Now that's wonderful logic, i.e. the Smith
more or less sucks but is chosen because
it does the job better.
Of course, the 686 is a much larger frame
than the other two. Hey, what's going on
here?
No, take your emotions out of it because I never said or implied that S&W "sucked." That's just how you took what I said because you did not like the cons I listed about S&W revolvers even though I also listed a few pros to go with them. S&W revolvers are not cheap, so logically I would not have spent $900 or so for the ones I own if I thought they flat out "sucked."
As someone who owns, fired, and has carried all 4 major brands of revolver manufacturers, I mearly listed pros and cons of each based on my examples. I didn't not bash or say any of them sucked. It all depends on what matters most to the buyer. If you hate the lock or you are a trigger snob, S&W revolvers will not be your first or second choice. If size and and weight are your main concern, then S&W and Kimber will be on top, and Ruger will be dead last. If capacity vs size is an issue, again Ruger will be last. If EDC really isn't a concern but being able to routinely shoot and manage hot loads for Hunting or otherwise is, Ruger and then S&W will be at the top of the list.... So on and do forth.
As far as size goes, the 686 is noticeably larger than the other two in both the frame and cylinder. I posted these photos in another thread, but I actually have took a micrometer to the frame and cylinder of all three as well as had them all side by side. The 686 frame is wider, taller, and longer. The cylinder is obviously a bit bigger. There is a noticeable size difference. When comparing the 3" KC and K6S to the 3" 686+, there is also a noticeable weight difference. If we are talking about the regular 6 round 686 that will have a heavier cylinder, the difference in weight is even more. I have held each of these revolvers in hand at the same time to compare the weight differences. While on my waist at 3 O' clock with a good holster and gun belt, I honestly xan not feel a noticeable weight difference, but when I pick the guns up, the weight difference is clear.
Unlike some who are responding, I am not a fanboy of any one company. With the exception of the Ruger SP101, I am actually only one of a few members in this thread who own and carried all of the revolvers we are discussing. If Colt or Kimber had a no lock robust 7 round revolver that was simular to the 686, I would have went that dirrection mostly because of of the lock as I do not mind the trigger. Yes, I went with S&W 686 despite of the lock because it's better at handling hot 357 loads, has 7 rounds, and is still relitively easy to conceal and carry. In other categories, Colt, Ruger, and Kimber beat S&W IMHO. It is what it is. It is okay if everyone does love S&W revolvers as much as you do, and it is okay if we both have different opinions. No need to get upset and snarky. It is not the end of the world.