K frame vs 686 - size comparision?

ESG2145 · Jun 17, 2009

How much larger is the frame of say a 6 shot 686 vs a comparable K frame (like a model 66)?

I'd really like either a 3" or longer full lug barrel K frame in .357, but all I seem to be able to find are K Comps. I know the difference between the two and why they make them (the K frames and 686s (frame size of 686?), and obviously just going w/ a full lug 686 is the easy answer.

I just wanted to stay w/ a little smaller, hander frame size like the K frame's was all.

Is there a compareable sized Ruger or Taurus to the K frame?

Thanks -

Eric

valkyriekl · Jun 17, 2009

The L-frame (the 686 is an L-frame) is a little taller than the K-frame (something like 1/4" or 3/8", something like that) to accommodate a larger, beefier cylinder, and to have a stronger forcing-cone area of the barrel (it doesn't need the undercut to allow the yoke gas-check to clear). Of course, the grips and trigger reach are the same size.

To my knowledge, S&W never made a K-frame in .357 Magnum with a full-barrel underlug. There was the Model 14-5, -6, and -7 in .38SPL with 6" barrels with full-underlugs, and there was the Model 16-4 in .32 Magnum with 4" and 6" barrels with full-underlugs. Of course, there is the 617s in .22LR with full-underlugs, too.

I can take a picture of my K-frames vs. L-frames tonight.

I just heard this yesterday: Ruger's comparable K-frames were the Service/Security/Speed Six series. I don't know how true this is, since I've never had a K-frame and a S.Six side by side, though in pictures it appears that the Rugers are larger and beefier.

Taurus' K-frame sized offerings...well, I'm not sure. I think their 65 (fixed sight, .357), 66 (adjustable sight, .357), and 82 (fixed sight, .38) are comparable.

ESG2145 · Jun 17, 2009

"The L-frame (the 686 is an L-frame) is a little taller than the K-frame (something like 1/4" or 3/8", something like that) to accommodate a larger, beefier cylinder, and to have a stronger forcing-cone area of the barrel (it doesn't need the undercut to allow the yoke gas-check to clear). Of course, the grips and trigger reach are the same size."

Cool, thank you, THIS is exactly the info I was looking for. I knew the L frame was stronger, but I was not sure how much BIGGER it was, thank goodness it looks like it is not, which is what I was after.

"To my knowledge, S&W never made a K-frame in .357 Magnum with a full-barrel underlug. There was the Model 14-5, -6, and -7 in .38SPL with 6" barrels with full-underlugs, and there was the Model 16-4 in .32 Magnum with 4" and 6" barrels with full-underlugs. Of course, there is the 617s in .22LR with full-underlugs, too."

This was my understand too, that a 3" .357 K frame was about as close as I would get, when a 4" was what I was really after - hence asking about the 686.

Thanks again!

stevieboy · Jun 17, 2009

They're pretty close in terms of dimensions, but the L's have more steel in them than the K's. The L is a little taller and significantly beefier than the K. In other respects the dimensions are identical. For example, the K and and L grip frame is identical and I don't discern any perceivable difference in terms of reach from the grip to the trigger (I've never measured the distance). The Ls, by virtue of having fully underlugged barrels and beefier frames, are definitely heavier guns, however. My 686 weighs in at about 44 ounces. My 66, about 36 ounces. That's a full 1/2 pound difference.

Joed49 · Jun 17, 2009

I have several K frames and one L frame. To be honest I prefer the K frame over the L, it's just more compact and easier to carry.

The L seems taller and a look at the forcing cone will reveal that.

Joe

bountyhunter · Jun 17, 2009

The taller L has a higher bore axis which makes felt recoil seem a little more than the lower bore axis on the K. I think the K fits the hand perfectly, the L feels a little top heavy to me. However, K's are not up to shooting large quantities of magnum loads because the forcing cone has been cut down on top to make the height smaller. You can shoot magnums, but not all the time.

rdykmans · Jun 18, 2009

It's hard to see the difference in pictures unless they are right next to each other. I am in the waiting period for a 586 L comp and currently own a 66 F comp which I think is a great size if one has small hands like I do. I'm curious how the L comp will feel after shooting the 66 as much as I have.

valkyriekl · Jun 18, 2009

J-frame cylinder diameter (S&W 642-2 pictured): 1.306"

K-frame cylinder diameter (S&W 617-4 pictured): 1.446"

L-frame cylinder diameter (S&W 686-5 pictured): 1.559"

N-frame cylinder diameter (S&W 625-6 pictured): 1.710"

(I know we weren't asking about J- or N-frames, but I included them for completeness, and because I happened to have them all with me right at this moment).

Interesting. My initial guess of .25" difference between the heights of an K- and L-frame was off a bit--looks like it's only 0.11" or so. But that tenth of an inch does make a difference; it's 0.11" taller, and also 0.11" wider, too.

pogo2 · Jun 18, 2009

Comparative picture

Here is a shot of my 66 snubby next to my 686 snubby. The 686 is slightly larger and weighs a few ounces more.

ESG2145 · Jun 18, 2009

Perfect guys, thank you - those last pics were exactly what I want to see also, the two side by side.

Thanks again!

sasu · Jun 18, 2009

Thanks for the photos and information. I am trying to decide between a mint 66-1 and a brand new 686. I have been wondering about the size difference.

I am leaning heavily to the 686 because this gun will be used a lot. The 66 would be a nice collectible, but I need a heavy duty range gun.

scooter123 · Jun 18, 2009

I think you will find the 686 a superb range gun. Personally I chose the 620 L frame simply because I like the looks of the half lug better.

Sizewise, there isn't a huge difference and my 620 fits perfectly in the Galco thumb break holster that I originally purchased for my model 67. However, the difference in balance is noticable, my model 67 feels much "nimbler" simply because the tapered barrel on that gun reduces the swing weight. Basically, the 67 feels like a small sports car and the 620 is a mid sized sedan. However, all that weight forward on the 620 means that I barely notice any muzzle flip when shooting 38 spl. with it. As for how it handles full power 357 Magnums, the standard grip used on the 686 and 620 was too damn small for my hands. When I first tried it with full power loads it only took 3 cylinders for me to decide I needed a larger grip. Now it wears the X frame Hogue monogrip and it's a much better shooting gun with the high power loads.

Bandersnatch · Jun 19, 2009

valkyriekl said:
Interesting. My initial guess of .25" difference between the heights of an K- and L-frame was off a bit--looks like it's only 0.11" or so. But that tenth of an inch does make a difference; it's 0.11" taller, and also 0.11" wider, too.

No, I think you're still pretty close because the L frame is larger as well as the cylinder to allow for the full forcing cone.

kbm6893 · Jun 19, 2009

I just sold my 66 to a member of this forum, and am expecting my mint 686-3 by Monday. I don't carry the gun, and I wanted the option of not having to watch the .357 use. I handled a new 686 last week, and it felt very nice, so I'm not really giving up the perceieved "sleeker" feeling of the 66.

K frame vs 686 - size comparision?

ESG2145

Member

valkyriekl

Member

ESG2145

Member

stevieboy

Member

Joed49

US Veteran

bountyhunter

Member

rdykmans

Member

valkyriekl

Member

pogo2

Member

ESG2145

Member

sasu

Member

scooter123

Member

Bandersnatch

Member

kbm6893

Member

Similar threads

Latest posts