How tough is the 686 Plus?

I'm considering buying a 2.5" 686 plus for carry. What is the estimated longevity or round count of a 686 plus if fed only commercially available magnum loads? And what exactly happens to a revolver when it's reached its service life?

I've never really had the urge to buy a Smith revolver before, so I need your knowledge. I've only ever owned Ruger revolvers, and I've heard that Rugers are over-built to withstand a constant diet of hot magnum loads, whereas the Smiths cannot handle a lifetime diet of those loads. Honestly, I'll never shoot as often as the guys who could break a revolver, but I want a strong revolver to pass down in the family, as I don't think people will still have the right to buy guns by the time he comes of age, but I digress. So, while I'm researching my new purchase, I'd like to see if you knowledgeable folks can answer those questions.

Thanks guys.

The 586/686 were introduced to address concerns that the K frames could not withstand a steady diet of magnum ammo. I am certainly no expert on structural stress but I believe you won't ever wear it out unless you take up competition shooting with magnums. I know a guy that has a 686 that he claims he has shot in excess of 20,000 times with magnum loads and it still shoots very good and no problems with the revolver. I think a 686 would last as long or longer that a Ruger GP100.

I have 1,813 rounds through my primary 686+, many of them the dreaded .357 125 Gr. load.

Except for the turn line, the gun is pretty much brand new. Spotless.

The 686 is one tough gun. You would have to shoot A LOT to shake it apart.

How much do you plan on shooting?

As my buddy poster "shawn mccarver" will point out, if he chimes in here, the cylinder stop notches on the cylinder of the 686 Plus are BETWEEN the chambers, not over them as on a 6-round 686 cylinder. With more metal thickness over each chamber, this should increase the strength of the gun.

How many rounds? Don't know and I don't plan on finding out. There is a wear factor always present. If you are a competent shooter and practice sensibly, with EACH round expended having a purpose, you will more than likely never find out at what point the gun will give way.

On a personal note, many people seem to be using the snub 686 as an EDC. Don't know how they manage it; yeah, i know all about proper holster and belt. It's still heavy. Thank heavens for J-frame magnums like the 340M&P. I just ordered my 2nd. Even my .45 derringers like them.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Under those conditions.....

Under those conditions you won't have to worry about wearing it out. The 686 was made to take continuous full magnum rounds and it does a great job of it.

You couldn't shoot it enough to wear it out. It'd wear you out first.

That's great news guys.

Pef said:

How much do you plan on shooting?

Click to expand...

Lately I've been shooting more than I used to, as a group of friends and I have started our own little wannabe IDPA shooting thing. In the last couple of months I've shot about 400 rounds a month, but not all from the same gun. If I get the 686 I'll probably shoot about 100-200 rounds a month through it, probably mostly .357 magnum loads. We try to shoot what we'd carry. Incidentally, this little shooting group we've started is why I want to buy a 686. I've always been of the opinion that revolvers weren't good carry guns because of the double action pull. How can one be accurate after that long pull? That long reset? The inability to shoot 15 rounds in .023 seconds? Then I shot my friends LCR, and I was amazed at how I was able to shoot that gun accurately despite all those (percieved) drawbacks. I bought an LCR and shoot it great. Now I want to move up to .357. I love that cartridge, but haven't owned a revolver that shot it in quite some time. After doing the tactical shooting drills, I've become much more confident in my shooting abilities. I've realized that I don't need a 33 round glock magazine for carry. Who knew, right? So it got me looking at concealable .357s. I've owned an SP101, but while I was looking around, I saw the 686, and I must say, it is quite a beautiful little gun, and gets good reviews. I'm looking forward to the added weight of the 686 over the SP101. .357s were a handful through it.

kaaskop49 said:

On a personal note, many people seem to be using the snub 686 as an EDC. Don't know how they manage it; yeah, i know all about proper holster and belt. It's still heavy. T

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Click to expand...

I'm a pretty heavy guy, so a few pounds doesn't really bother me that much. I've carried full size 1911s, Beretta 92s, Ruger GP100s, and a few other heavies. If I weighed 70 pounds less, I probably wouldn't feel the same way. I don't always carry heavy like that anymore, but when I do, I use a nifty set of undershirt suspenders that I found on the internet. They really make carrying a heavy weapon more comfortable.

I have another question guys. Whats the deal with shooting 125gr bullets? Why are 158gr better? I would think it would be the other way around. Does the 125gr bullet make a higher pressure cartridge?

125 gr bullets, according to Evans and Sanow (sp?) have a much better percentage of "one shot" stops vs perps. Add to that, recoil impulse is less, and penetration is somewhat less than a heavier, slower bullet. YMMV
Tim sends

If you want a smoother action out of the box, look at the Performance Center 2.5in 686plus. It is also machined for moon clips, which helps extract spent rounds quickly. The 3in 686Plus feels better balanced and has the full length extractor along with a bit more barrel for ballistic and sight radius benefits. The Hogue Bantam grips went on both of them to handle the magnum sting. They are both excellent, but double action is more enjoyable on the Performance Center. I am an average sized woman and it is my carry choice for woods walking with 180gr loads.

There are several replaceable parts that can wear out if you fire the gun enough. I don't know how many it takes. The most usual part needed is a new hand to re-time a worn gun, that is a short job and a $10 part.

Fire away!

Pretty dad gum tough. As in it will probably take 50 to 100 THOUSAND rounds to wear the barrel enough that it would need replacing. If you figure a per round cost of just 40 cents that means that you'll have to spend between 20 and 40 THOUSAND dollars to wear out your 750 dollar 686.

My guess would be that someone who could afford the price to shoot out a 686+ with factory magnum loads, should not worry about buying a new 686+ every once in awhile, because the cost of the gun would be nothing compared to the cost of the ammo.

Tim357 said:

125 gr bullets, according to Evans and Sanow (sp?) have a much better percentage of "one shot" stops vs perps. Add to that, recoil impulse is less, and penetration is somewhat less than a heavier, slower bullet. YMMV
Tim sends

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. But I've heard that cartridges loaded with 125gr bullets are harder on a gun. Why?

ccjcc81 said:

Sounds good to me. But I've heard that cartridges loaded with 125gr bullets are harder on a gun. Why?

Click to expand...

Sir,

I'll get to your question in a moment; first, I use 686+'s for home defense, and an SP101 for carry. I use 125gr, full-magnum loads in both -exclusively. I've been practicing with both for years, and they show no signs of wear.

Now, here is the main theory I've heard which answers your question:
-Heavy magnum loads contain slow-burning powders, which means that their peak pressure occurs slightly later in the firing process than faster-burning powders. Coupled with a lighter weight, and therefore shorter bullet, the powder's peak pressure occurs after the base of the bullet has exited the cylinder; which means that the flame at the barrel/cylinder gap is more intense. The torch-like effect thus produced out the sides and top of the chamber wears the forcing cone and top strap of the frame more readily with repeated firings.

There is apparently considerable evidence that the above is the cause of cracking of the bottom of the forcing cones in K-frame .357s(Models 19 & 66 in particular), since that area of the cone on a K-frame is thinner to allow the yoke assembly/gas ring to clear it when the cylinder is shut. Thinner steel heats up and cools down faster than thicker steel, which increases stress on a component of inconsistent thickness.

The L-frame Smith revolver, which includes the 686, was designed to eliminate the above problem by eliminating the thin area at the bottom of the forcing cone(at least that is the main difference). Nevertheless many still believe that full-magnum loads utilizing the 125gr. bullet are detrimental to the guns in which they are fired. Obviously I'm not among them. Let each person do his/her homework and decide.

I hope this was at least somewhat helpful.

Best wishes in your search for a satisfactory gun,
Andy

ccjcc81 said:

Sounds good to me. But I've heard that cartridges loaded with 125gr bullets are harder on a gun. Why?

Click to expand...

Questions of the timing of the peak pressure aside (surely a contributing factor, but almost impossible to quantify – especially with factory ammo using unknown powders and charge weights), the primary issue at hand is the length of the bullet and the resulting overall length of the cartridge. The ever-popular 125 grain bullet is simply shorter than a 158 grain or heavier bullet. This means the bullet has further to travel before making the jump to the forcing cone. Add to that the fact that the shorter bullet will also normally have a shorter bearing surface and longer ogive compared to a heavier bullet. These lighter bullets also provide more room for powder in the case for increased velocity. Given the fact that the cylinder is sized for the case and not the bullet, the extra time it takes for the short bullet to reach the forcing cone and seal the barrel allows some of the combustion gases to sneak past the bullet and enter the barrel before it is sealed by the bullet's bearing surface. The combusting gas super heats the barrel just as the bullet slams into it and the oxygen-rich environment of the barrel only makes it worse (hotter). This does not happen with the longer medium-weight and heavy-for-caliber bullets, as they seal the barrel before the combusting gases reach it.

The Achilles Heel of the K-frames is the flat spot on the forcing cone at the 6 o'clock position – a necessary compromise to allow the cylinder to close without hitting the forcing cone (at least some newer K-frames have been redesigned with a fully round forcing cone and the flat spot on the cylinder instead). This weak spot on the forcing cone tends to crack after an unknown number of flaming hot 125 grain bullets. There have been reports of cracks developing after only a few boxes of hot ammo as well as reports of revolvers having shot thousands of such rounds with no apparent issues.

The K-frame was designed long before 125 grain bullets became popular to be a lighter weight carry gun than the N-frame and it served well in that role for decades... until police departments started practicing with their 125 grain carry ammo. The L-frame was designed to fix these perceived shortcomings by beefing up the frame. The slightly larger frame also made room for a fully round forcing cone and it can handle as many magnum bullets as you can afford to shoot. To this day some people insist that the K-frame is not designed to handle a steady diet of magnum ammo, while others insist that it can handle all the magnum ammo that your wrist and wallet can as long as you stick with heavier bullets.

Count me in the latter camp. I have an early 80's vintage model 66-2 with a 4" barrel that I carry on occasion. It sees mainly mild- to medium-hot magnum bullets weighing 158 grains or more; currently two or three hundred a month, because that's all I have time to reload and shoot these days. If I had found a pre-lock model 686 with a 3 inch barrel first, I might have gone that route instead, because as someone noted above, the balance is outstanding. As it is, I love my K-frame. It's handles well and looks great, too. But I didn't buy it to baby it. If you end up falling in love with a K-frame, keep the forcing cone free of lead and carbon build-up, stick with heavier bullets (around 147 grains and up) and you shouldn't have anything to worry about. On the other hand, if do end up buying an L-frame, consider the slightly larger frame to be extra insurance. Shoot either with confidence.

I have always thought that full house Magnums caused problems with K-frames due to the forcing cone, which is stronger on both the 6 and 7-shot L-frames.

You can't live long enough to wear one out, and you are welcome to try!

My S&W revolver guru is the only person I will let touch my smith revolvers....but he only guarantee's his work for 100,000 rounds!!!

If you are going to use this in IDPA...the 7 shot can only be loaded with 6 so that advantage goes away....or so it used to be.

Get one and then try to wear it it and keep a meticulous round count then report to us how many and how long it took....

Randy

ghstrydr164 said:

My guess would be that someone who could afford the price to shoot out a 686+ with factory magnum loads, should not worry about buying a new 686+ every once in awhile, because the cost of the gun would be nothing compared to the cost of the ammo.

Click to expand...

You beat me to it.

SeamasterSig said:

The ever-popular 125 grain bullet is simply shorter than a 158 grain or heavier bullet. This means the bullet has further to travel before making the jump to the forcing cone. Add to that the fact that the shorter bullet will also normally have a shorter bearing surface and longer ogive compared to a heavier bullet. These lighter bullets also provide more room for powder in the case for increased velocity. Given the fact that the cylinder is sized for the case and not the bullet, the extra time it takes for the short bullet to reach the forcing cone and seal the barrel allows some of the combustion gases to sneak past the bullet and enter the barrel before it is sealed by the bullet's bearing surface. The combusting gas super heats the barrel just as the bullet slams into it and the oxygen-rich environment of the barrel only makes it worse (hotter). This does not happen with the longer medium-weight and heavy-for-caliber bullets, as they seal the barrel before the combusting gases reach it.

Click to expand...

Sir,

I have heard this explanation before also. Out of curiosity I took a 125gr. bullet out of my supply and stuck it into the forcing cone of one of my 686s until it 'stuck' on the lands. At that point the bullet still protruded between 1/8" and 3/16", or nearly 4mm beyond the forcing cone. This means that, even by the time the bullet fully engages the rifling and thus seals the bore, nearly all that length is still in the cylinder. And we know that S&W bores the chamber throats .001 or so smaller than the bullet to prevent gas from escaping before the bullet clears the throat.

Given the above, and with all respect, how is it physically possible for the gases to get from the chamber into the barrel prior to the bullet sealing it??? I certainly don't know all there is to know about these things and am willing to hear an explanation, but my mechanical aptitude is telling me it can't happen.

I'll listen to what others have to say.

Best regards,
Andy

ccjcc81 said:

Whats the deal with shooting 125gr bullets? Why are 158gr better? I would think it would be the other way around. Does the 125gr bullet make a higher pressure cartridge?

Click to expand...

The 125 grain magnum rounds can cause flame cutting on the top strap.