686-5 Ported vrs non Ported?

I purchased a 686-5 with a barrel ported just in-front of the front sight about 15 years ago. I have shot thousands of rounds through her and always wondered if there would be a noticeable performance differences between the ported barrel and non ported barrel of the same length.

Yesterday I got lucky, a law enforcement outfit traded in their "obsolete" 686 -5s with the same barrel length, 5&7/8" but not ported for some of the new mother of plastic stuff. I picked up one with a little surface wear but well cared for for a good price. So far I have only had time to shoot several hundred rounds through them and have noticed no significant difference in performance accuracy or recoil.

I intend to shoot some 100 yard groups through them at 88 yards and compare accuracy and anything else I notice in the near future.

I was wondering if anyone else has made any comparison studies between the ported vrs non ported 586's. Any information will be welcome.

Interesting. Do you notice much difference in the noise?

I used to own a 686 PowerPort and still own several 686s including some six-inch guns like the PowerPort except with only two holes in the barrel. My son, some gun club friends and I shot several cylinders of the same load through the PP gun and a non-PP gun with absolutely no discernible difference in anything except muzzle noise and some combustion debris coming back into our faces from the PP gun due to an incoming breeze. I subsequently sold the PP gun.

I still have an unfired 686-4 PowerPort that is still in that condition and will remain so. Being discontinued, who knows how its value might change in the future.

To be effective, porting has to bleed off some combustion pressure prior to the bullet departing the muzzle. A reduction in pressure should result in a reduction in muzzle velocity but my chronograph indicated no meaningful difference; in fact, the PP gun was a few FPS faster which was no doubt just the normal variation between guns.

Porting IS effective in rifles because the pressure is high enough for some being bled off to be effective but the resulting drop in velocity can be fairly significant depending upon the caliber and how the ammo is loaded. A friend of mine had a Remington 700 in .300 Remington Ultra Mag ported and it now chronographs like a .300 Winchester Magnum. It does kick less though.

If a firearm is the type that will exhibit a reduction in felt recoil through extra holes in the barrel, a muzzle brake is the best method of reducing recoil in my opinion. They work without lowering velocity and can be removed if desired. But for shotguns and handguns, unless the latter is loaded super-hot, recoil reduction is mostly in the shooter's mind. We all know what barrel length means to velocity and porting effectively shortens barrels.

Ed

I have shot my 686-5 Power port and my 686 no dash 6 inch Back to back with several loads along with my Son. There is not a huge difference, but there is one, and the hotter the load, like Buffalo bore or Underwood, the more noticeable it is. But still not a large difference in Recoil. Then in my opinion a 6 inch .357 is not a heavy recoiling gun anyway.

If you are paying attention though it does feel...different and the muzzle does not rise as much. I wear hearing protection, often double as I have hearing loss and ringing in my ears already but i don't really notice it being any louder or any more muzzle blast, other than my 3 inch 686 is way worse than any of my 3 six inch barrels. I have shot it indoors and out.

I don't know that I would really pay extra for the feature, but they seem to be frowned upon these days so I got a deal on mine. If you really need less recoil just load it with .38 special! It really is a tack driver though and I am super happy with mine

I have many different models of firearms with ported and non-ported examples. I (and others) have shot many of them side by side for comparison. I have also chronographed many like models over the years.

Here are some of the ported versions, I won't bother showing their non-ported brothers.
Ported handguns do not reduce actual recoil at all. They are not supposed to reduce recoil. The purpose of the ports is to reduce muzzle climb so that you can get back on target faster.

True muzzle brakes are a totally different animal and are designed to reduce recoil, not muzzle climb. Muzzle brakes direct propellant gasses rearward while ports and comps direct propellant gasses upwards
The effectiveness of the port or comp on handguns in reducing muzzle climb is dependent on both the port/comp design and the actual load being fired. What Smith and Wesson calls the Power Port is better at providing a reduction of muzzle climb than the Mag-Na-Port style when we are talking about low velocity cartridges like 45ACP. The amount of propellant gas volume is what is important

As to the issue of debris, that is dependent on the construction of the projectile being fired. Ammunition like the Sinterfire that use projectiles of compressed copper dust throw lots of true debris out the ports of the firearm. On the other end of the spectrum are projectiles that are truly jacketed, these throw almost zero debris out the ports.

What most folks express as debris is actually powder as it is just finishing burning (just like the blow-back from suppressed handguns).

So this brings powder selection and barrel length into the equation. A 2 1/2" Mag-Na-Ported Model 66 firing heavy loads of H110 does get this feeling of "debris" however they also get a significant reduction in muzzle climb.

Are the benefits worth the drawbacks? That depends on the shooter's perception of how it all works and the intended role of the firearm in question.

Obviously I think ports and comps are beneficial since I used to put tens of thousands of rounds downrange through them in my younger days. These days I do not get to the range as much as I would like to .

Thanks for sharing the photos and comments, I enjoyed looking and reading.

I've have shot both. My uncle had a 686 Power Port. I can't recall a noticeable difference between his Power Port and my 6" 686-4.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk