28-2 vs 686 choice

jdpeterson · Sep 25, 2015

Here’s the deal:

I have a 28-2 in good condition. It’s a big, six inch hunk of steel and wood, and shoots straight. I like this gun but am wondering if moving to a 686 or 686+ would be beneficial for the reasons listed below?

1) Stainless steel guns are supposedly easier to clean in the field?

2) 1 extra round in the 686+

3) The 686 is 5.5oz lighter than the 28-2 and the 686+ is 6.3oz lighter than the 28-2. This is significant because:
5.5oz equates to about 9 180g Hardcast extra rounds in my pocket
6.3oz equates to about 10 180g Hardcast extrarounds in my pocket

4) 4 inch vs 6 inch barrel for maneuverability/pack-ability?
Shorter barrels compromise bullet speed but is this a significant factor going from a 6 inch to a 4 inch barrel?

5) Does a full underlug in the 686 models matter?

6) Non-tapered barrel on the 686.

From what I can tell the 28-2 is built on a 44mag frame which translates to durability and weight in the smaller caliber 357 chambering. But the gun is almost 30 years old. I am assuming metals chemistry has progressed to allow for the lighter 686 and 686+ to be just as strong as the 28-2 and that other improvements to mechanics and ergonomics have been made over the years. My main purpose for the gun is hunting and wilderness protection.

Is this a fair comparison?

Please correct/inform me if I am misinterpreting information or am missing a point or some data to help in making my choice.

I understand there is a lot to this discussion and am hoping for legitimate reasons to facilitate my choice.

Thank you for you help!

jdpeterson · Sep 25, 2015

Should this be moved to the S&W Revolvers: 1961 to 1980 forum?

Herknav · Sep 26, 2015

JD,

Overall, I think your analysis is pretty solid. The 28 was built on the larger N-frame. The 686 is built on the smaller L-frame, which came about as a response to issues seen in K-frames (e.g. models 19 & 66) that had seen a heavy diet of .357s. I am no expert, but I have not heard/read about any such issues with the L-frame.

For your stated uses, the 686 is the pragmatic choice for the reasons you listed. If carried in a shoulder holster, the longer barrel is not a hindrance. The 686s I've shot are plenty accurate, so I wouldn't worry about the barrel profile. The only reason to pick the 28 for uses, IMO, is nostalgia.

silentflyer · Sep 26, 2015

Buy both,

F75gunslinger · Sep 26, 2015

I would say, with that 28 in such nice shape, that making it a range gun and getting a 686 for carry/woods use is a no brainer. The longer one carries a blued gun, the more the finish gets slowly worn away by the leather from the holster. If it was already in worn shape I'd say don't worry about it, but I'd rather have a stainless gun that is easy to refinish back to original condition ( brushed stainless ) than to see one of my nice blued guns lose it's finish over time.

g8rb8 · Sep 26, 2015

jdpeterson said:
.....

I have a 28-2 in good condition. ...I like this gun but am wondering if moving to a 686 or 686+ would be beneficial....
1) Stainless steel guns are supposedly easier to clean in the field?

2) 1 extra round in the 686+

3) The 686 is 5.5oz lighter than the 28-2 and the 686+ is 6.3oz lighter than the 28-2. .....

4) 4 inch vs 6 inch barrel for maneuverability/pack-ability?
......is this a significant factor going from a 6 inch to a 4 inch barrel?

5) Does a full underlug in the 686 models matter?

6) Non-tapered barrel on the 686.

From what I can tell the 28-2 is built on a 44mag frame which translates to durability and weight in the smaller caliber 357 chambering. But the gun is almost 30 years old. I am assuming metals chemistry has progressed to allow for the lighter 686 and 686+ to be just as strong as the 28-2 and that other improvements to mechanics and ergonomics have been made over the years. My main purpose for the gun is hunting and wilderness protection.

Is this a fair comparison?
....

Short answer: Yes. It's a fair comparison. Get what you want.

Longer answer:
1. Stainless is not easier to clean than a blue finish but, arguably, a stainless finish has advantages to a blue finish for your intended use. On the other hand, if reasonable care is exercised, the finish on your 28-2 should hold up for your intended use.
2. Cannot dispute the objective measure for an increase of one round but following this logic you could argue for a semi-auto pistol with a high-capacity magazine.
3. Cannot dispute the objective measure of decreased weight but, once again, following this logic you could argue for a polymer frame semi-auto to save even more weight.
4. My opinion is that for your intended purpose a 4" versus a 6" barrel is probably not a significant factor but I am not a hunter. A hunter might suggest there's a significant advantage to the 6" barrel.?
5. The full underlug for the 686 might have some theoretical advantage but practically it shouldn't matter.
6. Non-tapered versus tapered barrel is another theoretical issue but practically it shouldn't matter. Strength versus weight versus accuracy versus durability. Both are practically satisfactory in all these areas.

The base metal (carbon steel) in the 28-2 will be harder and theoretically more durable than stainless steel. There is at least one excellent metallurgy thread in the S&W Forum that compares stainless to carbon steel. The 28-2 and the 686 will be very similar in ergonomics. I prefer the L-frames over the N-frames (i.e. get what you want).

steelslaver · Sep 26, 2015

jdpeterson said:
But the gun is almost 30 years old. I am assuming metals chemistry has progressed to allow for the lighter 686 and 686+ to be just as strong as the 28-2.

Thank you for you help!

Not much improvements in steels like the chrome moly that the 28-2 is built from. Some improvements in stainless steels. But, a 686 would not be a strong as a 28-2. Truth is no stainless steel frame will have as much tensile strength as a identical frame of chrome moly frame. Anybody that doubts this just needs to study some steel spec charts. This doesn't mean they are not plenty strong or durable.

While no production S&W 357 compares in strength to the 27 or 28 models, there are plenty that carry around better and are plenty durable.

Pef · Sep 26, 2015

Keep the N frame and get the L frame if you can afford to do so.

I acquired four 686's, and since then I've acquired two 28-2's. I have a 686+ for my home defense gun, but the 28-2 is a great gun for the range.

There's nothing like putting a big N frame in the hands of an occasional shooter and watching them smile as they heft it and feel the authority!

sodacan · Sep 26, 2015

I own both and would not hesitate to sell the 686 if I had to make a choice. Good luck.

robvious · Sep 26, 2015

jdpeterson said:
Here’s the deal:

I have a 28-2 in good condition. It’s a big, six inch hunk of steel and wood, and shoots straight. I like this gun but am wondering if moving to a 686 or 686+ would be beneficial for the reasons listed below?

1) Stainless steel guns are supposedly easier to clean in the field?

2) 1 extra round in the 686+

3) The 686 is 5.5oz lighter than the 28-2 and the 686+ is 6.3oz lighter than the 28-2. This is significant because:
5.5oz equates to about 9 180g Hardcast extra rounds in my pocket
6.3oz equates to about 10 180g Hardcast extrarounds in my pocket

4) 4 inch vs 6 inch barrel for maneuverability/pack-ability?
Shorter barrels compromise bullet speed but is this a significant factor going from a 6 inch to a 4 inch barrel?

5) Does a full underlug in the 686 models matter?

6) Non-tapered barrel on the 686.

ok... my take...
1. stainless preferred for field use... cleaning the same...
2. extra round preferred... not necessary.
3. lighter preferred for field use... not critical.
4. they make the 686 in 5 inch to compromise...
5. they made a stocking dealer 686+ half lug 5 inch... perfect.
6. tapered barrel nice for weight... and pretty... not necessary.

getting both was my solution...

roscoepc · Sep 26, 2015

Let's see here.... Hunting and Wilderness protection eh? To me, hands down it would be the blued weapon. Why? Well for hunting the last thing you want is a nice shiny stainless steel weapon flashing sunlight all over the place when you pull it! IMHO, a blued gun is better for this use.. And since you're already using it for hunting she should do for wilderness protection as well.

I know a lot of people are concerned about the weight of the gun while in the woods but, me personally, the weight don't matter as I'll take the M-28 any day if I'm gonna pack a .357 mag!! I LIKE the extra weight!!

27 Man · Sep 26, 2015

Get the 28-2 or both if you can. Both are excellent.

Waywatcher · Sep 26, 2015

This topic is right up my alley! I love comparing and contrasting firearms with respect to weight. I recently went through a very similar situation in that I was looking for a woods/camping/hunting/general outdoors revolver. Except I started from scratch.

--The extra velocity and sight radius of the 6" convinced me it was worthwhile, even despite the weight and length gain.
--I like blued revolvers, plus in my instance it was cheaper.
--I found that a dedicated 357 Magnum was also worthwhile in both weight savings and longevity; A lighter cylinder develops endshake and notch-peening at a lower rate. Finally, carrying the frame of a 44 magnum is simply not necessary for 357 Magnum.

But, like I said, I was starting from scratch. Click here to see what I picked.

Happy hunting!

Triathloncoach · Sep 26, 2015

sodacan said:
I own both and would not hesitate to sell the 686 if I had to make a choice. Good luck.

Me too, I love my 28-2. I like my 686.

BCDWYO · Sep 26, 2015

I don't think anyone has mentioned what, to me at least, is the biggest advantage of the L-frame 686 over the N-frame 28, and that is grip size/trigger reach. Unless you have larger than average hands I think it is a little harder to grip and properly pull a double action trigger on an N frame, so I shoot L frames better.

DR505 · Sep 26, 2015

I'd take the 28-2 over any iteration of the 686. I've got both N and L frames. My hand is rather on the large size, so the N frames see FAR more range/carry time.

Engineer1911 · Sep 26, 2015

It's just confusing

sodacan said:
I own both and would not hesitate to sell the 686 if I had to make a choice. Good luck.

I own both and would not hesitate to sell the M28 if I had to make a choice. Good Luck.

I also have a 4" M29 and a 5-1/2" M27 which makes selling the M28 easier.

loeman · Sep 26, 2015

I'm pretty sure we are talking about a "working" gun here. And if that's the case, give me the 4 inch L frame any day. Preferably a Md 681. I don't own a 28 but I have two 27s.

clevolver · Sep 26, 2015

Buy both. Shoot both. Then buy more.

jhvaughan2 · Sep 26, 2015

I used to hunt with my 686. I have a 28 for the range.
For me the under lug made the revolver easier to use when resting on an stand or shooting sticks.
However the number one reason why I would never carry a vintage blue S&W into the field is BLOOD. Get it on your 686 and just hose it off. Get it on your M28 and loose $150-$200 of it's value.

28-2 vs 686 choice

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads