless, a boot grip would be better, and an inch shorter would be less likely to peek below a cover garment. The 686 is only 3/8" thicker than a SIG, and doesn't bulge any more than that pistol in an IWB.
Why two? I bought .357 change parts for my Dillon 550B, and don't think I can shoot fast enough with one revolver
The 3" would be perfect with round butt, or even boot grips. There's nothing wrong with the sight radius or recoil control, as witnessed by the Hickok45 video, whacking the gong at 80 yards. This one is on my short list, rather than the 2.5" with the half-length extractor.
Neither are well suited for IWB. The thick cylinder tends to stick in the holster due to belt tension needed to keep a 40 oz revolver from sagging. A pancake holster is about as good as it gets for concealment - I have an Alessi CQC. The grip is not a particular problems, since it's held in close. Nevertheless, a boot grip would be better, and an inch shorter would be less likely to peek below a cover garment. The 686 is only 3/8" thicker than a SIG, and doesn't bulge any more than that pistol in an IWB.
Why two? I bought .357 change parts for my Dillon 550B, and don't think I can shoot fast enough with one revolver
Why two? I bought .357 change parts for my Dillon 550B, and don't think I can shoot fast enough with one revolver
Not planning on two, just one for now, and for the same reason!
Also, I won't be using it for concealed carry, I've got that area covered. It will mostly be a range gun, and possibly an occasional trip to the mountains in my backyard as backup to my 45-70 lever gun. So concealment is not an issue.
Thanks!
LOM Ranger
Member
This has been my experience too. I don't use my 686 4" as my daily carry weapon but I enjoy shooting it more than any other gun I have owned for all of the reasons you mentioned. The 4" is a perfect balance of accuracy, weight and recoil for me and it is a pleasure to shoot.
BCDWYO
Member
I agree with most of the previous comments. You really can't go wrong with either 3" or 4" L frame. I own both and wouldn't want to part with either, but for a FIRST revolver (or if you could only have one) I'd probably go for 4" 686+. Balance is near perfect (for me), muzzle flash and recoil are slightly less than in a snubby, and holster choices are more plentiful. Also, since the 4" is more common, you will be able to get one for probably a couple hundred dollars less. If you are like the rest of us it won't be long before you have both, but I'd start with a 4".
squidsix
Member
If you aren't going to carry it CCW, get the 4". Better shooter, in my experience. I had a 3", 7-shot 686, and it was a great carry piece, but I shot the 4" more often. Why, again, did they NOT make the 586 in 3", and 7-shot?
riverrat38
US Veteran
If you decide to go with the 4 inch, take a look at the 686SSR. It has had some factory action work done, and uses a different main spring, that is 20% lighter. I also think the barrel is a little lighter than the regular 4 inch model. It was $50 more than my 3 inch 686 Plus at my gun store. The front sight is replaceable with out tools, a nice feature.
rat
rat
squidsix
Member
The SSR is cool, but he can get a very nice pre-lock 686 4" for a lot less.
Phil W
Member
I have a 3 inch 686+ I bought after giving my 4 inch to my son. I had to special order it though. I see very little difference in accuracy and the 3 inch is a bit easier to carry. Can't go wrong with either.....
bryan87
Member
4" IMO
This says it all IMO. 4" is the clear winner for what you are going for. Added weight plus the longer barrel will only increase your accuracy.
I have a 686+ in 4" and it is my favorite gun I own. It's a tack driver at the range and I too use it as my camping/hiking sidearm. Since you aren't planning on CCW with it, why not go with the longer barrel?
Not planning on two, just one for now, and for the same reason!
Also, I won't be using it for concealed carry, I've got that area covered. It will mostly be a range gun, and possibly an occasional trip to the mountains in my backyard as backup to my 45-70 lever gun. So concealment is not an issue.
Thanks!
This says it all IMO. 4" is the clear winner for what you are going for. Added weight plus the longer barrel will only increase your accuracy.
I have a 686+ in 4" and it is my favorite gun I own. It's a tack driver at the range and I too use it as my camping/hiking sidearm. Since you aren't planning on CCW with it, why not go with the longer barrel?
Similar threads
