I'm considering buying a 2.5" 686 plus for carry. What is the estimated longevity or round count of a 686 plus if fed only commercially available magnum loads? And what exactly happens to a revolver when it's reached its service life?

I've never really had the urge to buy a Smith revolver before, so I need your knowledge. I've only ever owned Ruger revolvers, and I've heard that Rugers are over-built to withstand a constant diet of hot magnum loads, whereas the Smiths cannot handle a lifetime diet of those loads. Honestly, I'll never shoot as often as the guys who could break a revolver, but I want a strong revolver to pass down in the family, as I don't think people will still have the right to buy guns by the time he comes of age, but I digress. So, while I'm researching my new purchase, I'd like to see if you knowledgeable folks can answer those questions.

Thanks guys.

The 586/686 were introduced to address concerns that the K frames could not withstand a steady diet of magnum ammo. I am certainly no expert on structural stress but I believe you won't ever wear it out unless you take up competition shooting with magnums. I know a guy that has a 686 that he claims he has shot in excess of 20,000 times with magnum loads and it still shoots very good and no problems with the revolver. I think a 686 would last as long or longer that a Ruger GP100.

I have 1,813 rounds through my primary 686+, many of them the dreaded .357 125 Gr. load.

Except for the turn line, the gun is pretty much brand new. Spotless.

The 686 is one tough gun. You would have to shoot A LOT to shake it apart.

How much do you plan on shooting?

As my buddy poster "shawn mccarver" will point out, if he chimes in here, the cylinder stop notches on the cylinder of the 686 Plus are BETWEEN the chambers, not over them as on a 6-round 686 cylinder. With more metal thickness over each chamber, this should increase the strength of the gun.

How many rounds? Don't know and I don't plan on finding out. There is a wear factor always present. If you are a competent shooter and practice sensibly, with EACH round expended having a purpose, you will more than likely never find out at what point the gun will give way.

On a personal note, many people seem to be using the snub 686 as an EDC. Don't know how they manage it; yeah, i know all about proper holster and belt. It's still heavy. Thank heavens for J-frame magnums like the 340M&P. I just ordered my 2nd. Even my .45 derringers like them.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Under those conditions you won't have to worry about wearing it out. The 686 was made to take continuous full magnum rounds and it does a great job of it.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

You couldn't shoot it enough to wear it out. It'd wear you out first.

That's great news guys.

Lately I've been shooting more than I used to, as a group of friends and I have started our own little wannabe IDPA shooting thing. In the last couple of months I've shot about 400 rounds a month, but not all from the same gun. If I get the 686 I'll probably shoot about 100-200 rounds a month through it, probably mostly .357 magnum loads. We try to shoot what we'd carry. Incidentally, this little shooting group we've started is why I want to buy a 686. I've always been of the opinion that revolvers weren't good carry guns because of the double action pull. How can one be accurate after that long pull? That long reset? The inability to shoot 15 rounds in .023 seconds? Then I shot my friends LCR, and I was amazed at how I was able to shoot that gun accurately despite all those (percieved) drawbacks. I bought an LCR and shoot it great. Now I want to move up to .357. I love that cartridge, but haven't owned a revolver that shot it in quite some time. After doing the tactical shooting drills, I've become much more confident in my shooting abilities. I've realized that I don't need a 33 round glock magazine for carry. Who knew, right? So it got me looking at concealable .357s. I've owned an SP101, but while I was looking around, I saw the 686, and I must say, it is quite a beautiful little gun, and gets good reviews. I'm looking forward to the added weight of the 686 over the SP101. .357s were a handful through it.

I'm a pretty heavy guy, so a few pounds doesn't really bother me that much. I've carried full size 1911s, Beretta 92s, Ruger GP100s, and a few other heavies. If I weighed 70 pounds less, I probably wouldn't feel the same way. I don't always carry heavy like that anymore, but when I do, I use a nifty set of undershirt suspenders that I found on the internet. They really make carrying a heavy weapon more comfortable.

I have another question guys. Whats the deal with shooting 125gr bullets? Why are 158gr better? I would think it would be the other way around. Does the 125gr bullet make a higher pressure cartridge?

125 gr bullets, according to Evans and Sanow (sp?) have a much better percentage of "one shot" stops vs perps. Add to that, recoil impulse is less, and penetration is somewhat less than a heavier, slower bullet. YMMV
Tim sends

If you want a smoother action out of the box, look at the Performance Center 2.5in 686plus. It is also machined for moon clips, which helps extract spent rounds quickly. The 3in 686Plus feels better balanced and has the full length extractor along with a bit more barrel for ballistic and sight radius benefits. The Hogue Bantam grips went on both of them to handle the magnum sting. They are both excellent, but double action is more enjoyable on the Performance Center. I am an average sized woman and it is my carry choice for woods walking with 180gr loads.

There are several replaceable parts that can wear out if you fire the gun enough. I don't know how many it takes. The most usual part needed is a new hand to re-time a worn gun, that is a short job and a $10 part.

Fire away!

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

Pretty dad gum tough. As in it will probably take 50 to 100 THOUSAND rounds to wear the barrel enough that it would need replacing. If you figure a per round cost of just 40 cents that means that you'll have to spend between 20 and 40 THOUSAND dollars to wear out your 750 dollar 686.

My guess would be that someone who could afford the price to shoot out a 686+ with factory magnum loads, should not worry about buying a new 686+ every once in awhile, because the cost of the gun would be nothing compared to the cost of the ammo.

Sounds good to me. But I've heard that cartridges loaded with 125gr bullets are harder on a gun. Why?

Sir,

I'll get to your question in a moment; first, I use 686+'s for home defense, and an SP101 for carry. I use 125gr, full-magnum loads in both -exclusively. I've been practicing with both for years, and they show no signs of wear.

Now, here is the main theory I've heard which answers your question:
-Heavy magnum loads contain slow-burning powders, which means that their peak pressure occurs slightly later in the firing process than faster-burning powders. Coupled with a lighter weight, and therefore shorter bullet, the powder's peak pressure occurs after the base of the bullet has exited the cylinder; which means that the flame at the barrel/cylinder gap is more intense. The torch-like effect thus produced out the sides and top of the chamber wears the forcing cone and top strap of the frame more readily with repeated firings.

There is apparently considerable evidence that the above is the cause of cracking of the bottom of the forcing cones in K-frame .357s(Models 19 & 66 in particular), since that area of the cone on a K-frame is thinner to allow the yoke assembly/gas ring to clear it when the cylinder is shut. Thinner steel heats up and cools down faster than thicker steel, which increases stress on a component of inconsistent thickness.

The L-frame Smith revolver, which includes the 686, was designed to eliminate the above problem by eliminating the thin area at the bottom of the forcing cone(at least that is the main difference). Nevertheless many still believe that full-magnum loads utilizing the 125gr. bullet are detrimental to the guns in which they are fired. Obviously I'm not among them. Let each person do his/her homework and decide.

I hope this was at least somewhat helpful.

Best wishes in your search for a satisfactory gun,
Andy

Questions of the timing of the peak pressure aside (surely a contributing factor, but almost impossible to quantify – especially with factory ammo using unknown powders and charge weights), the primary issue at hand is the length of the bullet and the resulting overall length of the cartridge. The ever-popular 125 grain bullet is simply shorter than a 158 grain or heavier bullet. This means the bullet has further to travel before making the jump to the forcing cone. Add to that the fact that the shorter bullet will also normally have a shorter bearing surface and longer ogive compared to a heavier bullet. These lighter bullets also provide more room for powder in the case for increased velocity. Given the fact that the cylinder is sized for the case and not the bullet, the extra time it takes for the short bullet to reach the forcing cone and seal the barrel allows some of the combustion gases to sneak past the bullet and enter the barrel before it is sealed by the bullet's bearing surface. The combusting gas super heats the barrel just as the bullet slams into it and the oxygen-rich environment of the barrel only makes it worse (hotter). This does not happen with the longer medium-weight and heavy-for-caliber bullets, as they seal the barrel before the combusting gases reach it.

The Achilles Heel of the K-frames is the flat spot on the forcing cone at the 6 o'clock position – a necessary compromise to allow the cylinder to close without hitting the forcing cone (at least some newer K-frames have been redesigned with a fully round forcing cone and the flat spot on the cylinder instead). This weak spot on the forcing cone tends to crack after an unknown number of flaming hot 125 grain bullets. There have been reports of cracks developing after only a few boxes of hot ammo as well as reports of revolvers having shot thousands of such rounds with no apparent issues.

The K-frame was designed long before 125 grain bullets became popular to be a lighter weight carry gun than the N-frame and it served well in that role for decades... until police departments started practicing with their 125 grain carry ammo. The L-frame was designed to fix these perceived shortcomings by beefing up the frame. The slightly larger frame also made room for a fully round forcing cone and it can handle as many magnum bullets as you can afford to shoot. To this day some people insist that the K-frame is not designed to handle a steady diet of magnum ammo, while others insist that it can handle all the magnum ammo that your wrist and wallet can as long as you stick with heavier bullets.

Count me in the latter camp. I have an early 80's vintage model 66-2 with a 4" barrel that I carry on occasion. It sees mainly mild- to medium-hot magnum bullets weighing 158 grains or more; currently two or three hundred a month, because that's all I have time to reload and shoot these days. If I had found a pre-lock model 686 with a 3 inch barrel first, I might have gone that route instead, because as someone noted above, the balance is outstanding. As it is, I love my K-frame. It's handles well and looks great, too. But I didn't buy it to baby it. If you end up falling in love with a K-frame, keep the forcing cone free of lead and carbon build-up, stick with heavier bullets (around 147 grains and up) and you shouldn't have anything to worry about. On the other hand, if do end up buying an L-frame, consider the slightly larger frame to be extra insurance. Shoot either with confidence.

I have always thought that full house Magnums caused problems with K-frames due to the forcing cone, which is stronger on both the 6 and 7-shot L-frames.

You can't live long enough to wear one out, and you are welcome to try!

My S&W revolver guru is the only person I will let touch my smith revolvers....but he only guarantee's his work for 100,000 rounds!!!

If you are going to use this in IDPA...the 7 shot can only be loaded with 6 so that advantage goes away....or so it used to be.

Get one and then try to wear it it and keep a meticulous round count then report to us how many and how long it took....

Randy

You beat me to it.

Sir,

I have heard this explanation before also. Out of curiosity I took a 125gr. bullet out of my supply and stuck it into the forcing cone of one of my 686s until it 'stuck' on the lands. At that point the bullet still protruded between 1/8" and 3/16", or nearly 4mm beyond the forcing cone. This means that, even by the time the bullet fully engages the rifling and thus seals the bore, nearly all that length is still in the cylinder. And we know that S&W bores the chamber throats .001 or so smaller than the bullet to prevent gas from escaping before the bullet clears the throat.

Given the above, and with all respect, how is it physically possible for the gases to get from the chamber into the barrel prior to the bullet sealing it??? I certainly don't know all there is to know about these things and am willing to hear an explanation, but my mechanical aptitude is telling me it can't happen.

I'll listen to what others have to say.

Best regards,
Andy

The 125 grain magnum rounds can cause flame cutting on the top strap.

One solution might be a 586+ (which I'm wearing as I write this). Originally, these 686's beefed up a bit including at the forcing cone and top strap specifically for durability with hot loads. Whether or not these differences were subsequently employed on the 686's I do not know.

Below in black is a 586+ (7 round) with 3" compensated barrel. The full lug is nice for recoil management. Next to the 586+ is an 8-Round N Frame 627 at 2.625" barrel - that N Frame of course can sure take the abuse as well.

Down side is they both will run just North of $1,000

Attached Images

	586&627.jpg (181.9 KB, 102 views)
	IMG_1958.jpg (66.6 KB, 52 views)

Snowman, combustion gases are moving much faster than the bullet possibly can. It's not so difficult to imagine that they can easily get past the bullet before the bearing surface contacts the tighter chamber throat. Also, don't forget that throat size can vary slightly even within the same cylinder despite S&W's best intentions. Add to that the fact that the jacketed 125s that are the culprit IMO are nominally .357 but can vary slightly in practice. Another variable that is difficult to account for is the fact that overall lengths vary from one bullet design to the next for any given weight, so you can't really go by weight alone even if weight is a good general indicator of size. The real question is precisely how far any given bullet (of a specific weight/shape) has to move for combustion gases to get past it and how far it has to travel before sealing off those gases. Factor in the burn rate of the powder and it gets complicated. Your guess is as good as anyone's. So by all means, follow your conscience, your own observations, and the advice of people you trust.

But as far as I am aware the issue of K-frame durability did not surface until police departments started practicing with their very hot 125 grain carry loads and the shooting public – always eager to have whatever bullet law enforcement is using – followed suit. And it can hardly be said that popular magnum loads with heavy bullets were weak for the preceding 50 years.

Some excellent information guys, thank you so very much. Thanks for the pictures, too. Any doubts that I was entertaining about a Smith being weaker than the Ruger have been eliminated. I was unaware that the L frames were designed specifically to deal with the issue that I had heard about. I'm excited about my upcoming purchase. I've owned pretty much one of everything, but this will be my first S&W revolver.

Thanks again guys. Keep the information coming if there's anything more to add.

This post was not edited in any way.

Your 686+ is an L frame, not N.

I use my 2.5" 686+ for my bedside gun. Carrying it is fine in the field, I have done it more than a few times, but I wasn't concerned about concealment. If I weighed 70 pounds less (okay, that's pushing it, but 45 would be nice) I think that I COULD carry the 686+ concealed far more easily than on my presently overweight frame but that's a YMMV thing. I have all of the proper carrying equipment for the 686+ but, interestingly, the easiest way to carry it is in a Galco shoulder rig. The hip holster work, as noted I have done it, but the shoulder rig REALLY works. But it's not set up for speed.

TYPO -


I'm giving the first poster a typo demerit on that one, not an error!

Kind of like this question:

https://youtu.be/O6rHeD5x2tI

__________________
My sgntr is mor thn 30 chrctrs

Hello, SeamasterSig. Thanks for the response. And before I forget, I respect you for continuing to use magnums in your 66 in spite of the steady drumbeat of voices who counsel against it. That has always seemed to be an extreme view, to me.

The view re the problem with 125s which I posted here was one I read on this forum a few years ago. It was expounded by one of the more knowledgeable fellows here -maybe one of the gunsmiths(I'm sorry that I can't remember who it was.). Though others before and after have echoed its general principle; i.e. "slow-burning powders and lightweight bullets", he was the only one I've seen who posted graphs of pressure curves according to burn rate, and articulated the theory in greater detail than others have. And so I am getting the view from someone else here.

There is a question or two in my mind re the view you've explained that perhaps you can address if and when you're able. I'm understanding the basic principle: With a shorter bullet, more of the burning gas gets around the bullet before it seals in the chamber throat than is the case with a longer bullet. But here is what I don't understand, and I'll do my best to accurately express it: How does the burning gas which escapes the chamber throat into the barrel AHEAD of the shorter bullet put more wear on the gun than the pressurized burning gas which fills the barrel BEHIND the bullet(regardless of the bullet's length/weight)? Do you see what I mean? The gas which escapes the chamber ahead of the bullet also escapes the pressure created by having to push the bullet through chamber and gun, does it not? If so, then there is little pressure to force it out the B/C gap, which, as I understand things, is what accelerates the wear and tear on the K-frame forcing cone; i.e. an increased amount of gas at increased pressures shooting out the gap.

Anyway, don't feel that I'm demanding an answer, or am being contentious; neither of those is true. I'm just a mechanically-inclined fellow with an inquisitive mind.

Best regards,
Andy

I have no idea what you're talking about. I said L frame. I wouldn't make a rookie mistake like that.

Slower burning powders combined with lighter bullets seem to be the culprit. The issue doesn't surface at all with 38 special, where a wide range of bullet weights is combined almost exclusively with faster burning powders, albeit at lower pressure/volumes. Nor were cracked forcing cones widely reported "back in the day" when magnum loads as I understand it tended to be hot and heavy. Was it simply that most people obediently practiced exclusively with 38 special and only occasionally shot 357 magnum? I doubt it.

Older editions of reloading manuals famously included max charge powder volumes far in excess of current SAAMI specs and many reloaders complain about the weak recipes typically found in current editions. Ammunition commercially available today is also generally weak compared to the legendary loads of yesteryear. In addition, I'm pretty certain that people shot more cast bullets back then (which normally feature a diameter that is a couple thou over the nominal caliber size and probably do a better job of sealing the chamber throat/barrel). Cylinder timing is probably a major factor, too. If the timing is off, the bullet will be striking the forcing cone off-center, exacerbating the problem. Timing can be easily fixed by a gunsmith (as can end shake), but how many people bother to check it semi-regularly? Also, how many introduce timing issues by modifying the trigger pull? The more I think about it, people shooting their revolvers loose without proper and timely maintenance is probably a major factor contributing to cracked forcing cones on K-frames. It might well be that the forcing cones on L and N-frames are simply robust enough to handle that sort of abuse.

Even back in the 70s/80s when the issue first arose, there wasn't exactly an epidemic of cracked forcing cones. While the issue is no doubt real, I get the sense that people make a bigger deal of it than necessary (much like worrying about the dreaded internal lock possibly engaging at the wrong moment). Regardless, whatever the exact combination of factors causing premature wear and tear of K-frames is, flame-throwing 125 grain magnum JHPs seem to be at the center of it. And it's easy enough to avoid them. The theory of combusting gases getting ahead of short bullets may seem improbable, but it is still the most plausible explanation I've heard so far (other than my thoughts on timing). The idea that S&W stubbornly manufactured inherently weak magnum revolvers for decades seems even more improbable. While I may not intend to baby my 66-2, I honestly don't think the volume of 158+ grain cast bullets that I normally shoot at velocities of around 1000 to 1200 fps is all that punishing – for me or the revolver. I expect that I'll add an L-frame to my small collection long before I wear out my K-frame. Not so much out of concern for my beloved 66-2 as a desire to own a 3" 686.

It's my understanding that the magic combination is super hot gases heating the barrel, followed or coincided by the bullet slamming into the forcing cone. I don't think the fact that the combusting gas behind the bullet are under pressure until the bullet exits the barrel matters much. Otherwise you'd see such excessive wear and tear the whole length of the barrel – especially in pistols, which lack a comparable B/C gap as a sort of pressure relief valve. Although you're probably on to something with the gas escaping through the B/C gap. The gap in my two magnum revolvers happens to be very tight with very little end shake. Clearly, the wider the gap/greater the shake, the more gas escapes, heating up not just the interior surface of the barrel, but the outer surface and face of the forcing cone as well, which surely exacerbates the problem.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't blame anyone for babying their K-frame. Especially considering that S&W no longer has any of the older barrels around for replacement should the forcing cone crack. S&W may not make them like it used to, but at least it made them in large numbers. My 66-2 is a classic, second in my mind only to the legendary 1911 as the quintessential American handgun. But fortunately it's hardly rare.

If properly maintained it's tough enough to outlast you, your kids and likely theirs. Buy it and shoot it!

IMHO --- While new to S&W revolvers I can only compare it in quality and toughness to a COLT 1911 , the 686 is a similar work horse that will long out last owner with proper care

Went to the gun show today to see if they had one of these. No luck. One table had the 6 round 2.5" for $689. It was very tempting to take it, but I managed to resist. I need that extra round. :P

I have both a 4 inch and a 3 inch ( 7 SHOT ) I now perfer the 3 inch and plan on putting the 4 inch up for sale on a local board with Hunting season starting

SeamasterSig: Thanks for taking the considerable time to reply to my post.

To the OP: Best wishes in your research and deliberations. I've found in my years of buying revolvers that there is a little bit of trial and error involved in spite of our efforts in practicing due diligence. I trust that you will find something that satisfies you. Oh, and I would definitely put your worries to rest about wearing out an L-frame prematurely with magnum loads -the odds of that happening are EXTREMELY low.

Regards,
Andy

I'm leaning the opposite say. I've debated selling my 4" 686+ and picking up a 6". The 4" is much easier to tote around, but I'd be using the 6" for mostly shooting off sandbags. The longer sight radius is nice for targets.

It should last 2 or 3 life times.

__________________
John

Get a 3 1/2" model 27-2 (or earlier model) and you'll never have to worry about anything.

People make a deal about the Plus model being beefier because of the hole placement on the cylinder. If you stick to published data my non-Plus model is plenty strong enough for the job. Now if you want to go out on a limb a little a Plus is in order, or maybe a Blackhawk.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Your grand kids won't wear it out.

Stainless steel, magnum loads, and my vote for the 3".

My 586 no dash is older than a lot of the members of this forum, and I doubt I'll ever be able to wear it out.
If I do, it'll get the required guts replaced to fix it.

Any gun can get worn out. I know a retired state trooper who had to have his Highway Patrolman rebuilt twice, because he just shot the living poop out of it.
It's an extreme example.
I wouldn't worry about wearing out a 686.

BTW, I sold my American Derringer Model 1, .45 Colt.
I wanted to like it. I didn't enjoy shooting it. Plus, I carry my 36 no dash a lot more.
My buddy offered me twice what I paid for it, and that money went toward my Model 52.

__________________
What would Jim Cirillo do?

This. ^^^ If you can afford the ammo (even reloads) to outshoot your gun, you can afford to buy a new one if that time comes.

I have a square butt 6 in 686 and I'd like to send it to the factory for a 4 inch and 7 shot conversion. I understand they will do that for a nominal fee. If I could ever find a Mountain gun version I'd buy that in a flash.

Well guys, I got the 686. But I'm having a problem with the trigger, and need advise. Please check this thread:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-rev...#post138715329