I'm not seeing that they changed much from the 1930's registered magnum days.

Yesterday, after shooting the 686 and .357 magnum alternatingly, I had a hard time deciding if I liked one more than the other - the power of the .357 round itself kind of rattled my thinking ability while firing - but when I shot a cylinder of .38 special through each, I felt like the .357 was easier to handle and I expected to hit the bullseye with single-action. Perhaps the 686 trigger could be worked to be as good - it only has had about 300 rounds put through it.

When I got home, after cleaning them I compared the various features. The first thing that stood out was how much thicker the forcing cone is on the .357, yet the barrel is much thinner. Since the frame is bigger, the cylinder was of course bigger, making the chamber walls much thicker as well, given that the .357 hold 6 rounds and the smaller-cylinder 686+ holds 7. Another interesting point (to me) was the flat hammer on the 686 vs the pinned hammer on the .357. I'm sure there is terminology for these things, but I haven't learned it yet. Other than those things, most of the features from 1955 look surprisingly the same. I'm not feeling any less weight in the 686, but I guess it must be lighter.

All this is making me think that the 686 was brought out entirely in response to the Python, and wasn't really necessary in terms of functionality. I suppose I'm a .357 magnum/model 27 bigot. But I guess that's okay, since this is the 'Ultimate 27' thread.

The other advantage the .357 magnum/model 27 has over the 686 is Richard's photographic documentation. Stainless steel just isn't going to win any beauty pageants when one of his 27's is involved.