accuracy difference between 4in and 6in

B

Brando1992

New member
For just a range toy I am really interested int he 686+ i know the 4in is considered one of the most versatile revolvers but are you sacrificing some accuracy with it? i know with velocity and sight radius its technically more accurate but would you ever notice any difference at all?
 
From what I have gathered the experts have concluded there is no advantage in accuracy of the 6 inch barrel over the 4 inch barrel. But the longer barrel will allow some loads to achieve a slightly greater muzzle velocity than the 4 inch barrel will.
 
The gun should be just as accurate whether it's 4 or 6 inches. The difference depends on your eye sight/shooting abilities. I find it easier to shoot longer barreled guns and prefer them over short barrels unless its a carry gun.

I don't think their is anyway to quantify the difference you will experience between the 2. Ideally you could try both and see what you prefer.
 
Accuracy is you not the length of barrel . I had a patrol supervisor at 50' range would cut a ragged hole with a snub 357. The bullet goes where you point the barrel
 
Some find that the balance of the 6" gun negates the benefit of the longer sight radius. IOW, the 6" 686 feels muzzle heavy to them, and they tend to be less stable with it.

Technically, if you align your sights well, and have good trigger control, the 2 extra inches shouldn't matter much.

BTW, speedloader availability favors the standard 6-shot 686. And if you ever get the itch to shoot match with it (many do, though they swear up front they won't), the 7-shot 686+ is a poor choice.
 
DaleA said:
Not disputing you, just wondering why?
Click to expand...

It has to do with equipment rules and courses of fire.

A 686 is most at home in IDPA, where revolvers are limited loading 6 rounds in the gun (and 4.25" barrels). You can use a 7-shot, but you'd have to index the cylinder everytime you reloaded, and you'll likely be reloading with a twist-type speedloader (e.g. HKS), which tends to be slower than the push-type (e.g. Safariland).

In USPSA, each target typically requires 2 rounds, so to be able to do moving reloads (a big time-saver) with a 7-shot, you'd either dump the 7th round on the ground (becoming essentially a 6-shot revolver) or take the extra time to shoot an extra round on every cylinder. Either way, you'll be doing extra reloads compared to the 8-shot shooters. Those who do shoot 6-shooters in USPSA typically run moonclipped .45acp revolvers so they can run more powerful ammo, which gives them a bit of a scoring advantage. "Major power factor" from a 686 would be quite snappy, and the recoil would slow you down and become quite unpleasant to boot.

ICORE Classic requires a 6-shot gun. A 686+ would put you into the Limited division, where everyone else will be running moon-clipped 6- and 8-shot revolvers, so you're at many of the same disadvantage as shooting in USPSA.

I suppose you could competitively use a 686+ in some target games such as Steel Challenge, Bullseye (centerfire portion and Distinguished Revolver), but IDPA and USPSA seem to be the most commonly-held and available handgun competition for most.

All this may seem off-topic, but I've seen it numerous times where someone asks if they can use their 686+ for gun games. It's a bummer to tell them that while they can, that extra round is a big handicap. For this reason (and for speedloader availability), I happen to think the 6-shot is the more versatile variant. If someone wants more than a 6-shot capacity in a revolver, I'd strongly recommend stepping up to the 8-shot.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a 686 but I do have K frames in 4", 5" and 6". While the longer barrels do give a longer sight radius . . . I really don't see much difference between the three barrel lengths. Of them all, my favorite is the 5". It holster carries well and shoots great and I just seem to always grab that one for at the range.
 
Agree with Mr Borland.
I made the mistake of buying a 686+ seven shooter and found it had little application. I could not get a good price or trade for it, so I paid S&W $$ for a 6 shot cylinder and hand and had the barrel shortened. It is now a good IDPA REV-S.

A 4" barrel is best for IDPA (4.25" maximum to let Canadians shoot) and ok for carry if you don't mind the weight.

Serious target shooters in USPSA, ICORE, and NRA use 6" guns. The sight radius is the major factor. If it feels muzzle heavy, you need more exercise and practice.
 
Getting back to the original question (which wasn't about competition shooting), there is no difference in accuracy as far as the gun goes. However, there may be a bit of difference in how well you can shoot it accurately. The longer barrel will give you a bit longer sight radius and this generally allows for better target shooting. Just remember, there's two parts to this: How accurate is the gun and how accurately can you shoot it. Two different things.
 
I can't say it any better than Mr Borland, even shooting off bags @100 yards I see dang little difference between my 4" and 6" guns.
 
The sights themselves can make more of a difference than how far apart they are.
Click to expand...

Completely true. For precision shooting, the most accurate sights are black front and rear. Fiber optics look cool, and work marginally well for deer sized game at close distances, but fail miserably at longer distances. Outside of using a red dot or scope, nothing beats a set of "blackened" sights on a handgun for precision shooting. When someone tells you they can shoot either type equally well, that simply means they can't shoot either very well.
 
Black sight on white target with a black bull is easiest to see.

Try others and compare.

pistol or rifle, if it's a post front Flat black makes it standout and defines the edges. Anything shiny creates glare. A gold post is fine for other situations.
l cannot see a red ramp, my dad even had his replaced with black on his Smith 624.

Try it and please teport back.

David
 
Black sights, front and rear, with a thin front and wide notch rear, allowing plenty of light around the front one.
Works best for me, for both precision and action shots.
 
I prefer black front sights over fiber optics. In limited situations the fiber optic might be able to pick up more light and make it slightly more visible but for 98% of applications it seems more like a sales gimmick than anything else.

I find a black rear and black Patridge front sight work best for any shooting at the range.
 
Long range handgunners sometimes use a carbide smoker to darken the sights so there is no reflectivity what so ever. If your eyes are good, the sights are then very sharp and clear. Fiber optic sights cause a "halo" effect due to the amount of light they gather. This "halo" effect actually causes the sights to be less clear when positioned to the target being addressed. Long range shooters sometimes use a Merit aperture to reduce this halo effect and allow a more precise and consistent sight picture. Combined, a Merit aperture and blackened sights are remarkably precise. The very best silhouette shooters would use both. It's unbelievable how accurately a handgun can be shot at long range using these sights. This would never be possible using fiber optic sights, or even unblackened sights.
 
I have never been able to use fire sights front and rear to any satisfaction. I have however used the front only along with white outlined or plain black notched rear. Also a v shaped rear with a white stripe. With any sight it's important to be sure that your sighting plane is proud to the backside of it. Ive had many sights come from the factory that when you lower the rear sight the front edge of the blade top is higher than the rear edge and light just reflects off it causing a haze.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top