686 Snub?

[paperholepunch]

I'm looking to purchase a revolver for concealed carry but I just can't make up my mind. I was pretty set on the S&W model 60 with the 3'' bbl until last weekend when I saw a 686 with a 2.5" bbl. The 686 can be had with a 7 shot cylinder. So I would get 2 extra rounds at the cost of a little more weight, a little more width, and a little more overall length over the 60 3". It seems like a fair trade off to me but I wanted to hear other opinions. Tell me what you think of the 686+ snub and if you own one post some pics of it and your carry setup. Thanks.

[Arquebus12]

I don't have the significant figures on overall weights between the two on hand, but I did once have a 686 with a 2.5" tube on it.

It was a delight to shoot because of it's mass, but in reality, it's a white elephant. It's over large, it's heavy, and while it has adjustable sights, they're a little too precise for intimate encounters, and a very short sight radius. The 2.5" bbl means even less velocity over the 3 incher, but it's so small a loss as to be a non-factor. Because it's an L frame, it's too short for effective hunting or target type shooting. Accuracy is going to be on the happy side of good, better with handloads, but you don't want to use handloads with a personal defense weapon.

Allow me to stress the over-large and heavy points once more... it's especially thick, and will print a lot more readily than an autoloader, and because of it's weight, it will be more of an effort to carry comfortably. Don't even consider an IWB carry.

Forgive me if I sound bitter, I'm not. I was disappointed to come to these very same conclusions, because I wanted one of these for a long time before I finally got one. But the facts are that for concealed carry, the 686 isn't the best choice. For hunting and competitive shooting, it's far from the first choice, because of the caliber is being underutilized in a 2.5" bbl.

The best thing I can think of using the snub 686 is for day trips into bear or lion country, carried openly. Something like that. It's a beautiful piece, but it's impractical. And for what it's worth, the difference between 5 and 7 rounds in a defense piece is academic. You're not going to be using either for a running gun fight, not effectively, at least.

I hope I didn't dash your hopes, but I know how you feel. The truth is that the 60 is going to be far more useful, strange as that may sound.

[sticks]

I have a 686-1 with a 4" barrel. Never thought of a 686 as a concealed carry gun, even with a 2.5" barrel; seems to me it would be a bit on the heavy side. I would suggest something smaller than an L-frame for concealed carry.

[Berto]

It won't get you around the size issue, but the Airweight 242 (if you can find one) is an 18oz L frame alloy/ti revolver that holds 7 of .38sp and has a concealed hammer.
It actually carries well in cargo pocketed shorts and will take anything .38sp- with Buffalo Bore loads, you have typical .357 short bbl power too.

[Aquanewt]

I have a 3" model 36 that I carried as my off duty piece while my Department still issued revolvers. Nice carry piece, 3'' barrel was plenty accurate and since I did not use an ankle rig length was not an issue. I have to agree that a L-frame is just too big and heavy for your intended use. I also had a 2" M-64 (K-frame) which while bigger than the M-36, was not too hard to conceal.

[Chup]

For IWB carry I like my Taurus 617 DAO 2". It's 7 shots of 357Mag, about the same size as a Colt Detective Special and has Fixed Sites that don't bite. The DAO trigger is very smooth. It's accurate and easy to shoot.

[22collector]

+1 for the 242. I also have a 2.5" 686 and frankly its seems to be the same size in all respects but weight. One is an airlite (242) the other a stainless all metal gun (686). As for the accuracy of the the 686 2.5" thats why I bought it. In my hands it is more accurate than my 6" GP100 but get what you like. What fits your hands best, the weight you can stand, caliber you prefer. Good luck on your search I am sure you will find something that fits you.

22

[boraxis]

I have a 386 Sc/S with a 2.5" barrel, same size as a 7-shot 686 but way lighter. It's actually lighter than a model 60. Even so, it's so much bigger than a 60 that I can't imagine comparing the two for concealed carry. I mean, it's a *lot* bigger. If you haven't held a 686 and a 60 side by side, then be sure you do before you buy. I'm sure lots of people happily conceal something that size and you might like it too.

And then there's the weight of a 686. My 386 is a little too light and I regret that, but the weight of a 686 would be more than I'd want to put up with all day in any concealable situation I've ever tried. I think a 60 is just right as a compromise between light carry comfort and heavy shooting comfort. For me.

[Rex G]

A snub 686 will weigh almost as much as a 4" weapon of the same model, which means it is OK for carry if you wear a substantial belt and holster, and keep the rig snug. A 4" weapon will actually be more stable, as in the vertical position, the longer barrel lowers the center of gravity, and the barrel lying along the hip acts as a stabilizing outrigger. These hefty guns are not pocket pistols, for sure.

[Tiel Raptor]

I don't like the five shot only option of any snubbie, but its a fact of life. If you want a snubbie, its usally a five shot j-frame or SP101 or Detective size pistol.

If you want more than five shots, pack another one, or go to a 32H&R caliber. At 7 yards or less, if you put them where it counts, then I doubt any BG would know the differance. A couple of older gentleman I know have went this route and are very confident in their choices. Of course, they are Viet Nam vets and have been through hell and back, not much raises their blood pressure anymore.

If you want more than a snubbie, then you are looking at a whole different beast.

Tiel