586 no dash

Guns.com Vault
Gather App
Very nice! And I love those grips! I too have a no-dash 586, which is a favorite handgun, but mine did go through the recall, so no issues there. Also, mine has been restocked with a set of nice Altamonts. Gotta love the old 586s!
 
Between the 586 and a no dash 4" 686 they are my main woods carry lately.
I switch to rubber Hogue's to shoot and carry.
 
I dare say about the only way to make a 4" 586 more perfect would be to pin the barrel and recess the chambers like the older K and N frames and add a 7 shot cylinder. Never happening, I know, but that would be simply amazing!

Tom
 
Have a 586 no dash with M. Picked it up a little over 4 years ago at a gun show. Came with original box , pamphlets and instruction manuals. Serial starts with AJY. Spec order date on label is 6066, March 7 1986. Dealer said when he got it , it had Pacs on it so he put on some nice target stocks as the the label said TS. When I got it home I removed the stocks and found they were date stamped Feb 11 1986 less than a month before the gun was made. Has no barrel end wear and very light turn line.IMG_4631 (1).webpIMG_4644.webpIMG_4632.webpIMG_4635.webp
 
Phish said:
Love mine as it has no M stamp and 6”.
Click to expand...
No offense intended,this comment is not directed at any specific person,but I just don't get why people brag about having a "no M" 586.
It's a functional upgrade,and prevents a serious malfunction.
Subsequent issues have the upgrade. If one is a shooter,and has "never had a problem ", you've been lucky.
I'm all for "original" ,but not if it results in a "lesser" firearm.
Please enlighten me, seriously.
And don't beat me up,I just don't get it...
 
zodraz said:
No offense intended,this comment is not directed at any specific person,but I just don't get why people brag about having a "no M" 586.
It's a functional upgrade,and prevents a serious malfunction.
Subsequent issues have the upgrade. If one is a shooter,and has "never had a problem ", you've been lucky.
I'm all for "original" ,but not if it results in a "lesser" firearm.
Please enlighten me, seriously.
And don't beat me up,I just don't get it...
Click to expand...
Didnt know about the M stamp stuff going on until i read it on here. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Until it does well then I will send it in but not likely.
 
Phish said:
Didnt know about the M stamp stuff going on until i read it on here. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Until it does well then I will send it in but not likely.
Click to expand...
In this case,S&W says IT IS BROKE. That's my point, exactly.It is the subject of a Recall.
 
It's pretty hard to find a better revolver than a 586. My '85-vintage, no 'M' was spotted in a pawn shop wearing Pachmyer grips. I found some factory target grips for it. If mine showed any primer-cratering, it would go back to S&W for the fix. It doesn't, and I have shot it with some pretty hot handloads. Sending it back for the 'M', when it doesn't have a problem, is asking for trouble in my opinion. Not only that, but if you've added any triggerwork, aftermarket springs, etc., the factory will return it to factory specs.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_2078.webp
    DSC_2078.webp
    711.8 KB
The M stamp recall was a voluntary recall. The issue was determined to be caused by Federal using soft primers on certain hot .357 loads which could cause primer metal to flow back into the hammer nose bushing hole. The M fix replaces the bushing with a new bushing that has a slightly smaller opening. Sometime in the late 80’s Federal stopped using those primers and loads. So the issue became moot.
 
Wallyboy1206 said:
The M stamp recall was a voluntary recall. The issue was determined to be caused by Federal using soft primers on certain hot .357 loads which could cause primer metal to flow back into the hammer nose bushing hole. The M fix replaces the bushing with a new bushing that has a slightly smaller opening. Sometime in the late 80’s Federal stopped using those primers and loads. So the issue became moot.
Click to expand...
This is correct as i knew all about this issue back then. I use a lot of Federal primers today and none had that issue. Sending a non M stamp back is just flat out pointless if the problem doesn’t exist anymore.
 
IMG_20251021_190554425.webpIMG_20251021_190609142.webp

I add mine just for fun. No dash with the M. Mine also came to me with Pachmayer grips, then I put a set of incorrect targets on it because I had them.

When I bought my 17-3 it had the correct stocks for a 586 on it and the 586 had the correct stocks for the 17. So we did a little swap and now I'm very happy.
 
zodraz said:
No offense intended,this comment is not directed at any specific person,but I just don't get why people brag about having a "no M" 586.
It's a functional upgrade,and prevents a serious malfunction.
Subsequent issues have the upgrade. If one is a shooter,and has "never had a problem ", you've been lucky.
I'm all for "original" ,but not if it results in a "lesser" firearm.
Please enlighten me, seriously.
And don't beat me up,I just don't get it...
Click to expand...
Don't see anyone "bragging". I think they're just stating that theirs, like mine, doesn't have a stamp.
If Im not mistaken, and I surely may be but there primer flow locking the cylinder was from the 110gr and 125gr high pressure, high velocity rounds favored by police departments back in the late '70's to early '80's.
I myself have loaded some quite hot loads in my 586 and haven't had an issue either. However, I bet that it wouldn't have taken very many incidents of that happening within a police department, where officers li es are on the line every single day for someone to say hey, we cant have this. I just dont think it was a widespread issue and they wanted to ensure it didn't become one.
Bragging? Putting someone else's 586 down because theirs has it? Just dont see that.
 
zodraz said:
In this case,S&W says IT IS BROKE. That's my point, exactly.It is the subject of a Recall.
Click to expand...
A few years ago I bought a 586 6" from a friend I knew he had shot bowling pins with. On close inspection I saw a cracked and eroded forcing cone. I sent it to S&W for "the works". It came back with a new barrel, new internals, the 'M' modification and reblue. Looks and feels like new, but haven't shot it much.
 
BillBro said:
Don't see anyone "bragging". I think they're just stating that theirs, like mine, doesn't have a stamp.
If Im not mistaken, and I surely may be but there primer flow locking the cylinder was from the 110gr and 125gr high pressure, high velocity rounds favored by police departments back in the late '70's to early '80's.
I myself have loaded some quite hot loads in my 586 and haven't had an issue either. However, I bet that it wouldn't have taken very many incidents of that happening within a police department, where officers li es are on the line every single day for someone to say hey, we cant have this. I just dont think it was a widespread issue and they wanted to ensure it didn't become one.
Bragging? Putting someone else's 586 down because theirs has it? Just dont see that.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the responses, I gained a lot of insight into people's feelings and attitudes.
Unfortunately some of the responses have some inaccurate info.
It was not a "voluntary" recall,as a matter of fact,S&W sent teams to agencies to fix them in masse.
The problem was not exclusive to Federal ammo,and Federal did not change anything.It wasn't their problem.
It's true that certain ammo exacerbated the problem,and a "non M" gun will give a lifetime of trouble free service if that ammo is avoided.
 
I have been a gun lover since I was pre Grade School, but even after years don't consider myself any sort of an expert. Replace springs, do a bit of smoothing, mount a scope, grips or new sights are all I have done through the years. I had a 586 no dash, and shot it a lot. Having owned and enjoyed it for a decade or so, I decided to have it checked for reliability and proper function. It was a Gunsmith I'd dealt with before. He looked at the gun, then got some sort of doo dad, and put it in the forcing cone. It nearly disappeared, and he said the forcing cone was "shot out". I talked it over with my wife, and we decided it wouldn't be right to sell a gun with that problem to another person. The Gunsmith had offered me $200 for it. I got him to increase the offer some, and concluded the deal.
Later, I found out he was bragging how much he made for it on Gunbroker. I think he saw me coming. I haven't done any business with him since.
As a counterpoint, I removed a red dot sight from my .22 pistol, and wanted to replace the Iron sight. I took it to another Gunsmith, who works for one of the large retail establishments, and was greeted by a pleasant youngish man. I explained what I needed, and he took the gun and sight and disappeared into the back shop. Ten minutes later, he was back, and handed me the gun. I asked what I owed, expecting to pay for his work. He smiled, and said "No charge, man!" I gave him a sincere Thank You! The Gun Community has a lot of good people, and I'm glad to be one of them!:giggle:
 
I read this thread with much interest, since I just bought a 686-1 this morning (by phone, so will receive next week). Customer Service tells me it was 'made' in November 1987. It has the 'M' stamp. In reading the entire link to 'The Revolver Guy' article in #29 above, there seems a slight 'conflict' in dates. Per the article, any gun shipped after August 21,1987 would be a -2 not requiring the modifications. I have not asked for a ship date yet on mine, but with a Nov. manufacturing date, something does not jibe! Here is the direct copy of the article wording: "Additionally, Smith & Wesson created a second engineering change for the L-Frames to incorporate the improvements. All new production guns shipped from the factory after 21 August 1987 were marked as “Dash-2” guns (i.e., 686-2) to denote they incorporated the change to the hammer, hammer nose, and bushing."
SCSW 5th, page 379 does confirm (without a specific month) that the 'M' recall and the -2 happened in 1987. Mine must have been put together from 'left over' 1986 parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Toter
586 no dash
Replies
14
Views
261
Smith357
Smith357
JHW
Smith & Wesson Model 586 No-Dash 4" .357 MAG 1982 BLUED Beautiful Early Example
Replies
1
Views
417
6GUNSONLY
6GUNSONLY
E
  • Locked
Found Looking for Model 586 or 686
Replies
0
Views
124
Eddietruett
E
mr fixit
What grips for 586?
Replies
5
Views
264
lihpster
lihpster
B
M27-2 with an M-prefix serial?
Replies
4
Views
317
RKmesa
RKmesa

Latest posts

Back
Top