Smith 686 Durability?

[Confederate]

I'm wondering if there's any difference between the 686 6-shot and 7-shot revolvers. Some of the early reports indicated that the 7-shot revolvers were going out of time well before their 6-shot counterparts and that the actions weren't quite as smooth.

For a long time I've also thought Smith should offer their 686s with standard barrels rather than only barrels with full length underlugs. Would anyone prefer standard barrels? I also wish Ruger would offer standard barrels on their GP-100s.

I have one of the very early 686s with 6-inch barrel, stamped side plate and flash chromed trigger and hammer. The finish is very nice and one of these days I'm going to shoot it. Seems like a shame, though.

The 686 was designed because the older K-frame .357s were not holding up well to full throttle magnum rounds. Now, however, I would think metalurgical advances would allow them to make a good medium frame .357 that would be stronger. I've read one or two complaints that 686s were going out of time on this board, but the posters never mentioned whether they had the 6- or 7-shot revolvers.

Anyone who's had any problems with their 686s, I'd be interested in hearing from you. I do think it's one of the best designed revolvers out there though I prefer packing a 4-inch Security-Six, which is lighter.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Just a side comment. I was out chrono-ing some 357 magnum reloads and actually worked up to the original 1500 FPS with a 158 Lead SWC out of an 8 3/8" N frame. These are much hotter then conventional or current loaded 357 Magnum ammo at say 1250 FPS out of a 6.5" with 158's. At 1500 fps (original speed) the 357 Magnum is pretty impressive. Even with an 8 3/8" barrel the gun jumps a bunch. I would not expect a 686 to last very long given this type of load.

Now if you are shooting current loaded big name factory 357 Magnum's which over the chrono are not much more then original 38/44 power levels, then I would expect your gun to last a long time.

 

[jad0110]

I have one of the very early 686s with 6-inch barrel, stamped side plate and flash chromed trigger and hammer. The finish is very nice and one of these days I'm going to shoot it. Seems like a shame, though.

Seems like a shame NOT to shoot it . That is after all its goal in life, and I'd wager that it is unhappy just sitting around all lonesome and what not .

From my own personal research that I conducted before purchasing my 686+ 4", it seems that early 7 shot models did have timing problems, but by the late 90s the problem had been addressed. A few people told me that the 7 shot actually has a slightly shorter, lighter pull than the 6 (don't remember exactly why).

For a long time I've also thought Smith should offer their 686s with standard barrels rather than only barrels with full length underlugs. Would anyone prefer standard barrels?

Have you checked out the S&W 620? It is also an L Frame gun and I believe it to be identical to the 686 except it is only available in a 7 shot model with a 4" barrel, and it has a half-lug barrel. It may be just your thing, check it out:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...ING&attributeValueOperator1=EQUAL&isFirearm=Y

http://www.gunblast.com/SW619-620.htm

 

[Ditchtiger]

I've lost track of the untold 1000s of rounds my 686 has used. Once a year I strip it down to its individual pieces for a good cleaning, still seems like new after 14? years. Yes, I wish a standard barrel had been an option.

 

[Confederate]

A few people told me that the 7 shot actually has a slightly shorter, lighter pull than the 6 (don't remember exactly why).

It's because the distance the pawl/hand has to travel to push the cylinder into place. By making six, seven, it naturally means shorter travel time.

At 1500 fps (original speed) the 357 Magnum is pretty impressive. Even with an 8 3/8" barrel the gun jumps a bunch. I would not expect a 686 to last very long given this type of load.

I wonder how a Ruger double action would hold up....

 

[Dr.Who]

The 686 6shot is just a bit stronger in the cylinder due to more material around each bullet. Would only matter to those persons that shoot max loads and try to find the upper limits.... But, then most of those persons would go to a Ruger Blackhawk or the like....

I have a 686 6 shot in 6 inch and 4 inch.... The 6 has a better triger and it is a newer gun. the 4 inch is an early model. Have had the 4 inch worked on, however just can't get the same feel. Also have a 627 (8 shot) it is sure fun to shoot, and I know it would not be as strong as the 686 6 shot.

 

[YodaVader]

I have owned my current 6 shot 686 for 12 years now and the vast majority of the loads fired have been 357 Magnum reloads using 296 and H110 and the 158 JHP. Some 125s , 140 and 180s also thrown in for good measure!

There have been no issues at all regarding durability. The accuracy is pretty impressive! I used to own 686s in other barrel lengths but finally settled on the 6".