no.5enfield
Member
I can't decide between 586 and 686. Both have their pros and cons.
It's pretty much a pro and a con, isn't it? Stainless vs. blued steel, either of which can be either a pro or a con, depending upon the situation and personal preference. Having both, all things considered, I'd go with the stainless. I admire the looks of the blued gun, but I admire the looks and the utility of a stainless one too. But I can certainly understand if the blued steel is just too appealing for one to ignore.I can't decide between 586 and 686. Both have their pros and cons.
The only thing that would make an 'L' frame better would be to make a half lug barrel.
There's some revolvers that need to be blued (eg Colt Python) and there's some revolvers that need to be stainless (eg Ruger GP100).
They did. It's called a 686 mtn gun(7 shot) 4" bbl..I have one.
Someone say “half lug”? My ears were tickled lol. Carried to the store yesterday under my navy pea coatDon't know about that. The blued 5" half-lug GP100 that @shoebox1.1 has posted before looks far better to my eyes than the standard stainless GP100.
I'd love to see this!I have a 6 inch 586 which was MAGNA-PORTED by the previous owner. I shot it yesterday with a box of REMINGTON 125 grain sjhp and was amazed at how well it worked for me. I fired 23 rounds at center mass and all went into the 10 ring. I did not expect to shoot that well using the hard kicking REMINGTON ammo.
I am very pleased with the gun.
Jim
I vote for the 586 because I prefer blued over stainless generally
View attachment 978250