RichCapeCod
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2006
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 1,074
A little epoxy and it'll be just fine...
686 cracked frame
- Thread starter Boxer rox
- Start date
Was buying .38 Spl. jacketed ammo by the case starting in the late '90s and ran that revolver HARD up through 2003 or 4. Did pretty well with it down at Ft. Benning, mostly. Ammo was cheap then! Was also shooting IHMSA at the time, which has become my favorite way to burn powder, but have transitioned to bigger bores and non-jacketed bullets to a large degree. Have some newish 686s for the long range game as well, but they much prefer jacketed rounds.
Quite surprised to see the OP's frame crack, wondering if there isn't some other cause than over tightening of the barrel. Have some other ideas, but without a hands-on exam, it's probably pointless to speculate. (Having been swapping barrels since high school in the early '80s I've probably seen more disassembled S&Ws of all vintages than the average bear. Not as many a factory folk or full time revolversmiths by a long shot, though!)
I've never heard....
Obviously it was a fault in the metal. I've NEVER heard of a 686 cracking under normal use, even heavy normal use. That's what it is built for. Definitely give it another try. I LOVE my 686 and I'm not alone.
PS: I've shot very hot to nearly max loads for years and mine still looks nearly new.
Obviously it was a fault in the metal. I've NEVER heard of a 686 cracking under normal use, even heavy normal use. That's what it is built for. Definitely give it another try. I LOVE my 686 and I'm not alone.
PS: I've shot very hot to nearly max loads for years and mine still looks nearly new.
Last edited:
alwaysoutdoors
Member
We can all carry what we want. It's not the weight. I can carry a full size 1911 no problem.
duct tape.
I carried a 5" 1911 a long time ago as well as a Hi Power for several years. The 686 is easier - and a lot less bulky - to carry than either of those pistols.
In fact, I put the 686 at about the same level as a CZ 75 Compact.
Revolvers are deceptive as while the overall length, width, height dimensions might be similar to a semi-auto or even slightly wider, the width in a revolver is only at the cylinder, while the grip, and barrel are thinner and have a lot less volume.
bigwheelzip
Absent Comrade
A google search on the OP's thread title, "686 cracked frame", finds enough instances to show that L-frame ejector slot cracking is not a particularly rare occurrence.
This reviewer of the 686 Competitor, made a video that shows the same crack, at 3:45 in.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL1C5Tlhzrg[/ame]
Let's not get too excited or over state the case...
I googled "S&W 686 frame crack and got 23,000 hits, but only about a dozen on the first 2 pages were relevant to a cracked frame on a 686, and the lower probability hits below that did not appear to be relevant at all.
I also suspect some of those relevant posts are the same OP complaining about the crack in multiple forums.
But even assuming we have an actual dozen reported cracked frames, S&W has been making the L frame 686 since 1980, and while I'm not sure how many they have made in the last 36 years, but if we assume 10,000 per year, that puts 360,000 of them out there, and 12 cracked frame of 360,000 revolvers is a .003 percent failure rate. That's 3 out of every ten thousand revolvers.
Let's also say I'm, wrong or that only 1/3rd of cracks get reported, so the number is really 36, rather than 12. That's still only 1 in a 1000 686s that crack (and that seems really high given the low number of reports).
Looking at it differently, if S&W had only made 12 L frame 686's ever, we'd consider the 686 to be extremely rare. If we triple that to 36, the statement is still true - collectors would be snapping them at 5 figure prices.
In that regard cracked frames in a 686, while obviously not unheard of, are in fact extremely rare.
It's rare enough that they are probably due to a very rare manufacturing defect, such as massive over torquing or due to an extremely rare inclusion in the metal that in concert with normal torque and stress causes a crack to form.
Last edited:
bigwheelzip
Absent Comrade
BB57, I didn't mean it was a statistically significant number. I feel that if a 10 second google search of a problem yields multiple occurrence's of my problem on the first page, then I have an answer, and need look no further.
To me, a rare problem is one that first rear's its head on the 25th page of responses to a google search term, or not at all.
To me, a rare problem is one that first rear's its head on the 25th page of responses to a google search term, or not at all.
S.B.
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 725
Or, improper technique in trying to remove the barrel without supporting it with a frame jig.
Steve
Last year I bought a S&W 686+ Talo exclusive with the 3" bbl. It is S&W #150713. Once it arrived (Bought from Davidson's GOG), I gave it to my brother who is a retired LEO who was a range officer at his dept. and also a huge gun enthusiast. He wanted to look it over closely and check the action to see if it would help to have it tuned a bit. Well, he noticed almost immediately a crack about 3/4" above where the serial # is stamped. Since I had not even put a single round through it yet we had to assume either it cracked from the two shots S&W did for testing or was a manufacturing defect (over torque on the bbl assembly). I called Smith and went through the normal process to send it off to them. Once they had a chance to look it over they called me and said they were sending me a new gun. A few weeks later it arrived and all has been good with the replacement thus far. Although I am disappointed that I would even have received a gun with a frame crack I am appreciative with how easy it was to deal with the return and replacement. I have since bought a 686+ #178029 with the 4"bbl and both of these are more fun to shoot than my Ruger GP100 Match Champion. Yeah...they got the IL but I for one am glad Smith is still making revolvers and will continue to add to my collection (although I hope to find some older discontinued models such as a model 66 or K frame in general). I don't have the picture posting dialed in so anyone interested in seeing a picture of the crack in my 686 just PM me. My crack was almost in the same identical spot to the picture posted earlier by Macinaw.
Last edited:
I wouldn't trade any of my S&Ws for a Python, especially my 686s.
And I agree with Texas Star and others about the 4" 686 in a holster. I got D&D Leather (Dave Workman) to make me a holster for my 4" and I carried it all day on a quality 1.5" leather belt whilst chasing feral hogs, and then at a poker game at the same ranch (I have great friends!), and it never got my attention particularly.
And I agree with Texas Star and others about the 4" 686 in a holster. I got D&D Leather (Dave Workman) to make me a holster for my 4" and I carried it all day on a quality 1.5" leather belt whilst chasing feral hogs, and then at a poker game at the same ranch (I have great friends!), and it never got my attention particularly.
Thanks for the input. My gun is supposed to be at my ffl Friday. Smith won't really say if it's a new gun or my parts on a new frame. I don't care either way, I'm just ready to have my gun back. I will post back once I get it and run some rounds through it.
I would if in comparable condition
S.B.
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 725
Off topic I know but, my one and only experience with Pythons wasn't good. I had a hard time with opening their cylinder and dealer wanted me to wait while he sent it back to factory, this was decades before we had all the tracking we have now.
Steve
Steve
Green Frog
Member
Why would we make cracks about you having a Python? You should be pitied because it's obvious you don't know any better!
Froggie
dwever
Member
Let's please not get trolled by this off-topic off-forum comment.
Gun made it back to my ffl on Friday. I got out this afternoon and shoot 100 rounds. It performed flawlessly. Smith replaced the frame, barrel and put a new grip on it because the other one would not tighten up. Im happy with the work they did as it looks better than it ever did. It appears they test fired all cylinders and the barrel fits really well.
Now that it's back in my hands I'm going to give it another chance. I still like the looks of the Smith better than the GP-100. The trigger in my opinion is also better for me in the 686.
Im glad Smith stood behind their product, I just wish they would have moved it through faster than five weeks. I had already paid for mine and I still can't help but feel they were more interested in sending out new guns over replacing mine.
Now that it's back in my hands I'm going to give it another chance. I still like the looks of the Smith better than the GP-100. The trigger in my opinion is also better for me in the 686.
Im glad Smith stood behind their product, I just wish they would have moved it through faster than five weeks. I had already paid for mine and I still can't help but feel they were more interested in sending out new guns over replacing mine.
