Thinking of buying a 686 for carry. Does it come in a 2.5" or 3" barrel choice? If both available which would be better for concealed carry?
I don't think "unbalanced" is quite the word but I do know what you mean. Frankly, I think I could live without that 7th round. That being said, I would have bought the 3" version had it been available to me at the time but I have the 2.5" one instead and have been happy enough. The 3" vs 2.5" barrel length really isn't an issue for concealability. The full length ejector rod is a good argument in favor of the 3" 686+.I owned a 686+ with 2 1/2" Bbl. I always thought a 3" or 4" would be nicer because the 2 and a half was strangely unbalanced with the fat cylinder holding 7 rounds. I also think 3" barreled K and L frames look like very serious weapons.
Agreed....the advice that Bmcgilvray is sound and worth taking to heart. The M686 is a classic wheelgun that will serve you well for years. I know of officers that carried them for years before being forced to switch to semi-autos. Lots of power in a packable package that offers versitility in ammo selection.The 3-inch realistically conceals about as well as the 2 1/2-inch does and the 3-inch has the advantage of a full-length ejector rod which will completely extract fired cases from the chambers. The fired cases won't clear the cylinder because the ejector rod is short on the 2-inch or 2 1/2-inch revolvers. Smartly rapping the end of the 2 1/2-inch ejector rod usually facilitates complete ejection but occasionally a stubborn case may cause ejection troubles. An emergency is not the time to be picking cases out of chambers.