mg357
Absent Comrade
I would chose this specific S&W 686
Model 686
SKU: 164222
Model 686 | Smith & Wesson
Model 686
SKU: 164222
Model 686 | Smith & Wesson
Which .357 frame is stronger?
- Thread starter 1961MJS
- Start date
riverrat38
US Veteran
"Which .357 frame is stronger?"
Freedom Arms Model 83
Best,
Rick
Freedom Arms Model 83
Best,
Rick
Biggfoot44
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,060
- Reaction score
- 1,596
Riverrat38 beat me to it, for pure *strength* the full size FA is probably it . 6 shot Redhawks not far behind .
But a lot of the time when people speak of strength, they really mean durability. ie the time/ round count to develop issues with timing or lockup . Of course that varies greatly with how the user shoots it, ie da vs sa , and slowly vs quickly enough to develop cylinder inertia .
As everyone said 2000 round/ year isn't a lot, and either 686 will hold up to more or less SAAMI level .357s at that pace indefinitely .
The OP made his choice based upon ergonomics/ looks , and that's how it should be . ( To me , I categorically prefer 6rd to 7rd , and with 35yrs experience with speedloaders, prefer HKS , and despise Safariland .)
I'd be content in using M19 with 158gr cast bullets . For a gun of similar size and configuration, Security Six is mo better-er for strength .
But a lot of the time when people speak of strength, they really mean durability. ie the time/ round count to develop issues with timing or lockup . Of course that varies greatly with how the user shoots it, ie da vs sa , and slowly vs quickly enough to develop cylinder inertia .
As everyone said 2000 round/ year isn't a lot, and either 686 will hold up to more or less SAAMI level .357s at that pace indefinitely .
The OP made his choice based upon ergonomics/ looks , and that's how it should be . ( To me , I categorically prefer 6rd to 7rd , and with 35yrs experience with speedloaders, prefer HKS , and despise Safariland .)
I'd be content in using M19 with 158gr cast bullets . For a gun of similar size and configuration, Security Six is mo better-er for strength .
Hi, I ordered the 686+ 3-5-7. In reading about the whole 686 barrel / frame alignment problem / canting, I didn't see any mention of the 3-5-7. IFFFFFF the gun shows up at the dealer and IS canted I think my options are 1. Don't buy it; and 2. Buy it and ship it back to S&W. Which is the better scenario?
99% sure this won't happen.
99% sure this won't happen.
cowboy4evr
Member
If people think that ruger , and colts stand up well to the lighter weight bullets in 357 , they are sadly mistaken . I know of a ruger blackhawk that was used by a pd to develop handloads , it was on it's 3rd barrel when they quit handloading there .
A lot of the pythons today , upon close inspection you will find the forcing cone severely eroded . The pythons , ruger " 6 series " are larger frame hand guns than the K-frame smiths .
Let's remember , rugers are " cast " frames not forged . Under a high power microscope you will see that the ruger frame looks like " lava rock " , very porous where as the Smith & Wesson frame is forged . Under the same microscope the Smith frame shows the metal to be very tight grain , very solid . Ruger has to use an over abundance of metal to compensate for the lack of strength . The statement that rugers are " built like tanks " is very fool hardy and it's based solely on appearance and weight . Rugers are fine guns , I own 2 , but they are what they are .
A lot of the pythons today , upon close inspection you will find the forcing cone severely eroded . The pythons , ruger " 6 series " are larger frame hand guns than the K-frame smiths .
Let's remember , rugers are " cast " frames not forged . Under a high power microscope you will see that the ruger frame looks like " lava rock " , very porous where as the Smith & Wesson frame is forged . Under the same microscope the Smith frame shows the metal to be very tight grain , very solid . Ruger has to use an over abundance of metal to compensate for the lack of strength . The statement that rugers are " built like tanks " is very fool hardy and it's based solely on appearance and weight . Rugers are fine guns , I own 2 , but they are what they are .
Hi, I picked up my new 686 plus 3-5-7 in .357 Magnum from Tin-Star in Weatherford OK. The alignment looks good from what I could see. The lock-up was tight on all 7 chambers. The finish isn't what you'd expect from a 1950's era Blued gun, but I couldn't care less about that, I bought it to shoot, not look at.
Since I plan on shooting only jacketed 158 grain bullets in this revolver that's what I'll break it in with. It was mentioned in a different thread on this form, that using .38 Specials was a decent idea, that was if there was some failure it would at least be on a lighter load. I haven't looked for that thread again, but if memory serves 1000 rounds was mentioned.
Is this a reasonable was to break in a revolver? This is only my second NIB revolver and I'd like to get this done correctly. Is there such a thing as broken in enough to start working up an accurate hand load?
Thanks
Since I plan on shooting only jacketed 158 grain bullets in this revolver that's what I'll break it in with. It was mentioned in a different thread on this form, that using .38 Specials was a decent idea, that was if there was some failure it would at least be on a lighter load. I haven't looked for that thread again, but if memory serves 1000 rounds was mentioned.
Is this a reasonable was to break in a revolver? This is only my second NIB revolver and I'd like to get this done correctly. Is there such a thing as broken in enough to start working up an accurate hand load?
Thanks
bronco45
Member
That 686 is a tough 357 shoot the snot out of it with 357s and don't worry. L Frames were designed to shoot lots and lots of 357s.
BruceM
Member
^^^^^^Again, see this.^^^^^^
The only thing I do is run a box of jacketed ammo thru the gun before going into cast bullet load development and I'm not positive it's even necessary. If you're concerned about a catastrophic failure, these guns are proof fire before shipping.
Bruce
oysterer
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,600
- Reaction score
- 2,785
28
It's not only the frame. Look at the model 19 forcing cone. Paper thin lower rim that has been reported to crack.
For what you are describing a model 28-2 4'' barrel would do the trick. The 686 have the underlug, so weight wise there is not much difference. The 28 sits great in the hand. Strong like anything and a classic. Love mine.
It's not only the frame. Look at the model 19 forcing cone. Paper thin lower rim that has been reported to crack.
For what you are describing a model 28-2 4'' barrel would do the trick. The 686 have the underlug, so weight wise there is not much difference. The 28 sits great in the hand. Strong like anything and a classic. Love mine.
Attachments
I usually carry a 2 1/2" Model 66, as it's ideal for a conceal carry .357 Magnum. It's light enough (36 oz) to carry comfortably all day long (provided you use a good IWB holster and double thickness belt). It's also heavy enough to be comfortable to shoot with full power loads (provided you use a decent grip). It's also readily concealable, provided you use a short enough grip.
However, I usually practice with my 2 1/2" 686+, due to the increased durability. I also carry it frequently, primarily because I added night sights. It's about 4 oz heavier and while it is slightly wider and taller it still fits most of my Model 66 holsters. The Model 66 and 686 feel the same in the hand, and there no practical difference shooting one or the other, assuming the triggers are comparable.
I opted for the 7 shot 686+ because it was available used in excellent condition at a great price, and I certainly don't mind having a 7th round.
I also have a Ruger Speed Six that I'll also carry and shoot from time to time. The Six series DA revolvers were designed to specifically address the durability and forcing cone issues with the K-frame .357s. Ruger used larger, heaver investment cast fire control parts along with a stronger frame that does not utilize a side plate, and a heavier forcing cone that is not milled flat on the bottom as it is in the S&W K frame revolvers. That flat spot at the 6 o clock location results in the forcing cone being thinner there and the v shaped cuts caused by forcing cone erosion can create enough stress in that thin section to cause a crack.
They Six series DA revolvers hold up extremely well to a steady diet of .357 Mag loads, and the 2 3/4" barrel on the Speed Six is a little more efficient than the 2 1/2" barrels on my S&Ws. The Ruger trigger feels a bit more mechanical than the S&W but in general the trigger pulls are comparable (and like the S&W triggers of that era, they vary a bit from revolver to revolver).
The Speed Six also splits the difference weight wise between my 686+ and Model 66 at 37.5 oz.
2 1/2" Model 686-5+ (top), 2 3/4" Speed Six (middle), and 2 1/2" Model 66-4 (bottom).
In terms of longevity, I'd actually recommend the Ruger Speed Six, Security Six or Service Six revolvers. They have heavier forcing cones and while I have seen some very high round count Rugers with seriously eroded forcing cones, I've never seen one with a crack in it.
Otherwise, any of the L frames will do just fine. I don't really have a preference between the 686 and the 686+. The offset notch in the cylinder was actually a big marketing thing for Ruger with the Six Series revolver long before it showed up in the 7 shot 686+. It does remove what is otherwise a weak spot in the cylinder, but it's not something that will ever make a difference if you're staying within the 35,000 psi SAAMI specification, so it's mostly a marketing ploy.
However, I usually practice with my 2 1/2" 686+, due to the increased durability. I also carry it frequently, primarily because I added night sights. It's about 4 oz heavier and while it is slightly wider and taller it still fits most of my Model 66 holsters. The Model 66 and 686 feel the same in the hand, and there no practical difference shooting one or the other, assuming the triggers are comparable.
I opted for the 7 shot 686+ because it was available used in excellent condition at a great price, and I certainly don't mind having a 7th round.
I also have a Ruger Speed Six that I'll also carry and shoot from time to time. The Six series DA revolvers were designed to specifically address the durability and forcing cone issues with the K-frame .357s. Ruger used larger, heaver investment cast fire control parts along with a stronger frame that does not utilize a side plate, and a heavier forcing cone that is not milled flat on the bottom as it is in the S&W K frame revolvers. That flat spot at the 6 o clock location results in the forcing cone being thinner there and the v shaped cuts caused by forcing cone erosion can create enough stress in that thin section to cause a crack.
They Six series DA revolvers hold up extremely well to a steady diet of .357 Mag loads, and the 2 3/4" barrel on the Speed Six is a little more efficient than the 2 1/2" barrels on my S&Ws. The Ruger trigger feels a bit more mechanical than the S&W but in general the trigger pulls are comparable (and like the S&W triggers of that era, they vary a bit from revolver to revolver).
The Speed Six also splits the difference weight wise between my 686+ and Model 66 at 37.5 oz.
2 1/2" Model 686-5+ (top), 2 3/4" Speed Six (middle), and 2 1/2" Model 66-4 (bottom).
In terms of longevity, I'd actually recommend the Ruger Speed Six, Security Six or Service Six revolvers. They have heavier forcing cones and while I have seen some very high round count Rugers with seriously eroded forcing cones, I've never seen one with a crack in it.
Otherwise, any of the L frames will do just fine. I don't really have a preference between the 686 and the 686+. The offset notch in the cylinder was actually a big marketing thing for Ruger with the Six Series revolver long before it showed up in the 7 shot 686+. It does remove what is otherwise a weak spot in the cylinder, but it's not something that will ever make a difference if you're staying within the 35,000 psi SAAMI specification, so it's mostly a marketing ploy.
Last edited:
Dave T
Member
Other than some smoothing of the trigger, which can be accomplished with dry firing, I don't get this concept of "breaking in" a revolver. Shoot the thing.
In working up a hand load, if you are thorough and maticuless about it, more than enough rounds will have gone down the bore to break it in...what ever that means.
Dave
In working up a hand load, if you are thorough and maticuless about it, more than enough rounds will have gone down the bore to break it in...what ever that means.
Dave
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,503
- Reaction score
- 777
6 rounds, 7 rounds, the cylinder walls of a 686 are identical, except between chambers. Cylinders with odd numbers of chambers have the locking notches between chambers, instead of directly over, which creates a very thin spot which can be bulged with a hot load. The usual symptom is difficulty ejecting.
For easy, accurate shooting, it is hard to beat the TRR8, N-frame, 8 shot, with an aluminum frame, steel cylinder and two-piece barrel. It is a sweet shooter, but with a 5" barrel, a little hard to carry. It's only 35 oz, but that's enough to tame any recoil.
As a "woods gun" I prefer a 686 with a 3" barrel to save a little weight and bulk. I use a "boot" grip, which only comes to the bottom of the frame, with space for two fingers.
My all-around favorite is a 627 Pro, which is an N-frame with an 8 round cylinder. It has a 4" barrel with a tapered lug, which gives it good balance. I can carry it IWB, but outside the belt is more comfortable, more to barrel length than weight. The Pro model has a tuned PC trigger, but not the ball-detent cylinder lock of the PC.
The K-frame 19 (blue) and 66 (stainless) is slightly smaller in all dimensions than the 686. Very nice, but out of print. The weak spot if the forcing cone, which is flattened on one side to clear the crane. creating a thin spot which is prone to cracking with frequent use with high-velocity, low mass bullets. Stick with 158 grain, and you're golden.
For easy, accurate shooting, it is hard to beat the TRR8, N-frame, 8 shot, with an aluminum frame, steel cylinder and two-piece barrel. It is a sweet shooter, but with a 5" barrel, a little hard to carry. It's only 35 oz, but that's enough to tame any recoil.
As a "woods gun" I prefer a 686 with a 3" barrel to save a little weight and bulk. I use a "boot" grip, which only comes to the bottom of the frame, with space for two fingers.
My all-around favorite is a 627 Pro, which is an N-frame with an 8 round cylinder. It has a 4" barrel with a tapered lug, which gives it good balance. I can carry it IWB, but outside the belt is more comfortable, more to barrel length than weight. The Pro model has a tuned PC trigger, but not the ball-detent cylinder lock of the PC.
The K-frame 19 (blue) and 66 (stainless) is slightly smaller in all dimensions than the 686. Very nice, but out of print. The weak spot if the forcing cone, which is flattened on one side to clear the crane. creating a thin spot which is prone to cracking with frequent use with high-velocity, low mass bullets. Stick with 158 grain, and you're golden.
Last edited:
Biggfoot44
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,060
- Reaction score
- 1,596
"Breaking In " a DA primarily consists of the contact surfaces in the lockwork mating to each other , ie smoothing themselves . This will potentially make trigger pull smoother and lighter . That could assist you in shooting closer to the gun's potential.
Any difference in the gun's mechanical accuracy would be essentially zero.
Any difference in the gun's mechanical accuracy would be essentially zero.
I just got a 686+ Pro Series 5" that is my new favorite because of the balance and accuracy. I say get whatever feels "right".
I'm not so sure today's steel is stronger, although it may be more consistent.
I suspect the engineers at S&W considered the recoil and how many rounds of full power .357 Magnum ammunition the average shooter would put through it, and relied on the level of discomfort to limit the round count to ensure a suitable life span.
Hi, I took the 686-6 3-5-7 out today for the first time. Shooing .357 Mags instead of .38 Special will take a little getting used to. The wood laminate grips will take some getting used to, or will get replaced with Hogues like the other revolvers I have. I'll have to dry fire quite a bit to get the double action trigger smoothed out, single action seems fine at this point.
Later
Later
Have you considered having a gunsmith do a trigger job for you?
Similar threads
