[Savage92]

The three compact revolvers I am interested in are the Smith & Wesson 686 with a 2 1/2" barrel, 60 with a 2 1/8" barrel and the 637 with a 1 7/8" barrel. How much difference is there going to be in accuracy, carrying and shooting between the three. Is the aluminum framed 637 going to last as long as the other two. Have any of you had one wear out.


Thanks

[Majic]

I doubt very seriously you will wear either one of them out. Accuracy will be similar, but you may do a little bit better with 686 because of the bigger sights. Now while the 60 and the 637 are small frame revolvers the 686 is a medium frame revolver with a short barrel. Go to a gunstore and you will see the difference in the sizes and weights.

[dairycreek]

I agree with Majic. Each of the revolvers mentioned will, probably, outlast their owners. I own two of the three (M60 & 686) and have shot the 637 quite a bit so I have some familiarity with each of them. They are quite different in performance and handling. The 686 "snubby" weighs in at 35 ounces, the M60 at 23 ounces, and the 637 is a svelte 15 ounces.

I enjoy shooting both the 686 and the 60 with either 38 or 357 ammo. The 637 is, of course, not chambered for 357 ammo but, even with 38+P stuff, I find it to be (for me) both incomfortable and awkward to shoot.

In my book, snubby accuracy is a function of practice and I have achieved somewhat more than just reasonable accuracy with both the 686 and 60. Not so with the 637 as I am just not willing to put in the time and energy to practice with a gun that I just do not enjoy shooting. That should not be construed as a crticism of the 637 - just my personal preference. Good luck on your choice:)

[Phil DeGraves]

Calling the 686 a compact revolver is s stretch. Good shooter, yes. Compact, no.

[Marshall]

Personal preference in feel. I chose the Model 60 for carrying ease over the 686, yet providing more stability over the aluminum frames.