**Admins, I posted this in the wrong forum accidentally... Can this be moved to the Handguns forum?**

 

Looking at a brand new 686 with 4" barrel, a new 2012 S&W 586 4" and 686 SSR... Which one would you go with and why?

Also, is 6" preferable over 4"? Just asking as I have never owned a revolver before and have no experience with them.

I don't like the SSR barrel, myself. Really, the SSR doesn't offer much other than the chamfered holes in the cylinder. Of those three I would go with the 586 just because a new blued gun looks nice, and the lock is less obvious.

 

Me? I would go with an older seven shot (because you can) no-lock no-MIM 686 (or 586 if you like blued steel). 4" barrel, because I like the look of a 4" barrel on my older Model 64. My dad has a Model 14 (target K-Frame with 6" barrel) and I just don't like the long barrel. Go to a local store and see what you like for barrel length.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. All essentially the same, with the SSR having some nice bells and whistles the others don't. They all have the internal lock - not saying that's bad, but to some it is a hated feature. Between the SS and the Blued variety, it is simply a matter personal taste, although if I was going to use this for competition (in and out of a kydex holster), I'd go stainless, and if that were the case, I'd go SSR. I love a blued gun and have many of them, but I'd rather not worry about finish wear on a competition gun when it is something that can be so easily eliminated by going stainless.

 

Seven round guns are nice, but preclude you from any practical use in IDPA or USPSA (you can use them, but you can only load six rounds - now you not only have to worry about a rapid reload, but also properly indexing the cylinder). Of course, in USPSA you can shoot it with the full seven rounds in Production class. If that route were to be considered, then an eight-round N-frame modified for moonclips would be more effective (and actually competitive in some hands).

 

My $.02 - you know what they say about opinions.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

I am in the same dilemma myself. I have begun looking at the TALO 3-5-7 in 5". It's stainless (which I don't love) with an un-fluted cylinder, nice grips and RR front sight. Just a pretty little piece.

 

Of those listed, the SSR might give a little edge with the chamfered chambers. However, I don't think you'll go wrong with either of them.

 

C

We have a 686 7 round in stainless with 4" barrel and a Ruger 161 with 6" barrel. The 6" barrel is just a little heavy and we don't shoot it as much. The 686 with 4" (in my humble opinion) is the ideal configuration for that gun . The frame is heavy enough for .357 and you're not fighting the barrel all the time.

Since it doesn't cost me a dime, I vote for the 4" 686 7 round. Plus when the bad guy counts your shots, he'll think you're empty at 6!!!

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765757_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

I have to tell you, Ray. That, in my opinion, is one of their least attractive revolvers.

 

And yes, I shoot 1911's in 9mm, so what does that tell you?

 

C

http://www.smith-wes...playErrorView_Y

 

Tactical Revolver?

http://www.smith-wes...playErrorView_Y

 

They put a rail on a revolver..

It's an 8 shot 5 inch barreled revolver. You can use moon clips, or not. You can mount a light or laser or whatever to it (like semi auto's) and it has great sights. What's not to like?

I think it's a pretty cool concept (tactical revolver, 8 rounds, rail, black, etc)... but in physical appearance the darned thing is just fugly!

686 is heavy, so go with a 4" instead of 6". Better check out 4" vs 3" instead.

SSR has a better trigger job but anything can be changed later on.

Unfluted cylinders are nice but adds a bit of weight. If you like it check out the 686 "American"

And lastly Ruger GP100 wileyclapp is also nice but has that annoying loose sounding part.

I'm a SS fanboy myself so I'll refrain from any 586 comments.