Is a 4" .357 ideal?

[The Body Bagger]

I'm not sure about most of you, but I recall reading several years back that the ideal length for the 125gr .357 round was 6". I also remember it being the most popular of lengths for full size models. Now it seems that the 4" is the predominate model. Is this correct or am I living pipe dreams? Reason being is that I'm about to purchase a new 686P and have been torn between what I deem the traditional look of modern DA revolvers (6") and the obviously easier handleability of the 4" model. What sayeth thou?

PS New member here, have been reading for awhile and finally decided to register and post. Just started getting into revolvers. Interest previously was in semi-autos pistols, FALs, and AR's.

PPS I've been going through the past history reading each and every post about the main three (S&W, Taurus, Ruger). Its you S&W fans that have talked me into getting one. Damn you guys for another addiction.

[Full Metal Jacket]

all you would get with 6" barrel are slightly higher velocities. With the 4" barrel, you get better concealment and you can swing the barrel quicker.
It's a trade off. I personally would go with the 4" .

[Archie]

I think a 4" barrel revolver is a good general purpose sidearm. For defense use, it is just fine. For years, the nee plus ultra defensive revolver was the 3.5" M 27 (or predecessor). They still work real well.

Shorter barrels hide a bit easier, and for hunting or target applications, the longer barrels give more velocity (power) and a longer iron sight radius.

[38splfan]

....I would advise you fire both before hand if possible. If not, then handle each as much as you can. Select the one most comfortable for you. Your comfort and proficiency will be the determining factor. I actually selected a Smith and Wesson Model 10 5-inch as my first. Very comfortable. Can't beat it. Just make sure it is something you can handle well, fire accurately, and tote around all day.
Welcome, we will feed you more addictions before too long.

[Jeffro250]

For a general use handgun(self defence, target shooting, etc), 4 inch would be fine....however, if you plan on doing any sort of hunting with it, i would say, 6 inch minimum.

[Sir William]

I prefer 5" revolver barrels. 3" is a good concealment revolver barrel. 6" to 10" revolver barrels for target and hunting. I really do wonder where 4" barrels came from? I don't care for them.

[JMC]

Seeing how I have no interest any longer in carrying a .357 concealed, I would say a 6" or 6.5" bbl. is the best all around length for a .357 Mag. to get the most out of the cartridge.

Earlier this year I picked up a nice, used S&W M27 in 6". GREAT shooting gun.

[Detective_Special]

The 4" barrel is the most appealing aesthetically. The handling and the balance of the 4" feels much better, at least for me.

[Brian Williams]

I like 3" for concealment, 4" for woodswalking, 5" for gaming, and 6" or 8" for target and large game hunting.

[nwobhm]

The bbl length thing is really just a matter of preference. Some of the 6" guns are pretty but the 4" handle better.

[seb5]

To me I think certain fame sizes just fit better as well. Obviously if you had a specialized purpose you would match your need. J's look good with 2, K's look good with 3, N's balance great with 5's. I'm not sure about L's, maybe we'll throw 4 in. FWIW I hunted for years with iron sighted revolvers and never had anything longer than 5 inches. My long shot in the thick wods was an easily made, stepped off 48 yards.

[tulsamal]

When I'm actually at the range shooting, I prefer the 6 inch. When I'm wearing the darn thing in a belt holster and walking through the woods, I prefer a 4". So the "how will you use it" question becomes the big one.

The six inch will give you higher velocity, less blast, and a longer sight radius. (Which will probably result in slightly better "practical" accuracy.) But they can be a pain (literally) if you try to sit down while wearing one. Or getting in a car and sitting down. If I was really going to do that with a field holster, I would go cross-draw. But I prefer strong side for open carry so I usually don't just "walk around" the property with a 6" .357 on my belt.

Gregg

[IM_Lugger]

I consider revolvers mucho guns so I prefer 5 to 6.5 inch barrel lenghts in revolvers (no snubies for me ). If you plan to CC (it) go with 4", if hunting or target shooting is the purpose go with 6" (that way you'll get more power and accuracy out of the round)

[Magnum88C]

I think the perfect balance for a large revolver is 5". 4" is easier to conceal (unless you carry IWB, in which case barrel length isn't a big deal), and quicker to swing. The 6" feels better, more stable, gives a more stable swing and longer sight radius, plus the increased velocity.

You said a 686 plus, you're already going for the gusto size wise, I'd go with the 6".

[PythonGuy]

A while back there was an article written in one of the handgun magazines comparing the velocity and accuracy of revolvers with 6" and 4" barrels. I can't remember the exact magazine, but I do remember that the "surprising difference" as they put it was, there was very little difference. The velocity varied of course, but not by a great amount, and the accuracy was a wash. That said, if you are like most of the people on here, you will never be happy with just one gun and will want to own several in different barrel lengths and calibers, so I'd just go for the best quality gun of the type you want and can afford. If the best you find right now is a 6", go for it, if its a 4" that has the best price/quality ratio, then get that one. Either way you will eventually purchase different guns and you'll find the differences are never as great as the "hype" led you to believe. Of course, if you are going to carry, shorter would be better, longer barrels are prefered for target shooting at the range, but you may be able to hold a 4" more steady and be able to shoot it more accurately then a 6". HTH

[357MagFan]

Personally, I think a 6" is the ideal length for the mighty 357, i dont believe in shorter because this round is meant to be fired in long barrels to get the most out of it, you can get similar performances with other different calibers when you go short, so why bother with a 357 at all? go 6 like its supposed to be

[Hal]

Personally speaking:
6" = if I can see it I can hit it.
4" = if I can see it I can try to hit it.

[WESHOOT2]

IME one cannot say a 6" will shoot faster than a 4" unless one actually tests the guns in question, and THAT'S a fact.

What really matters most is how the gun will be used (carry? hunting? IPSC? funzies?) and which sight radius and balance work best for the user.

I prefer a 4" 'medium' (own two KGP-141's) for 'general' use, but much prefer the 7.5" (Redhawk) due to its better-for-me sight radius and recoil-handling ability.
My IPSC wheel. Kinda big for wearing, though (and the draw takes a while ).

[PythonGuy]

This is such a debated issue, I'd love to see someone with the equipment and interest take several revolvers, like a S&W 686 in 6" and 4" and/or a Python in 4" and 6" and test shoot them from a Ransom rest through a chronograph. I'm sure several people must have done this on their own, although a search on the boards hasn't found any threads about it. I'd bet the differences come down to personal choice more then actual test differences. Using the standard factory ammo, I'm sure the velocity will be a bit more in the 6" and accuracy will be determined more by ammo used then barrel length with only these two sizes. I wish I would have saved that magazine article, I think a Dan Wesson 4" was as or more accurate then any other pistol that was tested. I'd like to read other opinions from the more experienced on here as to what they think about this. I know I've spoken to collectors that have told me that certain guns, such as the Python in 6", are more sought after then the 4" version, so collecting is a whole different issue when it comes to barrel length, but that is food for another thread.........

[CB3]

Ease of shooting, and therefore enjoyment, often come down to the perception of how comfortable the actual firing of a weapon is. Generally, the shorter the barrel, the more blast you get from a gun, especially with higher pressure cartidges like the .357 mag.

.357 mag is not a load that is enjoyable to shoot in short barrels. There is just too much powder still burning as the bullet leaves a 2" barrel. By the time you get to the end of a 4" barrel, a lot more powder has burned and the muzzle blast is less. A 6" barrel should have the least blast compared to any shorter barrel, and therefore be more pleasant to shoot. An 8" barrel would be even easier.

This high pressure cartridge loading does not know what length barrel it will be fired in, but I think the average .357 pistol round would expect at least a 4" barrel and probably a 6" barrel for optimum performance, with a 8" barrel not losing any velocity. There may be little increase in velocity going from a 4" to a 6" or even 8", but there may be a real difference in the perception of shooter comfort, i.e. blast and muzzle flip, especially as they affect the shooter's accuracy with the gun.

Here again the first questions are, "What is the primary use of the gun? What characteristics are you willing to trade off to get ones you need?"

CB3

[Striker]

All other things having been discussed, the most important consideration may simply be "Which feels best in your hand"?

[Peter M. Eick]

I agree with Hal. I can hit with a 6" barrel, but with a 4" it is more random. For general blasting I prefer 5" or greater.

[Bass Man]

I too am looking for a .357 revolver. A co-worker said it is pointless to have a .357 in less than 6" because that extra powder (over a .38) doesn't have enough barrel to burn. I personally like the look of the 4" but don't plan to carry it concealed. It will be my first handgun. I am mostly going to shoot targets with .38 and just wanted to be able to handle the .357 also. I live in Missouri and I'm glad we passed a concealed law and hope to get a permit someday but I will probably get a semi-auto for that.

[WESHOOT2]

Speer did that exact test and published it in their manual(s); called "Why ballisticians get Gray."

I have tested many guns; I own multiple offerings in certain calibers (9x19, 357, 45 ACP) and have done extensive testing in my personal arms; I provide 'chrono opportunities' to a chosen few; there is no "debate".

[Hal]

A co-worker said it is pointless to have a .357 in less than 6" because that extra powder (over a .38) doesn't have enough barrel to burn.

The myth that the .357Magnum gives up any appreciable gain in shorter barrels has been disspelled over and over again.

OTOH - I get the impression a lot of people seem to think the .357Mag is the poor man's .35Rem...

"Why ballisticians get Gray."

LOL! Clever...

(for those that wonder http://members.aol.com/WESHOOT2/index.html )