Help choosing next one - Talo .357+ 3", or 686+ 4"?

[Mr.Harry]

So, my next acquisition is going to be a .357 7shot L frame. For the following purposes, roughly in order of frequency - 1) range use and fun 2.) OWB CC in a high-ride pancake of some type. 3.) home defense 4.) occasional trail/open carry.
I do not need or want it for primary trail carry/hunting use so much because I have a 629 6 1/2" that fills that. Once in a while I MIGHT choose it over the .629 if I'm going to go on looong walks for upland bird and want something a tad smaller than the N frame, but I don't see the .357 as being quite as useful as the .44 in the big woods, so probably not often.
The gun will see a lot of range time and fun shooting. I like to be able to 'reach out' a bit with range guns, so I'm hesitant to go shorter-barreled than 4", I will not go under 3". Just not interested in snubs. I am also not likely to take the Talo 5" as I think it would become too long for the CC I want to use it for. Wish the Talo came in a 4", problem solved, alas....
I love the unfluted look of the Talo and like what I here about them. However, grips would be immediately changed in either gun.
I'm concerned about losing much of the 'magnum potential' and distance & accuracy in this chambering by dropping below the 4" barrel to 3". I'm not sure how much is really 'lost' in that inch. Also, while I do want to start CCing more, and this gun would be a candidate for that, I don't how much concealabilty is GAINED by LOSING that extra inch in a 3 in instead of 4. It should be noted that I'm Tall and Rangey - 6'4" and lean, so I figure I should be able to conceal a revolver pretty well with loose clothing. I'm just new to CC, so am unsure how critical that extra inch might be. I also think the 4" is the more aesthetically pleasing of the lengths. But I don't find 3" to be unappealing.
Advice? Insight? Suggestions?

 

[Mr.Harry]

And I forgot to mention, lol, I cannot buy BOTH at this time. Wish I could. The means aren't there. Unfortunately.

 

[Mark in GA]

For that use profile I would go 4" 686 Plus. The 4" will give you a little more performance and it balances well. The slight extra weight will tame recoil too.

Mark in GA

 

[bigwheelzip]

Between just those two, and grading on a curve toward range plinking at longer distance, then the 4".

Enjoy.

For reference, the 4", 3", 2 1/2".

 

[dmar]

Interesting dilemma. Really depends on intended use. If the primary use for this revolver is truly range use and fun, I'd go with the 4" 686+. I also think that that gun would be a great home defense choice. I think you could get by with it as a OWB CC gun, but definitely would not be my first choice for that assignment.

I've kept a 4" model 66 as my bedroom gun for over 20 years, and it is one of the most accurate guns I own. Love that gun. It's lighter/less bulky than a 686, and I've never considered carrying it... If you really are considering carrying the revolver, I'd go with the Talo.

This all said, the 3" 686+ Talo is a sweet gun, and shoots great. I bought one last year and love it. I put a Hogue boot grip on it and it's very comfortable to shoot, and I get good accuracy with it. It also makes a very good home defense gun, and would make a good carry gun, but I've got other options that work better for me for carry.

In my opinion, the 3" barrel length is the the most versatile. If I had to make your choice, I'd go with the Talo 3". But, I've got other revolvers that I use for just range and fun.

I also don't believe that you lose too much in velocity dropping from the 4" to 3" barrel, but I haven't chronographed them to be able to give you the stats... Again, the 3" Talo is a sweet shooter, and looks great doing it; that would be my choice.

Here's some pics of the Talo, hope it helps!

 

[Mr.Harry]

I guess it really comes down to my priorities of the first two purposes - range or carry. Dang. Thanks for the opinions thus far folks. To those who have a 3", can you shoot decent groups with it at 30 yards?

 

[Shark Bait]

Personally, I'd go for the 3 inch gun. All you gain with a 4 inch is another inch in sight radius, a little more weight and a few more FPS out of the muzzle. If you can shoot decent groups at 30 yards with a 4 inch, you should be able to do it with a 3 inch. I shot a group roughly the size of a quarter at 15 yards with my 2.5 inch 686 (two-hand, unsupported).

 

[savit260]

For your purposes, I'd recommend the 4". In all honesty, I don't find 4"er's any harder to conceal/carry than the 3". I carry a number of revolvers ranging from 3" (Talo 3-5-7) to a 5 1/2" Redhawk IWB, and a bunch between those in size. The grip is the hardest part to conceal IMO, and the round butt on the 3" S&W *does* help in that regard. It is just a bit easier to conceal than the others solely due to the round butt grip. (of course a 4" 686 would have a round butt as well, but IMO is a bit visually awkward with the 4" barrel and compact round butt grips. Purely aesthetic, I know).

As an "all around'er" the 4" is a safe bet.

... and since the Talo 3-5-7 is on topic, here's a pic of mine. My 4" mid size frame wears a Pony on it's side so I'll not post that pic

 

[Mr.Harry]

Personally, I'd go for the 3 inch gun. All you gain with a 4 inch is another inch in sight radius, a little more weight and a few more FPS out of the muzzle. If you can shoot decent groups at 30 yards with a 4 inch, you should be able to do it with a 3 inch. I shot a group roughly the size of a quarter at 15 yards with my 2.5 inch 686 (two-hand, unsupported).

thank you for your reply, and service. This is the kind of answer I'm looking for, I guess. And I'm going to assume you are at least a slightly better shot than myself. Potentially much better. What kind of group could you put together at 30 yards?

 

[rwt1405]

While for me, I'd pick the 3" (I have the 686 in 2.5", 3", 4", and 6").

But it seems from what you wrote, you have already decided on the 4", so for you, I'd say that is the safe bet.

Either way, you'll have a great revolver!

 

[Mr.Harry]

For your purposes, I'd recommend the 4". In all honesty, I don't find 4"er's any harder to conceal/carry than the 3". I carry a number of revolvers ranging from 3" (Talo 3-5-7) to a 5 1/2" Redhawk IWB, and a bunch between those in size. The grip is the hardest part to conceal IMO, and the round butt on the 3" S&W *does* help in that regard. It is just a bit easier to conceal than the others solely due to the round butt grip. (of course a 4" 686 would have a round butt as well, but IMO is a bit visually awkward with the 4" barrel and compact round butt grips. Purely aesthetic, I know).

As an "all around'er" the 4" is a safe bet.

... and since the Talo 3-5-7 is on topic, here's a pic of mine. My 4" mid size frame wears a Pony on it's side so I'll not post that pic

This is helpful too - that you don't find 4" much more difficult to conceal. I wouldn't think so either, but I haven't really gotten into it much as I predominately open carry side arms. And typically in the field. But I want to start doing more of it, CC that is, and my state just went constitutional carry.

 

[Mr.Harry]

While for me, I'd pick the 3" (I have the 686 in 2.5", 3", 4", and 6").

But it seems from what you wrote, you have already decided on the 4", so for you, I'd say that is the safe bet.

Either way, you'll have a great revolver!

Fascinating insight. But could You humor me in talking me into the 3"? What are the benefits as you see them, and being an owner of barrel lengths across the board, you would have valuable opinions on all? How tightly can you pattern the 3" at 25 to 30 yards? Not trying to be a pain in the *** or split hairs. Genuinely curious.

 

[Mr.Harry]

I guess I could rent different guns and see for myself, perhaps I should. Just looking for some quick opinions from others with .357's in this frame size & barrel length(s). I have arbitrarily arrived at the distance of 25 to 30 yards that I want to be able to still put together 4 to 6 inch groups, Double action, off hand, in fairly rapid succession. I understand that is a very 'general' description and largely dependent on the skills of the shooter. I consider myself "above average". Just curious if these are unrealistic expectations of a 3" gun? On top of the concealability factor? Sorry to muddy the waters.

 

[Widow]

I would go with the three inch there is nothing you can do with 4" that you can't do with the 3" but you can carry a 3" a little easier I can tell you that a 3" is a blast to shoot at the range and recoil is a none issue I would get the standard 686+ 7 shot or if you like it better the talo . Widow

 

[Mr.Harry]

I would go with the three inch there is nothing you can do with 4" that you can't do with the 3" but you can carry a 3" a little easier I can tell you that a 3" is a blast to shoot at the range and recoil is a none issue I would get the standard 686+ 7 shot or if you like it better the talo . Widow

that's two comments saying the same thing - nothing a four inch is going to do much better than a 3. I'm leaning Talo.

 

[Mark in GA]

For carry you are looking at close to the same weight with the models you are talking about. The Talo has an unfluted cylinder. That adds weight back to the revolver with no real advantage like having a longer barrel does. 4" is very packable, good sight radius, and better performance/speed with less blast than the 3". Especially if you are shooting magnum loads.

Both are l-frames so pretty good sized revolvers. Neither is going to conceal super easy like a j-frame so to me I would lean strongly to the standard 4" 7-shot 686+ and the better over all option. The 3" is ever so slightly easier to conceal on paper, but in reality the grip and cylinder are still fairly large so the real world difference is practically nil.

Mark in GA