Please educate me a little about the "M" stamp and associated recall on the Models 586/586-1 and 686/686-1. I have read the 1989 recall and I understand the technical explanation. What I don't understand is the apparent value advantage (i.e., higher value) in guns without the "M" stamp and without the recall having been done. I'm reading claims that non-M guns are more valuable because they are "all original" even though they still have the alleged defect. This seems to apply with or without the gun being in collectible condition.

Is there some reason other than the "all original" thing to explain why these guns without the "M" and defect not fixed are supposedly more valuable? Thank you.

No.

A little ridiculous, isn't it?

Adios,

Pizza Bob

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Well, I honestly don't know. That's why I'm asking. My own 686 has never gone back for the recall (just due to my own laziness) and neither has a 586 I'm looking at right now (not the one in the classifieds).

Is there any evidence at all that either:

1) The recall wasn't really needed, or
2) The recall didn't solve the problem, or
3) The guns are more reliable without the recall?

Lastly, is the mothership still doing the recall? Or has that recall "expired" in terms of a free service?

IMO...

An unfired 100% example to be collected and never fired.. I'd say all original(no M) it may bring more.

A fired gun without the M could bind up while shooting and you would appreciate the modification. YMMV..

Please! It's not like it's a registered magnum or something! The 686 was a popular gun and they made many thousands of them so the amount of time that it will take for them to really appreciate in value beyond inflation is longer than anyone reading this forum today will live. The lack of the "M" marking relative to the gun increasing in value has little to no effect. If you find someone who is willing to give you more because your 686 dosen't have the mark, send him my way. I've got a lot of stuff around here to sell him!

I have never seen a non M gun be considered more valuable but it could be considered less valuable since it could lock up under magnum fire. The fix is factory free.

__________________
S&W factory revolver armorer

This Thread reminds me of the -
Blind Men and Elephant Story.

Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

They are worth no more or no less than a M stamped one.
Most of them will never need the update, but people send them in just to make sure it will not happen to them.

The "M" stamp should have no effect on the value of the firearm. The recall does not materially change the gun or how it functions. It replaces parts with the same parts that only differ dimensionally.

This is unlike the Ruger single-action recall where an entirely new ignition system (transfer bar) was added to older guns. This changed the gun materially as well as functionally. There was no "defect" - the original guns were manufactured just as thousands of Colt SAA before them were manufactured. In this instance, the collectible value of the gun would be impacted.

If you had two 686's side-by-side and one had the recall and the other didn't, if it weren't for the "M" stamp you would not be able to tell them apart visually.

If your gun is a shooter and there is even the remotest chance that it may be used as a defensive arm, then the recall should absolutely be done.

Sometimes stupid things make objects more desirable.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Okay gentlemen, thank you. For the record, I'm not selling anything and probably not buying anything either. It's just something I wanted to understand better. It has come up several times in the last week or so and I thought the opinions of the membership would be helpful.

In general, you'd think that folks would want to get a recall done, but this seems to be a case where most folks blew it off. I just wanted to understand why. No harm, no foul. And no, these guns aren't registered magnums. Registered magnums are a little out of my league.

Bind up......Really?........I never sent my 4" nickel no- 586 back. i bought it new and has always worked fine.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

It occurred most often with light bullet (<125 gr) full-house magnum loads. Primarily those that used primers with soft cups. The primer would flow into the hole in the FP bushing and tie up the gun.

Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, or may yet happen to you.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

^^^^^^^ exactly what Pizza Bob said ^^^^^
Some magnum loads could force the hammer nose block forward towards cylinder causing a bind.

I have been using my 1985 unmodified 581 for 30+ years without a single issue, 38 spec+ down to mouse loads.

A 686 I buy I intend to shoot so a gun without an M stamp is not desirable to me at all

__________________
-Matt

My 586 no dash I bought used. I shot about 3 or 4 cylinders thru it with no problem. It wasn't until I got home and did some online reading and learned of the recall. I opened it up and discovered mine doesn't have the M stamp. I haven't shot it since and don't really plan to. I just don't really shoot k/l frames much.

Why would you deprive yourself of shooting one of the best guns in the S&W line-up? If it is a range only gun, continue to shoot it as much as you want. Unless you are using light-bullet, full magnum loads, chances are slim that you will have any problems. OTOH, the recall is free and the only visual change to the gun is the "M" stamp, so why not avail yourself of this?

Adios,

Pizza Bob

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Well, going back to one of my previous questions: Is the mothership still doing the recall fix... and, if so, would it still be free 30 years after the recall was issued?

I suppose if I ever have the desire to shoot it I can just use some 38 wadcutters.

Thanks TTSH for the thread, you got me thinking.

So I dug out my 4" 686 to double check to see if it has the M stamped on it and it does.

My 6" 686 no-dash has the M and my 5" 1/2 lug 686-6 is too new to need the fix.

One of these days I'm going to shoot this one too. And that got me thinking too so I went back and counted and I have 18 guns that I have never shot and two of them I never will.

__________________
Kenny
Endeavor to persevere.

I doubt it. Hasn't happened in over 20 years of shooting it.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

Hmm. I gotta question.

After I seen Rubiranch's "M" stamp above, got me thinking. Is this an "M " stamp or???

Because his says Mod 686.
Mine says M686-1. Is it like Mod? Or is it an "M" stamp.

ETA. Does anyone have a -1 to see where they put the "M" exactly.

Which is it?

Here's my other M686 no-dash. I would have to think your's has not had the recall done and the M on your 686-1 is for MODEL and not the recall stamp.

__________________
Kenny
Endeavor to persevere.

I don't recall a recall,therfore I voluntarily defer.

And it's even more specific than "some" magnum loads.

The issue was with a specific brand and loading of .357 Magnum ammo, even though it was not specifically called out by name by S&W, probably due to legal reasons:

1) It was Federal ammo (which is known for having the softest primer cups, and why Federal primers are the choice of Jerry Miculek for reliable ignition in the target handloads he uses with the lightened actions on his competition revolvers).

2) The loading was 110gr bullets, at high velocity and pressure, than with standard weight loading.

The combination of the two resulted in reports of primer flow back into the the hammer nose bushing hole, causing the cylinder to completely bind up.

The number of incidences was not wide spread, but it came at a time when S&W LE handgun sales were beginning to feel the pressure from Glock (and semi-auto pistols) making inroads.

S&W had to go into damage control and nip a potential PR disaster in the bud by issuing the recall, rather than continue to have reliability issue trickling in from LE agencies, which is where the initial reports came from to begin with.

The language of the recall was quite clear: Firearm Recalls and Safety Warnings- FirearmsID.com

"use of ammunition, which does not conform to industry pressure specifications or is particularly fast burning. Recent developments in ammunition manufacture emphasize the production of .357 Magnum ammunition with increased velocity and greater primer sensitivity."

"Although there have been very few reported incidents of cylinder binding, in view of our concern for our customer's safety and the reliability of Smith & Wesson products in all circumstances, we issue the following warning:

In a situation where a failure to fire can be critical - such as law enforcement or personal protection - do not use .357 Magnum ammunition with an L-frame revolver bearing model numbers 581, 586, 681, 686 or 581-1, 586-1, 681-1, 686-1, 686CS-1 without an "M" over the model number until you have had the revolver modified."

The controversy of the "M" mod is needlessly being kept alive in gun forums some 30+ years later... not only have most owners never experienced an issue, they are largely unaware of the existence of the recall unless they're read about it in a forum.

__________________
Conrad
SWCA #1830 SWHF #222

It looks like the M is over the model #.

__________________
Kenny
Endeavor to persevere.

Great info. Thanks for sharing it.

__________________
Kenny
Endeavor to persevere.

Ahhh! Literally M on top/over model number. Got it.
Funny thing is , I called customer service on it and the way I described the M, they said it was fine. That it didnt need the recall on it.
That particular-1, has the double kiss of death. Floating hand and M recalled. I'll leave it be. It shoots fine.

I got a good friend that has a no- 686 that has fired thousands of rounds of factory and reloads with no problems too. It also has not gone back for the mods either, as it doesn't seem to be one of the ones affected by the problem.

Again... it is all about using a specific brand of ammo, bullet weight, type of powder and velocity it was loaded to, than whether or not a particular gun had a defect to crop up.

The no dash and -1 versions all had the potential of having an issue when the 110gr bullet Federal ammo was used.

I've shot thousands of rounds through my 686 no dash as well without problem, but it wasn't because I had a "good gun", it's because it has all been ammo other than the Federal stuff that had the issue.

Had that 110 gr. Federal ammo never been made, there would never have been a recall.

__________________
Conrad
SWCA #1830 SWHF #222

It's happened to me using full house handloads with Winchester SPP standard primers with 2400 powder. Just for grins I loaded up a batch with CCI SPP Magnum primers. No binding.

The M is supposed to be stamped over the model number, not in front of it.
I suspect that M was stamped at the factory to indicate the model number, not the update.

A few years ago, I bought a 686 no dash and bought some Hornady American Gunner 125 grain ammo listed as 1500 fps muzzle velocity. It hung up. Sent it back and it was updated. That is hot ammo!

If you wonder if yours will bind up, try some of that stuff!!

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

This has sparked a memory.
I used some 110gr/H110 I had from my ruger days and locked up a brand new 686-6. I couldn't get it to open. I had to take it to the RO to take it to the back . He said he had to force the cylinder open . Bang it out.
I had shot those rounds after and everything seemed fine.
The recoil shield seemed heavily battered. Head stamps left impressions.
Probably not very relevant to the thread. But, IMO, doesn't matter if a gun is "m" marked or not. Funny things have happened to me while shooting hot loads.

Lou, your revolver got marked "M" by and as-in "Murphy's Law" !! LOL

All the “M” recall stamps I’ve seen are above or below the model number.

I have a 586 no dash I bought new. It shot fine with low power loads but any thing with magnum primers ( think I was using Winchers) it would lock up. Took it back to the gun shop where I bought it. They didn't act surprised said it needed to go in for the recall. They said some needed the recall some didn't.