I Like The Four Inch

[AzShooter]

I had the opportunity to sight in my 4 inch 617 today with a Bushnell First Strike 2.0 red dot sight. I've been shooting my 6 inch for Steel Challenge matches for a while with a 12 MOA C-More Railway and wanted to see the difference between 6 and 4.

The four inch with the dot is more accurate for me. I set up a Bianchi D1 target at 25 yards and fired 150 rounds of mixed ammo freestyle. I only had three shots outside the 10 ring. With the 6 inch I do not hold such nice groups, chasing the bullseye.

The shooter barrel was even more easy to track from target to target and was a pleasure to handle.

Both guns are set up with double action triggers weighing 8 pounds. Both are super smooth but I'm just starting to like the 4 better and will be shooting it next month in RFPO division.

[jetinteriorguy]

I always prefer 4” revolvers, they just seem to balance better.

[Mike Irwin]

I've always preferred 4" tubes on my revolvers.

I have a bunch of 4" Smith & Wessons -- Model 18, Model 19, Model 25, Model 25-5, Model 28, Model 58...

[Jim Watson]

Yeah, it is the "balance" thing. Few of us shoot like Grandpa where the muzzle weight and long sight radius are a benefit.

My happiest days were when IDPA allowed 5 inch barrels. I had three guns, K, L, and N frames cut to 5" for the job. Then I had them re-cut when the maximum fell to 4".
I was probably lucky that the vent rib posts on my Python were not spaced right for a 5" modification.

[44 AMP]

Yeah, it is the "balance" thing. Few of us shoot like Grandpa where the muzzle weight and long sight radius are a benefit.

I do!

On the other hand, I detest the balance of the 6" L frames. I will admit that 4" N-frames have a fine balance, and when I "throw the gun up" the front sight is right there...I just like the longer barrels a bit better. Totally personal preference.

With the exception of .22LR and one .38 Colt snubby, all my revolvers are .357 or larger, and other than a couple Vaqueros with 4 5/8" tubes, all of them are 5.5" or longer barrels. I like the way they work, for me.

If you shoot 4" better, than by all means, shoot 4"!

[Jim Watson]

I detest the balance of the 6" L frames.

I gave thought to an Underlug Delete on one of those, but concluded that it would serve no great purpose.

[Green Frog]

When I built my custom stainless S&W K frame in 327 Fed Mag I initially planned to have a 6” Model 617 rebored. It turned out I found a 4” barrel first and used it for the build. I’ve never looked back!

Froggie

[br549arkie]

For me 3 and 4 inch barrels on a double action and up to a 5 1/2 on a single action.

[Drm50]

I just got a 29-6. That’s full lug like L frame S&W. I love N frame, 29-2 in 6.5” . The 24-3 with 6.5” feels even better because of tapered barrel reduces weight. I don’t like my new
29-6. It probably a good gun for Range Monkeys to Target shoot, not the best for offhand field use. I got 29-8 also, 4”. Joy to carry but I can’t shoot as well as 6-6.5” guns.

[wild cat mccane]

Lucky Gunners testing of barrel length showing that the longer barrel not always equaling more power...

I know I'm good for not getting 6" barrels anymore.

4" is it for me. I just like it.

[Nathan]

For me, 4” is best all around. 6” for accuracy and sight radius. I’d love to have a 3” 13, but I spent all my money on a 1.87” 340.

[br549arkie]

In 4" I have S&W models 15,18,64 and 67. I'd love to have a 3" model 10,13,64 or 65 but they are just to high priced for me.
Also have a 4" Ruger Security Six and a 2 3/4 Speed Six.

[hammie]

The great Skeeter Skelton liked 5 inch barrels. A longer sight radius than a 4 inch, but not so long that it rode up into his armpit while sitting in a truck. Sort of a goldilocks length, and I have to agree with him. I thought Smith & Wesson made a small run of uncatalogued, 5 inch model 27-2's in the 60's especially at Skeeter's urging. Perhaps Mike Irwin or another expert S&W historian can expand on that.

If you want a handier barrel length than a 5 inch, then go with a 3 inch barrel. The new 3 inch colt king cobra comes to mind.

[rodfac]

Responding to the previous post, here's my Smith 27-3 with its 5" bbl. I'd searched for one for literally decades after reading Skeeter's glowing comments on how well it balanced and the benefits of a longer (but not too long) barrel offering slightly better ballistics and accuracy for the extended inter-sight distance.

He was right on both counts, but only marginally so, and the extra weight for that big "N" frame cylinder and frame counts against it for all day carry. In that regard, the all day carry issue is a big one for me and I've settled on the 4" tubes on my M-19 & 66. Too from a Weaver Stance, I can see no real measurable difference in accuracy out to 25 yds. As to balance, in my hands, a 4" "k" or "L" frame Smith balances the same as my 5" "N" frame M-27.

For shooting pleasure with medium level Skelton recommended loads, it's hard to beat or even criticize a 5" Model 27 on the range. As I carry 99% of the time in an OWB open top Tom Threepersons holster, the gun's just a little bit too big and heavy for me. And while I prefer the 4" models for all day open carry here in KY's fields and woods, I pack a 3" M-60 .357 Smith when I go to town as a rule. Concealment and even lighter weight are the reasons.

Best Regards and YMMv, Rod

1st Pic the M-27-3, 2nd with my son wearing a M66 with an OWB I made for his Christmas present. My 27 rides in one just like it.

[wild cat mccane]

Nothing unicorn about the 686 "3-5-7" in the 5" or gp100 1740 5"

[L. Boscoe]

I tried and tried to hit stuff with a 6in SW 44mag, even with lighter loads (highly recommended) The 4 in 626 was a lot better. There was a post on this forum a while back about 4 vs 6, and the consensus was the longer sight radius was difficult if you did not have really good eyesight, i.e. the front and rear sights got out of
focus. Whatever it is, I don't have a problem with 5 inch 45acp, so
maybe 5 works as well?

[jmr40]

Whatever it is, I don't have a problem with 5 inch 45acp, so
maybe 5 works as well?

The distance between the front and rear sight on a 5" semi is about the same as a 4" revolver since there is no cylinder.

If I were king I'd decree that 3" and 5" revolvers would be standard.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by AzShooter

I had the opportunity to sight in my 4 inch 617 today with a Bushnell First Strike 2.0 red dot sight. I've been shooting my 6 inch for Steel Challenge matches for a while with a 12 MOA C-More Railway and wanted to see the difference between 6 and 4.

The four inch with the dot is more accurate for me. I set up a Bianchi D1 target at 25 yards and fired 150 rounds of mixed ammo freestyle. I only had three shots outside the 10 ring. With the 6 inch I do not hold such nice groups, chasing the bullseye.

The shooter barrel was even more easy to track from target to target and was a pleasure to handle.

Both guns are set up with double action triggers weighing 8 pounds. Both are super smooth but I'm just starting to like the 4 better and will be shooting it next month in RFPO division.

Yep. IMO, the 6" is mostly a relic of the black powder days.

[rodfac]

Here's an add'l pic of some of my favorites:

3" J frame for carry concealed,
4" K for balance and overall open carry here on the farm,
5" N frame for range comfort and accuracy,
and my old 6" K for nostalgia....I've had it since the early 70's.

I'll add that a recent acquisition, 686 4" L frame is every bit as accurate as the 5" N, and a bit easier to tote OWB...weight's the same as the N.

Regards, Rod