686 3" vs 5"

[balin]

I have a 3 inch 686 that I like and am thinking of getting one in 5 inch. Mostly just for shooting maybe some home defense. There is never a good reason to not get a new gun. But I was wondering what people have thought that have shot these 2 before.

 

[diyj98]

For my own uses, I'm not a big fan of large framed guns with short barrels. They're bigger than I want to try to conceal and you get a shorter sight radius and less velocity. I have a 686+ with a full underlug 5" barrel that's great for hunting or shooting off the bags. The extra sight radius and weight make it a great target gun and help keep recoil to a minimum.

 

[wadcutter1]

I have a 3" 686 and used to have a 6". For me the difference in accuracy is substantial. The 6" was a tack driver and and the 3" is so-so. I keep the 3" has my home defense gun, but I miss the 6" at the range.

 

[Lobster Picnic]

I handled the 3" and 5" Talo 3-5-7 versions at a gun show. Loved the look of the 5" but it felt slightly muzzle-heavy, not too bad but might get tiring after a while. I felt the 3" was too short. A 4" might have been the best fit for me personally.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I don't think you can obtain a 5" barreled M686 these days unless it is a Performance Center model. ICBW of course....

I have a 2.5", 3", and 4" M686+. I like them all. If I really want to play tack driver I use my 586 with its 6" barrel.

 

[robvious]

I have 3", 5" & 6"...
3 inch for carry... CS-1 2M... very nice
5 inch half lug is my favorite by just a bit over the 3 inch... perfectly balanced
6 inch was a deal and shoots great too but in last place of the 3...

 

[balin]

I like the looks of the Talo 5 incher. I thought that a 6 inch model might be a little barrel heavy for offhand shooting.

 

[wproct]

Not the 686, but I have the similarly sized GP100 in both 3 in and 5 in bbl length. I like the 3 inch model because it just plain looks cool and is a really handy revolver for general use open carried. The 5 inch model is just perfectly balanced and easier to shoot because of the longer sight radius and would be my pick of the two.

 

[Blade37db]

I had a 5" 7 shot 686. It was a nice range gun, but to me, wasn't good for much else (except for maybe hunting which I don't do). A little front heavy for my likes. A 4 inch (L frame) feels much more balanced.
For 3" barrels, I much prefer K frames.

 

[Mehutch]

Happy happy happy....

 

[rich5674]

3" vs 5"

My 2c. I love my 3" 66 but cant hit too much with it. My 5" 686 and M 27 I'm satisfied I can shoot and hit as good as I possibly can.
For me and 686s, for target, hunting and field it would be a 5". For home and car defense there would be no better revolver than a 3" barreled 7 shooter 686.

 

[Phish]

I got eyes out for the 5" barrel as it a good compromise between the 4" and 6" plus It legal for Ohio deer hunting if want to.

 

[ultratec00]

I picked up a 5" talo 686+ last year and every so often think about a shorter version. The 5" is a good compromise, longer than the 4" but shorter than the 6". Good all around home defense/woods firearm. Mine turned out very well. Obviously if your primary purpose is concealed carry, the shorter barrel is the choice. Home defense, the 5" would work just fine, provide better ballistics, have less muzzle flash, and longer sight radius would help shootability.

 

[jtcarm]

For an HD gun, I'd stay with the 3". Much less barrel for someone to wrestle out of your hand.

A 5" would make a good all around "field gun."

 

[DD357]

I've owned 2.5,3,4 & 6" 686's over the years. Don't have any now as I prefer a K for SD and a N for a field gun. However for a home defense gun I'd choose a 4" out of the bunch.

 

[diggler1833]

I have a 3 inch 686 that I like and am thinking of getting one in 5 inch. Mostly just for shooting maybe some home defense. There is never a good reason to not get a new gun. But I was wondering what people have thought that have shot these 2 before.

Having a three inch, but no five inch is reason enough to get one.

Another reason would be that I think simply due to human error, that you will find you shoot the five inch a little better.

Sorry that I only have a four inch 686, but I have quite a few Smiths of that caliber with barrel lengths ranging from 2-1/2 to 8-3/8". Longer is better for me with the .357.

Good luck.

 

[Mehutch]

For an HD gun, I'd stay with the 3". Much less barrel for someone to wrestle out of your hand.

If you let them get that close to your 3" or 5" it wont matter, you'll be dead soon.

"When You Have to Shoot, Shoot. Don't Talk." - Tuco in 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly'

 

[apollo99]

Mehutch, I love that movie, it was just on. No matter where in the movie, i catch it, I always watch it in the end. As far as a 3" vs a 6", I'm not a big fan of 3" guns, I would go with a 2 1/2" and a 4" and a 6".

 

[Lobster Picnic]

One thing going for the 5" would be rarity, though the 3-5-7 series with unfluted cylinder is now a regular catalog item instead of a Talo special order. Not too many 5" L-frames out there.

 

[Telecaster]

Not the 686, but I have the similarly sized GP100 in both 3 in and 5 in bbl length. I like the 3 inch model because it just plain looks cool and is a really handy revolver for general use open carried. The 5 inch model is just perfectly balanced and easier to shoot because of the longer sight radius and would be my pick of the two.

I have a 3" and a 4" GP100 and agree with this. The 4" has Williams fiber optic sights and it's a tack driver, the 3" has fixed "gutter" sights but it's just plain fun to shoot. For range satisfaction, I'd go ahead and get a long-snout version.