And she is a beaut. Im in love, all over again. Aint it great?
Its a no- with an ADD serial, any ideas how early it is?
Also, where would an "M" stamp be if it was done? I didnt see it anywhere.

Look in the yoke cut of the frame.

Have any pics?

__________________
Shield 45, SW40VE, 586, 1000

Congrats! That Ser# would be around 1983 or '84 I think.

Congrats on the new "L" frame, probably the best all around .357 mag revolver ever made...

Larry

I love mine it has the smoothest action of any revolver I own

Attached Images

S&W 586.jpg (106.4 KB, 145 views)

M29, that is where I thought it would be but didnt see it there. Any way to tell by looking at the bushing? Isnt that what they changed with that? I could be wrong.

I do have some but they suck.






Were all of the no dash guns afflicted and need the M update? If it is '83 or '84 maybe Smith had fixed the issue by then? I dont care one way or another just curious.

I see no rust or pitts anywhere, action is super nice and timing seems on for all six chambers, trigger is nice, a little heavy for my taste but smooth with a clean break and no creep single and double. Stocks are original. No box though and thats a bummer but the price was fantastic.

This is my 3rd L frame and about the only way it could get any better is if it were a 3" and they didnt make a 3" 586 so yes, its good. I already have a 4" 686 + thats a pre-lock gun and the 3" 696 and another L frame is never the wrong call. It will fit in fine with the other L's and my 2 N frames.

The ones that were sent back to the factory have an M stamped on the yoke. Not all were sent back of course and what I'm not sure of is of the L frame revolvers not sent back are we still likely to experience the cylinder binding issue?

I'm hoping someone on here can shed some light on this for us...

__________________
Bill

All original L frames and the dash one were subject to the update. The dash two's were already updated. Not all guns were affected, so shoot some 125 grain Remington .357 Magnums and see if the gun hangs up. If all is well, then the update is not needed, but can still be done if you want. I understand that the factory still honors the update.

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

IIRC it was an issue with one brand of hot 125gr Police duty ammo..... primers would flow back. Most .357 ammo today is tamer than the loads of the late 70s early 80s.

I think Buffalo Bore is still hotter than most.

My favorite is a 4" 586-5 factory round butt from about 95/96...... added a set of Craig Spegel extended Boot Grips in Birdseye maple!

Last of the classics...............

Billbro,

I do believe they made a 3 inch 586 as a standard model.
Verde

My Grandpappy died about 15 years ago. Like so many white trash families everybody who couldn't be troubled to checknin on him or even stop by for a cup of coffee came by rushing in with their Uhaul trucks, and their tales of how much they cared.

Me...I got the American flag from his casket. I got the knife he carried during WW2 with all the places he had been carved onto the sheath. And I got his 586 No dash. It was the first "Man's handgun" I had fired and the last one he and I had fired together.

I hope everyone else found happiness and goodness in what goods they were able to scavenge from a poor man's death. I know that when I see that flag, handle that knife, or shoot that incredible 586, my heart is filled with warm thoughts of my Grandpappy, and that is the most I ever could have asked for.

More to the point...586 is an amazing gun that shoots smoothly and accurately beyond it's size. Congrats on a very cool gun!

Attached Images

	IMG_6808.jpg (199.8 KB, 116 views)
	IMG_1378.jpg (138.4 KB, 103 views)

I would say that particular revolver hasn’t had the recall. The hammer nose bushing that was installed was filed flat. Then most people touched up the blue, but not everyone did. Every no dash,or dash one is subject to the recall.

Also, the M stamp should be stamped just to the front of the cylinder, inside somewhere around the model number. Some of the armorers that I saw do the recall were pretty sloppy on how they did the M stamp.

Regards, Rick Gibbs

Here is my -3.

Attached Images

	S&W5862.jpg (179.8 KB, 60 views)
	smith and wwesson stag.jpg (107.0 KB, 63 views)

Not all revolvers were sent back to the factory for the M update. Those of us that were certified armorers could do the update. S&W supplied us with the parts, gauges, fixtures, and tools to do the update. Also, was included was an M stamp whereby the armorer would stamp the gun after the update was done.

Serial numbers were recorded and sent back to the factory, and we were paid $25/gun.

Our department tried to replicate the locking up or binding of our carry revolvers along with several personally owned 581’s, 586’s etc and couldn’t do it. And we tried with every flavor of ammo that was on the market at the time. 110’s, 125’s from the manufacturers on the market at the time. No joy, didn’t even come close to seeing what was being reported at the time.

Smith was much easier to deal with back then. I could call them up, ask for parts for their revolvers or autos and they would be in the mail the next day. I cannot tell you how many promotional posters and such they sent out that I have just given away over the years,still have a few.

Different times and different company. I still have the tools to do it, probably not a blue steel hammer nose or bushing though.

Regards from the Bluegrass,
Rick Gibbs

The 585 is one of my favorites for sure.
Here are my two. 4” 586 ND and a 6” 586-3



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

__________________
I reckon so

Wow! Did not know that. They must be beautiful guns.

Well if thats where it would have been stamped then it hasnt been done, I looked well there and saw it not.

Then imho it hasn’t been done. As I said the bushing in the frame looks to be oem.

Regards, Rick Gibbs

They must have went RB during the -3 run.

__________________
Sure you did

Looks really good, congrats on your new revolver.

According to the Standard Catalog, 3rd Edition, the ADD prefix would be from 1983. If the refit work has been done, the "M" stamp should be in the yoke cutout, just above the serial number.

The refit involves changing the hammer nose bushing and the hammer nose. From the photos, yours does not appear to have been changed. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily send it back for the refit work, unless you plan on carrying it, or if you have problems with primers bulging or rupturing.


Here's some addn information on the factory refit/recall........


L-Frame recall.......


SMITH & WESSON
MODEL 581, 586, 681, 686, or 581-1,
586-1, 681-1, 686-1 & 686CS-1, REVOLVERS

RECALL: Reports have been received from the field where the combination of a SMITH & WESSON L-FRAME 357 MAGNUM REVOLVER and some .357 Magnum ammunition has resulted in unacceptable cylinder binding. L-frame revolvers bearing model numbers:

581, 586, 681, 686, or 581-1, 586-1,
681-1, 686-1, 686CS-1

Cylinder binding can cause a failure to fire. Mishandling a revolver while freeing the cylinder can result in accidental discharge.

Cylinder binding can result from a number of causes, including characteristics of an individual revolver or the 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.

Those who need to use their L-frame revolver under these conditions prior to modification can safely fire .38 Special caliber ammunition.

Smith & Wesson has developed a modification to improve existing L-frame revolvers. This improvement enables them to fire all .357 Magnum ammunition, without cylinder binding. Shipments of L-frame revolvers from our factory after August 21, 1987 already include this improvement.

You can check if your revolver includes this improvement by looking at the left side of the frame when the cylinder is fully open. If your revolver has been stamped either with a "2" or higher number after the basic three-digit model number or with an "M" above the model number, your revolver includes this improvement and does not need modification. If your revolver bears the model number 581, 586, 681, 686, or 581-1, 586-1, 681-1, 686-1, 686CS-1 without an "M" over the model number, it does not include this improvement and your should have your revolver modified.

Smith & Wesson will modify your L-frame revolver free of charge to eliminate the possibility of cylinder binding with .357 Magnum ammunition. Law enforcement agencies wishing to arrange for modification of L-frame revolvers should call 800-331-0852 between 9 A.M. and 6 P.M. Eastern time (MA residents call 413-734-8244). Other users should send their revolvers to a Smith & Wesson Warranty Service Center, specifying "L-frame improvement program" and enclosing their name and return address.

One of the modifications to improve the L-frame revolver is the installation of a new hammer nose. This obsoletes all old L-frame hammer noses (part numbers 4702 and 7513) and all old L-frame hammer assemblies (part numbers 3366, 3378, 3380, 3382, 3391, 4722, 4723, 4726 and 4728) in field parts inventories. Superseded parts should never be fitted into a modified revolver as this may result in malfunction. It is essential for safety that you return these obsolete L-frame hammer noses and obsolete L-frame hammer assemblies for a free exchange to:

Smith & Wesson
Service Department
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01101


"M" stamp location.......





Carter

__________________
Ret. LE, FA Instr, S&W Armorer

Good Lord Almighty that is just about as close to perfection as Ive seen. Great gun!!

I knew I could count on you to set things straight with solid, official info. Youre a good man, or woman. :-)

No, that particular 586-3 with the matte blue finish was a limited run of that finish and round butt in 4", with about 2,500 made total.

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

All revolvers to round butt; -5 was the transition dash to round butts 1995/96.

Congratulations on your new revolver. Hope you enjoy it. The L frame is still one of the best balanced, accurate and "shootable" handguns out there IMO.


I've done over 100 of those refits (recalls) over the years. Still have the factory tools and parts.

Like most things, the "fun" comes at the end, when you get to test fire the modified gun with .357 caliber ammunition. Smith and Wesson even supplied the test ammo.


My "recall #1 job".......worked on my own gun first of course, had to put this one in the space provided.just below the serial number.

__________________
Ret. LE, FA Instr, S&W Armorer

I wholeheartedly agree. A 586/686 is a very shootable firearm. I got my 686 before acquiring the 3" 696 and will, honestly, give the balance edge to the 3" L frame but the advantage is slight. Both barrel lengths are top notch, shooters guns and I shoot them both, alot. In anticipation Ive loaded about 500 rounds of 357 through this week and already had probably 400 or 500 rounds if various 38spl loaded. Ill take spells like that when Im running low on a caliber. Im just looking forward to giving her a good hard spankin when I actually take posession.

I ditto the question? I have a nd fired over 1K leads loads at 900 fps and some LSWC GC @ 1160; No ill effects, but one cylinder throat is just a smidgen tighter than the other five. Hornady 158g HP/XTP bullerts will drop thru five but the sixth requires a tap to get thru. I seem to have a flyer in the snow bank one shot of six.

__________________
"Don't Give Up the Ship"

While I can't be sure of the actual cause, I personally believe this was an ammunition/primer manufacturing related issue rather than a gun design issue caused by S&W.

Very few actual problems were reported, most included binding of the action due to primer failure or swelling. Fortunately, I don't believe there have been any injuries or deaths related to an actual failure.

The mystery here is why this sort of failure was not reported among the K frame, or N frame .357 Magnum revolvers that preceded the L frame design. The cylinder specs/gauges and the components among all of these .357 magnums are nearly identical prior to this failure and recall.

Carter

__________________
Ret. LE, FA Instr, S&W Armorer

Today is the day!!

Could it have been the rear gauge of particular revolvers when firing that ammo since not every one of them suffered that failure?
Was it Federal ammo. They have softer primer cups, at least todays Federal does.

What we are sure of is that the problem is related to primer failure. To their credit, Smith and Wesson took a very precautionary route and attempted to solve the issue by using a slightly smaller (.010") set of components. They spent a ton of money just on tooling & parts for this recall. One instructor I talked to at one of my armorer recertification classes said it was north of 3 million dollars.....and they are still doing these modifications today as far as I know.

I personally believe that the offending ammunition may have been plagued by a run of out of spec, or poorly designed primer cups, and that the actual design of the L frame firing components may not have been the problem.

Here is a photo of the original bushing and hammer nose removed from an unmodified 686 on the left, and the new design hammer nose and bushing on the right. There is only approx. .010" difference between the two, .075" vs .065" in terms of the size of the hammer nose and the hole or opening in the hammer nose bushing.

I'm not a designer or engineer, but the "mystery" to me is that this is in fact a primer perforation issue reported by shooters in the field. I have never actually seen such a failure, but the question is, why weren't the other .357 magnum models, like the model 19 for instance affected, when their internals are/were identical in size to the recalled L-frame components?
The specs of the rear gauges (headspace), hammer spring tensions, hammer nose and bushing sizes, and hammer nose protrusions on these models were the same with only slight variations.

Very strange indeed.





Carter

__________________
Ret. LE, FA Instr, S&W Armorer

Well, I rarely if ever load or shoot 125gr stuff. Most of my shooting with the 357 is 148 or 158gr stuff so maybe I should not be concerned at all. Just picked her up and she has no M stamped anywhere.

Back in the day when these revolvers were new and everyone used them, 125 gr loads where almost de rigueur. They were a very popular loading and the FBI still had the reputation for picking the best. Problem was that they sometimes caused issues with too much use. This thought process is what nearly killed the 357 Maximum. Indeed until recently there were no revolvers chambered in it. I would not worry about that 586. S&W made great revolvers back then and I suspect that the recall was more about maintaining their law enforcement contracts than actual, widespread problem.

My 586 ND was carried as a duty weapon with several thousand Remington 125 grain SJHP .357's thru it without issue. The only time it has ever bound up was with a box of Federal factory 158 grain ammo that contained about a dozen rounds with way overly thick rims that rubbed on the recoil shield.

Larry

You would have thought a smaller hammer nose would be more likely to pierce a primer than a fatter one.

Rosewood

My 586 no dash has ACH prefix and shipped in 1983. No M stamp. I take real good care of her! Bob

Attached Images

	P1050916.jpg (141.8 KB, 11 views)
	P1050913.jpg (162.5 KB, 9 views)
	P1050915.jpg (152.4 KB, 10 views)