Help me decide: S&W 686+ 2.5" or 3"?

S&W 686+ Which barrel length do YOU prefer??

  • 2 1/2" barrel

    Votes: 7 10.8%

  • 3" barrel

    Votes: 58 89.2%
  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MrBill120

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
206
Location
The Cold North East
I'm considering picking up a 686. I'm pretty much set on the 7 shot 686+.
I just can't decide between the 2 1/2" or the 3" barrel.

I've read people say the 3" gives you a full length ejector rod, but in pictures the difference looks huge!

If anyone REALLY prefers the 6 shot over the 7 then please feel free to comment on that also.

Thanks!
 
I have and like the 3", but I rather doubt there is any significant difference. Either way its not a pocket gun. The only difference, besides the ejector rod you mentioned, could be the size of the compartment you might want to keep it in. If the 3" fits, then I don't see any downside. If only the 2-1/2" fits, then get it. I haven't been holster shopping yet, so I don't know if a perfect fit for either length might be more common if thats important for you.
 
I have and like the 2.5", pulls tight groups at 15 yards and is extremely dependable. Never had a 3" for comparison. Hold and caress them both and see which calls to you.
 
I agree, try to find a store which has both and hold them. One may point easier than the other for you and you'll have your answer. I wouldn't worry too much about the ejector rod, if 7 rounds of .357 Magnum doesn't solve the problem I don't think a reload will either. ;)
 
I've only been able to hold the 2.5" once. I liked it. I haven't seen a 3" except for pics online.

So far, people tend to favor the 3" barrel...

How well or uncomfortable would either of these two be for IWB carry??
 
Here is a 586 L 3"barrel 7 shot with a with a comp in front of the front sight.
586Lcomp.jpg
 
I have handled both and for me they appeared to be a bit "muzzle heavy"- maybe it was the grips on the guns I handled, but I really didn't like the way they felt in my hand- I would recommend handling and if possible shooting both prior to making a final decision
 
The 686 is a big 'ol handful of metal, especially in the 7-shot version, so I see no advantage at all in trying minimizing the pistol's volume with the 1/2" shorter barrel. I voted 3" too.
 
MIL-DOT said:
The 686 is a big 'ol handful of metal, especially in the 7-shot version, so I see no advantage at all in trying minimizing the pistol's volume with the 1/2" shorter barrel. I voted 3" too.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the 7 shot version is the exact same size as the 6 shot version, right?
The difference is in how close the chambers are to each other, and the location of the notches on the outside of the cylinder in relation to the chambers. Some say the 7 shot is a stronger cylinder because the notches are between the chambers instead of over them.
 
I had the 2.5" version in 7 shot. Hands down I prefer having 7 shots to 6. I eventually sold the gun though as my 66 just did a better job of concealment.

If I had my choice it would be the 3" barrel. Why? You ever see one? They are somewhat rare in my opinion. Also, I doubt you'll notice 1/2".
 
I have a 4" 686+ and If I were to get a shorter barrel S&W .357 it would be the Model 640. Why? Because I would not want to carry the bulky heavy 686.

Fat Boy...Heavy nuzzle? you have NO idea what you're ralking about...the 4" 686+ is perfectly balanced. Shortening the barrel would do just the opposite of your comment.
 
Both shoot well, the 3" has the better ejection rod which makes for more positive ejection of empties. If you are just range shooting the case is moot, But if you will be carrying, a longer ejection rod is a good thing.
 
I just bought the 3 inch 7 shot s&w ,and could not be happier.It seems to me that the extra 1/2 inch may be trivial,but I had been looking for one for close to a year.The notches are cut differantly as between the chambers and it is a dream to shoot.I carry full power 158 gn. loads and it's the cat meow.No doubt you will enjoy either one but the 3'' just called to me.
 
I own, shoot and carry a 2.5"er. With a GOOD quality belt or pancake holster, it is not difficult to carry concealed. I have a Bianchi open top, screw adjustable pancake holster and wear it under an untucked shirt or jacket in cooler weather. My buddy has a 3" - we can't tell a difference in accuracy between the two. I've never had a problem with ejecting any fired cartridges. Alternately, I carry a CA .44 Spec Bulldog with a 2.5" barrel - a bit smaller, more like a K frame.

IMG_4600.jpg IMG_2842.jpg
 
Last edited:
There is no condition that I can fathom in which one could comfortably carry and put to use a full size revolver with a 2 and 1/2 inch barrel that one could not opt for the 3 inch without any added inconvenience or discomfort... IMO, 3 inch is the way to go
 
The 3" barrel is the way to go more pleasant to look at and longer sight picture for aiming.
Concealment is not a problem and a 1/2 inch will make a difference in muzzle energy.
 
WOW! I just looked at the poll numbers. Thank you to everyone who has either voted or posted their opinions. I like the stout look of the 2 1/2", but also see the attraction with the 3". I think Santa Claus will be getting my Christmas list soon! :D
 
I have a 4", and it is my best centerfire shooter by far. I had a 2" SP 101, and sold it after shooting the 4" Smith. No significant weight savings, and the 4" points perfectly & shoots like it points. If you need a smaller / lighter Smith for carry, go with the 640 or find a used 340 SC.

My 4" 7shot 686 is my constant ranch companion.
 
I am in the minority. I like short barrels as I have had a hole rubbed in some of my pants overtime because of a seat, my hip and the barrel. The right holster can help with this. My take is this:

If you are using a two finger style grip, sub three inch looks better and balances better. If you are slapping hogues, trausch, etc on there three to four inches looks and feels better.

You also get about 30-80fps gain in that half inch, more front heavy, sight radius if you buy into that (sight radius in handguns has always been negligible to me), and possibly less flash or report since there is more time for powders to burn. However as mentioned above the difference is not huge. Also the fondle and decide is great advice. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Help me pick a S&W 686 Plus
Replies
4
Views
591
LSCurrier
L
2
  • Locked
S&w 686
Replies
16
Views
771
jad0110
J
J
  • Locked
Comparison: S&W 686 and 620
Replies
0
Views
657
jad0110
J
J
  • Locked
S&W model 686-3 or a 28-2??? cant decide..
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Pointshoot
P
D
  • Locked
S&W 66 vs 686
Replies
15
Views
3K
Mastrogiacomo
Mastrogiacomo
Back
Top