As the seconds tick by inexorably, and even steel frame Js grow too heavy to carry, I wish S&W would discontinue (bad word) that Python style under-lugged bbl on the standard production 686. It's passe and adds a lot of needless weight IMHO. And how about a Scandium frame with a square butt? RBs belong on snubs, not 4" bbl guns.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

I agree that an under lug should serve a practical purpose, and it doesn't on the 686.

Ruger has a plausible argument for the heavy barrel and full under lug on their still-fairly-light-for-a-.357-Magnum SP101. Similarly, there is an argument for the under lug on S&W's Model 60. While I prefer the shoot-ability of the 4 oz heavier SP101 to the Model 60, I still prefer to carry the Model 60 when weight and size matters.

That's also largely true because once I've accepted the additional 4 oz of the SP 101, it's only 7 more ounces to carry a much more shootable Model 66. Consequently, when weight and size are the priority, the Model 60 wins and when shoot-ability is the priority the Model 66 wins. The SP101 with its under lug mostly sits in the gun safe, until I feel a need to shoot it just to save wear and tear on my Model 60.

Of course, once I'm carrying a Model 66, there's less than 3 oz difference between it and a 7 shot 686+ and they both fit the same IWB holster. With a good IWB holster and quality gun belt, you don't notice the difference in weight at all, and if you note the weights below that difference in weight is literally just the difference of 7 rounds of .357 Magnum.

But yes, I agree that giving the 686+ the same partial underdog profile as the Model 66 would be a welcome change. In the 36-40 ounce weight class it's not adding enough weight to materially change how it shoots or handles, but it does add unnecessary carry weight.

---

Weights: unloaded and loaded:

S&W Model 60 3" : 23.35 oz, 25.64 oz
Ruger SP101 3" : 27.09 oz, 29.35 oz
S&W Model 66 2 1/2" : 34.18 oz, 36.90 oz
Ruger Speed 6 2 3/4" : 34.81 oz, 37.53 oz
S&W 686+ 2 1/2" : 36.90 oz, 40.07 oz

-----

As for round butt or square butt, I don't really care for the square butt on a modern revolver. The grip profile can be modified by the grip and the round butt offers the end user a lot more flexibility, and it saves weight.

The SP 101 for example doesn't really have a butt at all, and it saves weight - allowing the heavier frame and barrel to add only 4 oz to the total weight compared to a Model 60.

Similarly, square butt grips can be obtained for the round butt Rugers.

For the barrels up to 4" in length, I need the underlug weight to absorb the recoil of of 158gr magnums. If I shot a steady diet of 180gr BB, I'd want a longer underlugged barrel. For me, the design is perfect for pain-free shooting of boxes of magnum loads.

Maybe they will make your "perfect" 686 design. They're already making mine.

I believe bigwheelzip has mentioned one, has she not?

In my case, I have two 4" 686+s which I keep for home defense, and I appreciate the extra weight to reduce recoil for quicker follow-up shots, even if it's just a little. It could conceivably make a difference in the life or death encounter I pray never happens. And the extra weight isn't an issue to me, since I don't use them for carry.

Just an alternative view.

Regards,
Andy

It's debatable Andy.

I'll happily offer her the opportunity to shoot both my 40 oz 2 1/2" 686 and my 37 oz 2 1/2" Model 66.

I doubt she'll feel any significant difference.

1150 fps is about the norm for a 158 gr .357 Mag in a 2.5" barrel and 1250 fps is pretty standard for a 4" barrel.

With a 158 gr bullet and 1150 fps:
- the recoil impulse in both the 37 and 409 oz pistol is an identical .98 pound seconds;
- the recoil velocity is 13.7 fps in the 37 oz revolver versus 12.67 fps in the 40 oz revolver; and
- the free recoil energy is 6.74 ft pounds in the 37 ounce revolver versus 6.23 ft pounds in the 40 oz revolver.

And we have to remember that the 3 oz weight difference between the 66 and 686 with the same 2.5" barrel is due to all the differences in the Model 686 versus the Model 66 (larger cylinder, heavier L frame, and the heavier barrel and under lug). If you just deleted the full under lug on the 686, the difference would be even less.

I notice virtually no difference in them when shooting full power loads - not enough to make the 66 any less controllable or any less comfortable than the 686. Look again at the weights in my post above - the difference in weight between the 686 and the 66 is equal to the difference between a 686 loaded and a 686 that's been fired 6 times.

At perhaps a 1.5 oz difference between a 686 with full under lug and one without, I suspect I'd be hard pressed telling one from the other when shooting it.

The point here being that people see the full under lug and think "Ooohhh!! that will help tame the recoil", when in fact the practical result in a 37-40 oz revolver is virtually undetectable. It's just a marketing ploy, and one that comes with the downside of needless extra weight of you do want to carry one all day.

try finding one of these if 5" works...
a stocking dealer special... I think it is ideal for the range...

Attached Images

	bang2 141.jpg (86.5 KB, 48 views)
	686-sds3.jpg (5.6 KB, 47 views)

If you can't make it out in my avatar, there's a PC 2 1/2", 3", and 4" 686+ in the picture that I own and shoot a lot. The PC 2 1/2" feels uncomfortable after a few factory 158gr .357 rounds, while the 3" is GTG for a range session of 150 rounds or more, and the 4" is just a pure pleasure.

I know the differences are minor as calculations on your paper, but there is some factor missing in your math that fails to account for the reaction of that loading, in those guns, in my hand.

As for your 66, it might be the best thing since sliced bread, I don't know. But as for the 686's in the OP, I do know what works well, for me.

Hi, BB.

Since you've put some numbers together, I'm wondering if you also know the difference in weight between the barrels of your 2-1/2" examples. I don't own either one, but I've looked at pictures of them together. It appears to me that the extractor rod occupies the same length, hollowed out portion of the underlug in each case. The 66 must have enough underlug to house the rod and the retaining pin & spring, which makes it nearly as long as the full underlug on the 2-1/2" 686. Consequently I'm guessing that the barrels on these respective revolvers are very nearly the same weight, which would make the difference in muzzle flip negligible and help account for the negligible difference in the way they shoot. Am I correct?

But my guns have 4" barrels, which means that there is a good bit more underlug on the muzzle end than on a 2-1/2" model. Would you happen to know the weight difference between these two barrels? Would it not make some difference in muzzle flip here, especially with the 1400 or so fps loads I use(125gr jhps)?

That is the issue I was speaking of. I use the term "recoil", but was thinking of what recoil does; namely, lift the muzzle thereby slowing down accurate follow-up shots. I would be interested in any data you could come up with on this.

Regards,
Andy

Call it the S&W model 686 FGC. That's 'For Geriatric Cases".

I kinda like mine EXACTLY the way it is, too. The full underlug isn't 'extra weight' for me and it does serve a purpose. And saying the 686 is 'PYTHON STYLE'?????? That's AWFUL!

PS I'm not too far from needing one of those FGC models myself.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

At 1AM, unable to sleep, I posted/brainstormed a wish for a lighter 686 and started a healthy debate. Didn't know this ever happened in the Wish List forum. I thought all it was, was "Yeah, right."

BTW, rwsmith, Python style IS the operative term. When the 686 appeared, it fit perfectly in Python holsters of the same bbl length. Good shooting, folks!

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

S&W replaced the Model 65 and Model 66 with the Model 619 and Model 620 in 2005. The Models 619 and 620 were 7-shot L-Frames without the Pythonesque underlug. The 619 had the same type of lug as the Model 65, and the 620 had the same type of lug as the Model 66. They also both had the so-called Hillary hole.

Apparently they didn't sell well enough to keep in the catalog.

__________________
CPT, Armor (Ret)
Luke 22:36

I can understand your rationale, but I think that this is where the Baskin Robbins concept of 31 flavors fits in. I really can't explain Smith's rationale for the lug, but when you look at the official name (Distinguished Combat), it looks like Smith was targeting the PPC crowd with a muzzle heavy revolver, which tended to be the goal of many of the PPC build masters. Basically, in the target community (be it rifle or pistol) the idea of a heavy barrel contributes to accuracy.

Perhaps a new flavor needs to be added to the S&W catalog, such as the 686 Lite?

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

686 mtn gun fixed that problem...............

__________________
S&W Accumulator

Any competent gunsmith can mill that lug off for you...just sayin'.

Yeah, but unless he's a competent practicing alchemist he can't turn the frame into Scandium®.

__________________
CPT, Armor (Ret)
Luke 22:36