686 2.5" vs 3"

[H2ODawgs]

I've finally deceided on my next bush gun. Now I'm trying to deceide on a 1/2". For those who have handled or shot both, how would you compare the handling, balance etc... Anyone chrono them? I know the longer sight radius etc... Any input would be greatly appreciated. I'll probably carry in a safe packer attached to a strap game vest or in vest pocket (in a holster).

Thanks
Chris

 

[Snapping Twig]

I had a 2.5" 686 of the first run when they were new. The ejector rod is too short.

The 3" will eject spent brass better.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

It always struck me as strange that S&W had both a 2.5" and 3" barrel M686, IMO that was a little redundant. Like said above, a 2.5" revolver won't give you a full length ejector rod. That's why Ruger made their "SIX" series snub nose revolvers with 2.75" barrels. I highly doubt you will see any difference in bullet velocity between the two. Also, another good reason to buy the 3" model is you get the 7 shot revolver. The 2.5" models come in both 6 shot and 7 shot but the 3" comes only in the M686+ 7 shot. Nothing wrong with an extra round in the cylinder while out in the woods... HKS makes 7 round speedloaders for S&W L frame .357 Magnum revolvers, Model #587-A. (the 6 round speedloader is #586-A)

 

[dwenslen]

I'd go 3" if it were me. full length ejector rod and they just point and balance better to me.
cheers
Derek

 

[Seven For Sure]

I've got a 3" and I love it. I suggest the 3" for you also. It's about perfect.

 

[hollywoodfl]

I have a 2.5" and the casings don't come out that well.

 

[H2ODawgs]

Thanks for all the feedback. I was leaning towards the 3" for the above reasons. How come the 2.5" 7 shot isn't considered a +? I thought the + meant it was a 7 shot.

 

[H2ODawgs]

Thanks for all the feedback. I was leaning towards the 3" for the above reasons. How come the 2.5" 7 shot isn't considered a +? I thought the + meant it was a 7 shot.

 

[H2ODawgs]

Thanks for all the feedback! I was leaning towards the 3" for the above reasons. How come the 2.5" 7 shot isn't considered a +? I thought the + meant it was a 7 shot.

 

[shooter429]

Me too

I would prefer the 3" tube. Nice compromise between concealment, balance, recoil, ballistics etc. My preference. If ya go below 3", I think a smaller frame makes more sense.

Shooter429

 

[ArchAngelCD]

How come the 2.5" 7 shot isn't considered a +? I thought the + meant it was a 7 shot.

You are correct, the + does mean a 7 shot M686 and the 2.5" 7 shot M686 is a M686+.