The rabbi lent me two of his Ruger SP656s for Sam. The gun weighs more than Sam does, the rabbi pronounced, exaggerating only slightly. The stainless Rugers sported two-inch and three-inch barrels. Sam shot them alongside her Smith (which used to be my Smith, around the time of my last birthday). Sam couldn t hit squat with the Rugers, and didn t enjoy the experience. She shot nice tight groups with the four-inch Smith and smiled that crooked little smile of hers. 857? Even better.
Model 686 Plus Smith amp Wesson
And now has the low-down on barrel length and. 857 ammo that proves that Sam does, indeed, own the perfect gun. Well almost. The power of the. 857 is greatly affected by barrel length.
The. 857 seems to hit its prime at 6”. Any shorter and a lot of power is lost any longer and you are toting a gun unnecessarily to [sic] big. If you look at the charts made by the gentlemen at ou will see that the difference between a 7” barrel and a 6” barrel is upward of 755 ft/sec of velocity. If you use this info and plug it into the [ ] calculator you will see that your values skyrocket as the barrel length increases.
Smith amp Wesson 686 The Truth About Guns
Using the data on a Corbon 675 grain JHP a 7” barrel yields an energy of 776 ft/lbs, momentum of 66, and a TKO of 5. Now you plug in the data from the same round out of a 6” barrel and you get an energy of 866 ft/lbs, momentum of 85, and a TKO of 65. Now that s what I call stopping power. Although yes, shot placement. The bottom line:
six is better than four but four is better than three and three is a LOT better than a snubbie. In terms of recoil control, accuracy and stopping power, bigger is better. And no way Sam could schlep a six-inch Smith Wesson 686-6. She d end up walking funny. If you know what I mean.
If i had a choice of only revolvers. Yes S W 686 9 or longer is ideal. I just got a s/w 9in plus. I hope I like. It hasn t come in it was oderedI drifted away from revolvers.
They are so fundamental, no razmataz, no gizmosis.