Size feedback on SW revolvers

D

deadcoyote

New member
Currently the only gun I have on my ccw is a S&W 642. I also own a glock 23 and 24, just have a little surplus money and considering buying A larger revolver to add. I was intrigued by the model 69 2.75" that just came out. It is supposed to weigh 37 oz and be a 5 shot 44. This made me consider the 686 plus 3", which also weighs 37 oz but is 7 rounds of .357. I looked up the 629 3" and saw it weighs only marginally more at 39 oz. if I was going to buy a 69 is it really that much worse to buy the 629 and pick up an extra round and 2 oz??
 
Last edited:
Im very interested in the model 66 with the short barrel. Where can i find info on that? A quick search turned nothing up.
 
So, the 69 has been a fine gun for me. I enjoyed shooting it and it was "just right" for 44 specials. A friend of mine HAD to have it, and I have toooooo many 44 mags so it left the building.

This gun in a 2 3/4 is very, very interesting... I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
 
On the topic of my question, is the N frame drastically larger than the L frame? It seems like they weigh almost the same, just trying to figure out which would be better for occasional carry when I am chopping wood etc. I don't want you guys to blast me but saw some Rossi ranch hands on sale for $380 and that piqued my interest as well.
 
The difference between an L frame and N frame is noticeable but I wouldn't call it drastic. I would more or less levy that assessment to a comparison between a K and N frame.
 
I've lived a sheltered life in the world of revolvers. I don't know if it's just
Because we live so rural but I've shot a lot of K and N frames but never crossed paths with an L frame.
 
I have a Model 686-1 with a 4" barrel and a Model 25 Mountain Gun with the 4" barrel. The N size Mountain Gun is actually 1/4 ounce lighter than the L size 686 when they are both unloaded. When loaded the .45 Colt Mountain Gun is 1/4 ounce heavier.

I am unable to tell the difference in dimensional size between the two. Grips can make a difference. Both of these revolvers have the original stock grip and the Magna Grips on the 686 are larger than the Ahrend Cocobolo grips on the Mountain Gun.
 
If choice between a 686 and .45 Colt Mountain Gun and only 1/4 oz difference, I surely would pick the Mountain gun!

Course I have two .44 magnum 629 Mountain Guns already..... and I have L frames as well as K and J frames.

Yea, get the .45 Colt Mountain Gun.

Deaf
 
I own both a 3" 686+ and a 3" 629. For light activities, carried IWB, the only thing you really notice is the 629 is chubbier, digging into your side a bit more.

Where you will begin to feel it is on a long strenuous hike - again, the width more than the weight.

I love both though, I won't ever part with either. Both guns wear Ahrends round butt boot grips.


3" 686+:





3" 629:


 
For many people, the important difference between L frames and N frames is how they feel in the hand. The N frame has a bit longer trigger reach. Because of the different dimensions, many people find that one size fits them better than the other. Of course, the grips also have a big effect on how the guns feel, but the overall size still matters.

I have small hands, and an N frame is never quite right for me in double action. I know other people who think that the N frame is the perfect size. And of course, there are people who find that they both fit equally well.

If you are considering these guns, you should try to find the opportunity to handle both sizes side by side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top