Rakkasan13F
Member
My personal favorite is the 3 inch, but that's just my opinion. Hard to go wrong with any 586/686.
I would LOVE a 3" 686-4 round butt with an unfluted, 6-shot cylinder.
Need Help Choosing Barrel Length on 586/686
- Thread starter Morton Henderson
- Start date
I would LOVE a 3" 686-4 round butt with an unfluted, 6-shot cylinder.
I have a 6"....
Since it's a range shooter, I don't mind the 'nose heavy' aspect of the 6" but a 4" is about right and as short as I would go.
Since it's a range shooter, I don't mind the 'nose heavy' aspect of the 6" but a 4" is about right and as short as I would go.
Darkenfast
Member
The question that will NEVER get a totally satisfactory answer: 4" vs. 6" in a .357?
Back in my revolver days (civilian), I had two six-inch barrelled .357s - a Security Six briefly, and a fairly early 586, for longer. The 586 was very easy to shoot, and handled .357s in a very civilized manner. It also weighed 46 oz. unloaded, and was not that handy. I also had a Combat Magnum with a 2 1/2" barrel. Beautiful, but hard to handle with magnums. Every time I would handle someone's four-inch wheelgun, I would think: "Ooh! This hits the spot!"
These days, my 9mm Parabellums do anything I really need, but if I ever do succumb and get a revolver, it will be a current 686+ with the 4.125 inch barrel. I find its seven round capacity, 39 oz. weight, and barrel length to be just the right compromises for an all-rounder gun. I am a heretic who actually likes the current rubber grips (I have my roots in the days when lots of us immediately replaced the wood grips on magnums, mostly with Pachmayrs). I'm also a doubleplusungood heretic who likes the appearance of the 4.125" tube, the newer curve of the frame below the hammer, doesn't care about the presence of the lock hole, and stopped listening to the MIM parts hysteria a long time ago.
But, that's just me. Your mileage can, and should, vary.
Back in my revolver days (civilian), I had two six-inch barrelled .357s - a Security Six briefly, and a fairly early 586, for longer. The 586 was very easy to shoot, and handled .357s in a very civilized manner. It also weighed 46 oz. unloaded, and was not that handy. I also had a Combat Magnum with a 2 1/2" barrel. Beautiful, but hard to handle with magnums. Every time I would handle someone's four-inch wheelgun, I would think: "Ooh! This hits the spot!"
These days, my 9mm Parabellums do anything I really need, but if I ever do succumb and get a revolver, it will be a current 686+ with the 4.125 inch barrel. I find its seven round capacity, 39 oz. weight, and barrel length to be just the right compromises for an all-rounder gun. I am a heretic who actually likes the current rubber grips (I have my roots in the days when lots of us immediately replaced the wood grips on magnums, mostly with Pachmayrs). I'm also a doubleplusungood heretic who likes the appearance of the 4.125" tube, the newer curve of the frame below the hammer, doesn't care about the presence of the lock hole, and stopped listening to the MIM parts hysteria a long time ago.
But, that's just me. Your mileage can, and should, vary.
SteveJewels
US Veteran
Your logic is flawless.
I strongly preferred the 6". That was until I actually handled a 4" that a friend of mine 'made' me buy. Now I like both.
OP, before you decide on a new model 586 or 686. I strongly recommend you seek out and handle one of the new 686-7 Mountain Guns.
bananaman
Member
4" keep the handgun handy
When you take this new 586/686 to the range will you mostly shoot single action or double? If its double get what's comfortable, if its single get the 6 inch. I shoot single 90% of the time so I have 2 6 inch 686s. One with stock sights and one with a red dot. Just my opinion from my experience
Lou_NC
Member
When you taking pictures for the internet a 4-in gun definitely looks cool, when you're standing at a shooting lane shooting 357 magnums you'll appreciate the extra weight and sight radius of the 6-in.
For carry, should the need ever arise, you also have shoulder holsters as an option which can easily handle a 6-in barrel. That's what I use for my 686 when deer hunting.
You can't go wrong with either a four or six inch barrel, but for your particular interests I would certainly consider the 6-in before making my decision.
Lou
For carry, should the need ever arise, you also have shoulder holsters as an option which can easily handle a 6-in barrel. That's what I use for my 686 when deer hunting.
You can't go wrong with either a four or six inch barrel, but for your particular interests I would certainly consider the 6-in before making my decision.
Lou
HOUSTON RICK
Member
As yu have already it is largely a matter of preference and what makes you feel safe. I would like the battleship Missouri around me in a gunfight, But I am only going to carry so much. particularly as I age. These days, I use my 586 and 686's mostly at the range. I have acquired proficiency and became comfortable carrying the Lightweight 5 shot Smith and Wesson revolvers as they are easy to carry and accurate up to the ranges my senior eyes allow.. Recommended for those who are old or going to be old. We are all different for me the best carry weapon is one that I am likely to have on me. If i "only were going to buy one revolver for everything". I would likely go with 4". One old man's two cents.
Attachments
I have a 2.5" 686 and still rarely carry it. I use it for home defense and occasionally carry it if I want that extra sense of security. Thankfully that is rarely required where I live.
If carry is at all in the cards, the 4" is the better choice for you. Though what I ended up doing is getting a smaller revolver specifically for EDC. In hindsight the 6" being a high velocity home defense specialist might have been the more prudent choice.
It's basically what you find that fits you best. Back in the Dark Ages, I owned a Dan Wesson with both the 6" and 4" barrels, also with Pachmayrs. Very accurate with either barrel. After shooting both barrels, I settled on the 4", length and haven't changed. through several revolvers. Think a 66 with 3" barrel would be nice, but they are waaay out of my price range, and the "new" 66 just doesn't appeal with either the 4"+ or 2 3/4" barrel. The new, no lock 19
really appeals, as does the 696 Mountain Gun, but...economic$. Owell...that's life!
Depends on how well you shoot.
My 586 is a 6 inch and my 28-2 is a 4 inch.
At 12 yards they are comparable. At 25 yards there might be variances. Alot depends on the shooter.
You' d be safe ,on average,with the 4 inch variant no doubt.
My 586 is a 6 inch and my 28-2 is a 4 inch.
At 12 yards they are comparable. At 25 yards there might be variances. Alot depends on the shooter.
You' d be safe ,on average,with the 4 inch variant no doubt.
This is an old thread but I have to put in my 2 cents. I have a 6" and I find it a tad nose heavy, but it's fine for range fun, which is why I got it. I'd consider optimum to be 4", maybe 5" if they made one. Certainly no less that 3"
challer61
Member
I have many 6" but recently have been shooting 4" models much more. If you ever plan to carry 3 or 4. Lots of lovely wood grips, I prefer Nils and have them on all my smiths.
I had a new 686+ with 3'' barrel. Took it to the range and shot both .38spl. and magnum loads. I only shot three cylinders of rounds and the cylinder wouldn't turn nor the hammer wouldn't cock or trigger wouldn't pull. What the hell so I sent it back to S&W and they sent it back saying nothing was wrong with it. Well I traded for a dream of mine a blue Dan Wesson 15-2 with a six inch barrel. I slowly purchased a 21/2, 4, and 8 inch barrels on eBay. My dream gun from the 70's was now a reality. Never could afford the pistol pack back then Oh well all good now. Thanks S&W forum.It's basically what you find that fits you best. Back in the Dark Ages, I owned a Dan Wesson with both the 6" and 4" barrels, also with Pachmayrs. Very accurate with either barrel. After shooting both barrels, I settled on the 4", length and haven't changed. through several revolvers. Think a 66 with 3" barrel would be nice, but they are waaay out of my price range, and the "new" 66 just doesn't appeal with either the 4"+ or 2 3/4" barrel. The new, no lock 19
Yendor357
Member
^Darn. Just when I had myself talked into going way out on a limb and buying a new 3 inch 686.
My six inch 686 shoots like each bullet has a laser guidance system built into it.
My 4 is almost as good. Plus it looks cooler. lol
My six inch 686 shoots like each bullet has a laser guidance system built into it.
My 4 is almost as good. Plus it looks cooler. lol
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,547
- Reaction score
- 865
I have 686+ revolvers in 4", 3", and a PC 2-5/8". IMO, 4" has the perfect balance, but the 3" easier for EDC. The 2-5/8" has a half-length extractor, which sometimes needs a firm whack. I have 6" barrels in other revolvers, but they're not my favorite. Too hard to carry and offer little accuracy and ballistics over a 4". If I need something with more reach in a pistol caliber, an M1872 lever gun in .357M is my first choice.
lppd4
Member
If I could only have 1 I think I would go with the 4". Easy solution is to get both maybe a 4" 686 and a 6" 586. Pre lock models of course
Similar threads
