Smith & Wesson Model 686, 7 shot, Mountain Gun, 6" barrel

[Onty]

On another thread we had discussion how to make a strong, reliable, yet reasonable heavy 357 Magnum revolver with 6" barrel https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/slimming-barrel-on-s-w-686.920362/ .

I felt that it would be more appropriate to start new post here. Anyhow, I just stumbled upon on very interesting article about Lipsey’s Exclusive 357 Magnum Smith & Wesson Model 686, 7 shot, Mountain Gun. https://gunblast.com/SW-357MtnGun.htm .

If that revolver, with 4.12" barrel, weighs 35.5 oz, with barrel extended for just 1.88", to make it 6", additional weight would be about 1.35 oz, total revolver weight not even 37 oz. The only other thing than original 686 Mountain Gun, would be the same hammer as on 686 Target Champion:

Also, I would like to have cylinder long enough, so round using Lyman 358429, loaded in 357 Magnum case, and crimped in a bullet crimp groove, could be used.

What do you think about this idea, would you buy this revolver? I will!

NOTE: This revolver does not exist, the picture you see is just "cut, copy, paste and modify", a wishful thinking. My apology for not making it clear while posting first time.

 

[357 Terms]

The Mountain gun series were designed to be easier to carry by reducing weight, while still having enough barrel length to let magnum rounds perform well, 4in barrel did that, to a certain extent.
I think with a 6in barrel that kinda defeats the intended purpose.
Something just looks right with the 4in Mountain guns also...(my 629)



6in Mdl 19/66 or 6in Security Sixs aren't (terribly) hard to find in good shape.


The 66/19's forcing cone issue is overblown, as are the claims the Sixes parts are hard to come by.

 

[mcb]

JHMO but that is one of the uglier barrel profiles S&W uses. But there is no account for tastes and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Nearly all of my S&W revolver are full underlug barrels and I really like that look better. I also like that extra weight out front to make them shoot better from a recoil point of view. The tapered barrels just don't due it for me. Even my Model 10 is a heavy barrel.

 

[Onty]

Well, if "6in barrel that kinda defeats the intended purpose", what do you have to say about Model 27, on large N-frame, with 6" or 6.5"? And shorter cylinder than 19/66 or 586/686;

And why 4.12" barrel? Would be even better 1.88":

 

[mcb]

JMHO but this is what a proper 6.5 inch N-frame looks like. Full underlug, round butt. fluted cylinder.

 

[357 Terms]

Well, if "6in barrel that kinda defeats the intended purpose", what do you have to say about Model 27, on large N-frame, with 6" or 6.5"? And shorter cylinder than 19/66 or 586/686;

Your getting a little heavier.
And bulking up a bit.
What's your intended purpose?

 

[Onty]

As I said, why 4.12" barrel, why not 1.88", or why 45.5 oz, why not 11.4 oz, if packability is the issue?

As for the shape of full underlug on 29 and 629, if you are shooting full power loads, or just like heavier revolver, why not? I will always support your wishes. Some of us do not shoot frequently, or not at all, full power loads, so we do not need heavier revolvers. And that is the reason why S&W makes partial underlug on 6" and 6.5" 29 and 629. Personally, I set my limit for 44 Magnum; 265 grain SWC at 1100 fps. Similar load, but from 45 Colt, went right through full grown cow, not a single bullet was recovered, see first post https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/revolver-for-handgun-hunting-another-view.903836/ . IMO, the best combination, enough punch, in reasonable heavy revolver, with reasonable recoil. Your mileage may vary, and you certainly know what is the best for you.

On the end, if some folks like 4,12" 686 Mountain Guns, that's fine with me, I will never say a single word against that model. Despite I think it looks bit odd. But hey, "different strokes, for different folks", and I am fine with that. I like 6" revolver, and with weight 35-37oz, and will go for such model. Yeah, Security Six would be perfect, but it is out of production for years. Hope that S&W or Ruger will make something in that class.

Cheers!!!

 

[JohnKSa]

You get a weight savings by going to the 7 shot model. That's a bit more than an ounce of steel gone from the cylinder to accommodate the additional round.

If that revolver, with 4.12" barrel, weighs 35.5 oz, with barrel extended for just 1.88", to it make 6", additional weight would be about 1.35 oz, total revolver weight not even 37 oz.

I think you're being slightly optimistic with your weight estimate.

S&W makes a 686-Plus with a 5" barrel that does not have a full underlug and is lightened with side cuts and it still comes in over 38oz.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/l-frame-178038

You want to add another inch of barrel and still come in well over an ounce lighter than the 5". I'm just not sure that's realistic.

I don't know that I would be absolutely set on a 6" bbl if weight is such an important consideration. 1" difference of barrel length in a revolver is into the range where things like individual variation in the two guns can completely eliminate the effects of a longer barrel.

Take a look at the numbers for the 4" S&W 686 and the 5" S&W 627-3 vs. the 6" Colt Python on this website.

BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: .357 Mag Results

(statement of intent)

www.ballisticsbytheinch.com

 

[Frulk]

Not sure what the hang up is with a 6 inch barrel (full lug or otherwise) and an all purpose carry revolver not meant for CC. To me, when you’re into 6 inch barrels or longer you’re into a hunting gun regardless of the profile of the business end.

I much prefer 4 or 4 5/8 inch barrels as an outdoor/general purpose carry gun in larger calibers. But that’s just me.

 

[halfmoonclip]

For lots of full charge .44 Mags, the underlug barrel is the answer, preferably with a 6" barrel. More gets cumbersome, less gives away some velocity. For packing a lot, shooting a little, a pencil barrel Mountain Gun, 4'', works for me.
This is conventional wisdom, which is what the gunmakers consider for a big production run.
For the OP, hope someone makes your wishes come true. It's just not for me.
Moon

 

[Onty]

Not sure what the hang up is with a 6 inch barrel (full lug or otherwise) and an all purpose carry revolver not meant for CC. To me, when you’re into 6 inch barrels or longer you’re into a hunting gun regardless of the profile of the business end.

I much prefer 4 or 4 5/8 inch barrels as an outdoor/general purpose carry gun in larger calibers. But that’s just me.

That is also my point for an outdorsman revolver; why to bother with 45 oz 357 revolver like 6" GP100 or 686, when for almost the same weight I could have 6" M29/629 and 5.5" SBH in 44 magnum? Or 6" 25/625 and 5.5" NMBH or Bisley in 45 Colt? I just prefer revolvers with 5.5"-6.5" barrels, but same applies for shorter barrel revolvers like 4"-4.62". BTW, another reason I am not fan of short barrel revolvers, especially in 357 Magnum, is a muzzle blast. Muzzle blast from full power 357, even with 6" barrel, is bad enough, from 4" or shorter is even worse.

Also, when I go on shooting matches, I see a lot of S&W M14 revolvers. Must be a reason why target shooters prefer that 6" revolver and its 35-36 oz. I would say just right balance of size and weight. Same goes for M17.

For lots of full charge .44 Mags, the underlug barrel is the answer, preferably with a 6" barrel. More gets cumbersome, less gives away some velocity. For packing a lot, shooting a little, a pencil barrel Mountain Gun, 4'', works for me.
This is conventional wisdom, which is what the gunmakers consider for a big production run.
For the OP, hope someone makes your wishes come true. It's just not for me.
Moon

Very honest and fair statement(s). That is exactly how I see things in a life. And firearms...

 

[nick22]

When I think of the mountain gun it's always going to be that 4" barrel revolver, for me it is the right balance between sight radius velocity along with being small enough to always have on your belt while in the mountains. That being said The .44 I carry into grizzly country is a 629 with a 5" full underlug barrel. Because in Ohio you have to have at least a 5" for legal deer hunting. But if the 6" is what you want to carry have at it

 

[StrawHat]

You can probably guess where I come in on the barrel length question. There are a couple more, but you get the idea.

Kevin

 

[SDGlock23]

My 686 checks all my boxes: it's a 7 shot, it's got an unfluted cylinder and it has the 5" full lug barrel. It's my perfect .357 Mag:

 

[Bo]

I'll play. My 6" 586.

 

[Bullet Bob]

If one you fashion experts can take time from your critiques, can someone help me with a question about the original post. I did try to read the link, but I'm brain cell challenged.

The original post has a picture of an older style L frame, without the cylinder lock. Is this a new offering (please let it be so), or is the picture posted of an old gun before the change, or some kind of photoshopping?

 

[Jim Watson]

Also, when I go on shooting matches, I see a lot of S&W M14 revolvers. Must be a reason why target shooters prefer that 6" revolver and its 35-36 oz.

A little heavier, in the early 1950s the K38 became the Heavy Masterpiece with barrel rib widened for 38 oz, same as K32 and K22 with smaller holes. I note that is what the Pardini .32 auto weighs. About right for standing on your hind legs holding the pistol in one outstretched hand.

 

[Onty]

If one you fashion experts can take time from your critiques, can someone help me with a question about the original post. I did try to read the link, but I'm brain cell challenged.

The original post has a picture of an older style L frame, without the cylinder lock. Is this a new offering (please let it be so), or is the picture posted of an old gun before the change, or some kind of photoshopping?

Sir, my sincere apology for misleading. Revolver on the first post does not exist, the picture you see is just "cut, copy, paste and modify" picture of existing 686 Mountain Gun with short 4.12" barrel. I made note on the bottom to avoid further confusion

Well, at least, looks like I managed to make pretty realistic picture. I wish this revolver one day becomes reality,

 

[Riomouse911]

To me, the S&W Mountain Gun is intended to create a packable, powerful and still shootable revolver for the outdoorsy types. My MG is the 629 .44 Magnum model.

I also have a 4.2” Model 69, which is an L frame S&W. This gun fits into a very similar niche and is a bit smaller than the MG, at the cost of a shot (5 shots in the 69 vs the MG’s 6). To me, the recoil shooting 240 gr magnum rounds in the 69 is surprisingly controllable with the factory grip.

The MG is made from conventional materials, yet is as light and handy as possible due to the thinner profile barrels, fluted cylinders, etc. 4” +\- a little bit is about the shortest barrel length that gives a useable sight radius for field use, yet can still be drawn quickly when the need arises (That pesky charging bear we all have read so many threads about over the years). Adjustable sights makes moving the POA/POI easy, and a full sized grip makes controlling magnum DA shots easier than a smaller, concealable grip would.

Being an N frame, the MG it is a big handgun. But it is a little bit more svelte than my N frame 4” Model 57 .41 with the magnum profile barrel. My N frame 6.5” full lug 629 PowerPort (similar to @mcb’s 6.5” 629) is easier to control than both the 69 and MG, at the cost of greater weight and 2.5” more barrel length to draw and wield.


6 shot N frame MG (top) and 5 shot L frame Model 69 .44 Magnums:


6.5 PowerPort .44 Magnum with a full lug barrel:


N frame Model 57 .41 Mag, with the magnum profile barrel:


And an N frame Model 624 .44 Special with the thin-profile barrel the MG uses:


I like the MG concept for what it is.

As with any gun discussion, YMMV. The opinions I expressed are worth no more, and no less, than any others.

Stay safe.

 

[nick22]

I love how these threads always turn into revolver porn

 

[StrawHat]

…Being an N frame, the MG it is a big handgun. But it is a little bit more svelte than my N frame 4” Model 57 .41 with the magnum profile barrel...

The heavy barrel first arrived in 1955 on the Model 1955, 45 ACP, Target Revolver.






Some found the extra weight helpful in controlling the recoil of the 45 ACP cartridge. It was later used on the 44 Magnum revolver.

Kevin

 

[Riomouse911]

The heavy barrel first arrived in 1955 on the Model 1955, 45 ACP, Target Revolver.

View attachment 1170868


View attachment 1170867

Some found the extra weight helpful in controlling the recoil of the 45 ACP cartridge. It was later used on the 44 Magnum revolver.

Kevin

Ya, I just used the term “magnum profile” to help differentiate between the heavier profile of the Model 29/57/25 guns and the much thinner/lighter profile barrel used on the Mountain Gun. (Which matches the profile of my 624 .44 Special.)

A Similar .357 magnum vs .38 special barrel profile difference goes for my 4 and 6 inch model 66’s and 6” 14 and 4” 15 for the same reason you listed above, it gives the magnums a little bit more recoil dampening weight.

Stay safe.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Do like pencils on milder kicking guns; found a 64 that looks exactly like a 90 year old pre Model 10. A reminder of days before magnums, and when guns were made lighter by removing any uneeded metal.
I can remember when we were all excited about the heavy barrels (riomouse's 'magnum profile'), and saw the pencils as old fashioned.
StrawHat, it's interesting to see your assortment of T-grips, another thing that has come back from days gone by. We always thought they looked old school and cobbled. Now I have about six of them. Go figure.
Moon

 

[StrawHat]

StrawHat, it's interesting to see your assortment of T-grips, another thing that has come back from days gone by. We always thought they looked old school and cobbled. Now I have about six of them. Go figure.
Moon

Moon,

I have been grabbing grip adapters since forever. Most of the gunshops around where I used to live would call me when they would get some in. I have Tyler’s, Mershon, Pachmyar, and the same style marketed by S&W. I also have a copy of the grip adapter offered by S&W in 1935 on the Registered Magnum. Because of the way it attaches to the frame, it is easiest used with Service stocks.



Here is an image of it .



Kevin

 

[mavracer]

As I said, why 4.12" barrel, why not 1.88", or why 45.5 oz, why not 11.4 oz, if packability is the issue?

Because it's Goldilocks. The mountain gun is a packing pistol not a target gun.
When holstered a 6" barrel extends past the point of the hip, it hits when you sit down and gets snagged on more stuff moving thru brush.
As to weight 35-45 oz isn't too bad to carry on a good belt, so no reason to hurt shootability going super light I sold my M&P 340 because full house 357 was uncontrollable.
Although if I ever see a Smith 396 Mountain Lite