OK, I'm a K-Frame Addict. So Sue Me.

[Stephanie B]

First rounds out:



That group was shot sitting , with my elbows propped on the bench. (25’) So it’s accurate, it just took time to get it centered.

It now hits to POA with Ranger +P.

[Dave T]

...they figured they could shave a quarter inch off the barrel length and still have a full length ejection rod.

On the other hand, if the barrel profile was a little sharper at the end, they might have gotten away with a 2 1/2 inch barrel and still kept the full-length ejection rod.

In the enthusiasm to chop off the barrel shorter and shorter, doesn't the reduced performance of your defensive ammunition become a concern...or have we drunk the Kool-Aid so much we think wonder bullets will save us all? A 1/4" difference may not matter much, maybe not even 1/2", but it used to be the 3" barrel was a compromise of the better 4" for the sake of carry ease.

Just asking for the sake of conversation,
Dave

[FrankB]

@Dave T
Looking at Lucky Gunner’s .357 2” and 4” ballistic gel tests, the 2” expands almost identically to 4”. https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/rev...llistics-test/
Some rounds performed better out of the 2” barrel! After looking at some other ballistics tests, I swapped out my 686+ 4” barrel for a 3” barrel.

[Stephanie B]

In the enthusiasm to chop off the barrel shorter and shorter, doesn't the reduced performance of your defensive ammunition become a concern...or have we drunk the Kool-Aid so much we think wonder bullets will save us all? A 1/4" difference may not matter much, maybe not even 1/2", but it used to be the 3" barrel was a compromise of the better 4" for the sake of carry ease.

Just asking for the sake of conversation,
Dave

Then maybe not say "drunk the Kool-Aid".

I can say that, in a thin leather IWB holster, I can feel the difference between a 2.5" and a 3". The shorter barrel is a little more comfortable. But, at least for the older Ks, I like the length of the ejection rod in the 3" gun. That I now have that feature in a slightly shorter barrel is nice.

The more comfortable it is to carry a gun, the more likely it is to be carried. Rule #1 of gunfighting applies, here.

[Dave T]

Well damn. Had a whole paragraph typed out, then decided it just isn't worth it. I'm out of this one.

Dave

[Spartan1980]

In the enthusiasm to chop off the barrel shorter and shorter, doesn't the reduced performance of your defensive ammunition become a concern...or have we drunk the Kool-Aid so much we think wonder bullets will save us all? A 1/4" difference may not matter much, maybe not even 1/2", but it used to be the 3" barrel was a compromise of the better 4" for the sake of carry ease.

Just asking for the sake of conversation,
Dave

I think it matters more with the light bullet screamer loads. In my 66-1 I have a 158 grain XTP handload that averages 1236 out of it's 2.75" barrel. That was a starting (bottom end) load of N110, so I wasn't even trying to hot rod it. Still haven't tried to either as that's plenty good enough. I might get some better SD numbers if I play with it a little. I just don't shoot that load in that gun enough to worry about it much.

[camsdaddy]

Im thankful for the timing of this post. I have a 3" 65 and am considering grabbing a 66 or 10. With that I was trying to decide to buy the shorter or longer barrel. I find myself using revolvers more because of ammo being harder to find and there is less a chance of setback from loading and unloading vs my semi's. I guess I should just use the 65 but there is that noise in the back of my head saying I cant buy a new one if there is ever and issue.

[Stephanie B]

This is where the rear sight ended up.



I took a very close look at the fitment of the barrel shroud and it is indeed off about a RCH.



I’m fairly certain that if I contact customer service at the mothership, they’ll either laugh or send the gun back and tell me that it’s in spec (if not “whaddya think we put adjustable sights on that gun to begin with?“).

[03RN]

In the enthusiasm to chop off the barrel shorter and shorter, doesn't the reduced performance of your defensive ammunition become a concern...or have we drunk the Kool-Aid so much we think wonder bullets will save us all? A 1/4" difference may not matter much, maybe not even 1/2", but it used to be the 3" barrel was a compromise of the better 4" for the sake of carry ease.

Just asking for the sake of conversation,
Dave

I don't really disagree with you. If the -8 was available with either 2.75 or 3” barrel I would have gone with 3.

That being said, my -8 is faster than my 4” m19-3 with a lot of ammo.

I still think a 170gr swc or 158gr XTP @ 1200 fps will do what I want it to do.

[Stephanie B]

This is where the rear sight ended up.



I took a very close look at the fitment of the barrel shroud and it is indeed off about a RCH.



I’m fairly certain that if I contact customer service at the mothership, they’ll either laugh or send the gun back and tell me that it’s in spec (if not “whaddya think we put adjustable sights on that gun to begin with?“).

So the question becomes can I live with this or will my gun OCD kick in and demand that it be trued up. My old analog caliper says that the barrel shroud is .004" in from the frame on the left-hand side and flush on the right-hand side. Which would mean that it would have to be turned in .002" to true it up.

Going into a gunsmith and saying "can you turn this two-thousandths of an inch to the left" might be asking for a bit of side-eye.