686 Cylinder; Fluted or Unfluted
- Thread starter RMS272829
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
bananaman
Member
I have always thought that un-fluted cylinders look much cooler. If there is any other advantage I don't know from experience! Bob
Yendor357
Member
To me, the only gun that looks good with an unfluted cylinder is a Super Black Hawk.
The rest of them look cheap. Because they are.
The rest of them look cheap. Because they are.
I have both and I like both. I think that the differences mechanically are slight if any. The heavier unfluted cylinder is going to have more momentum once you get it turning in shooting fast, but the heavier cylinder is going to be harder on bolt notches and cylinder stops.
The fluted cylinder is going to be easier to get moving but it won't have the momentum, with less wear and tear on the mechanism.
Really though, the actual differences are probably miniscule!
The fluted cylinder is going to be easier to get moving but it won't have the momentum, with less wear and tear on the mechanism.
Really though, the actual differences are probably miniscule!
Yendor357
Member
I don’t care what anyone else thinks.
Smith and Wesson have uglied-up a lot of fine, beautiful revolvers. Evidently, there’s a market for those things.
If Shooters are happy with their tactical/race revolvers I’m happy for them. I neither need, nor want all that jazz.
Smith and Wesson have uglied-up a lot of fine, beautiful revolvers. Evidently, there’s a market for those things.
If Shooters are happy with their tactical/race revolvers I’m happy for them. I neither need, nor want all that jazz.
Glenn R. McMannly
Member
Only looks good on a ball and cap gun like a Walker or Dragoon.
Engine49guy
Member
Not personally a fan of unfluted cylinders,
Adds weight but not like I want a heavier cylinder, the factory probably likes them since they easier to make.
I do like the 7 shot cylinder because it is stronger and adds another round , both huge plus. I'd be interested to compare the weight of a loaded 6 and 7 shot cylinder to know the difference loaded.
Adds weight but not like I want a heavier cylinder, the factory probably likes them since they easier to make.
I do like the 7 shot cylinder because it is stronger and adds another round , both huge plus. I'd be interested to compare the weight of a loaded 6 and 7 shot cylinder to know the difference loaded.
I much prefer the looks and function of fluted cylinders! I think they are just a bit easier to use in double action. No proof on that part as I have not measured it, just my feel. I have several unfluted cylinder guns, all N frames. I just think they look better!
Rock185
US Veteran
The first new single action I ever bought was a Super Blackhawk. Since then had a model 29, Ruger Single Sixes, and a Freedom Arms with unfluted cylinders.
I'm so embarrassed if they look cheap
ETA: I had S&W fit a new cylinder to a 686 years ago. If I'd thought of it, I would have requested unfluted. Just personal preference.
I'm so embarrassed if they look cheap
ETA: I had S&W fit a new cylinder to a 686 years ago. If I'd thought of it, I would have requested unfluted. Just personal preference.
Attachments
Last edited:
Between duty, off-duty, and PPC competition. my sole interest is function.
So I see zero benefit to an unfluted cylinder.
In terms of aesthetics, I am of the form follows function school. Thus I find the appearance of a revolver with a fluted cylinder preferable since that is consistent with its intended purpose.
I have on the wall a 586 6" commemortive revolver commissioned by my old department. It has the stock fluted cylinder. From the introduction of the L frames, with their full underlug barrels, and ideal size medium frames, I have found their design to be perfect.
I see no reason to tamper with industrial art.
So I see zero benefit to an unfluted cylinder.
In terms of aesthetics, I am of the form follows function school. Thus I find the appearance of a revolver with a fluted cylinder preferable since that is consistent with its intended purpose.
I have on the wall a 586 6" commemortive revolver commissioned by my old department. It has the stock fluted cylinder. From the introduction of the L frames, with their full underlug barrels, and ideal size medium frames, I have found their design to be perfect.
I see no reason to tamper with industrial art.
Last edited:
ColumbusJBR
Member
There's likely some imperceptible functionality differences between the two.
I think the more important decision should revolve around which one YOU like better, and that's it.
I think the more important decision should revolve around which one YOU like better, and that's it.
Flutes tend to collect a lot of GSR, so unfluted would be easier to clean. Flutes lighten the cylinder, so if you are into rapid double action firing or you really cock the hammer into single action in a really fast manner, the lighter cylinder is going to hit the cylinder stop with less energy, so less wear on the stop and peening of the cylinder notches.
Fluted vs. unfluted cylinders...I guess it's just a matter of personal taste and preference. Although most of my modest collection consists of vintage S&W revolvers with fluted cylinders, I do like and appreciate my stainless steel revolvers with unfluted cylinders. Is there an advantage to one design over the other- probably not.
Attachments
scruffy
Member
Hawg, What front sight did you put on the 3-5-7 686? Size/Height? I have the same gun and was looking to put a FO sight on it. Have been going back and forth between an XS big dot and the fiber optic.
I don't have any unfluted revolvers...
..but I like the way they look, reminiscent of the Colt 1851 Navy revolver. They look like serious business in an unobtrusive way. Not made to LOOK 'aggressive' like Colt's Python. That's the main reason I dislike the Python. My 686 looks much more elegant. I would indeed like to have one of my S&W revolvers unfluted. I doubt that I'll be much in the market for another gun anytime soon, though, due to my state of impecuniosity.
..but I like the way they look, reminiscent of the Colt 1851 Navy revolver. They look like serious business in an unobtrusive way. Not made to LOOK 'aggressive' like Colt's Python. That's the main reason I dislike the Python. My 686 looks much more elegant. I would indeed like to have one of my S&W revolvers unfluted. I doubt that I'll be much in the market for another gun anytime soon, though, due to my state of impecuniosity.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,626
- Reaction score
- 31,136
The fluted cylinders are a little lighter due to there being less metal. They also allow easier indexing on a certain cylinder charge hole because the flutes make it easier to grab and turn in to the frame.
At the end of the day, the fluted cylinders are (to me) just prettier and more traditional. I once had a Ruger with an unfluted cylinder and never cared for it. Personal choice of course.
At the end of the day, the fluted cylinders are (to me) just prettier and more traditional. I once had a Ruger with an unfluted cylinder and never cared for it. Personal choice of course.
I have and like both, but have a slight preference for a fluted cylinder.
At least to me, the extra rotational weight of an unfluted cylinder is noticeable. I believe the cylinder mass causing peening of the stop notches on the 627 was the impetus for the 627-0 and its larger stop notches, endurance package.
At least to me, the extra rotational weight of an unfluted cylinder is noticeable. I believe the cylinder mass causing peening of the stop notches on the 627 was the impetus for the 627-0 and its larger stop notches, endurance package.
Last edited:
The only unfluted cylinder gun I have is a 686+ TALO. As for weight, unfluted...more. 3" barrel...less. Full under lug...more. When all is said and done, it's a wash as far as I'm concerned.
I do know the short barrel L frame weighs more than the short barrel K frame, regardless of of flutes. Pick your poison.
I do know the short barrel L frame weighs more than the short barrel K frame, regardless of of flutes. Pick your poison.
