{"id":3165,"date":"2015-03-11T17:16:33","date_gmt":"2015-03-11T21:16:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.luckygunner.com\/lounge\/?p=3165"},"modified":"2015-03-16T10:04:05","modified_gmt":"2015-03-16T14:04:05","slug":"smith-wesson-386","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.luckygunner.com\/lounge\/smith-wesson-386\/","title":{"rendered":"Smith & Wesson 386: The Best Revolver You’ve Never Heard Of"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"wheel-gun-wednesday-banner\"<\/a><\/p>

It’s Wheel Gun Wednesday! This series is devoted to exploring the deeper issues of using a revolver for self-defense – both the good and the bad. Today I’m continuing\u00a0the “Quest for the Ideal Carry Revolver” that I\u00a0started last month. Be sure to check out part one<\/a> if you missed it!<\/p>

The Quest Continues<\/strong><\/h3>

What’s the downside to ditching a modern double-stack semi-automatic as an everyday carry pistol in favor of a revolver? You lose ammo capacity and the ability to reload quickly, but is that all you have to give up? And what advantages might be had by carrying and training with the revolver that we don’t normally think of? That’s what I aim to find out in searching for a carry revolver to temporarily replace my trusty S&W M&P 9mm compact.<\/p>

The M&P9c is easy to carry and I can shoot it almost as well as a full size. I want a revolver that’s analogous to that with comparable size and weight,\u00a0so I’ve started\u00a0my search with mid-size carry revolvers in the 20-30 ounce range. Unfortunately, the options in this category are limited. Most lighter revolvers are the small-frame featherweights that are made to carry a lot and shoot very little. Mid-size revolvers tend to be constructed from steel, and even the shorter barrel models often tip the scales at more than 36 ounces.<\/p>

\"Smith
The Smith & Wesson 386 Sc\/S. You’ve probably never heard of it. #gunhipster<\/figcaption><\/figure>

Fortunately, there are a few\u00a0options in between these two extremes. I’ve identified a handful that I’m testing\u00a0out over the next several weeks. I’ll be continuing our series with a\u00a0quick profile of each revolver on the list along with some of my first impressions. After I’ve had a chance to run each of them through their paces, I’ll summarize my findings and pick a “winner” to run through some drills and tests to see how it measures up against a semi-auto in every imaginable respect.<\/p>

Let’s take a look at our first challenger…<\/p>

Smith & Wesson 386<\/strong><\/h3>

Starting in the late 90s, Smith & Wesson released several mid and large frame lightweight revolvers in .357 magnum, as well as some of the larger calibers like .44 magnum and .45 ACP. Most of these models have disappeared from Smith\u2019s catalog in the last few years, but they\u2019re available on the secondary market if you\u2019re patient and willing to pay close to the original MSRP.<\/p>

The larger alloy\u00a0revolvers built on the S&W N-frame are too wide to be comfortable for my preferred method of appendix carry, so that leaves the\u00a0model 386 — a medium L-frame .357 magnum. You’re probably familiar with the steel L-frames like the S&W 686, but the 386 series are mostly known only to more dedicated revolver aficionados.\u00a0High price tags, low sales for revolvers in general, and S&W’s confusingly broad product catalog were all likely factors that prevented the 386 from ever taking off. Interest in revolvers has rebounded in the last couple of years, and prices on the used market are quickly rising for many discontinued S&W models, including the 386.<\/p>

\"Smith<\/a>
The 386 Nightguard is nearly identical to the Sc\/S, but features different sights and a full-length underlug.<\/figcaption><\/figure>

There have been a handful of variants\u00a0of the 386, each with a different set of features. The last to cease production was the 386 XL Hunter, but its 6\u201d barrel means it\u2019s not a candidate for concealed carry. The 386PD and 386 Mountain Lite both have short barrels and titanium cylinders in addition to their lightweight alloy frames. That means they weigh in at under 19\u00a0ounces each, and I want a little more heft\u00a0than that to help tame the recoil of a fighting revolver.<\/p>

That leaves the 386 Nightguard and the 386 Sc\/S. Both have 2.5-inch barrels, Scandium alloy frames, and 7-shot steel cylinders. The Nightguard is\u00a0equipped with a tritium front sight and a Cylinder and Slide rear sight and weighs 24.5 ounces. The Sc\/S (for Scandium and Steel) is\u00a0very similar, but has the traditional S&W adjustable sights and weighs 21.2 ounces.<\/p>

\"Smith<\/p>

I actually owned a 386 Night Guard\u00a0not too long ago, and it was even featured on the Lounge once<\/a>.\u00a0But I got frustrated with trying to find a suitable holster for it and eventually sold it. Now that I’m taking a fresh approach to this revolver thing, I wish I hadn’t. None of the models in the discontinued Night Guard series are\u00a0particularly easy to come by, and I really liked the large XS tritium front sight combined with the more traditional rear notch. When I started looking a few weeks ago, I wasn’t able to find another 386 Night Guard\u00a0at a price I was willing to pay, but I did come across\u00a0an Sc\/S priced at $750. Not cheap for a carry gun, but a fair deal compared to the prices the other 386 models have been fetching recently on the used market.<\/p>

\"S&W<\/p>

Let’s see how it measures up to the criteria I laid out last time:<\/p>