3" vs 4" for range gun that I might want to carry some day

P

PeteCress

Inactive
Have not owned a gun since college days' ROTC pistol team a loooong time ago.

Shopping an S&W 686+, but not holding my breath until I find one.

Meanwhile, to while away the hours, I am obsessing over barrel length.

Intended use right now is range/social: grandson shoots, son-in-law shoots, family friend and her husband shoot...

But who knows? Maybe some day I will want to carry it. And, besides, smaller is generally more convenient.

OTOH, I would like at least the chance to outshoot the guy next to me once in a while.

I was set on 4" but:
  • At least one person whose post I have read opined that 4" was a bit long for carrying in/drawing from a belt holster.
  • Jerry Miculek won the IDPA Nationals Overall one year with a 3" barrel.

So: would I be foolish to go for a 3" 686+?
 
The 3" revolver is a cult object and there is no way to argue against it with cult members.

But I find the 4" easier to shoot well. There is no difference in the draw, just that a 4" barrel may bump seat cushions unless you have quite a high ride holster.

And if you buy a 4" you will have an excuse to buy another gun in the future.
 
I guess it really depends on how serious you are about carrying the L frame. If you really just want a range gun it's the top dog 3 or 4 inch.

I'm not pure of heart and soul enough to hang out here too long but my K and L frame revolvers are the upper limit of what I will carry concealed or try to conceal. They get "tiresome" and I move to a smaller revolver or automatic pistol. J frame or Glock 43 size... or I go without and that IS a bad idea.

Now all the haters will rip my choices as not "enough" gun, not serious about it, etc, etc...

But I think if don't hate carrying the gun, the smaller weapon goes all the time.

So if you are serious about carry - at least look at a smaller revolver. They are harder to shoot, but if you carry it more consistently at least it will be there when you need it.

I am not REQUIRED to carry a service size weapon and I don't. My choice good or bad. My theory of risk management.

If you are going with the 686+ the 3" is "the one".
 
Last edited:
Three-inch is the sweet spot for ease of carry and sight radius.
It roughly mimics the dimensions of a typical full size semi-auto.

C4-D13-AE1-59-B2-4-AFE-A1-BE-7-AD1-D1-AD70-CB.jpg
 
I have two seven-round 3" L frame revolvers and they shoot so well I sold my 4" 686 SSR to a buddy.
Regardless of which you buy, they are heavy to carry so invest in a great reinforced belt to support the load and I mean do not be afraid to pay over $100 for that belt. You will thank me later.
3-357.jpg
 
I don't see carrying even a 2" or 2.5" 686 being that comfortable.

By resale, current available, the 3" is less desired.

I just bought a 4" + yesterday. It was the first one I've seen online in a whole year of searching every day.

The 3" + has been around almost everyday of that searching.
 
gnystrom said:
I have two seven-round 3" L frame revolvers and they shoot so well I sold my 4" 686 SSR to a buddy.
Regardless of which you buy, they are heavy to carry so invest in a great reinforced belt to support the load and I mean do not be afraid to pay over $100 for that belt. You will thank me later.
3-357.jpg
Click to expand...
Nice holster - name and make?
 
I'll throw my 2￠ in.

Having quite a few revolvers myself and thinking about the parameters you've described, I don't think I would get a 686. A tad big, but that's just me. Based on what you've said, I would absolutely go with a 3". If I were buying new, I would take a really good look at a 3" K6s DA/SA revolver made by Kimber. Smaller, 6 shots, great trigger,....certainly lots of options out there, but I doubt you'd be disappointed with that particular one.

Have fun, stay safe!
 
re/"For what you want to do the smaller framed, lighter 66 would be a better pick."

Does five ounces (33.5 vs 38.5) make that much of a diff?

I am definately open to alternatives - was drawn to the L-Frame SS because I hoped the mass would mitigate the recoil.

I also have fairly large hands - as in XXXL or XXXXL glove size.

Going up to see my-grandson-the-amateur-arms-dealer on Sunday to heft one of his 686s... and I have been fooling around with plastic bottle filled to 38.5 ounces.

But I do worry that a gun might be a bit like a bed - you never know until you've spent a night in one
 
Last edited:
For carry, 3" all the way. For accuracy, 4" all the way.

Personally, I feel that 3" offers best of both worlds in that it's still accurate and easy to carry.
 
I love my 3” SP101 for carry, but find my brothers 4” a better target gun.

If you are planning for the majority of its use as a range toy, would go 4”.
 
I used to carry a full size 1911 Springfield for 25 years or more and than I saw the Smith And Wesson 686+ with the 3" barrel from performance center and decided to switch to a wheel gun. Couple of facts you should know are the following:

A full size 1911 with a 5" barrel will have and over all length of 8.6" to 8.7" depending on manufacturer. The Smith And Wesson with the 3" barrel has an over all length of 8.25" and with the 4" barrel will measure 9.56 over all length.

The revolvers respectively will weigh 37.4 oz and 39 oz. The 1911 full size from S&W will weigh 40.5 oz and from Springfield will weigh 43 oz.

Of all the revolvers that S&W make the one to buy in my opinion are 686 models because they have the smoothest and lightest double action trigger at 10 pounds. The 4" is on my bucket list and it balances well. I have the 617 4" 22lr to practice double action shooting before switching to my carry gun.

For me the only con if any would be recoil with full loads which I use. I can shoot about a box of ammo before I need to put on a glove because it stings.
 
Last edited:
An extra inch of barrel (comparing 3" to 4"), isn't that much harder to conceal in a proper holster, either OWB or IWB and a good shirt. The GRIPS are what draw attention via a bulge. High and tight is good. My 4" 586 is pretty comfortable, but been carrying a Glock 20 10mm since I got it. Almost time to rotate back.

That being said, those 3" 686's are one of the slickest looking revolvers I have ever seen! Absolutely Beautiful!
 
Last edited:
I urge you to consider a 3 inch SP101 with hogue grips for carry use.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/mgm-conten...202_01_ruger_sp101_3_inch_357_excelle_640.jpg

The 686 is a much larger gun with wider cylinder. If you must have 6 shots go with the 327 Federal. It's a screamer however! You will probably prefer 38+P LSWCHP in a short SD revolver for the balance of power and blast.

Really a 4 or 6 inch GP100 and a 3 inch SP101 pair would be good choices for range and CCW.

A CZ P01 in 9mm would be good for both uses. Aluminum frame, low bore axis, very accurate, compact, reliable. Decock feature for simple operation under stress. More powerful than 38, less powerful than 357 mag with cheapest ammo in normal market conditions. But you asked for revolver and not best double duty gun......
 
In my opinion, the only *practical* benefit of the longer barrel *for your stated purpose* is increased sight radius. That can be easily compensated for with practice/experience.

On the other hand, the larger option will be less convenient to carry, unless you're going for the open/wild-west look.
 
PeteCress said:
re/"For what you want to do the smaller framed, lighter 66 would be a better pick."

Does five ounces (33.5 vs 38.5) make that much of a diff?

I am definately open to alternatives - was drawn to the L-Frame SS because I hoped the mass would mitigate the recoil.

I also have fairly large hands - as in XXXL or XXXXL glove size.

Going up to see my-grandson-the-amateur-arms-dealer on Sunday to heft one of his 686s... and I have been fooling around with plastic bottle filled to 38.5 ounces.

But I do worry that a gun might be a bit like a bed - you never know until you've spent a night in one
Click to expand...
Ounces do matter no matter if a revolver or pistol. Especially if carrying all day long and every day. Each step you take has a certain amount of force going down on one side of he body. And you can really feel the extra weight. It is my opinion that the human skeletal systems needs as much perfect alignment as possible. Each step is accumulative over time. Until the point that something breaks down, and a slipped disc is no fun.
Personally I will not carry any firearm for EDC that weighs over 20 oz unloaded and prefer light weight gun to carry than that. I also am totally content with a 2" Snubbie. Yes the learning curve might be a little longer, but easily over come with diligent practice. Besides, I do not target shoot my firearms. Concealment is better, and enjoy the simplicity of use and ease of light carry. Besides they are fun as hell to shoot!
Just one EDC owner to another Each to his own.
 
Last edited:
Although I have a 3" S&W model 13 and it balances and shoots superbly, I have others in the 2" to 3" range. I like anything from 2" to 3" on a carry snubby.

I placed 3rd in the late 1980's at the Texas PPC championship duty gun match with a 2 1/2" 686. Like a fool I sold that lil beast years later.

The 3' 686 has always been a great revolver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top