Hopefully not too CRAZY a CCW question for you experts regarding 6" 686.

[hkcavalier]

I've carried my 5" 629 in a shoulder holster in warm weather, but under a fishing/photographer style vest. And it looked like I had a breast on the left side...

Although the OP has obviously received whatever confirmation he was looking for, if I HAD to make my 6" 686+ into a full-time CCW gun I would get a great vertical-carry shoulder holster and put low-profile wood boot grips/stocks on it. And forever be "vest guy" whenever I went out.

 

[gwpercle]

Here's my real life experience, after being a victim of an armed robbery I started carrying a full sized 1911 45 acp, after not too long I realized that was way too much to comfortably conceal and carry. That gave way to a commander in 45 acp, still too big. Next was a Taurus 455, snub nosed, 5 shot ,45 acp revolver ... ah much better, carried this for a long time...untill I got my first Airweight J-frame S&W in 38 special ( 12 ozs) sweet...now with all the choices I have...the Airweight usually goes out the door with me. If I'm expecting trouble , it, and the 1911 get picked up.
What I'm saying is after a while the big ones get hard to conceal and the effort and weight become too much.
I've never tried a shoulder holster and this just may work for a 6" 686....Dirty Harry had one for his model 29 right!
Gary

 

[Nitrous SSC]

I own a 686 plus in 2.5" with the right holster it wouldn't be to bad. But I still prefer my M&P40c or 637 airweight for a full day's worth of CCW. If you're set on a 686, get a 2.5" version.

 

[ken158]

How hot does it get in LA? It is 90+ today on the East Coast where I am... no way would I even try to figure out how to hide a 6" CW of any kind... but the 642 will go to dinner with me tonight! It does seem typical of many new CCW license holders to arm themselves heavily for all sorts of imagined bad things but it does wear off pretty quick...

 

[hkcavalier]

How hot does it get in LA? It is 90+ today on the East Coast where I am... no way would I even try to figure out how to hide a 6" CW of any kind... but the 642 will go to dinner with me tonight! It does seem typical of many new CCW license holders to arm themselves heavily for all sorts of imagined bad things but it does wear off pretty quick...

It can be done, you just look like a tour guide or zoo employee all the time.

 

[Donn]

Even if you manage to conceal a 6" 686, I can pretty much promise you'll grow weary of the size and weight. I'm sure there are those who'll disagree, but I'll bet you a cup of Starbuck's over priced coffee that it won't be long before you're shopping for a Shield or J-frame.

 

[Sigmund Sauer]

Thanks for helping me make the right choice

Taking all this wise feedback (for which I am very grateful) to heart, I felt foolish for being so insistent on how perfect this gun was for me. It's not about romance and feeling. It's about being able to defend myself and my family. So I went to the local gun shop and tried out a 4" 686 instead, namely a 686 SSR in a simple, unromantic Blackhawk holster I.T.W. #3, appendix carry, and it worked very, very well. It was completely covered by my jacket, totally invisible. And I was able to draw in one smooth movement. Even when I was sitting down, the gun was invisible. I simply pushed the grip a little to the side. So my question is: should I get that gun instead? Can I get just as good with that as I was with the 6"? It will feel a little bit like a marriage of convenience, but this is still an attractive woman I am marrying (to stay in the analogy). Or would you all also be betting that I will still go to something smaller somewhere down the line? Remember, I want to be able to finish off the attackers like hickok45 finishes off his 2 liters.

Not sure that I liked the slanted underlug. But the expert at the gun shop said this was a superior gun to a standard 686. He said I would feel it even when I dry-fired. I did and I honestly couldn't feel the difference. Except perhaps that the SSR felt a little weaker. Does that mean there is a bigger chance it might misfire? But perhaps if I had been more experienced, I would have been able to feel the difference?

He said the slanted underlug makes it ideal to draw from a holster quickly, which makes sense. He said that it would make me safer than a heavier, standard 686. Even than a 686+ which would have one extra chamber. I would like that extra round at my disposal, though...

Which leads me to another thought: Would the 4" 627 Pro Series have been just as good for concealed carry as the 4" 686 SSR? Would it have fit that same holster? Is it just as good for appendix carry? Those 8 shots certainly sound attractive. How do both of those compare to the regular 4" 686? Not in terms of price, just in terms of quality.

Sorry for all the additional questions:

To summarize:

Your comments, plus the attractiveness and convenience of trying out the appendix holster and how quickly I could access the gun made me think that I should ask Mr. Olivander not to give me the 6" 686 wand, but to sell me either:

a)
the 4" 686 SSR
Really liked how it felt in the Blackhawk #3 appendix holster, and how I was able to conceal it and draw it in one smooth movement. Liked the fact that experts say it's better than than the standard 686. Don't love the look of the slanted underlug. But think it might grow on me because it does have a modern feel. Am a little afraid of the hard wooden grips, but they do look classier, and some comments say they help shoot with greater precision.

OR

b)
the 4" 627 Pro

Like the fact that it is a newly engineered gun. Am a little afraid, though, that this also means it's not tried and tested enough. Love the fact that it has two extra bullets. Don't love the slanted underlug, as stated above. Not sure what the implications of moonclips and all that is. Some of these guns can hold moonclips (which make for faster reloading, right?), but some people consider that a disadvantage, right? In a self-defense situation? Why can't all of these guns hold moonclips?

OR

c)
the 4" 686 Plus (for the extra bullet)
I feel there might be a reason that for most of gun history, the 686 was always a 6 shooter? Is the barrel possibly less stable than that if it has more metal between the chambers?

OR

d)
the 4" 686
Might there be a reason to go for what has been tried and tested in the field for so many years. Or would the full underlug make drawing more difficult. And concealed carry more difficult?

OR is there something else I should be considering getting? Maybe something smaller still? If I were not living in California, I would probably opt for the S&W Governor. But that would land me straight in jail. But just so you know: I will rather live with the discomfort of a slightly heavier gun than with the continuous fear that I might not be armed in the very best way. But, of course, it has to stay concealed. And has to be quick to draw.

And one last question: Should I always be using .357 ammo, or is the 38 Special (or 39 Special +P) strong enough for my purposes? Since it will probably take me a few years to become really good at shooting, I am thinking that the strong recoil of the .357 might make things more problematic, even though they have deeper penetration. The 38 Special recoil, even the 38 Special +P is totally fine for me. I haven't shot the .357 Magnum rounds yet, but am told the recoil is brutal. For a less experienced shooter (which I will be for a while) is that a reason to hold off on them?

I don't care about the price of the gun, or ammo or practice ammo. All the equipment can be as expensive as it needs to be if it will help me protect my family. If there is some outrageously expensive option out there that I is deemed better, I will get it. But I also believe that something tried and tested by police, military and militia alike is probably better than some luxury solution.

I don't want to do competitive shooting.

I want to be hickok45 some day, i.e. I want to feel maximally safe about protecting myself and my family through my shooting and tactical skills. But I don't want my primary to be a semi-automatic. I would live in constant fear of a jam. But I need to shoot with great precision several times. So I can't be using only a a tiny revolver.

OK, to you, my friends. Will be very grateful for some tips.
Thanks,

Ziggy.

 

[murphydog]

Ziggy;

When I read your first post and you could obtain a CCW permit in Los Angeles (I lived there previously), my first thought was that your situation was either a very fortunate or unfortunate one to be so sure. I think you are taking prudent steps to protect you and your family under what sounds to be imminent peril.

In addition to firearms training, and you have probably already thought of this, having several layers of defense and training on how to spot threats and avoiding them before using your firearms would be very important. Mindset and preparation, physical things like locks and reinforced doors, alarm systems, extra lighting, a dog...it's a long list.

In your very specific potential situation, if you feel confident with one a shorter barrel moon clip capable revolver with bigger cylinder capacity may be a good choice. Having 8 rounds and the capability of fast reloading to fend off 2-3 attackers would be a plus. I would also argue, however, that if you are confident enough to carry a high-capacity semi-auto pistol as a reliable backup that your strongly consider one as your primary weapon. 13-18 rounds without a reload, and a quick magazine change if you need one, would be comforting. A Glock 23 with proper expanding ammunition that you know functions 100%...hard to argue with that as a defensive handgun.

Please stay safe!

 

[Sigmund Sauer]

Thank you very much, Alan. I have found the community of people involved in fighting for Second Amendment Rights to be a generous and intelligent one. And your reply is exemplary of that spirit.

The problem with part of your recommendation is California's "high capacity magazine ban" that doesn't allow any magazine beyond 10 rounds. And at that point, rather than be tempted into going for something illegal (and I probably would be tempted if I had the Glock 23 to get the big mags), and go to jail and really not be there for my family, I might be better off with a revolver, and an eight shot one, as you rightly say. From what you say, (8 shot, 4" or shorter) here are all my choices from S&W, unless I want to go 9mm (which is probably not ideal in a revolver, right? And possibly not strong enough?)

1) a Model 627 with a 2.625" barrel (L frame, wooden grip, attractive looking, but does that short a barrel make use of the .357 ammo? Will I still be able to shoot accurately and with great power?)
2) a Model 627 Pro Series with a 4" barrel (L Frame, slanted underlug, as in previous post)
3) a Model 627 with a 4" barrel (full underlug).
4) a Model 327 (a weird, but powerful looking, Star Wars'y kind of gun) with a 2" barrel. Not sure what to think of that one.

Are all these guns as good and solid and well-crafted as the 686s?

Any other thoughts?

Also: is the Glock23 a more reliable gun than the Sig226? I was told the latter was voted least likely to jam in the year book. And the Glock23 is a .40 caliber, right? Does that mean you would recommend I go up in caliber for what I am trying to achieve? Or is 38 Special or 38 Special +P or at least .357 Magnum sufficient for what I am trying to achieve?

Thing is, when we were at the gun range, all guns (including Glock, not including Sig) jammed in a bad way. Even the instructor struggled with fixing it with traditional Lock Rip Rack Reload methods. It might be that my grip wasn't right, but it might not be right in a stressful combat situation. Most likely, the gun range didn't clean the guns well, but the revolvers worked perfectly, which made me think...

I will definitely take all the training you're talking about. At the moment I'm going with recommends from the gun shop and the range and my lawyer on what courses to take. But if you have any ideas on where to look further, I am all ear. As you can see from the time of this posting, these questions are keeping me up at night.

Thanks for your help and concern.

Yours

Ziggy

 

[murphydog]

Ah yes, the 10 round magazine limit. Personally I think a 9 mm with proper ammunition will serve your needs well with somewhat less recoil than a .40 S & W. The 9 mm Speer Gold Dot, Hornady Critical Defense and Winchester Ranger loads have a good reputation. I am not sure what LAPD or LASD issues but that round would be a good starting point.

I don't know the specifics of why the Glocks and other semi-autos you tried jammed. They may have been dirty, with bad magazines or sub-par ammo, but that is not a confidence builder. With proper magazines and ammunition any modern semi-auto should run nearly perfectly.

Of the revolvers you mention, the 627 models are all N frames, larger than the L but 8 shot. A 4" barrel Pro Series would be a good choice with moon clip capability.

There are many well-regarded firearms trainers but none that I know of in your area (not to say there is no one qualified in southern CA, just that I cannot recall anyone's name). Perhaps others here will have suggestions.

My profession and related stresses keep me up at night also, but not in the same way as yours...

 

[Biggfoot44]

Ziggy , I think you are making a wise move to think in terms of 4inch . I will accept t face value that you favor DA revolvers. ( I like them , and have no qualms about carrying them.)

Moon clips are a two edged sword. In best case scenario they are the fastest way to reload a revolver. BUT if they get bent , they likely won't be able to relod at all. A speedlod is cpable of reloding pretty darn quickly ( after enough hundreds of repetions with dummy rounds and practice to maintain skills.)

As to which gun ? Whichever feels better in your hand/ shoot more accurately..*For me* , I prefer 6 shots. There are subtle differences in the geometry of the internals for lesser angular rotation for each shot , and I have enough decades with the origional I want the consistancy with the rest of my herd of revolvers. For you just starting out , probbly not a big issue. The SSR is "supposed" to have a smoother than average out of the box trigger pull. But don't obsess over that, judge each specific revolver. Personally ( and many agree ) , I'd rather aquire a revolver already well broken in than a new in the box one. In addition to those you have already tried , your due dilligence isn't complete until you try some 4in K Frames ( M19/66, M13/65 ).

Choose you grips on the basis of what fits you , and you shoot well , even if they're ugly. Ok , 80% what you shoot best , 20% conceaalbility.

Ammo ? Is eternal question of. .38 vs .38+P vs .38+P+ vs .357"lite" vs full power .357 is decided on the basis of what is sufficently controlable , in YOUR gun, in YOUR hand(s). Which indirectly leads us to ....

The second gun. Lot of people po-pho the idea , but I favor it. But instead of automatically assuming "one big, one small" , consider another more or less full capability gun. If not literally matching , then at least somthing reasonably adaquate to serve as primry gun. Say maybe a 2.5in K Frame to go with 4in L Frame. And yes , I can assure you from personal experience , two K Frames can be concealed under a shirt tail just as easily as one.

 

[Donn]

Ah yes, the "multiple attackers" scenario rears it's ugly head yet again. I refer you to several You Tube videos of real time shooting incidents involving multiple attackers. In each case, the bad guys head for the tall & uncut as soon as the shooting starts, usually leaving one of their own on the ground. Is it a hard and fast rule? Of course not. But in most cases the bad guys won't press the attack if there's a chance they might get hurt.

 

[Sigmund Sauer]

Thanks for another round of useful info.

Given that Bigfoot44 actually makes plausible there might be a disadvantage to 8 shot revolvers, and that ugliness should be ignored, combined with the brilliant idea of a backup gun of the same size as the primary, I am thinking that maybe I should just overcome my fear of jams and unattractive guns, and go for two Glock 19s, or maybe two Glock 23s (since murphydog recommends .40 cal). It would probably be better to carry two of the same caliber rather than have one 19 and one 23, wouldn't you say? Otherwise, it might lead to confusion?

Goodness, I have changed through the progression of this thread... From having to carry a giant steel six-shooter to a compact plastic 15 shooter!

Well, I'm willing to learn from experts.

Please let me know of any more thoughts.

Thanks,

Ziggy

 

[Pogo84]

It didn't make any difference whether it printed or not as I was in a combat zone in Korea in 1950-51, but I carried a Colt Officers Model Target in a Lawrence No.7 shoulder holster for the better part of a year. I was only 5'8" at the time, (a little shorter now), and I thought it was very comfortable to carry under my dungaree jacket. It saved my bacon on two occasions . I got so used to carrying that it seemed like I was undressed if I didn't have it on.

I sold that gun and holster when my tour was over and to this day I have not found another holster that comfortable to carry my present OMT.
I usually carry a Star PD or ST101 in Milt Sparks IWB holsters now, although in wrm weather I just put a LCP in my pocket.

As an old race driver friend, Johnnie Tolan, used to say "You can get used to anything but a rock in your shoe".

mitch

 

[M29since14]

Interesting post. I think you are in far more need of really expert "tactical" training than obsessing overly much about revolvers - though we all like to do that. Whatever your situation is, it appears you are on the right side of the law, so sincere good luck with keeping you and everyone around you safe.

I guess I am from another era but to me ANY .357 Magnum revolver, competently handled, is a fearsome weapon. Even with your height, I would discount the idea of the 6-inch gun and look at a 4-inch model. Either one is going to be heavy.

Really, your fears about autoloaders jamming is almost a matter of the past. My own choice, in your situation, would be a .45 Commander, tuned by the best smith around (maybe Wilson?) for reliability - not necessarily target-grade accuracy. At 28 oz. (empty) the Commander is a very handy gun and carries well. One prepped by an expert will take no backseat in accuracy AND reliability. It reloads quickly and carrying spare ammunition in magazines is more reliable than carrying speedloaders and/or moon-clips, IMO.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Revolvers remain a viable choice , and I won't tell you to avoid them. There are advantages and disadvantages either way. For myself I can go either way , and have even been known to have one of each. BUT for someone starting out with a relatively high likelyhood of actually needing one for defense in forseable future pick one flavor and get up to a signifigent level of competence before branching out to multiple flavors.

If you thought DA revolvers had a confusing number of options , with semi's the different systems expand exponentially.

Pick a gun (or two) that you can shoot reasonably well at present. Get begining level training , practice those skills at least a cpl times a month. When you have those solidly down , get some intermeadate level training , continue practicing. Then next summer you can form informed opinions about getting really serious with initial platform, or branching out to additional options.

 

[CapnMic]

I would recommend you become proficient with a semi-auto such as a Glock...or a Smith & Wesson M&P in your caliber of choice from 9mm to 357 (note - I'm told that the 357SIG ammo does not "over penetrate" and has some impressive ballistic performance ... google it). Someone above recommended a Glock 23 and that is what I carry .. and yes if limited to 10 round magazines I would still carry it with more magazines for my pockets and ankle. I prefer 40 cal over 9mm for serious shooting ..(I'm not frail and I don't work for the FBI) I think people generally are too fussy about caliber/recoil in that I firmly believe you can be taught to shoot heavier recoiling pistols in about 500 rounds with confidence .. and without sounding harsh ... one does need to simply overcome and adapt to the handgun platform choice .. they all have their pros/cons ..but what's important is learning how to run the platform under stress .. it is an a learned skill .. I remember my introduction into the military .. they gave me a rifle I did not like .. they gave me handgun which I did not like .. but I sure as hell learned how to shoot them well and with confidence .. it was my job to do so.

Secondly, telephone the people at Gunsite and get in one of their training courses as soon as you can ... you simply need to shoot and shoot alot under the guidance of professional staff who know about personal protection and have a history of training those who carry concealed for a living .. you can spend a lot of time picking up techinques from various trainers and those who write about the subject .. but nothing replaces the hands on training you can get at one of these special training facilities. And if you don't like Gunsite .. there are others that will give you similar confidence and skills .. I also reccommed Clint Smith's classes ... as they say, he has "skills" ..

Third, who protects your family when you are out working? Well, it sounds like your spouse should be also prepared and that too should be factored into your thinking.

And I love watching Hickock45 .. fine shooter, but he does miss sometimes and his range is static in that those soda bottles are not shooting back .. (little humor here) .. however, if I can be just a little critical of Hickock 45 it is that he seldom shoots from or looks for cover .. and he does take considerable time shooting .. without moving his feet ... now that's well and good on target ranges .. but combat is a different problem which requires you to shoot, move, scoot and repeat until you are at least out of danger and no matter how well we shoot at paper on range targets .. real life is a very different experience that requires a much different skill set. But yeah, I love the guy for his skills too .. but I can't think of a scenario where hitting a gong at 200 yard is something I would do ..

my serious advice is start out with a gun you can shoot well and reload fast. You will need to gravitate toward a smaller package to speed up your draw and put the front sight on target without the benefit of waiting for the perfect sight picture .. it takes practice .. I may feel confident in my revolver handling skills but I can never work a revolver as fast as a semiauto .. and I like my revolver much better than my glock .. but my glock is simply the more practical defensive platform that moves as fast as I can confidently engage a target. So please don't get too hung up on gun selection as there are many to choose from ..

and if as you say .. you are being targeted well, .. I would spend considerable money on training and bringing my skills up to the task of defending myself and redefining my "situational awareness" to the point I can properly read my environment and also make myself a very difficult target to acquire ..

 

[GaBoy45]

I remember reading an article where the author advocated if you were going to carry two guns why not two of the same type? If I remember correctly he used to carry 2 .357 j frames and switched to 2 Glock 33s in 357 SIG. Only needed to carry one set of reloads or mags and only had one set of ammo to worry about. He wore one in a IWB holster and the other in either a crossdraw or shoulder holster. It's at least something to think about. Especially somewhere where you are limited on mag capacity. Although a Glock 30 or 30SF with a 36 backup might not be bad if you don't mind 45 ACP.

 

[Frizzman]

I don't know how that choice would effect your carry status in your area. As most would agree, its certainly possible to carry that concealed. The barrel length might be a boon to practical accuracy and bullet velocity but a disadvantage in drawing speed, close quarters conflict and weapon retention...Many people start out carrying full sized guns concealed but few do that as a daily practice in the long run. I started out carrying a S&W 4" M-10HB almost forty years ago because that's what my agency issued and that was all I had. It was cool to just be able to legally carry a concealed handgun at first but as time went by, I wanted something smaller and lighter. I got a Charter Arms Undercover and the M-10 became strictly for uniformed duty...I have carried larger guns at times but not for long periods. These days, its a couple J frames or my Glock 27 or Kahr P9 Covert. I don't carry small calibre or micro pistols. The ones I usually carry combine acceptable power, accuracy, good handling characteristics and reasonable size and weight.

 

[bigwheelzip]

A lot of great advice here. But the search for a perfect gun is Wac-A-Mole. My husband and I have a carry "pool" of 6 choices. We never leave the house without one. We regularly train with all of them (leaving for the range now). We have chosen ammo that we feel is effective, and practice quick unaimed center-mass shots at close range. BTW, 125gr .357 Mag. from a snub 686 is soft recoiling for this old grandma, so don't worry about that, but the 180gr "BEAR" loads hurt. The perfect gun is the one in your hand. Practice makes perfect. For home defense, Its a different set of choices for us, which all revolve around a flashlight or mounted tactical light, for those things that go bump in the night.