Why one stainless 7 shot over the other? It seems everyone chooses the 686?

The 620 has a two piece barrel, the 686 does not.

Depends on your druthers.

Some point to the two piece barrel as an accuracy improvement, while others say that on a DW, it was true, but on an S&W it was a cost savings move.

I fall on the DW being an accuracy improvement side of the argument.

The S&W two piece barrel is not adjustable by the user and the tools for this are unavailable outside the factory. Add to this, there have been a few barrel failures due to various issues, one being over torquing.

I am thinking that the 620 has been discontinued. I think that the major difference was, as others have said, the barrel. Also, the 620 didn't have the full underlug, just a partial one like the 66 which it was intended to replace.

I chose the 610 specifically because of the 2 piece barrel and the half lug profile. You can't purchase a new Dan Wesson today, so the only current option available is the S&W's that feature a 2 piece barrel.

Accuracy has been nothing but splendid. With a J Point red dot sight mounted on it, it will group 3/4 inch at 25 yards when shot carefully from a bench rest. While I haven't ever owned a 4 inch 686, the test reports I've seen indicate that the 686 won't match what I've done with my 620.

I've also noticed that the 620 seems to be a lot less sensitive to ammunition variables such as bulet weight or power than the guns with a one piece barrel. Considering the Engineering Dynamics, that's not too surprizing, the 2 piece barrels are supported at each end and the 1 piece barrel is only supported at the frame. So, there is a lot less harmonic movement in the barrel when a bullet is fired through it.

I am also NOT a fan of full lug barrels. IMO all that mass in the barrel degrades the balance of a revolver. Unfortunately, the barrel shroud on the 620 is heavy enough that the 620 does feel a bit muzzle heavy when compared to my tapered barrel model 67. It's not as muzzle heavy as the 686 but there is a noticable difference when compared to my model 67. However, it might not be a completely fair comparison, IMO the models 15 and 67 with the tapered barrel have the finest balance of any 4 inch revolver ever made. As for why it matters, I haven't ever shot any revolver as well in rapid fire DA drills as I have my model 67. That light barrel means that it's very nimble feeling in the hand and it's very easy to rapidly return the gun to POA in a rapid fire string. Basically, you get a longer sight radius in a revolver that feels a lot like a snubby.

Bottomline, I really like my 620. Yeah, it would be a bit nicer if it had a Titanium barrel shroud so that it duplicated the superb balance of my 67, however I already know I wouldn't be willing to pay for the cost of that feature. While I can't shoot the 620 quite as well as my 67 in rapid fire drills, I can shoot it well enough to do the job. On the plus side, from a bench rest the 620 will group a whole lot tighter than the 67 and it can be fun at times to blow the bullseye out of a target. Another plus is that it is a 357 Magnum, which an entirely different experience than running 38 spl. downrange.

As for the reports of these barrrels failing, I look at it as the luck of the draw. Barrels have been failing at stress risers as long as guns have featured barrels with stress risers. On the 2 piece barrels, this point is the cap at the end of the barrel shroud. On the guns with 1 piece barrels, it's the extension that threads into the frame. Since I joined this forum, I've seen one example of a barrel failure with the 620 and one example of a barrel failure on the 686. Based on that, it would appear that both types of barrels have a failure rate that is about equal and it's a pretty low rate of failure.

I have both a 686 (actually two 686's) and a 520 (the blued version of the 620).

I like both of the revolvers. My 686's are six shot versions while the Model 520 is a seven shot.

I hung a Red Dot sight on the 520 and recently did an action job. I am pretty dern happy with it but do NOT rate it higher than the 686.



To sum up, I don't think you can go wrong with either.

Dale53

i shot some stout loads through a 619 once. it was quite accurate, even though it was a range model that looked like it had never been cleaned.

I was not aware the 620 had been discontinued, but I just spent a good while on the S&W website and could not find any mention of it so it must be history.

I owned a 620 for awhile. Aside from being a two piece design, the barrel is very light. Although this makes the gun easier to carry, it also causes it to recoil sharply. The gun injured the web of my hand while shooting full power loads. I sold the gun, and replaced it with a 4" 686 (no dash, with square butt). The 686 is a pleasure to shoot, with the same full power loads.

Nice write-up Scooter123! Thanks for that. I don't own a 620. I bought a 66-7, one of the very last 66s, in '06 to use in SSR class in IDPA matches. I have an old 67 no-dash that I bought in the summer of '72, so one of the first ones to come out. I love that gun and have shot it a lot and it has been flawless in it's reliability and durability to the extent that I've never had to touch it other than routine cleaning in all these years. But I didn't think I wanted to use it for IDPA as it was becoming something of an antique/heirloom to me and my family (long story on that one) and also because I personally liked a little bit of added muzzle-heaviness which the 66 had. I agree, however, that the 686 with the full underlug is too muzzle-heavy.

Recently I was handling one of the 686SSR guns and really liked the feel of that one. But I couldn't really justify spending the $700+ on it when I have the totally suitable 66-7. One of these days, however......

In regards to the reason why S & W went to two piece barrels, I think the reason had to do with the significant problems associated with correctly assembling revolvers with one piece barrels. As an engineer with the Company at the time the 686 was introduced I saw the problem first hand.

A one piece barrel needs to have its threads and the frame needs its threads cut just right in order to have the barrel screw in just right so that it is tightened with significant torque just at the point where the bottom lug lines up correctly with the frame. Because of the tollerance stack-up of the various pieces, this is very difficult to achieve, and was one of the biggest assembly problems we faced. For years, the barrel was pinned in place to compensate for the various torques that resulted; but although the pinned barrels stayed on, some still had insufficient torque. As machining precision improved around 1980, the pinning was deemed to be not needed. Not only correct torque was a challenge; but the barrel at the forcing cone needed to be made longer than one might think and then filed by hand to get the correct cylinder gap. The result of all this was a large percentage of discarded barrels and high hand fitting costs. It was a shame and tremendous waste to throw out so many seemingly good barrels because they wouldn't turn into the frame just right.

The Dan Wesson revolvers solved these problems. The two piece barrel would be screwed in against a feeler guage to the correct cylinder gap, the shrould slid on and the barrel, and the nut tightened to the correct torque. The result was no more discarded barrels, and the side benefit was that accuracy was improved.