Triggernosis
Member
Is the 686+ Mountain Gun really 1.9 ounces lighter than a Model 66 Combat Magnum? That's what I'm seeing from S&W's website. It seems like the 686 MG would be heavier since it's a larger framed gun, right?
686 Mountain Gun vs. Model 66 Combat Magnum
- Thread starter Triggernosis
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Yendor357
Member
The mountain gun is pretty light. Plus, you get that 7th round.
If I can talk myself into taking a chance on a new S&W, it would be a 3 inch 686 plus. Then if I got a good one, which is always a big if…I would do a hil ho plug and Wilson springs
If I can talk myself into taking a chance on a new S&W, it would be a 3 inch 686 plus. Then if I got a good one, which is always a big if…I would do a hil ho plug and Wilson springs
686 MG above and Model 66 below:
Rock185
US Veteran
My old model 66 probably weighs about the same as a model 19. My 66 weighs 36.5 ounces, my new 686MG weighs 34.7 ounces. So my 686MG is 1.8 ounces lighter than my 66; pretty close to S&W's numbers...
OP
Triggernosis
Member
Thanks to everyone for taking time to provide real-life numbers on the weights.
I want a 686 MG even more now.
I want a 686 MG even more now.
Engine49guy
Member
Between the narrow rib barrel and the 7th hole its easy to believe,
Still Id like to compare their weights fully loaded to see if it evens up a bit.
The 66 cylinder is a bit smaller in diameter.
Besides weight another benefit of the 7 shot cylinder is it places the cylinder stop holes above the solid dividers vs right over the chamber holes.
Still Id like to compare their weights fully loaded to see if it evens up a bit.
The 66 cylinder is a bit smaller in diameter.
Besides weight another benefit of the 7 shot cylinder is it places the cylinder stop holes above the solid dividers vs right over the chamber holes.
Attachments
Rock185
US Veteran
I hadn't thought about loaded weights; but interesting question. My model 66 with 6 rounds of 158 grain .357 weighs 40.0 oz. The 686MG with 7 rounds of the same ammo weighs 38.8 oz. So both fully loaded does narrow the gap to 1.2 oz..
Stickgunner
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2021
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 140
Both of us served in the military, and both of us are or were peace officers. Both of us are going to agree on that less weight on your back or around your belt line can make a massive difference, especially after the end of 10, 12, or 14+ hours. However, a difference of 1.2 ounces.... I don't think either of us would notice. Unless I'm making claims about being the princess and the pea and being so delicate that I feel any differences no matter how small, I don't think any of us would. Not when worn on a belt.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on this one, as well as the thoughts of anyone else who wears a gunbelt for a living.
Engine49guy
Member
Both are great guns and that is why I choose to own both.
They are fun to compare when you consider that the K frame .357 was introduced in 1956 to be a lighter option than the N frame .357 as a duty weapon and the L frame was introduced around 1981 to be a stronger option than the K frame .357 with a full underlug barrel .
One might have argued that the model 66 was lighter on the hip over the 686 right up until 1998 when the 686-5+ MG was introduced which was not only lighter and stronger than the Model 66, it also added a 7th round and moved the cylinder stop notches over the solid cylinder wall dividers, the problem was the revolver was not really a viable duty sidearm by 1998 compared to the high capacity 9mm.
They are fun to compare when you consider that the K frame .357 was introduced in 1956 to be a lighter option than the N frame .357 as a duty weapon and the L frame was introduced around 1981 to be a stronger option than the K frame .357 with a full underlug barrel .
One might have argued that the model 66 was lighter on the hip over the 686 right up until 1998 when the 686-5+ MG was introduced which was not only lighter and stronger than the Model 66, it also added a 7th round and moved the cylinder stop notches over the solid cylinder wall dividers, the problem was the revolver was not really a viable duty sidearm by 1998 compared to the high capacity 9mm.
Rock185
US Veteran
I carried the 66 for several years, then a standard 686 till the transition to autoloaders started. My standard 686 weighed about 4 ounces more than my 66. Can't say I ever noticed the extra weight. I definitely don't think I would have noticed an ounce or two difference between the MG and a 66. As I aged though, that duty belt felt like it weighed about a hundred pounds by the end of shift...
pedropcola
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 61
I have a 66, 686+, and a new MG 686. I bought it on the spot because I knew it would be gone if I dawdled. I took it home and compared.
I never warmed up to the full under lug 686+. I love the 66. The MG handles better, for me, than the 66 and has the spare round to boot.
I could care less about mountain gun nonsense. What I love is the Bear Hug grips over a round butt, no lock, brass bead is way better than orange insert, and I love the 3/4 under lug. To my eye that is what a Smith should look like. The full under lug attracts 5he Python crowd isn’t my thing.
Good news is if you buy one now and don’t like it you can get your money back pretty easily. I think you will like it though.
I never warmed up to the full under lug 686+. I love the 66. The MG handles better, for me, than the 66 and has the spare round to boot.
I could care less about mountain gun nonsense. What I love is the Bear Hug grips over a round butt, no lock, brass bead is way better than orange insert, and I love the 3/4 under lug. To my eye that is what a Smith should look like. The full under lug attracts 5he Python crowd isn’t my thing.
Good news is if you buy one now and don’t like it you can get your money back pretty easily. I think you will like it though.
Similar threads
