Blued or Stainless, 4" or 6"

[ltorlo64]

So, I have pretty much decided to get a .357 to take when I hunt, fish, hike, etc. and I have settled on a S&W. My questions are, what should I get, a blued or stainless steel revolver and 4" or 6" barrel? Where I am buying this I think I can order either a 586 (blued) or a 686 (stainless). The 686 was the model that was at the store when I looked. When I was talking to the dealer he told me I can get either the 2.5", 4" or 6" barrel, they will order the one I want. I did some reading today and it sounds like the 6" is the best for the .357 cartridge, but it is bigger. I really like the looks of the 4" barrel but I would rather have a better performing revolver than one I think looks the best. What do you guys think, are there advantages and disadvantages that I am missing?

[alismith]

My suggestions are go with the stainless (better weather resistance) and the 6". In some states, the minimum barrel length for a handgun used for hunting, is 6". Even if there are no hunting laws concerning barrel length, you'll get a little bit more power from a 6" than from a 4", plus it has a slightly longer sight radius than a 4".

[FunkyPertwee]

I think traditionally the 4" is considered the general purpose .357 barrel length, while the 6" is more for target and hunting, although it would work fine for combat if you're not concerned about decreased draw time and additional weight. I will say this, a 6" 686/586 is heavy!

I would like a 586 and a 686 myself. I might would get the 586 now if you like it, because the classic series aren't always available and could potentially be ended altogether if sales are low.

Here are some that I like:

http://www.kygunco.com/smith-and-wes...-rd-blue-60182
http://www.kygunco.com/smith-and-wes...-special-28386
http://www.kygunco.com/smith-and-wes...revolver-72242
http://www.kygunco.com/smith-and-wes...rosewood-83192
http://www.kygunco.com/smith-and-wes...-8-round-28348

[Schuetzenman]

If you are hunting 6" for sure as you'll get more speed from the rounds. Stainless ... why not. You don't have to worry as much about rust.

[ltorlo64]

Thanks for the input. When I said hunting it would be a backup for either a rifle or a bow (the bow is not likely though!). I don't see myself pistol hunting but carrying a pistol when I hunt. I was pheasant hunting once and almost got run over by a deer that another hunter had scared. I do not think my 12 ga with 7 1/2 shot would have stopped the deer and if it did, I would have needed something to finish it off with. I was thinking along the lines of a gun I could carry like was discussed in a thread about hiking about a month ago. In Washington we don't have many bears to worry about and they are little black bears. What we do have are cougars. I ran across one hiking a long time ago and we hear about cougar/human interactions fairly often and I figure a .357 would be a better choice than a 9mm or a .45 ACP.

Based on the input received and from the reading I have done I am leaning towards the 4" stainless model. I really like the blued, as I am a classic guy at heart, but the stainless looks pretty good and I like ease of maintenance.

[Richard Simmons]

I go with the 4" in stainless. It'll look better longer and the shorter barrel would better allow CCW if you ever needed/wanted to use it in that fashion. Stainless can also be quite attractive especially with the right stocks.

[Dan Morris]

I've always had the blue in handguns and have had no issues. Course, this is just me. Stainless does require less care......or so I'm told. I'll take that back, I do have a 7 1/2 stainless Redhawk 44 ..........just too damn heavy to carry while traipsing at altitude.....
Dan

[skorpion]

Stainless 6". If you ever get a wild hair up your ass and decide to try out handgun hunting, you're covered with a 6".

[BISHOP]

I have always thought S&W revolvers looked better in stainless.
For camping and hiking fishing hunting, I'd stay away from blued so its one less thing you have to worry about.


BISHOP

[alismith]

Thanks for the input. When I said hunting it would be a backup for either a rifle or a bow (the bow is not likely though!). I don't see myself pistol hunting but carrying a pistol when I hunt. I was pheasant hunting once and almost got run over by a deer that another hunter had scared. I do not think my 12 ga with 7 1/2 shot would have stopped the deer and if it did, I would have needed something to finish it off with. I was thinking along the lines of a gun I could carry like was discussed in a thread about hiking about a month ago. In Washington we don't have many bears to worry about and they are little black bears. What we do have are cougars. I ran across one hiking a long time ago and we hear about cougar/human interactions fairly often and I figure a .357 would be a better choice than a 9mm or a .45 ACP.

Based on the input received and from the reading I have done I am leaning towards the 4" stainless model. I really like the blued, as I am a classic guy at heart, but the stainless looks pretty good and I like ease of maintenance.

Not sure about how hunting laws in other states, but in MD, it's illegal to carry a backup handgun when deer hunting UNLESS the backup handgun is, also, legal for hunting deer. So, that knocks out anything less than .357 and anything with a barrel less than 6".

Hopefully, most other states are more lenient than MD is.

[ltorlo64]

Not sure about how hunting laws in other states, but in MD, it's illegal to carry a backup handgun when deer hunting UNLESS the backup handgun is, also, legal for hunting deer. So, that knocks out anything less than .357 and anything with a barrel less than 6".

Hopefully, most other states are more lenient than MD is.

Just checked the Washington hunting regs for big game and the minimum barrel length is 4" and the minimum caliber is centerfire .24 so 4" .357 should be good.

[ltorlo64]

So, just went to order the gun, decided on the 686 (stainless) with the 4" barrel. Unfortunately one of the discounts ends on Thursday and the revolver won't be in for about 2 weeks. This will add about $35 to the cost of the gun but it is still $100 off list price and about $70 less than the next closest price (not including shipping and transfer fees) so I think I will still do it. I am a bit irritated about the extra $30 bucks, but nothing I won't get over. Like Scorpion wrote in my other thread I am not paying tax. If I bought this out in town for the original price the price on base would still be less because of not paying tax.

[El Laton Caliente]

Missed the pre-purchase vote but SS & 6", but 4" is a convenent barrel size. I liked the Ruger Security Six 4" I had.

[ltorlo64]

Missed the pre-purchase vote but SS & 6", but 4" is a convenent barrel size. I liked the Ruger Security Six 4" I had.

Still not purchased, just requested. Can't purchase it until it is physically here. I tried to pay for it and was told I couldn't. There were positives and negatives to both barrel lengths, but for what I am going to use this for and what I "might" use it for, with all the input and reading I think the 4" is best, though either would work. In the end, it was a hard decision that I needed to make a decision on.

[El Laton Caliente]

4" is a good all around size. If I was open carrying it hiking, hunting and fishing, I would go for the longer 6" barrel. Carried cross draw or shoulder holster the barrel length and slight extra weight shouldn't matter. The extra barrel length adds to the sight radius and bullet velocity.

But, then... I went with a 9.5" on my .44 mag Super Red Hawk and it is really [frount] heavy. I kind of wished I had gone 7.5" or even 6" for weight and ease of carry.

[FunkyPertwee]

Still not purchased, just requested. Can't purchase it until it is physically here. I tried to pay for it and was told I couldn't. There were positives and negatives to both barrel lengths, but for what I am going to use this for and what I "might" use it for, with all the input and reading I think the 4" is best, though either would work. In the end, it was a hard decision that I needed to make a decision on.

You could always split the difference and go 5": http://www.kygunco.com/smith-and-wes...-special-28386

[Schuetzenman]

The difference in weight is minimal 4" to 6". But ... the speed you will achieve is significantly less. You'll drop from 1300 fps to 1100 fps (depending on the powder). Second reason, longer sight seperation is better for accuracy. Last reason if you have to stab a zombie in the head the 6" barrel will reach the corpus callosum, but a 4" won't.

[ltorlo64]

Last reason if you have to stab a zombie in the head the 6" barrel will reach the corpus callosum, but a 4" won't.

This is the biggest selling point anyone has offered!

[alismith]

The difference in weight is minimal 4" to 6". But ... the speed you will achieve is significantly less. You'll drop from 1300 fps to 1100 fps (depending on the powder). Second reason, longer sight seperation is better for accuracy. Last reason if you have to stab a zombie in the head the 6" barrel will reach the corpus callosum, but a 4" won't.

That, alone, is worth having the 6" barrel.

[FunkyPertwee]

The difference in weight is minimal 4" to 6". But ... the speed you will achieve is significantly less. You'll drop from 1300 fps to 1100 fps (depending on the powder). Second reason, longer sight seperation is better for accuracy. Last reason if you have to stab a zombie in the head the 6" barrel will reach the corpus callosum, but a 4" won't.

I'm seeing about a 5 1/2 oz weight difference on the 586 comparing 4" to 6". 40.9 vs 46.3. Not too much I Reckon.

Also I found this:

There is another chart here: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html