S&W 686-3 Opinions?

[SonnyCrockett]

So one box through it would be? Six to mid six?

a new one is mid 600s,I paid 685 for my +P model

so to me a used one is 100 less and pawn shops sell them all day long

for 500-550.......your mildge may vary

[Glenn]

I have a 686-3 snub nose that is one of my favorites. I bought it used and everyone that shoots it comments on it's smooth double action trigger. It is fun to shoot and seems to be as accurate as I can be with a snub nose.

[Warbird]

I have had a 681 as a hunting sidearm for 20 years. It is always my go to hunting back up sidearm. I had the trigger reworked many years ago. It is good as is, but can be excellent when put in the hands of a good gunsmith. I don't carry a revolver as an EDC and though I own several revolver heirlooms that i wouldn't sell, the 681 won't likely ever be sold because I love the pistol. The ony other revolver I carry is a 44 mag Ruger, again as a hunting sidearm.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Warbird

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I bought the used 4" barrel 586-1 in late 1990's. It has the "M" stamp which I think signifies some bug fix on the original releases on which I can't recall details at the moment. A 1980's vintage gun that looked nearly un-shot. Not a spot on it, and not even any cylinder rotation marks. The blue on that vintage must have been real good because it is still near-spotless though it has been shot a fair amount, and even now the cylinder-rotation scratches are not pronounced.

Did all the earlier 586 and 686 have the full-length lug extending under the entire length of the barrel? Aesthetics are not the only thing about revolvers, but after much deliberation have about decided that the full-length lug looks better than some of the modern variants.

Been keeping an eye out for either a 6" barrel 586 or 686 new or in "near mint" condition. Or a 5" or 6" barrel 27 or 627. Confounding factors would be the appeal of having a 7 shot 686, or even an 8 shooter 627. And suspect for a "practical" combat gun maybe the ideal would be an 8 shooter factory-machined for moon clips. When I carried a J frame snubbie had some quick-loaders but never got very good at quickly reloading even with a quick-loader. 8 shot would be about the same capacity as a .45 1911, and moon clips ought to reload about as quick as a mag change.

But those may be needlessly complex considerations. Maybe just bite the bullet and get a 6" barrel, full-lug 686 six shooter.

[JC57]

Yes, all of the 58x and 68x revolvers had the full underbarrel lug. It was the S&W answer to the Colt Python, minus the vent rib on top.

I had one of the original 581s in 4" when they first came out, but I didn't want to swap out all of my leather at the time and it was a bit heavier to carry than my model 66 so I sold it shortly thereafter. At the time my department issued the ammo we carried (.38spl +P) so other than the coolness factor of the new gun, there was no real reason to switch.

Edited September 25, 2012 by JC57

[DaveTN]

I bought the used 4" barrel 586-1 in late 1990's. It has the "M" stamp which I think signifies some bug fix on the original releases on which I can't recall details at the moment. A 1980's vintage gun that looked nearly un-shot. Not a spot on it, and not even any cylinder rotation marks. The blue on that vintage must have been real good because it is still near-spotless though it has been shot a fair amount, and even now the cylinder-rotation scratches are not pronounced.

Did all the earlier 586 and 686 have the full-length lug extending under the entire length of the barrel? Aesthetics are not the only thing about revolvers, but after much deliberation have about decided that the full-length lug looks better than some of the modern variants.

Been keeping an eye out for either a 6" barrel 586 or 686 new or in "near mint" condition. Or a 5" or 6" barrel 27 or 627. Confounding factors would be the appeal of having a 7 shot 686, or even an 8 shooter 627. And suspect for a "practical" combat gun maybe the ideal would be an 8 shooter factory-machined for moon clips. When I carried a J frame snubbie had some quick-loaders but never got very good at quickly reloading even with a quick-loader. 8 shot would be about the same capacity as a .45 1911, and moon clips ought to reload about as quick as a mag change.

But those may be needlessly complex considerations. Maybe just bite the bullet and get a 6" barrel, full-lug 686 six shooter.

Depends on what your application is Lester. If you are going to carry it, 7 or 8 shots might be attractive. But you would probably have to go with a lock. There were a few prelocks made in a 7 shot 686, but they are hard to find.

I tried to like the N-frames (27,627), even carried a couple on duty. But the only thing you get with a pre-lock .357 N-frame is more bulk and weight. A pre-lock 27 makes a good collector or home defense gun. But I would go with an N-frame if I was going .44mag (29,629).

My application for revolvers is home defense, or I would like to get back into match shooting. Because I want to shoot them in matches, the 7, or 8 options would not be something I want. Revolver matches are set-up for 6 shots.

I also like the K-frames. I always keep an eye open for a mint 19 at a decent price. That’s the only blued gun I have any desire to have. S&W did some amazing bluing on some of the 19’s and 27’s.

I have had and carried many revolvers. My nightstand gun is 4†686, and on rare occasion I will carry a 2 ½â€ 66. Man I love me some revolvers, but a “Practical Combat Gunâ€? That would be my full size M&P with 15 rounds of .40S&W.

S&W is a company that offers everything I need in handguns. I hope they never go under.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Depends on what your application is Lester. If you are going to carry it, 7 or 8 shots might be attractive. But you would probably have to go with a lock. There were a few prelocks made in a 7 shot 686, but they are hard to find.

I tried to like the N-frames (27,627), even carried a couple on duty. But the only thing you get with a pre-lock .357 N-frame is more bulk and weight. A pre-lock 27 makes a good collector or home defense gun. But I would go with an N-frame if I was going .44mag (29,629).

My application for revolvers is home defense, or I would like to get back into match shooting. Because I want to shoot them in matches, the 7, or 8 options would not be something I want. Revolver matches are set-up for 6 shots.

I also like the K-frames. I always keep an eye open for a mint 19 at a decent price. That’s the only blued gun I have any desire to have. S&W did some amazing bluing on some of the 19’s and 27’s.

I have had and carried many revolvers. My nightstand gun is 4†686, and on rare occasion I will carry a 2 ½â€ 66. Man I love me some revolvers, but a “Practical Combat Gunâ€? That would be my full size M&P with 15 rounds of .40S&W.

S&W is a company that offers everything I need in handguns. I hope they never go under.

Thanks DaveTN

Yep, a semi-auto is more practical for carry so it is probably needless to go looking for a moon-clip 8-shooter.

One thing had been thinking, about getting an N-frame-- When I got the Henry .357 lever gun, worked up max load .357 158gn semi-jacket flat points that work real well in the rifle. Dunno if the 4" barrel 586 would get "worn out" on a steady diet of those things, and was suspecting maybe an N-frame would handle heavy loads better. But am ignorant and dunno if it matters that much.

What are practical problems with the newer lock models of 586/686? Maybe I have more than one lock gun, but the Taurus 9mm 1911 is the only one I can think of at the moment. I just ignore it and it never accidentally went into lock mode. Maybe it could be disabled with threadlock or something, dunno. Just curious if a lock model of S&W would actually be "bad mojo" for some reason. Or is it easy to permanently disable?

[DaveTN]

Thanks DaveTN

Yep, a semi-auto is more practical for carry so it is probably needless to go looking for a moon-clip 8-shooter.

One thing had been thinking, about getting an N-frame-- When I got the Henry .357 lever gun, worked up max load .357 158gn semi-jacket flat points that work real well in the rifle. Dunno if the 4" barrel 586 would get "worn out" on a steady diet of those things, and was suspecting maybe an N-frame would handle heavy loads better. But am ignorant and dunno if it matters that much.

What are practical problems with the newer lock models of 586/686? Maybe I have more than one lock gun, but the Taurus 9mm 1911 is the only one I can think of at the moment. I just ignore it and it never accidentally went into lock mode. Maybe it could be disabled with threadlock or something, dunno. Just curious if a lock model of S&W would actually be "bad mojo" for some reason. Or is it easy to permanently disable?

If you use full house 158 grain magnums you won’t have a problem, I’ve fired thousands of them in K and L frames. The problem came along when people decided to give up mass for velocity in the 110 and 125 grain magnums. The shorter bullet doesn’t seal off the forcing cone as quickly as the 158 does and causes problems.

I’ve never been one you give up mass to gain velocity; so I haven’t had any problems. But there have been plenty of users and gun mag writers that have put tens of thousands of 125 grain magnums through the K-frames with no issues. The L-frame was more a marketing move than anything. It’s a K-frame on steroids for those that thought the K-frame was too small and the N-frame was too large.

I switched my duty gun from 66 to a 686 when they first came out and was happy. But I shot on the PD pistol team with a 4†66, 4†686, and three 6†Pythons; the 4†66 would out shoot them all (in my hands).

I wouldn’t worry about the lock issue, unless it’s a carry gun. I have one on my 617 (New was the only way I could it). I have heard of the locks locking up a gun, but it is rare. Many things can lock-up a gun; it’s a mechanical device. I had a Ejector rod back out because I had the gun totally apart and apparently didn’t tighten it tight enough when I put it back together; same result…. No more shooting.

I’m not aware of any problems with the new 686’s, just the pre-locks are more desirable. I’d be more concerned with MIM than I would a lock.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks for the good info, DaveTN.

Do you know what if any parts in modern 586/686/27/627 that are MIM? Hopefully not parts that were previously case-hardened steel in older S&W revolvers?

At the gun show a few weeks ago saw an odd old S&W .357Mag revolver. Maybe it was an old K frame but looked like a J frame but it had a long barrel. Didn't have a ruler with me but think it was longer than 4". The fella selling it didn't know anything about it. The rear sight was "molded in" to the top strap, like a j frame 649 snubbie and it was a 5 shooter. I think the front sight was "molded in" as well, rather than a pinned-in front sight. It was maybe nickel but looked more like chrome plate.

Might should have bought it, price wasn't high and it looked in good shape, but was so oddball didn't know if maybe it was under or over priced. Maybe it is a valuable old model. Was kinda an ugly gun, would have only wanted it for the novelty, and didn't want to possibly over pay for an ugly old gun.

Can't recall the number, think it was something like 810 or something goofy. Looked up the number on the internet when I got home that day, didn't find any hits. Did S&W make long-barrel j-frame .357's in the past, or was it some other frame designation?

[DaveTN]

Thanks for the good info, DaveTN.

Do you know what if any parts in modern 586/686/27/627 that are MIM? Hopefully not parts that were previously case-hardened steel in older S&W revolvers?

At the gun show a few weeks ago saw an odd old S&W .357Mag revolver. Maybe it was an old K frame but looked like a J frame but it had a long barrel. Didn't have a ruler with me but think it was longer than 4". The fella selling it didn't know anything about it. The rear sight was "molded in" to the top strap, like a j frame 649 snubbie and it was a 5 shooter. I think the front sight was "molded in" as well, rather than a pinned-in front sight. It was maybe nickel but looked more like chrome plate.

Might should have bought it, price wasn't high and it looked in good shape, but was so oddball didn't know if maybe it was under or over priced. Maybe it is a valuable old model. Was kinda an ugly gun, would have only wanted it for the novelty, and didn't want to possibly over pay for an ugly old gun.

Can't recall the number, think it was something like 810 or something goofy. Looked up the number on the internet when I got home that day, didn't find any hits. Did S&W make long-barrel j-frame .357's in the past, or was it some other frame designation?

If it was a five shot it was probably a J-frame. Yes, the J-frames were made in long barrel lengths. The longest I have used is 3â€, but I have seen pics of 4 & 5â€. Three inch J-frame model 60’s were popular with cops working inside, or in plain clothes many years ago, and were hard to get.

Life is too short to buy ugly guns; if you think they are ugly don’t do it. Unless of course you find a cheap, long barrel, .357mag, S&W J-frame revolver. Then buy it and I will promptly give you your money back for it.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

http://www.gunblast.com/SW60_KitGun.htm

Thanks DaveTN

Today web-crawling found some pictures of 5" barrel fairly recent model 60's. It said not many were made of that recent run because it didn't sell well. The pictures I found looked kinda like that old one, but the new ones had a conventional pinned front sight and modern-style dovetail black rear sight.

edit-- The link at the top is an article about that recent production run. Am on the android pad, and it is too dumb to properly paste links where one wants in an edited message, so it is at the top where the android insisted on pasting it.

That old one looked like a dinosaur. Am pretty sure the front sight was part of the barrel, and the back sight was just a slot cut in the top strap, pitiful excuse for a back sight like a 649 snub. Was just wondering how old something like that would have been. 1960's? Earler?

Also ran across some forum messages saying that some people long ago took it upon themselves to put long barrels on j frame snubbies, so possibly the thing was a mutant bubba model rather than factory gun. Well, maybe the fella who was selling it is local. Will maybe go to the little shriners gun show this weekend and see if it is there.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you use full house 158 grain magnums you won’t have a problem, I’ve fired thousands of them in K and L frames. The problem came along when people decided to give up mass for velocity in the 110 and 125 grain magnums. The shorter bullet doesn’t seal off the forcing cone as quickly as the 158 does and causes problems.

I’ve never been one you give up mass to gain velocity; so I haven’t had any problems. But there have been plenty of users and gun mag writers that have put tens of thousands of 125 grain magnums through the K-frames with no issues. The L-frame was more a marketing move than anything. It’s a K-frame on steroids for those that thought the K-frame was too small and the N-frame was too large.

I switched my duty gun from 66 to a 686 when they first came out and was happy. But I shot on the PD pistol team with a 4†66, 4†686, and three 6†Pythons; the 4†66 would out shoot them all (in my hands).

I wouldn’t worry about the lock issue, unless it’s a carry gun. I have one on my 617 (New was the only way I could it). I have heard of the locks locking up a gun, but it is rare. Many things can lock-up a gun; it’s a mechanical device. I had a Ejector rod back out because I had the gun totally apart and apparently didn’t tighten it tight enough when I put it back together; same result…. No more shooting.

I’m not aware of any problems with the new 686’s, just the pre-locks are more desirable. I’d be more concerned with MIM than I would a lock.

Dave, is this the same thing/ issue with the 19-5? I heard of an issue with using the lighter weight rounds in it.

I just bought a 19-5, thought you might help about that.

[glowdotGlock]

The 686 is on my wish list. I have shot a couple and I must say I like it better than my sp101. Nice gun.

[RichardR]

While I like the balance & feel of the 19/66's a tad bit better, the 586/686 is a heck of a great revolver.

And yes 6.8, same issue.

It's ok to shoot the lighter 110 & 125 grain magnum rounds in them, just limit how many of the light grainers that you shoot through it, if you are going to be shooting a lot of magnums stick with the 158gr's.

I shoot & even carry 125gr loaded in my 19-4, but I don't shoot a steady diet of them through it.

[DaveTN]

Dave, is this the same thing/ issue with the 19-5? I heard of an issue with using the lighter weight rounds in it.

I just bought a 19-5, thought you might help about that.

Yes, it applies to all K frame .357mag’s. Whether or not it is an issue depends of what you believe and much you shoot it. Use 158’s and it’s not an issue. The model 19/66 was the workhorse of LE for many years. It’s not a frame strength issue; it’s a flame/heat/ bullet length issue from a round the gun was not designed to shoot.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Thanks. I just got it. It is the little brother to the two 29's I have. Probably a bit of shooting.

These Smiths are fun to shoot.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

DaveTN (and others opinions are welcome as well)-- Went out today and a local store has a used 6" barrel 586-5. It looked in real good shape as best could tell-- Inside of barrel and cylinders looked good, cylinder lock-up seemed tight, and the blue is spotless as best can tell. Not even much cylinder rotation scratches. They want $619 for the thang (plus tax of course). Does that price sound high, low or about right for a good-condition 586-5? Thanks.

edit-- Has the wood grips rather than rubber grips.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[DaveTN]

Is It a Pre-Lock? Looks like the -5 could be either. The price seems to be what they are going for if its mint. It was made in 98/99, (Discontinued in 99). What did you think of the quality of the orginal blue finish?

My opinion (since you asked), you can buy a 686 for that (or less, since you would be pushing $700) and it’s a much more desirable weapon. If you simply want blue, I would try to locate a High Gloss Blue Model 19. If price, finish or collectability is not an issue a 586 will shoot the same as a 686…. Excellent.

[Luckyforward]

I've owned a 686 2.5 for about three years. I sent it back to Smith for action work and put a set of Hogue custom grips on it. I LOVE to shoot it! It is my primary home defense firearm, although with a high rise holster, I have carried it. On one occasion when I was challenged by a possible "badguy", he took off fast when I simply pulled my coat up to reveal the size of the handgun. When he saw it, he ran!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Is It a Pre-Lock? Looks like the -5 could be either. The price seems to be what they are going for if its mint. It was made in 98/99, (Discontinued in 99). What did you think of the quality of the orginal blue finish?

My opinion (since you asked), you can buy a 686 for that (or less, since you would be pushing $700) and it’s a much more desirable weapon. If you simply want blue, I would try to locate a High Gloss Blue Model 19. If price, finish or collectability is not an issue a 586 will shoot the same as a 686…. Excellent.

I appreciate the good ideas, DaveTN. Did not observe any feature on the pistol that looked like a lock, but dunno where they put the lock on S&W revolvers. The lock on my taurus 1911 appears to be just a little hole in the hammer, think when engaged it extends a little bolt down into the action so the action can't work. Didn't see anything like that on the 586-5, and didn't see any telltale openings on the sides of the receiver, though my powers of observation are not very good.

Unless it has been refinished, the blue looked just as deep as on my 1980's 586-1. Possibly the cylinder rotation marks could have been "touched up" with cold blue, or maybe they really are minimal. I did not see any telltales of cold blue, but don't think I'd be able to tell if cold blue had been applied to the cylinder rotation scratches, though possibly my eye would be good enough to see cold blue spots on large regions of a smooth surface. The times I've used cold blue it was easy to see it anyway. It took a lot of time to develop noticeable rotation scratches on my old 586-1, and they are still not extreme, so not-pronounced scratches on that 586-5 would maybe be consistent with a lightly-used gun. As you can tell I dunno hardly anything about it.

I used to be a stainless bigot and usually would rather have a stainless gun because of appearance and also they don't show wear as fast. But lately been getting more appreciative of blue. Other than wanting a backup .357 pistol in case my 4" 586 breaks, and wanting to "spread the load" in .357 shooting so that the 4" 586-1 doesn't get worn out so soon, and wanting a barrel that is not 4" because I already have a 4" .357-- Am not religiously committed to the idea of another blue revolver, except on the other hand it might be kinda kewl to have a "matched set", a pair of 586's that look identical except barrel length. Just the obsessive-compulsive tendencies kicking in.

Agreed with your idea that $619 plus taxes and fees is getting within $100 to $150 of a brand new 686 from Sportsmans Warehouse or whatever. That is what I was thinking when drooling over the used 586-5, and the reason I asked advice. OTOH surveyed current prices on gunbroker and $600 to $700 looks to be the typical buy-it-now asking price for used 586 on gunbroker.

Friday at another local shop, the fella had a beautiful new 3" barrel 686 plus priced a little north of $600. I commented about the price because that shop isn't in the habit of offering steep discounts. He explained he had cut the price because it had about 50 rounds down the spout and so it wasn't "new" new. Maybe he had sold it to a customer who decided the recoil was too stiff or whatever. Awhile ago web-surfing, saw some "internet experts" claiming that 3" barrel 686 shoots about as mild as 4" barrel 686, and that paradoxically for some reason sometimes 3" barrel .357's deliver faster velocity, that it is a "sweet spot" for some reason. Which all might be stupidity squared, dunno.

So anyway that 3" barrel 686 plus seems interesting as well. Have about got to the point of confusion where I decide it is too complicated and give up looking for awhile. Ain't gotta have another .357 revolver, just the OCD flaring up.