[chaim]

As some may have noticed I absolutely love the 3" K-frame "snub". It is very handy, the shorter barrel means a few oz. off the weight, it should be easier to conceal than the standard 4", yet with the 3" barrel you have a decent sight radius and you don't lose that much in velocity.

Well, unfortunately, while not impossible to find, they are more rare than I'd like. The 2 1/2" K or L frames seem much easier to find. So, to enlarge my potential options I was thinking...What do you lose with the 1/2" shorter barrel?

I would assume all the plusses due to the shorter size of the 3" are there but even more so. It should be even handier, it is about 1 1/2-2 oz lighter, I would assume it would be a little more comfortable in a IWB holster. Well, how is the sight radius? I know the 2" J-frames have a rep for being tough to learn (and I found I wasn't nearly as good w/ my Taurus 605 as I am with my S&W 65LS), does either the larger frame (which I would assume adds a little to the distance from the rear to front sight) or the 1/2" of barrel, or both together make a big difference v. a 2" J-frame? How about velocity loss? The shorter the barrel the slower the bullet will be. Anyone know the difference between the 2 1/2" v. the 3" in similar revolvers. I don't mean the "standard" formulas people use, which seem to be usually 100fps/inch though I've also heard others, I mean does anyone have a 3" K-frame and a 2 1/2" (or have access to them) who has actually checked (or know of a report along those lines)?

I would prefer the 3". Heck, even just cosmetically I think it looks more balanced. However, if the 2 1/2" K-frame is going to perform similarly and be about as easy to use (sight radius) then I may as well add them to the "try to pick up at a good price" list. Heck, I'm looking for either a .38 or .357 in either blue or stainless for a base gun for modifications to be my carry gun when I get to a CCW state in order to keep my options open so I can get the best overall deal. If the 2 1/2" is close I may as well add it to the list. The more options the more likely I am to find a better deal (I want one in a decent combination of condition and price and the less rare what I'm looking for the better).

[Walosi]

I have both the 2 1/2 M66 and 686. I lusted after the CS model 3" 686 for a time, but after two near misses I gave up and went for the 2 1/2. I like the L frame a bit more for shooting, and the slightly lighter K or packing (decisions, decisions :p). Overall, the L goes out more often because shooting is what it is all about, and if a little discomfort = better shooting, so be it. The velocity loss in the 1/2" difference doesn't worry me. Velocity differences between individual revolvers can be greater than the "fps per inch" averages, so a good 140 gr.to 158 gr. load should make up for any loss, real or imaginary. The only possible shortcoming is the shorter ejector rod, and I've never had any problem with them. Like the sight radius, it is something to be learned, but it doesn't take long, and practice is fun.

[Nightcrawler]

I believe Ruger makes a 3" GP100 with fixed sights and smaller grips. Not exactly what you were looking for, but it is about the same size as an L-Frame.

[Nightcrawler]

Yes, they do. Check it out. (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=1716&return=Y)

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/images/Products/51L.gif

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/images/Products/127L.gif

[JPM70535]

I have owned a S&W model 66 2 1/2" for almost 20 years. It was my off duty gun until my agency allowed semi-autos to be carried. The qualification course was the same as for primary weapons, which were 4" 357 revolvers by either S&W or Colt. Course of fire was from 7 to 50 yards, with a total of 24 rounds fired at 50 yds.

I never noticed any apparent difference in score between ny 4" 66 and my 2 1/2". Most of us who carrie the same combination experienced the same thing. The 3" should be just as capable, maybe more so. I really can't see why it shouldn't group almost to the same POA as the 4" as my 2 1/2 only had to be held about 2" high at 50 yds. to hit the ten ring.

Whichever one you choose I think you will be well satisfied.


FIRST RULE OF GUNFIGHTING, HAVE A GUN!!!

SECOND RULE OF GUNFIGHTING, HAVE TWO GUNS!!!

[Mike Irwin]

I have a 2.5" Model 19.

You lose absolutely nothing in giving up a half inch.

[Blueduck]

I fairly recently replaced my 3" 65 with a 2 1/2" 19 for carry. I shoot a bit better with the 19 even with the shorter sight radius because of the better sights I believe.

I suppose I'd say the 3" gun did balance a little better but frankly I like the looks of the 2 1/2" gun especially since it's blued-very business like.

Only "downside" I found was that I had gotten a bit lazy in techique on expending spent shells. You can get away with being a bit sloppier with the full length ejector rod of the 3" gun than you can the shorter gun. Of course if you turn the gun upside down and give a fairly stiff whack to the rod of the shorter gun the way your supposed to you'll never notice it anyway.

Still had I run across one of the rare 3" M-19's when I was looking for a replacement...3" k-frames do seem to balance so nice.....

Lotta help aint I;)

[DennisE]

I was going to get a S&W 3" F-Comp but ended up buy in a 2.5" Model 66 instead. If you get one with a Milt Sparks IWB Versa Max2 holster, you should be a happy, well armed camper. Dennis

[MR.G]

I have the 2-1/2" model 686 seven shot. Have learned to shoot it well. Sight radious took some getting used to. Also have the 686 seven shot in the 3" barrel. 1999 manufacture with the round butt. Only made about 500 of them. Can't comment about the way that it shoots, because I have never shot it. It does look nice, and the guy that I bought it from had fired it about 100 rounds and said it shot great. Would sell the 3" 686 plus to you, if you were in Florida.

[chaim]

Would sell the 3" 686 plus to you, if you were in Florida. Well, MR.G, one of the schools I'm applying to is in southern Georgia and if I go there I will be living in either Tallahasee or Jacksonville. Hmmm, if that happens I may see if the offer still stands.

[chaim]

Oh, for the performance question I had I found something that helped. In a 2 year old gun mag I had laying around I noticed a test of all the "new" Scandium revolvers from S&W. They did both the 386 Mountain Lite (3.2" L-frame in Scandium) and 386PD (2.5" L-frame in Scandium). There was only a 18-32 fps difference in the averages of the different brands/loads they used in the two different barrel lengths (though the standard deviations in the same loads usually showed a larger spread of velocities in the 2.5"). The 386 Mountian Lite has .2" more barrel than the 3" revolvers I love so I am guessing, that generally the difference between a 2 1/2" and 3" will be even a little smaller. So it doesn't appear that I should expect a major performance difference and with either barrel length using either .357mag or +Ps with a quality hollowpoint I should see expansion.

Anyone know if I can expect the K-frames to have a similar, basically insignificant, difference between the two lengths.

Anyway, I still would prefer the 3" since I like its looks better and I feel it handles better. But based on this article and the feedback here I guess I shouldn't shy away from a nice 2 1/2" if I see one (though I guess once I got it I'd have to be sure that I could eject smoothly and confidently enough with it before I'd use it for any defensive purposes).

[mikey357]

Well, I've got what I think are three relevant points to offer here...First, and it may just be me, but I absolutely DETEST the not-quite-long-enough ejector stroke of the two-and-a-half inch barreled Smiths...MUCH PREFER the "Full-length" ejection of the three-inch guns...
Secondly, when I still had a two-and-a-half inch 66, I found that, due to the short sight radius, the sight picture was WAY too "Tight" for my liking...that is, there was not nearly enough "Daylight" on either side of the front sight blade when the sights were aligned...narrowing the front sight to about .100 inch fixed that...
Lastly, I don't believe that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in velocity between the two barrel lengths...I think that you'd see enough variation between "Identical" sample of the SAME barrel length that it would be impossible to quantify the difference that losing one-half inch of barrel length would make...MY two cents' worth, anyway....mikey357

[Mike Irwin]

Regarding the short ejector rod on the 2.5" models...

I've never had a case stick in my Model 19 to the point where the extra half inch would have made any difference to speed ejection at all.

I use the "gravity assisted" method -- muzzle pointing up, with the palm of the hand firmly applied to the end of the ejector rod.

Do this SMARTLY. More than once I've come away from competitions with my palm bruised and bleeding from operating the ejector rod. Older Smiths are nice in that sense, the ones that have the mushroom-shaped head on the end of the rod.

Keeping the muzzle pointing up also helps keep unburned powder from getting under the extractor star, and also helps keep a case head from slipping under the star.

[mikey357]

...let's see...you can get an extra half-inch of barrel, sight radius AND extractor rod, OR...beat the meat of your hand--wait, that's NOT what I meant to say--beat the PALM of your hand BLOODY...hhmmm...I'M NOT into THAT MUCH PAIN...BTW, I DO KNOW the "Proper Technique"...but, as I said, I DETEST the short ejection stroke of the two-and-a-half inch Smiths, and PREFER the three-inch--or longer--barrels on MY GUNS...guess that's why they makes Fords and they makes Chevrolets....mikey357

[oscar]

I have a snub nickel 19 and a 3 inch 13. There just isn't much comparison. The 13 balances totally different. I may shoot the 19 better because of the sights, but the 13 does well also.

[Frenchy]

The 686-5 Snubby is my duty piece...Love it!

[ACP]

Chaim, you've got a lot of good input here. I've got a model 19 2.5" and a 686 4" (and a 642). Never owned one of those 3" K-frames but my friend behind the counter at the local shop carries a Model 65 (3" HB) and swears by it. Keep this in mind: the difference is not only sight radius, velocity, and balance, but FIXED versus ADJUSTABLE sights. Will you be more accurate with adjustables? Will losing that 1/2" sight radius affect your aim? YMMV. Personally I'd stay with the Model 65 for carry. Get a 19 snubnose for your collection if you desire as they are getting scare (at least the early models are, or so it seems to me). Good Luck. ACP.

[Mike Irwin]

Mikey357,

The ejection method that I describe is NOT just for the short-barreled guns.

If you baby the ejection procedure, you can end up with a rim skipping under the ejector star.

Then you do have an annoying situation on your hands.

Or in a self-defense situation, a potentially fatal one.

Smartly rapping the ejector rod to clear the brass from the cylinder is no different than smartly rapping the base of a magazine to ensure that it's seated correctly in a semi-auto handgun.

[mikey357]

Mike Irwin, I AGREE about the CORRECT way to "Speed-eject", IF the revo is being used in a "Serious" situation...THAT having been said, the ONLY revolvers I have EVER had "trap" an empty under the extractor star were S&W K-frames...and , in my LIMITED experience--only been shootin' S&W's since 1974 or so--the "short-barreled" ones are the MOST likely to do it--trap an empty under the "star"--so, for THAT reason, AS WELL AS the others that I mentioned, I AVOID the K-frame guns that have LESS THAN full-length extraction...kinda' like I don't put the plugged-in boombox next to the bathtub when I'm bathing...you get the idea....mikey357

[Mike Irwin]

(THIS is GOING to BE fun...)

YES the K-FRAME revolvers WILL trap CASES under THE ejector STARS, but THEY are BY no MEANS the ONLY ones TO do SO. babying THE cases OUT of THE cylinder CAN result IN a TRAPPED case WITH any OF s&w's REVOLVERS.

the ONE advantage THAT the FULL stroke EJECTOR rods DO have OVER the SHORTER rods IS that IF you DO get A case TRAPPED, the EXTRA length GIVES you A little MORE room IN which TO clear THE jam.

TO my WAY of THINGING, the ONLY reason FOR the SNUBBY revolvers IS for POSSIBLY serious WORK. as SUCH, they SHOULD be HANDLED as IF being USED in A serious SITUATION, even IF you ARE at THE range.

WOW, typing THAT was HARDER than I thought IT was GOING to BE!

[mikey357]

...to your way of "THINGING"???...Hey, Pal, this is supposed to be a FAMILY-oriented Forum!!! Watch it....mikey357

[Blueduck]

I hate when you guys fight! [Blueduck runs crying from the room];)

Speaking of that though, I've yet to get a 357 case stuck under the the star of my 2 1/2" gun, had it happen on my full ejector guns with no real problem getting the case out (just a little fiddling).

If it does happen with the 2 1/2" are you pretty much stuck having to unscrew the ejector rod to get it out or is there a quicker way???

[mikey357]

Naawww, Pa, we wasn't fightin'...we was just FUNNIN"!!!...Paawww, now put that big stick AWAAYYYY!!!!....mikey357

[DeltaElite]

I have a 2.5"bbl 629. :D
Now that's a hoot. :D

[Mike Irwin]

"If it does happen with the 2 1/2" are you pretty much stuck having to unscrew the ejector rod to get it out or is there a quicker way???"

Yeah.

You hold it in one hand so that you can keep the ejector rod fully depressed and then finagle the case out with the fingers on your other hand.

A leatherman tool does a good job in this. Grab the rim.

[MR.G]

The nice thing about my 686 with the 2-1/2" barrel is that, with Uncle Mikes boot grips on it, the gun will fit in the front pocket of some pants. A little heavy, but I have carried it there. My 3", with only 1/2" more barrel, doesn't fit as well.

[Blueduck]

Thanks Mike :)

You know your a gun nut when: You spend the first morning of a two week vacation trying to get a cartridge case stuck under the star...

Fiddling around this morning it just took a bit of work to get a empty .357 case stuck under the star of my 4" 19 or 3" 65. Try as I might though I could not get one under the star of my 2 1/2" 19. I'm suspecting having that extra bit of case in the chamber made for more support which kept the neccesary "wiggle" from being available to allow the rim to slip over.

On the other hand I have no reason to doubt Mikey357 when he says he's had bad luck with 2 1/2" guns being worse about slipping rounds than the longer guns though which does not really make sense with what I found with my personal guns :confused:

Maybe as people tend to be more aggressive with the short ejector rod guns over time some develope more wiggle in the rod/star which more than makes up for the extra case support???

[Litlman]

I NEED a 2.5 in. model 19 and, I wll find one!!!

[caz223]

I have a 2.5" 686 (Not 686-x, just a 686), and I have yet to have a case stick in the cylinder, or behind the ejector.
It appears that the inside of the cylinder has been polished to a mirror finish. Almost everything has been polished to a mirror finish. Maybe a gunsmith owned it previously?
Did I mention that mine was a Lew Horton special?
The chambers aren't at all loose, but the empty cases just fall out of my 686 without hitting the ejector at all.
I shoot factory magtech 158's, so it's not like they're wuss loads, either.
Maybe the nickel cases help.
Or the occasional cleaning. ;)

[mikey357]

...next time I'm on vacation I'll hafta' "play with" some empties and some different revolvers...FWIW, the ONLY times I can EVER recall having empty cases become "trapped" under the extractor "star" was with K-frames...can't ever recall it happening TO ME with a "L" or an "N"...IIRC, one thing that "got my attention" the last time "IT" happened was the fact that I was firing a gun with the oversized factory "Target" stocks installed...the ones with the obvious speedloader "Cutout"...I'm sure that, along with the BRISKNESS of extractor rod manipulation and muzzle orientation, grip configuration and composition (wood, rubber, hard plastic, etc.) all have SOME effect on this phenomenon...seems that maybe more investigation is needed...anyone???....mikey357

[surfinUSA]

My experience with these guns has been very positive. However, both can have ejection problems. But different types for both guns.

Done in a careless manner, the guns with the full length ejector rod (3 inch or longer barrels) will let the shells come out far enough that they have enough distance and angle to slip under the star.

On the other hand the short ejector rod guns (2-2 1/2 inch barrels) may not fully eject magnum rounds. But the ejector rod is not long enough to let shells manuver themselves under it.

In either case both are very reliable and choice should be a matter of personal preferrence.

[Stainz]

My only two revolvers with barrels shorter than 4" are the S&W 296 & 696 .44 Specials I bought about two months ago. The 296, a hammerless Ti & Al lighweight (18.9 oz empty, 21 oz full of Blazers), has a 2.5" barrel and a fixed sight. With it's strict diet requirement, thus far only the CCI Blazer 200 gr GDJHP, it hits POA at 12 yd. The 3" barreled all SS 696 has had a varied diet - 215-240 gr LSWC/LRNFP reloads and the aforementioned CCI Blazers. The adjustable sights will be adjusted regularly vertically with ammo changes, as you'd expect with a short barrel.

The 296 picks up better from a stand and aims faster one handed. I can quickly dispatch all 5 rounds at the 'hostage' target at 12 yd without hitting the hostage - albeit with a bit of an abrupt recoil. The recoil is easier to control by far than a 637 with .38 +P's - especially if you change the 296 OEM grips. BTW, the S&W 23744 (696 OEM grips) grips work great, the dimunitive 21993 wood sevice grips are also better than the OEM grips. The 696 is fine as delivered. It's longer barrel and adjustable sights make it a better truck/car/bedside defender; the 296 a much better CCW. I tend to spend more time aiming adjustable sighted firearms, making the 696's dispatching the bad guy in the 'hostage' target more time consuming.

Somehow, I think you were referring to .357/.38's. Besides, the 296 & 696 L-frames are both history from S&W - short lived that they were. I just got tired of the two new ones sadly staring at me from my dealer's case when I visited - so I gave them a new home and ridded my collection of a couple of bottom-feeders and some money. I like them.

Stainz

[FPrice]

I have three S&W M66's in different barrel lengths, 2 1/2", 3", and 4". Here is a pic of the 2 1/2" with accessories.

[MikeJ]

I have a 66-3 2 1/2" that I absolutely love. It is the gun I keep in my home office as a defense gun. I have the Pachmayr compac professionals on it (no backstrap) and it fits my hand perfectly. I find that these grips also provide an ideal balance and pointing characteristics. Best, Mike

[chaim]

Somehow, I think you were referring to .357/.38's I was but...

I had been considering purchasing a Taurus 450, a 2" .45LC snub. However, due to various reasons I am currently leaning towards the .44spl version, the 445. If I did that it would make sense to consider the 696 and/or 296 either instead or, even better, in addition to the Taurus (hey, a 2" roughly K-framed, actually slightly smaller than K-framed, 5 shot snub in .44spl complemented by an L-frame 5 shot .44spl in either 3" or 2 1/2" form would be a nice group of guns).

Of course, I'd still have to get another 3" (or 2 1/2") .38 or .357 that I could have customized as well to get full versatility and then I'll really be set (well, maybe a 3" J-frame would be nice, then another 2").

Man, see what you started.:D

[ACP]

Chaim, I'll tell you my Model 19 customization story.

Purchased used for under $300. Brought to my gunsmith for:
*trigger job
*round and smooth trigger/face
*chamfer cylinders
*new style cylinder release
*new grips (I have three, settled on a Hogue Bantam)
*dovetailed front nightsight (expensive)
*bead blasted and re-fnished in matte black

Carried in a Blade Tech kydex holster. I feed it Remington Golden Sabers and also carry a Bianchi Speed Strip or two.