For shooting at the range, I prefer a 6" plus/minus barrel. The weight and balance works well.
But, for carry everyday iI the field, I really do not have any real experience, But, I'm sure lighter would be better for the most part. It could become a drag to have a 2-3 pound drag on your hip 24/7.
Do what your experience tells you but in the absence of knowledge, I'g go with with the longer barrel.
I came to exactly the same conclusion. I understand those who prefer 4"-4.2", either full, profile heavy barrel, or slim one. That is their choice, especially for CCW. And as I said many times (talking about some other configurations on other firearms), I am OK with whatever somebody wants. And I have no reason whatsoever to be against somebody's wishes., and will always support them. Why I should be against?
Considering that with slim barrel, 6" revolver is heavier not even 2 oz more than 4"-4.2", I see no weight issue for an outdoor revolver. As a benefit, longer barrel gives bit more velocity for the same ammo, bit less muzzle blast and less recoil, easier to aim because of longer sight radius. And IMO 6" revolver just looks more "balanced", nicer .
Going other direction, for a while I desperately wanted S&W M27 with 8-3/8" barrel, and boy, it has gorgeous checkered top strap. But, I learned that M27 has shorter cylinder than any other S&W DA revolver in K and L 357 Magnum, including M19/66. Consequently, if I want to shoot 358429 from M27, round has to be loaded with crimp going in front of front bullet driving band. I thought at the first moment that somebody is spreading wrong info. Unfortunately, I was wrong. So, I crossed on my wish list M27 for good. To this day I am puzzled why M27 was crippled, and still has the same short cylinder?