Smith & Wesson Model 686, 7 shot, Mountain Gun, 6" barrel

[Onty]

For shooting at the range, I prefer a 6" plus/minus barrel. The weight and balance works well.

But, for carry everyday iI the field, I really do not have any real experience, But, I'm sure lighter would be better for the most part. It could become a drag to have a 2-3 pound drag on your hip 24/7.

Do what your experience tells you but in the absence of knowledge, I'g go with with the longer barrel.

I came to exactly the same conclusion. I understand those who prefer 4"-4.2", either full, profile heavy barrel, or slim one. That is their choice, especially for CCW. And as I said many times (talking about some other configurations on other firearms), I am OK with whatever somebody wants. And I have no reason whatsoever to be against somebody's wishes., and will always support them. Why I should be against?

Considering that with slim barrel, 6" revolver is heavier not even 2 oz more than 4"-4.2", I see no weight issue for an outdoor revolver. As a benefit, longer barrel gives bit more velocity for the same ammo, bit less muzzle blast and less recoil, easier to aim because of longer sight radius. And IMO 6" revolver just looks more "balanced", nicer .

Going other direction, for a while I desperately wanted S&W M27 with 8-3/8" barrel, and boy, it has gorgeous checkered top strap. But, I learned that M27 has shorter cylinder than any other S&W DA revolver in K and L 357 Magnum, including M19/66. Consequently, if I want to shoot 358429 from M27, round has to be loaded with crimp going in front of front bullet driving band. I thought at the first moment that somebody is spreading wrong info. Unfortunately, I was wrong. So, I crossed on my wish list M27 for good. To this day I am puzzled why M27 was crippled, and still has the same short cylinder?

 

[Jim Watson]

To this day I am puzzled why M27 was crippled, and still has the same short cylinder?

Right, case .135" longer but OAL only .040" longer.
Maybe it was in then manufacturing setup, they could not readily make a longer cylinder.
They can now, but original Keith design bullets are not a big part of the market and everybody else is used to the old standard lengths.
I would like to give 358311 a good trial. It has a good front band and a long elliptical nose for speed loading. If you don't need a semiwadcutter or hollowpoint for game or felon, it ought to do well on targets. It loads to 1.59" in .357 brass.

 

[Onty]

Right, case .135" longer but OAL only .040" longer.
Maybe it was in then manufacturing setup, they could not readily make a longer cylinder.
They can now, but original Keith design bullets are not a big part of the market and everybody else is used to the old standard lengths.
I would like to give 358311 a good trial. It has a good front band and a long elliptical nose for speed loading. If you don't need a semiwadcutter or hollowpoint for game or felon, it ought to do well on targets. It loads to 1.59" in .357 brass.

There is certainly nostalgia toward Keith and his SWC-s. And I am not exemption! Yeah, there are other excellent bullets out there, some of them in certain conditions could be better than Keith's SWC-s. However, his SWC-s worked so well, for so many shooters, for almost 100 years, and this is rightfully etched in our memories. As a matter of fact, when I was thinking about bullet mold for my 44-s, the toss was between these two:

Left is SWC H&G #503, listed at https://www.mp-molds.com/ as https://www.mp-molds.com/product/mp-432-256-pb-solid-6-cav-alu/ . Right is 432-640, https://www.mp-molds.com/product/432-640-hollow-point-4-cavity-plain-base-mold/ . Both solid point.

I asked other, more experienced folks, which one would be better, they said that they are quite close, but for some SWC has the edge in accuracy https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sh...MP-Molds-432-256-v-s-432-640&highlight=bullet . Well, I opted for SWC.

As for S&W M27, the fact is that noted revolver has a roots in what was created as a fast solution for more powerful than standard 38 Special. So, the only frame available at that time, that will take such round, and later 357 Magnum, was large frame for 44 Special. And "the rest is history"!

Having always soft spot for long barreled M27, however, realizing that it's too large for 357 Magnum, I started considering "what if". So I stretched my creation of slim barrel 6" 686 from the first post. I tried 8-3/8", but it looked bit awkward. So, I went to 7.5", it looks to me more proportional, balanced. But, "you be the judge":

Also, I "stretched" a bit cylinder, so "it will take" round with 358429 the way it suppose to be loaded in 357 Magnum case, far right: