S&W 500 3.5 PC vs 4"

[ShrinkMD]

I was perusing the out of stock offerings, and noticed that there are two different 500 snubbies, one with the compensator, the other without. I'm curious to hear from people who have shot either of these, and the pros and cons. I find cleaning the compensator on my 10.5" 500 irritating, and I really like the looks of the PC 3.5. This would be mostly for a range toy, possible woods carry.

 

[jack the toad]

I've not tried the 3.5 but have a 4" (wish was all rifled tube) and hope to acquire the John Ross (5" non comped) some day. I have the 2 comps that came with the 4" along with an aftermarket blank compensator which I prefer.
Pic previously posted.

 

[ruggyh]

While I am not a big fan of comps but they do change the recoil of the 500 and 460 noticeably, particularly as the barrel gets shorter.

Everyone's recoil tolerance is different. I would suggest shooting before buying.

 

[jack the toad]

I agree with Ruggy. If I were shooting the big heavy thumpers, comps aren't bad. 325, 350, 400, 440, 500 gr. slugs are mostly what I shoot. I hope to some day start loading my own. I've not shot without ear protection but have loaned to some hunting buds that have taken deer, hog and been along after a bear that would rather deal with recoil as muzzle blast especially using a comp.
ETA:
With or without comp, the 500 makes me appreciate the tamer grips.

 

[duman444]

Barrel length

Jack alludes to it above, wishing the entire 4" length was rifled.

With the actual barrel sans compensator 3 1/16 long and the barrel crown approximately 1/16 recessed, isn't this really a 3" barrel?

Why does the compensator count toward length?

I have shot the 700 grain T-Rex bullets out of this 4/3 barreled revolver and its definitely 2 handfuls.