Which .357 frame is stronger?

Hi

I currently own an older Model 19 in .357 and I primarily shoot .38 Specials in it. I'd like to get an L-frame to shoot .357 magnums in full time. I'm looking at this gun as a woods carry gun, concealed in cooler weather, not so much in the Oklahoma summers. The 686 is supposed to be slightly larger than the old K-frames so you can shoot .357 in it every day. I'm looking at between 500 and 2000 rounds a year. I've narrowed my choices down to two models:

Model 686 Plus 3-5-7 Magnum Series
SKU: 150854.
Model 686 Plus 3-5-7 Magnum Series | Smith & Wesson

Model 686
SKU: 164222
Model 686 | Smith & Wesson

In my opinion, the 686 6 shot should be a stronger frame. Another shooter said that the 686 7 shot would be stronger because the lower half of the cylinder / frame match is between two chambers on steel, not on the chamber itself. Which would be stronger? At 2000 rounds a year, is this a concern? The 3-5-7 comes in a 5 inch barrel as opposed to the 686 with a 4 inch barrel. I'm good sized, so hiding another inch of barrel wouldn't be a problem.

Recommendations?

Thanks, I looked for this information in this forum, but didn't find what I was after.

Thanks

Welcome to the forum.

Take a look at the N frames. Model 28 in particular.

I'm no expert, but I'd say any difference in strength between the two L-frames you're considering would be neglible. Pick the one you like best.

Well if strength is the main thing, in a sturdy S&W L Frame, my choice would be a blued carbon steel 586 L-Comp. Strength and very high round counts would also seem to bring N frames in to the discussion. But then if the strongest L-Frame money can buy is in play, arguably the strongest built .357 Magnum period in a current production revolver just might be a Korth Mongoose 6 shot.

Frame and cylinder made of a much higher strength and harder steel than popular revolver brands, the same steel commercial aircraft landing gear is fashioned from. Barrel is even more exotic, made of the same steel in open class dragster crankshafts that take obscene loading. Just massive overkill but there it is. Then as evidenced by the pictures below, they machine their steel much thicker. But that and other over-engineering help explain the Korth's current $3,500 price.

Observe the ejector Rod and Ratchet of my cherished S&W Perf Ctr 627 N Frame .357 (pic 1), a the S&W N frame is a very stout customer, and then compare with the Korth Mongoose .357 (pic 2&3). Even accounting for the larger N Frame S&W cylinder, there still a substantial difference in thickness at the ejector rod and ejection star, and the Korth uses higher strength and harder steel. Interestingly, spent shells fall much easier and slicker from the Korth presumably from the harder steel, and the proprietary extra hardening process during chamber boring. Over engineering abounds such as double action that floats on ball bearings arguably giving the smoothest DA experience money can buy in a current production revolver.

But my pictured S&W 627 has had a very nice action job that had good action to begin with, and dollar for dollar is the best purchase as you could own three for the same money as a single German Mongoose.

Pics: S&W PC 627, Korth Mongoose, Korth Mongoose, S&W PC 627

Hello from another Okie. I would suggest the 686 +, one more round, but I got the 3 inch 3-5-7. It accompanies me everywhere I go.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

The 686 in either version will handle any .357 factory load without ANY strength issues. Further, I much prefer the 686 compared to the Model 27/627 because it will handle a wider range of bullet lengths (cylinder is longer than the 27/627). As a for instance, the original Keith 358429 must be crimped over the front band in the Model 27, whereas the 686 can use the crimp groove as the bullet was designed for.

I have a 4" 686 Model CS-1 and a 686-3 with 6" barrel. I have shot them thousands of times with both .38 Special wadcutters and full charge .357's without issue. I have never heard of a 686 having any strength issues. They are great field pieces.

FWIW
Dale53

SWWheelGun said:

Wow, a Korth! Congrats for owning such engineering marvel of a wheel gun.

Do you think you could please share more photos of the Mongoose?

Click to expand...

Yeah. Nighthawk is Korth's distributor in the U.S. and they along with numerous reviewers overhyped an incredibly nice weapon. And the finish is ridiculously nice and the second manufacturer's picture does it justice - think Wilson Combat. It is now owned by a gentleman in Florida who absolutely loves it. The second time I seriously regretted selling a gun after the fact.

More Pics Mongoose .357 - Korth Revolvers.

I have not heard of any durability issues for the 686.

I'd personally pick the 7 shot.

Ironically, I don't have a 686-Plus. I have a Performance Center (PC) 586 L-Comp 7 shot and a PC 627 5" 8 shot. They're very heavy, and the recoil of either is minimal.

The only revolvers where recoil is noticeable is in my two Snubnosed revolvers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

You mention conceal carry and for me, the smaller and lighter the better. The new 66-8 with 2.75" barrel would be my choice. With the frame upgrades plenty strong too.

Any L frame will be strong enough for what you want to do. If you like speed loaders, they work a little better with the 6 shot version. If not, go with the 7 shot.

sammynomas said:

Hello from another Okie. I would suggest the 686 +, one more round, but I got the 3 inch 3-5-7. It accompanies me everywhere I go.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

This!
Can handle a full diet of .357 and use as a ccw.

I just don't "get" how 2000 rounds per year is considered a "high round count", I have months where I'll send 2000 rounds downrange and some consider me a lightweight.

In regards to the steel used in the 686 series it's either type 416 or type 436 Stainless Steel, both of which have properties that basically match 4140 "chrome moly" steel. Meaning it's an extremely strong and durable steel that is also resistant to corrosion.

In theory the CYLINDER for the 686 Plus is slightly stronger because the stop notches are between the chambers instead of at the thinner spot created by the chambers. However IMO that "weakness" would require a hand load operating about 50 to 75% over the Maximum pressure for the 357 Magnum to be considered a potential problem. Basically use sane hand loads or standard commercial 357 Magnums and it doesn't matter which cylinder you choose. Personally I like the extra capacity of the 7 shooter but every time I go to the range with mine I find myself dumping a loaded round into my hand for at least the first 3 or 4 cylinders because I seem to have counting to 6 tattooed into my brain.

As for the FRAME, ALL L frames use the same, identical, frame forging. So there is no difference at all between the 686 or 686 Plus in the frame strength. I also expect that there is no difference between the blued 586 and the stainless 686 but must state that I am assuming the 586 frame uses 4140 steel. If the 586 uses 1040 or 1020 the 686 is actually slightly stronger.

Finally, by many reports the 686 can last between 60,000 and 100,000 rounds before a loss in accuracy due to a worn out barrel is seen. So, at only 2000 rounds per year you have between 30 and 50 years of "life" in a new 686. The only defect I see in the 686 is that full length underlug, IMO they produce a barrel heavy balance and are quite UGLY. To bad the 686 Mountain Gun wasn't the standard model and the full underlug imitation Python was the special edition only seen once.

I'll join the voices saying there isn't any appreciable difference in these 2 revolvers for your concerns. Your great grandchildren probably won't wear either one out.

The 686 frame is strong and would serve your intended purpose. There is a reason why S&W has sold that many over the years. I have had a few 686 and 686+ over the years but the 586 L-Comp would probably be my suggestion. My L-Comp has displaced my 686+ in my collection and DC rotation. I love the idea of that 7th round "for free".
I know I am opening myself up for tons of flak, but the GP100 is also a tank of a .357 and is as strong (here comes the rotten tomatoes being thrown my way) or potentially slightly stronger. However, I think you'd be in that 200k+ realm before any difference of the 2 could ever show up if it ever did. Just a viable alternative but the 686+ / 586 L-Comp would of course be my first choice.

WisconsinKen said:

The 686 frame is strong and would serve your intended purpose. There is a reason why S&W has sold that many over the years. I have had a few 686 and 686+ over the years but the 586 L-Comp would probably be my suggestion. My L-Comp has displaced my 686+ in my collection and DC rotation. I love the idea of that 7th round "for free".
I know I am opening myself up for tons of flak, but the GP100 is also a tank of a .357 and is as strong (here comes the rotten tomatoes being thrown my way) or potentially slightly stronger. However, I think you'd be in that 200k+ realm before any difference of the 2 could ever show up if it ever did. Just a viable alternative but the 686+ / 586 L-Comp would of course be my first choice.

Click to expand...

Even more overbuilt than the GP100 is the Redhawk. That would be one of the most heavy duty revolvers in 357 Magnum. I have considered one but the 4x caliber has me more enamored.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

It's sad , folks don't realize the real strengths of the K-frame 357's . It was the " light for caliber " 110-125gr bullets that cracked forcing cones and would , over time shoot them loose . They were using a powder charge with those light bullets that is the same charge weight for the 41 magnum / 210gr bullet and that's in the N-frame .
I have shot a " zillion " 180 gr cast bullets out of K-frame (19's) using a max load of W296( current load data ) and they are still as tight as the day I bought them .
The L-frame is a fine choice , I have a 686 , 4" that I got from a retired LEO . It just lays in the cabinet , I don't use it .

The frames of the 686 and 686 Plus are identical. It is the cylinders that differ -- but not in overall size. The Plus has 7 holes instead of 6, which means thinner chamber walls; but, the bolt notches are located between the chambers, meaning in effect that the strength of the 7-shot cylinder at least equals the strength of the same-size cylinder having only 6 holes in it.

In short, there is no difference in strength between the two. Either is capable of handling a lifetime of shooting SAAMI-spec .357 ammo.

This is all from memory, so may not be 100% accurate, but I'm pretty sure the basic concept remains intact...

In an early 70's edition of HANDLOADER magazine, a ballistic engineer with Speer bullets, Bill Caldwell, wrote an article mainly about handgun pressure. This was based on some pretty extensive lab work the author had done. He applied a product called "StressCoat (sic)" to a Model 27 and fired it (don't recall the ammo, but probably .357 Magnum). There were cracks in the coating after firing, allegedly indicating points of stress to the frame and other areas.

That's a very oversimplified explanation. This process did not appear to be flawed and there was much to back up Caldwell's analysis. However, the procedure may be considered worthless today and maybe even crude for the era in which the test work was done; I have no idea.

Regardless, a revolver of any frame size will wear more quickly when fired with heavy handloads and/or commercial .357 Magnum ammo. While it would stand to reason a light-framed revolver would wear more quickly than one with a heavy frame, the degree of significance likely remains unknown.

As for the total number of rounds fired through any gun, most estimates are probably not anywhere close to accurate, unless someone has actually kept track of the rounds. I'm pretty sure a few people have actually done this, but very few. I've never known of any such shooter. Consider that Internet claims on the subject are just that and may have been made by self-proclaimed experts.

I have my first S&W .357 Model 19 I bought in 1973. It has had well over 100,000 .357 Magnum rounds thru it. Whenever Smith & Wesson came out with new .38 Spl and .357 Mag rounds my buddy would get a case or two for evaluation. He worked at the plant and also had a Star press. I carried it on duty for part of my LEO career. I also carried a Model 66. Both never gave me any trouble. Buy a used Model 19 or Model 66. Take the $2500.00 you'll save by not buying the Korth and get yourself shooting ammo.

1961MJS said:

Hi

I currently own an older Model 19 in .357 and I primarily shoot .38 Specials in it. I'd like to get an L-frame to shoot .357 magnums in full time. I'm looking at this gun as a woods carry gun, concealed in cooler weather, not so much in the Oklahoma summers. The 686 is supposed to be slightly larger than the old K-frames so you can shoot .357 in it every day. I'm looking at between 500 and 2000 rounds a year. I've narrowed my choices down to two models:

Model 686 Plus 3-5-7 Magnum Series
SKU: 150854.
Model 686 Plus 3-5-7 Magnum Series | Smith & Wesson

Model 686
SKU: 164222
Model 686 | Smith & Wesson

In my opinion, the 686 6 shot should be a stronger frame. Another shooter said that the 686 7 shot would be stronger because the lower half of the cylinder / frame match is between two chambers on steel, not on the chamber itself. Which would be stronger? At 2000 rounds a year, is this a concern? The 3-5-7 comes in a 5 inch barrel as opposed to the 686 with a 4 inch barrel. I'm good sized, so hiding another inch of barrel wouldn't be a problem.

Recommendations?

Thanks, I looked for this information in this forum, but didn't find what I was after.

Thanks

Click to expand...

There is agreement by the posters above that either the 6 or 7 shot cylinders in the L frame is plenty strong for a lifetime of shooting as you described. I am in agreement as well. I was shooting my 6 shot 686 SSR yesterday at the range with mild 357 loads which I loaded myself. (BTW I shoot mild loads for my sake, not because the gun can't handle stronger loads.) It really is a joy to shoot. But my 686+ is great to shoot as well.

If I remember correctly, the Talo 3-5-7 series comes with an unfluted cylinder. I used to think that unfluted cylinders were purely stylistic and I preferred the traditional fluted look. But eventually I acquired some revolvers with unfluted cylinders and I discovered that I could shoot them more accurately. I think the added mass stabilizes the gun. Much like the full underlug but without making the balance barrel heavy. So now I am a fan of unfluted cylinders and would recommend that choice. Also since you seem to be concerned with the strength, the unfluted cylinder must be a bit stronger.

In any case any of the L frame models will make you happy. Let us know which way you go.