Hi, new to the forum here. I have a question about SW revolvers specifically the 686. What is your preference for barrel length? I think I might get one in the future. Is the 4" ideal because easier to carry with more holster options? Is the 6" easier to get better groups because of the longer site radius? I'd want the versatility of target shooting and ability to carry.
686 3, 4, or 6" barrel length
- Thread starter wbblazer
- Start date
Depends on what I would be doing with said gun. I have three 686's. I have a 4" that I carried early on in my LEO career (1990's), I have a 6" I carry in an "Alaska" rig when deer hunting (though sometimes I carry the 4" for that as well), and I have a 2.5 inch for fun and giggles when it belches flame...........
I shoot the 4" as accurately as the 6". I got the 6" for the bit of extra velocity and bit of extra weight when shooting heavy magnum loads used when I hunt.
Have one of those in 6" too. Good gun. Better DA trigger on the Smith IMHO, but, make your choice on what best suits your hands, and your needs.
I shoot the 4" as accurately as the 6". I got the 6" for the bit of extra velocity and bit of extra weight when shooting heavy magnum loads used when I hunt.
Have one of those in 6" too. Good gun. Better DA trigger on the Smith IMHO, but, make your choice on what best suits your hands, and your needs.
Last edited:
NoSecondBest
New member
Having owned several 686s and 586 (blued version), for me it's 6" all the way. The only use I'd have for anything shorter would be a 4" for duty work. I wouldn't even consider anything shorter. You don't need a 686 for a snub nose revolver, there's other better choices.
Hi. Barrel length is a 100% personal preference thing. I find a 4" balances better. Mind you, carrying and target shooting are very different things that have different requirements. Barrel length isn't one of 'em though. Shot league bullseye with my 4" GP and a 4" Smith M19 before that for eons.
Anyway, a 6" M686 weighs 44.9 oz and is almost a foot long. Vs the 39.7 oz and 9.5" length of a 4" 686. Doesn't sound like much difference but it is. More about the length but you'd need a different belt to lug 44.9 ounces around and it'll feel like a lot more at 5 PM than it did at 8 AM.
In any case, a handgun must fit your hand properly in order to shoot it well. Go try a 4" and a 6" on for size first. Don't get married to the Smith either try a Ruger GP too.
Anyway, a 6" M686 weighs 44.9 oz and is almost a foot long. Vs the 39.7 oz and 9.5" length of a 4" 686. Doesn't sound like much difference but it is. More about the length but you'd need a different belt to lug 44.9 ounces around and it'll feel like a lot more at 5 PM than it did at 8 AM.
In any case, a handgun must fit your hand properly in order to shoot it well. Go try a 4" and a 6" on for size first. Don't get married to the Smith either try a Ruger GP too.
Stargater53
New member
In my view, the 4-inch 686 is the ideal choice, especially if you can find an early model. Yes, the 6-inch model packs more power and has better potential for long distance accuracy, but a 4-inch is no slouch.
The 686 and the Ruger GP-100 are great range guns...very accurate. I'm not fond of the steel underlugs on the barrel and wish the manufacturers would offer slender barrels to reduce the weight for those who carry them more than shoot them. Hunters, hikers, campers and other outdoorsmen who measure what they carry in ounces certainly don't appreciate the e extra weight where there doesn't have to be weight.
Pictured above is the 686 with the discontinued Ruger Security-Six. In my view the Security-Six is a better gun than the GP-100. It's not front-heavy and is a perfect trail, camping and hunting gun.
S&W also has breathed new life into its Model 66. I'd take a good look at it before buying the 686. If you want a range gun and don't mind the weight, try the 6-inch 686. It's an outstanding gun with remarkable accuracy.
As you can see, there's lots of steel weighing down an otherwise great gun.
The 686 and the Ruger GP-100 are great range guns...very accurate. I'm not fond of the steel underlugs on the barrel and wish the manufacturers would offer slender barrels to reduce the weight for those who carry them more than shoot them. Hunters, hikers, campers and other outdoorsmen who measure what they carry in ounces certainly don't appreciate the e extra weight where there doesn't have to be weight.
Pictured above is the 686 with the discontinued Ruger Security-Six. In my view the Security-Six is a better gun than the GP-100. It's not front-heavy and is a perfect trail, camping and hunting gun.
S&W also has breathed new life into its Model 66. I'd take a good look at it before buying the 686. If you want a range gun and don't mind the weight, try the 6-inch 686. It's an outstanding gun with remarkable accuracy.
As you can see, there's lots of steel weighing down an otherwise great gun.
dontcatchmany
New member
I had the 6", but found that it sat in the safe and was never used....for about 5 years.
I finally traded it for another weapon and actually turned a major profit.
However, I still have some .357 and 38 spcl ammo (both 158 grain) that was fantastic for the 686 but has a wallop with my Ruger SP101 2 1/4 inch barrel (purchased many years ago and my first handgun).
I am glad I made the trade, but learned that I will never again get rid of a weapon unless it just ain't performing.
Wish I had the 686 back (lesson learned) but since I paid 250.00 for it used and traded for about 600.00 bucks I can not complain. Just never used the 686.
I finally traded it for another weapon and actually turned a major profit.
However, I still have some .357 and 38 spcl ammo (both 158 grain) that was fantastic for the 686 but has a wallop with my Ruger SP101 2 1/4 inch barrel (purchased many years ago and my first handgun).
I am glad I made the trade, but learned that I will never again get rid of a weapon unless it just ain't performing.
Wish I had the 686 back (lesson learned) but since I paid 250.00 for it used and traded for about 600.00 bucks I can not complain. Just never used the 686.
Stargater53
New member
Yeah, the saddest cases are folks who sell their guns for money. Once the cash is gone, they wish they had the guns back! It's a mistake of the young.
Here's a S&W 60 I almost sold when I needed
money. Thankfully, I didn't sell it!
Here's a S&W 60 I almost sold when I needed
money. Thankfully, I didn't sell it!
RIDE-RED 350r
New member
Yes, that is a descent deal on the new 686...
I have to agree with others... 4" will be more versatile so I would get that one first. If you still want the 6", get it later down the line..
I owned a 6" 686, first S&W I ever owned, bought it new in Nov of 2010 (for $719+tax). It was a great piece, accurate, attractive and I carried it in the woods frequently using either a sturdy belt holster or shoulder rig.
Not too long after I picked up a nice old model 19-3 with a 4"bbl. I found that when I was carrying for general purpose (not hunting) I took the 19 out of the safe and left the 686 most times. Point being, once you carry a 4" wheelgun a bit, the 6" will lose some appeal, at least for general purpose carry..
I did end up trading the 686 in on something I wanted more. It was/is still a bittersweet choice. I miss it.... I currently do not own an L-frame, but plan to get another 686 in the future... I may even go with the 6" again as I have my m19 for carry. IDK, I'll make that decision when the time comes... My brother has a 4" that I have fired more than a few times and I really like it, so I could just as easily go that route too...
My advice: If you narrow it down to a 686 over other brands/models, get the 4".
I have to agree with others... 4" will be more versatile so I would get that one first. If you still want the 6", get it later down the line..
I owned a 6" 686, first S&W I ever owned, bought it new in Nov of 2010 (for $719+tax). It was a great piece, accurate, attractive and I carried it in the woods frequently using either a sturdy belt holster or shoulder rig.
Not too long after I picked up a nice old model 19-3 with a 4"bbl. I found that when I was carrying for general purpose (not hunting) I took the 19 out of the safe and left the 686 most times. Point being, once you carry a 4" wheelgun a bit, the 6" will lose some appeal, at least for general purpose carry..
I did end up trading the 686 in on something I wanted more. It was/is still a bittersweet choice. I miss it.... I currently do not own an L-frame, but plan to get another 686 in the future... I may even go with the 6" again as I have my m19 for carry. IDK, I'll make that decision when the time comes... My brother has a 4" that I have fired more than a few times and I really like it, so I could just as easily go that route too...
My advice: If you narrow it down to a 686 over other brands/models, get the 4".
Stargater53
New member
I like the 4-inch for camping, hiking and cross country, but I still remember the first 6-inch Security-Six I bought. It really impressed me on how light and easy to point and manage it was.
Different barrel lengths excel at different uses. A six inch would be better for handgun hunting and target shooting. A four inch would be better for duty or carry. Therefore, you should not look at it from the perspective of, "which is better", but from the perspective of what you are going to use it for. Target use (if you mean formal target shooting as opposed to informal practice) and carry are not likely to be best served by the same barrel length...you had better buy one of each.
CosmicCoder
New member
My son has a 686+ 6" and I have a 686+ 4". We both agree that the 4" is much better balanced.
Model12Win
Moderator
If we're talking full lug barrels, 4" all the way.
If half lug barrels, it get trickier. As someone else mentioned, a well done 6" bbl like that found on the Ruger Six series guns are wonderful. But 6" full lug bbls are just too heavy IMHO.
If half lug barrels, it get trickier. As someone else mentioned, a well done 6" bbl like that found on the Ruger Six series guns are wonderful. But 6" full lug bbls are just too heavy IMHO.
riverrat38
New member
Check out what this guy has to say about the subject before you buy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn2XX81_kPU
Best,
Rick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn2XX81_kPU
Best,
Rick
I have the 6" barrel model and I am/was very accurate with it at 25 yds. when I could see that far . We had a company supported bullseye pistol league years ago .
The 6" worked for me , but the best shot in the league shot a 4" model 15 , with a hair trigger . There were a few shooting 4" guns that could out shoot me . Mine was bone stock ( excuse haha ) .
If you are going to use a hip holster I would get the 4" for sure . I carry my Redhawk in a Chest Rig ( Guides Choice ) and using that , it would not matter if it was a 4" or 6" barrel .
I would still buy my 6" barrel again over the 4" , but that is a personal choice . You will not go wrong with either length barrel . For a beginner , they will probably be more accurate with a 6" barrel , because of the longer sight radius .
The 6" worked for me , but the best shot in the league shot a 4" model 15 , with a hair trigger . There were a few shooting 4" guns that could out shoot me . Mine was bone stock ( excuse haha ) .
If you are going to use a hip holster I would get the 4" for sure . I carry my Redhawk in a Chest Rig ( Guides Choice ) and using that , it would not matter if it was a 4" or 6" barrel .
I would still buy my 6" barrel again over the 4" , but that is a personal choice . You will not go wrong with either length barrel . For a beginner , they will probably be more accurate with a 6" barrel , because of the longer sight radius .