New-to-Me 386PD -- Range Report and Resto Mod

413Maxwedge · Apr 19, 2025

About a year ago I read a Lucky Gunner article about the 386 series of scandium L-frames. Since then I've been looking for one of the black ones (the Nightguard or PD versions) but they never show up for sale. I believe they were only made for about 5 or 6 years in the early 2000's and never sold that well.

Last week I was able to purchase a 386PD version in very good condition from forum member CH4. He was great to work with and very communicative with myself and my LGS/FFL.

After work yesterday I swung by the LGS and picked it up. I was not dissappointed!
This thing weighs 17.5 oz compared to my 36+ oz 686. They're not kidding with the "AirLite" moniker. After completing the transfer I headed for the range, swinging by the house to grab my son and my 686-6 three inch.

M29since14 · Apr 19, 2025

Congrats on that one. That gun is one of the few modern S&Ws that caught my attention when it hit the market but I never managed to buy one, thanks to other distractions. Looks like you found one in really nice shape! Enjoy your new .357.

gwpercle · Apr 19, 2025

Awesome Score !

Lets see some targets ... I enjoy seeing revolvers that can group !
Gary

CWH44300 · Apr 19, 2025

That’s a great platform for those willing to carry a full size gun.
Where I think it really shines is a general woods bumming gun, superlite to carry and there when you need it.

413Maxwedge · Apr 19, 2025

Hi Gary. I didn't get any pics of targets yesterday but will the next time I go. Tonight I'm going to strip, clean and rebuild it with some custom parts. I usually replace the MIM H/T with stainless and do a light action job. I don't care for rubber grips so those will be either Ahrends or VZ. The sights will get replaced and I'll be adding a little extra weight and durability to it.
*This 386PD has a Ti cylinder, which I don't really like. The 386 Nightguard model I was originally searching for has a black steel cylinder. It adds another 7oz but I wouldn't need to worry about "hot ammo" erosion, holster wear or special cleaning.

Anyway, my son and I shot mostly .38 and .38+P yesterday, with 4 cylinders of 158gr .357 run through the 386PD. The .38/.38+P were no problem and the PMC Hunting Magnums were very "snappy" but MUCH easier to handle than in my M&P 340 jframe (13.8 oz). There's only about 4oz difference in weight between my scandium 340 and 386 but this larger frame really helps handle the recoil. That's what I was hoping for and it's what I got.

Extraction - I was surprised at how difficult it was to extract spent shells from the Ti cylinder. The .38's and .38+P's were tight like many .22LR extractions and the spent .357 cases were downright problematic to get out. They all came out of the SS 686 cylinder just fine, but seemed "glued-in" to the Ti cylinder.
Is this normal for Ti cylinders? I've never had one before. It could be a serious problem if using this gun in a self defense scenario.

Here's a few pics of us getting the stubby L's dirty at the range...

M29since14 · Apr 19, 2025

Not normal in my 340PD. Do you see any signs of bulged chambers? You may need a new cylinder.

Be very careful but I’d start with a thorough cleaning. I would be very hesitant to use any sort of abrasive for fear of damaging the coating on the Ti cylinder. Use gentle stuff, but be patient and stay after it. Failing that, I’d ask S&W for advice/help. Good luck.

413Maxwedge · Apr 19, 2025

M29since14 said:
Not normal in my 340PD. Do you see any signs of bulged chambers? You may need a new cylinder.

Be very careful but I’d start with a thorough cleaning. I would be very hesitant to use any sort of abrasive for fear of damaging the coating on the Ti cylinder. Use gentle stuff, but be patient and stay after it. Failing that, I’d ask S&W for advice/help. Good luck.

Thanks M29since14. I have a bottle of HoppesElite and some small kids tooth brushes. The cylinder doesn't appear bulged or damaged and all the brass cases look good: i don't see any bulging or splitting/cracking on them. I needed to push the gun/ejector rod down hard on the bench to get them out (the .357 cases). They came out of the 686 with a finger push on the rod.

I know the short ejector rods on 2.5" guns are a little harder to extract but I've never had this issue in my 2" J frames.

I have a new unfluted SS cylinder to put in and I'll give the Ti cylinder a good cleaning and inspection.

Beju · Apr 19, 2025

I've read elsewhere on the forum that titanium cylinders tend to have stickier extraction, particularly with .357 Magnum loads. The explanation was something like the titanium experiencing more thermal expansion under heat than the steel cylinders (due to less mass, perhaps), so the brass can expand slightly more under firing. By the time you extract, the cylinder has returned closer to the original dimension, but that brass expanded more than it would in a steel cylinder.

413Maxwedge · Apr 19, 2025

That's interesting. I searched Google for "brass .357 casings stick in Titanium" and found lots of threads on different forums talking about the issue. Guys on The Firing Line forum were talking about down-sizing a crimp (??) When reloading to help reduce sticking in titanium. I don't reload so forgive me not remembering exactly what they said. The reduced weight is amazing but Ti seems to me, to be more trouble than it's worth.

I'm working in the yard today but plan on getting this thing apart sometime tonight.

stansdds · Apr 20, 2025

413Maxwedge said:
That's interesting. I searched Google for "brass .357 casings stick in Titanium" and found lots of threads on different forums talking about the issue. Guys on The Firing Line forum were talking about down-sizing a crimp (??) When reloading to help reduce sticking in titanium. I don't reload so forgive me not remembering exactly what they said. The reduced weight is amazing but Ti seems to me, to be more trouble than it's worth.

I'm working in the yard today but plan on getting this thing apart sometime tonight.

They are probably using a Lee Factory Crimp die, which not only crimps the case mouth, but also slightly resizes the length of the case to remove any bulge caused by the case mouth expander die and the seating of the bullet.

413Maxwedge · Apr 20, 2025

Well, I stripped, cleaned, and rebuilt the revolver this morning. Everything went well EXCEPT that the Apex Evo IV hammer doesn't play nice with the TKcustoms Speed Trigger. I put the same model of hammer in my 686-6 last year with a stainless S&W trigger, and it was plug-n-play without any fitting of the hammer sear. This one however won't work with my TK trigger or a S&W trigger, so I'll be calling my smith about fitting the parts together.

But, I got lots of good pictures. So if you just forget the fact that it doesn't function yet, I have a nice little build thread

.

First a strip and clean, then the new sights.

413Maxwedge · Apr 20, 2025

Replacement hammer, trigger, cylinder, and a lock delete.

413Maxwedge · Apr 20, 2025

Original Precision was out of titanium lock delete kits so I got a black one. If I see them back in stock later I'll probably get one to match the Ti pins.

413Maxwedge · Apr 20, 2025

I like these Hogue Bantam boot grips, but Ahrends combats just fit my hand better and will give me a better grip on this (still) lightweight magnum revolver. I now have Ahrends on both my 686's, this 386 and my stubby model 10-7.

413Maxwedge · Apr 20, 2025

I like the looks and the sights, and I believe the extra weight from the SS cylinder will help with recoil, which wasn't too bad to begin with. It went from 17.5oz stock to 21.6oz.

Now I just need to get the trigger sear fit and I'll be in business.

bronco45 · Apr 21, 2025

Love this project. Would like to see Smith bring out this model again, but with the SS cylinder like you are using. I'd be back to carrying a K frame again.

tominphx · Apr 23, 2025

Please excuse my ignorance, but in looking at your pictures of the gun from S&W, why is the front sight so high in relation to the rear sight? Is it an optical illusion?

Cheeers, Tom

413Maxwedge · Apr 23, 2025

I wondered that too looking at it in pictures. But at 20' it shot pretty true (more accurate than me).

Looking at the muzzle, the tall sight "base" makes up the entire rib. Compare that to a 686/586 that has a wide "rib" with a shorter sight base on top of that rib. I think this difference in the sight base is what makes the sight look higher.

But I haven't measured them side by side.

Hawg Rider · Apr 24, 2025

I'm glad that you found a nice Model 386PD and that you're happy with it. I bought a minty used one from my lgs back in 2011, complete with the PC aluminum case, for a great price. It was extremely light and easy to carry, and the 7 shots was a big plus back then. And it was quite accurate at distance for a snubnose. However, I soon realized why it was in mint condition and reasonably priced. With .357 loads it was just plain punishing to shoot. I'm not recoil averse (I routinely shoot .357, .41 and .44 Magnums), but that snappy little devil was painful and there was no such thing as a quick follow up shot. I know that I could have carried .38 Specials, but that kind of defeats the purpose of owning a .357 Magnum. The following year I ended up trading that 386PD in for a used PC Model 627-5 (2-5/8") 8-shooter that I'm very happy with. However, that 386 did get me interested in L-frame revolvers but I chose to go with the heavier stainless steel when I purchased a 686 Plus. Enjoy!

413Maxwedge · Jun 11, 2025

Update! My gunsmith is on a 6 month wait for trigger work so I polished the original MIM H/T and re-installed those.

I swapped in a Wolff "Standard Power" mainspring and 15# rebound, and an Apex extended firing pin. It has fired everything I've run through it without any ftf (about 150 rounds total).

The D&L night sight set I put on it didn't work out, presumably due to the high sight mounting rib on the barrel. The same set works great on my 3" 686-6, but consistently shot 5-6" low at 20' on this 386. Im not sure if there's a height difference between the stock rear sight blades of the 686 and 386, but there's a difference up front.

tominphx said:
Please excuse my ignorance, but in looking at your pictures of the gun from S&W, why is the front sight so high in relation to the rear sight? Is it an optical illusion?

Cheeers, Tom

I measured from top of bore to top of the sight mounting "ramp". Not the sight itself, but the flat that it sits in. On the 686 it measured .4190 and the 386 measured .4670. So I ordered the same sights that S&W put on the 386 Night Guard version: XS Sights standard dot J-frame front and Cylinder & Slide u-notch K/L rear. First I just installed the front J-frame sight while keeping the D&L rear: went from shooting 5-6" low to 3-4" high. Then I swapped the rear for the C&S and it got better. A few inches low but Im no sharp shooter, and this was DA without a bench. I'll take it! I bought it for self defense, not target matches.

Here are pics of it with the new sights, next to my 686-6 with the D&L sights (that work good on the 686).

So basically I converted a 386PD into a 386NG, with the Night Guard spec'd sights and grip, and a similar weight SS cylinder (the NG has a black steel cyl). I was originally looking for a NG when I found this PD so I have no problem with that.

New-to-Me 386PD -- Range Report and Resto Mod

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Attachments

Member

Attachments

Member

Attachments

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Similar threads