Which is more concealable, a 4" K-frame or a 3" L-frame?

Status
Not open for further replies.

chaim

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,846
Location
Columbia, MD
It has been some time since I've had a 4" revolver or an L-frame. My first handgun was a Taurus 82, I had a P&R S&W 19, and I had a slightly smaller than K-frame .38spl Colt Police Positive Special, and the only L-frame I've had was a 6" 586, though it has been a decade or more since I have had most of them (and years since I've had any of them). Currently, in revolvers I have a few small frames (mostly 2" snubs, one 3"), a 3" K-frame (S&W 65LS) and 1 N-frame (S&W 625MG). I'm not a fan of the snubs and will be selling most of them, and that may help with a more practical (for my uses) revolver purchase.

As for concealment needs, I don't carry often, I can't carry often. I live in MD where a CCW permit is near impossible unless you meet very specific criteria (if you are a business owner who deals with large cash deposits or easily liquidated merchandise, if you are a prosecutor, cop or judge, you may be able to get a permit). I do have a UT non-resident permit which allows me to carry in the nearby states of VA (less than an hour away), WV (as little as an hour away), and DE (about 1 1/2-2 hrs away) and I will be getting a NH non-res permit which will add PA (as little as an hour away), and I spend several partial days a month carrying out of state, and more when on vacation. So, for such part-time carry, I can certainly conceal pretty much anything, and do sometimes carry my S&W 625MG, but I do care about practical carry size.

With how I carry, body size, and how often I carry, I find a mid-sized auto (CZ P01, SIG P250 Compact, Commander sized 1911) the best combination of size and attributes for carry (small enough to comfortably carry, but large enough to be a quite capable gun).

I've long thought a 3" K-frame to be the ideal sized revolver for carry, and it is quite analogous to mid-sized compact autos I like. However, they are getting to be somewhat rare and quite expensive on the used market, and they aren't made anymore on the new market. So, that leaves you with 3" J-frames (I do have a 3" Rossi 461, but I don't really trust Rossi quality, and I don't trust only having 5 shots in a S&W or Ruger), 3" L-frames and N-frames, or 4" K-frames.

I do remember from my 586 that the frame on it was only slightly larger than the frame on my K-frames, but slightly larger enough to be noticeable. The larger cylinder when carried IWB (how I prefer to carry) would be bulkier with the cylinder placed right under my belt. I would like a 3" S&W 686Plus, and it has been on my want list for some time and the extra round on the 686 Plus vs. a K-frame would be nice. However, they are expensive. A 4" (especially a .38spl S&W 64 or a used model 10) would save a little money v. the L-frame, certainly would be easier to find used at a reasonable price, would allow me to get one faster, and of course a 4" .38 or .357 is a classic. The smaller K-frame would be a little easier to conceal (especially with the slightly thinner cylinder). Eventually, I'll probably have both, but both have been on my want list for many years (the 4" .38 or .357 ever since I sold my last one, a 3" L-frame for at least 6 or 7 years), so it will be a while before I have both.

So, anyone who has both a 3" L-frame, and a 4" K-frame, if you had to choose one for carry, which would it be? If the 4" K-frame is actually easier to carry, I may pick that up before the 3" 686 that I've wanted forever.
 
A couple of weeks agoI had hands on experience with a new 2-3/4" 66 and my 686+ 3".
I was going to buy a new 66 but after the comparison shoot I decided there was no appreciable difference in overall handling and felt weight and my 686+ actually seemed to have better balance.
My 2 ¢
 
,I was a cop in the mid 1970's, right at the end of the revolver era for LE. In those days most guys carried a 2" J frame or Detective Special. Very few guys carried autos. I carried a .380 PPK Walther, but at that time, truly good ammo for the .380 hadn't been invented yet. I never felt good with the Walther.

Then went to the then new 2 1/2" M-66. We'd had the short barreled Combat Magnum/M19 for some time, but the SS 66 simply made better sense in the humid , east coast. The round butt, grip frame made it fairly easy to conceal. Still only SIX rds. Though six EFFICIENT rds.

I longed for more barrel length for more power. Also didn't care for the shorter EJECTOR ROD on the 2.5" models. So I sent my 66 back to smith and had a 4" barrel installed. I carried that 4" gun for a few years and it carried well, EASY to conceal under a suit, longer barrel for more velocity, full stroke ejector rod, etc. Plus almost zero difference between it and my 4" M-19 uniformed duty gun.

Then we were allowed to carry autos and enter a Colt Commander in .45 acp. I never looked back at a revolver for MANY years.

IMHO , though there's a caveat....I am a very dedicated Smith & Wesson revolver lover and collector.....The 3" M-66 variation is about a perfect carry gun and the 3" K framed NON adjustable sight 13's and 65's are right with it. Not too heavy, concealable, enough power.

The 3" L frame guns start to be too heavy in my opinion. I have one of the 3", round butt CS-1 revolvers. It IS a thing of beauty. VERY accurate, but just a tad too heavy for concealed carry.

In a good high rise holster that holds the gun close to your body none of the 3" round butt guns are tough to conceal. Keep grips as small as you can though. I still have a few Kramer and Milt Sparks revolver rigs.

I went through this with the thought of CONCEALED carry. For FIELD carry in a good rig with a solid belt to hold it all up. I've carried 4 and 5 inch N frames all day. If the OP is talking about non concealed carry any 4" could work easily with the smallest grips you can get away with.
 
Last edited:
Although I would love to carry any of my 4 or 5 inch K or L frame Smith's or my Ruger Security Six the weight on my hip for this old guy is just not comfortable. Something with less weight is far more preferable. I EDC a J frame Smith Model 637 or something similar like a LCR in .327 most of the time. I do have a 3" LCRx in .38 +P that I carry on occasion. Right at 20 ounces when loaded.
 
It's been a while since I owned a S&W, though I've own at least on J, K and L frame. But from what I remember, I'd say barrel length and grip size are the important factors. Frame size and cylinder diameter obviously play a part, but less so, imo. Thought weight may be a big factor, depending on how you carry, and how sensitive you are to it.
 
I always remember coming home from a 10 hr shift......ESPECIALLY when it was HOT.....and the relief of taking off that ten pound duty belt!
So a 20 or 35 ounce handgun ALONE, never bothered me.
 
The 3" M-66 variation is about a perfect carry gun and the 3" K framed NON adjustable sight 13's and 65's are right with it. Not too heavy, concealable, enough power.

I agree that a 3" K-frame is about the perfect carry revolver. Unfortunately, they are getting expensive and I don't like carrying something that is so expensive to replace. Also, with a few exceptions for guns made in large enough numbers I'm not a fan of carrying something that isn't in production any longer. Between the fact that anything used in a defensive shoot may be confiscated (and in MD, anything used in home defense is pretty much guaranteed to be confiscated) and if it does come back to you there are no promises what condition it will be in, plus the wear and tear and opportunities for damage with a carried gun, I like something that is still made and not too expensive. I have changed my definition of "too expensive" though since I'm going back to 1911s for carry, but even so, my 65 Ladysmith and most other 3" K-frames are right on or above my limit.

As for grips, a medium frame revolver that will be a carry gun will get boot grips.

The 3" L frame guns start to be too heavy in my opinion. I have one of the 3", round butt CS-1 revolvers. It IS a thing of beauty. VERY accurate, but just a tad too heavy for concealed carry.
Although I would love to carry any of my 4 or 5 inch K or L frame Smith's or my Ruger Security Six the weight on my hip for this old guy is just not comfortable. Something with less weight is far more preferable.


As for the 3" L-frame or 4" K-frame being too heavy, it just occurred to me that if I wait a little while I will have a better idea. I do like a lightweight Commander type 1911 for carry (mine is a 1st generation S&W 1911SC), but I recently ordered an all steel RIA Officer sized 1911. It weighs 34oz which is about the same as a 4" K-frame (about 2oz less than the 3" L-frame, but an extra mag will put it over the L-frame). If it is comfortable on my belt, the weight of the L- or K-frame should be fine.

That said, since I carry part-time, I'm not as worried. If lived where I could carry daily I probably wouldn't carry a medium frame revolver daily (though it would see some carry time). Heck, I might even rethink my CZ P01 and 1911SC as my primary carry guns and go with a smaller gun like my S&W M&P40c or SIG P290RS like so many choose and my snubs may be resurrected. However, I don't live in a carry state so most of my carry time is a day trip into another state several times a month plus vacations. Even so, a revolver only comes with me on camping trips and, for stricter concealment, a handful of day trips a year. Vacations, with several full days of carry in a row, is usually an auto (though I wouldn't mind a 3" revolver seeing some of that time).
 
Most people think of a shorter barrel when they think about concealment. I speak from years of carry experience when I say the barrel is not the hardest part to conceal. The handgun's butt will print first, and in the case of the revolver the width of the cylinder would be next as it adds bulk right at the belt line. Inside the waist band carry makes the length of the barrel a non-factor unless you get silly, like 6" or so.

Given the above, a K-frame round butt would conceal easier than an L-frame even if it had a round butt and a 3" barrel.

YMMV,
Dave
 
A one inch longer barrel on a K frame is much easier to conceal than the wilder cylinder on the L frame, especially if that K frame has a round butt grip. The back of the grip and the width of guns are the print points and also the discomfort points IMO.

There are plenty of retired LEO's still carrying a 4" S&W M10 or M13 around and you will never see it unless they want you to.
 
AFAIC, there is no difference in concealing a 4" K frame vs a 3" L frame unless your trying to fit it in a specific sized box. The grip is the biggest factor in concealment, as someone noted, not the barrel length. Barrel length can be an issue if you get silly as Dave T said. I used to see guys carry J frames with grips so big they might as well carried a K frame. The grip on a L frame is the same as a K. The L is a bit wider and heavier.

IMO, there is no difference carrying a J or K or a K or a L on a belt. Yes, there is a difference carrying a J and a L. The only place a J frame shines is in an ankle holster. I did know one big guy who carried a 2 1/2" M19 in an ankle holster.

You really can conceal just about any handgun if you are willing to dress around it. I'm not really a big guy and I've carried 4" K frames and full size 1911s under a one size up tshirt.

I've been carrying a handgun daily for almost 45 years. These are some of my observations.
 
I can't help with the comparison since I've never owned a 3" L frame. I do own 4" L-frames as well as several K-frames. My favorite revolver for CC is the S&W M-65 3" heavy barrel. It balances perfectly. In general, I'd prefer a K-frame to an L-frame for carry. However, in practical terms, there really isn't that much difference between the two.
 
It is sounding like a wash to me...

As expected, since I carry IWB most of the time, 3" v. 4" isn't going to make much difference in concealment. No one mentioned it, but I remember from when I had the 4" K-frames that the 3" is a little more comfortable when sitting down, but then again, get a good holster with the right cant and that will remedy that for the most part.

The L-frame is wider, and enough to be noticeable (at least in comfort). If/when I go that way, I'll probably need a cover garment instead of using my typical IWB tuckable holsters, and if I'll need a cover garment anyway, maybe I'll go with a pancake holster instead of an IWB for a little extra comfort. On the other hand, I like the extra round so a concealment garment when carrying that revolver instead of going tucked may be an acceptable compromise.

I guess I'll just have to move both up on my list and get them both sooner rather than later. I have changed my carry/HD thinking a little again, and how well you shoot a gun is much higher on my list again than capacity (mind you, I never thought one should carry a gun they shoot poorly, but so long as you shoot it competently I saw it as enough while now if I shoot a gun better, I think that is more important). I shoot CZ and 1911s best, but my next best platform is a large or medium framed revolver. I'll just carry a backup for extra capacity when carrying a revolver I suppose.

Based upon what you guys said, my thoughts on comfort when sitting, and the value I place on the extra round, it is pretty much a wash. So, next time I have the money in my pocket for the gun, I'll probably either get whatever I see first, or whichever is less expensive. Then, within a few months to a year I'll probably pick up the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top