2.5" 686 or GP-100?

[Petrol & Powder]

I have long admired the concept of the John Jovino Effector. The forerunner of the Effector was likely the Fitz Special and the successors were the short, barreled Lew Horton models built from the 686.
Smith & Wesson finally got around to producing a short barrel, round butt 686 with the combat grips but they were late to that party.
The pre-lock 6-shot; short barrel 686 models tend to be very pricy. (Or at least more than I'm willing to pay)
Ruger now offers an alternative in the GP-100 with a 2.5" barrel. A very rough example of a 2.5" 686 tends to be in the price range of a new Ruger of the same class.
This is all academic because I'm not in the market. (at least not at the current costs)
It is interesting because once again, Ruger has identified a niche that S&W once had near exclusive control and attacked it head on.

 

[Winelover]

Nope............too heavy for intended use. If forced to carry that kind of weight, the caliber better begin with a four.

 

[Thumbcocker]

I have had a few 2.5" revolvers. They can shoot surprisingly well. I came to the conclusion that is the shorter barrel is about concealment it misses the boat.

The largest part of a revolver is the cylinder. The barrel sticks out the front but the cylinder is the fat part. I don't see any significant advantage in a 2.5" vs a 3" or even a 4". Note that I am of a size and girth that may have some factor in the equation.

 

[Winelover]

If you pocket carry, like I do. Barrels longer than 2.5" are counter productive. Exposed hammers, too.

 

[Glaciers]

IMO if your going to carry anything less than 4 inches in a 35 caliber the SP 101 - 2 inch or my preference the 3 inch SP101. I carry in the back pocket. Jumping up to a 6 shot L frame or the GP 100, the 4 inch barrel is my minimum. The extra bulk and weight a couple more inches of barrel just makes since. Both guns are bulky so a little more bulk in the holster, makes since.
It’s like the Ruger SRH in the “Alaskan” model. 2.5 inch in 44, 45, 454 or 480, no, not me. 4 inch is the small gun for me in those calibers, 5 inch is more like it.. Yeah I know. But my mileage varies from a lot of folks. It won’t fit in your pocket, I can’t understand a 2.5 inch barrel..

 

[Petrol & Powder]

If you pocket carry, like I do. Barrels longer than 2.5" are counter productive. Exposed hammers, too.

A 2 1/2" L-frame is not a pocket gun on any level. I would never consider a short barrel L-frame as a pocket gun. And I totally concur that hammer spurs have no place on snub-nose revolvers when carried in a pocket.

A 2.5" L-frame (or GP-100) is a holster gun and that holster is an On The Waistband [OWB] holster and not and IWB type.
The short barrel saves you some weight and bulk but it's still a holster gun.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

IMO if your going to carry anything less than 4 inches in a 35 caliber the SP 101 - 2 inch or my preference the 3 inch SP101. I carry in the back pocket. Jumping up to a 6 shot L frame or the GP 100, the 4 inch barrel is my minimum. The extra bulk and weight a couple more inches of barrel just makes since. Both guns are bulky so a little more bulk in the holster, makes since.
It’s like the Ruger SRH in the “Alaskan” model. 2.5 inch in 44, 45, 454 or 480, no, not me. 4 inch is the small gun for me in those calibers, 5 inch is more like it.. Yeah I know. But my mileage varies from a lot of folks. It won’t fit in your pocket, I can’t understand a 2.5 inch barrel..

I agree with a lot of what you write. A 2.25" or 3" SP101 saves a lot of weight and width when compared to a similar L-frame of GP-100. But there are times when being able to shave a little off a barrel makes the gun a bit easier to live with in an OWB holster. Think when seated in a vehicle for long periods of time or when you want a slightly shorter covering garment for an OWB rig. Yeah, you give up a little sight radius and velocity, but you gain something that's a little more "packable".
Now, if we're talking back pocket carry - I'm right with you. A SP101 gives you the same cartridge capability (.357 mag) and a much thinner cylinder. The next runner-up would probably be something like an old Speed-Six (which gives you 6 rounds) By the time you step up to an L-frame, even with a short barrel, you are solidly in holster territory.

BUT Back to my first post:
I wasn't addressing the attributes of the individual gun, I was addressing the fact that after S&W finally got around to making a factory short- barreled L-frame, Ruger met them head on. I was speaking more to the competition between S&W and Ruger, than the actual guns.

 

[david s]

Nope............too heavy for intended use. If forced to carry that kind of weight, the caliber better begin with a four.

Mine does a S&W 696 in 44 special but 5 shot of course. I don't consider this (or a 3 inch model 65 K frame 357) a pocket gun and use holsters.

 

[L Ross]

All of this reminds me that there is a externally worn, but hardly fired Model 19 round butt 2 1/2" shoved into the back of the safe I think.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

All of this reminds me that there is a externally worn, but hardly fired Model 19 round butt 2 1/2" shoved into the back of the safe I think.

A useful tool.

 

[RicinYakima]

Back when our local PD police women were using the then new 125 grain 357, this was the choice for most of them. Mostly this was because the smaller K-frame round butt grip frame with Pachmayr Compacs. During the long dark winter months, the men vs women indoor 25 yards matches were close. I would coach the women, much better at taking instructions, and they won their share. We had about 10 women and 90 male officers at that time.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Whenever someone mentions short-barreled revolvers, people tend to think "hide out" snubnose revolvers but there is more to the genre than J-frames.
Not every short-barreled DA revolver is a Chief's Special, or Centennial designed to be carried in an ankle holster or pocket.
The 2 inch K-frames and 2.5" magnum K-frames have their uses.
The 2.5" L-frames would probably be better as 3" barrels but I don't know that I've ever seen a 686 with a 3" barrel and a 6 shot cylinder (there were some 3" models made with 7 round chambers- but that's a whole different set of speed loaders!)

A 2 1/2" L-frame is not a pocket or ankle holster gun by any means. Nor is it a "back up gun". But as a reduced size 4" gun - it has some value.
The John Jovino "Effector" (often built on an even bigger N-frame) or earlier Fitz Special Colts; were made to be specialized primary guns. The shorter barreled L-frames are a continuation of that concept.
Perhaps it's a bit difficult to understand in today's world of semi-auto pistols, but there was (and maybe still is) a niche for that type of concealed primary weapon.

 

[RicinYakima]

P&P, That niche is for the civilian who has a real chance of having to defend themselves, not internet warriors. There are still people who have to carry a lot of money around, in this state pot merchants since they are not allowed to use banks or credit cards. When you are taking $50,000 a day to the secure storage, you are often confronted with robbers.

 

[hporter]

I appreciate that most folks have the opinion that short barreled medium and large frame revolvers serve few useful purposes.

But I happen to prefer them. I actually shoot them better. Probably more to do with my poor eye sight and the front and rear sights being closer together on a short barrel.

I have a couple 3" GP-100's. I have a couple 2-1/2" N frame revolvers. I have a couple Ruger 44 magnums with 2-1/2" barrels.

My shooting buddy used to collect 6" S&W revolvers. After many years of shooting my snub barreled versions, he has started to change his way of thinking. In fact he loved my S&W model 66 2-1/2" so much that he talked me into trading for one of his S&W model 28's with a 4" barrel.

I loved my Ruger Super Alaskan snubby in 44 mag so much that I bought this dandy when they came out. The rounded stock is very comfortable to shoot with.



My first center fire handgun was a Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 mag with a 7-1/2 barrel and the dragoon trigger guard that I picked up when I was 16 years old. I carried it around the great Pacific Northwest in an Uncle Mikes shoulder holster. When I read this thread I thought about that old Super Blackhawk and the miles and miles I used to hike around with it. I assure you, this little Ruger would have been much more comfortable to pack around than that 7-1/2 barreled Super Blackhawk.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I think Ruger has once again taken some market share from S&W. The Ruger 2 1/2" GP-100 is the competition to the 2 1/2" 686.
The 2.5" 686, pre-lock, 6 shot revolvers are rarely seen on the used market, and when they do appear, the asking prices for good examples are generally north of $1K.
Ruger offers a comparable GP-100 for less than that new. I'm not saying that I'm going to run out and buy one, but it is interesting.

The 2.5" L-frame has never been a revolver with widespread appeal. In fact, other than special runs for Lew Horton distribution, S&W didn't even catalog the 2 1/2" barrel model until 1990 (about 10 years into the production of the 686).

The short barrel/large frame DA revolver is often a misunderstood concept. It is not a back-up gun. It is a short barrel/round butt primary weapon for users that either didn't want, or couldn't have, a semi-auto pistol.

 

[Winelover]

Mine does a S&W 696 in 44 special but 5 shot of course. I don't consider this (or a 3 inch model 65 K frame 357) a pocket gun and use holsters.

I scratched that itch with a S&W 24-3 Lew Horton. At 37 ounces (unloaded) it's not a pocket piece. It defiantly requires a belt holster so it won't be my bowhunting back up. The CA 2 1/2" Bulldog fills that roll.

 

[Winelover]

A 2 1/2" L-frame is not a pocket gun on any level. I would never consider a short barrel L-frame as a pocket gun. And I totally concur that hammer spurs have no place on snub-nose revolvers when carried in a pocket.

A 2.5" L-frame (or GP-100) is a holster gun and that holster is an On The Waistband [OWB] holster and not and IWB type.
The short barrel saves you some weight and bulk but it's still a holster gun.

Not enough to matter. Maybe two ounces. Take the Model 69............ dropping from 4.24" to 2.75" saves you three ounces. Still weighing in 34. 4 ounces.................why I don't own one. If CA can make a 21 ounce 44 handgun, why do all the other manufactures refuse to fulfill that niche? Ruger does but with only in the 357 line.

 

[hporter]

Though not as small as my Charter Arms Bulldog in 44 special was, my 45acp 325PD weighs in at 21.7 ounces.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Winelover - not to channel Bill Clinton, but......"I feel your pain"
Yes, in a perfect world there would be some more factory options.

And yes, a few ounces or an inch of barrel length may seem trivial in some settings.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Though not as small as my Charter Arms Bulldog in 44 special was, my 45acp 325PD weighs in at 21.7 ounces.

View attachment 27102

/\ There's a concept that I wished had caught on a bit more. /\