How durable is 686 compared with . . .

[Naphtali]

Another thread queries the durability of 686 in terms of service life. Rather than intrude on that thread, I ask for a comparison of service life shooting 357 Magnum 158-grain short jacket soft point ammunition - among three revolvers.

As near as I can determine, S&W's 586/686, Colt's Python, and Ruger's (K)GP-100 are comparable in size, basis metals, and intended use. Yet method of manufacture, mechanical design, fit and finish, and above all street price are significantly different.

I have owned Colt Pythons in both stainless and non-stainless steels and a Ruger KGP-100, but I have not examined or shot a 586/686. I did not shoot any of the three revolvers I've owned a great deal. I shot only Remington 158-grain JSP and JHP in the middle 1970s. The revolvers were intended to be hunting pistols for whitetail in south central Missouri when I visited friends in late fall. I always preferred the stainless Python for shooting. I had a feeling that over the long haul the KGP-100 would lose less "usability" - that is, however it shot, it would shoot that way were it thrown down a concrete stairway a few times over a few years. . . . Slightly irrational??

Compared with LE of the 1970s era and current EDC users, my evaluation of S&W, Colt, and Ruger revolvers' service lives using "full boat" 357 ammunition has no validity.

 

[diyj98]

Others may disagree, but I'd put the Python in last place as far as durability. It would take a lot of shooting to wear out a 686 or GP100.

 

[S&W Fan]

Well I have my late father's 1981 no dash 686 (with M mod) and no telling how many thousands of rounds it's withstood in 36 years. It's still very accurate, great lockup and timing and a fine shooter. I'd agree with diyj98 that using magnum loads will effect the Python most of the three.

 

[0311INF]

Given the same ammunition, the Ruger would likely last the longest based on the beefier frame/crane and more robust lock up. But before the frames warped or forcing cones eroded away, both it and the 686 would need to be retimed more than once.
The Python might last as long but it'd need to be retimed a lot more.

 

[Nightowl]

I do not have much experience with Pythons. But, I bought one a year and a half ago that had belonged to a friend of mine. When I got it, it was badly out of time, even though he did not shoot it much when he carried it over 30 years ago as a deputy Sheriff.

It cost roughly $225 for the factory to work on the action. You can repair the timing on a Smith with a $10 hand!

My early 586 has many, many thousands of .38s through it and is still working fine, with only some minor adjustment on my part to work the way I want.
Pythons have not been made for around 15 years or so. Don't know that I would want to shoot one much!

 

[lhump1961]

Others may disagree, but I'd put the Python in last place as far as durability. It would take a lot of shooting to wear out a 686 or GP100.

^^^^^^...that right there.

 

[Black Knight]

I have 2 Colt Pythons and a S&W 686-1. I carried a 6" Python as my duty weapon when I did private security. I also carried my 686-1 a few years later doing the same work. I would put my 686-1 up against any of them any day of the year. The Pythons are great but they can have troubles from time to time. Since Colt is no longer servicing the Python and finding revolversmiths who really know how to work on them is getting difficult. The older craftsmen who can work on them properly are disappearing from us.
I had a friend in the same security company who carried a Ruger GP 100. He swore by the gun not at it.
As for durability I would say the 686 and GP 100 are almost to close to call and the Python would be last place. If I had to go back into security work and could carry only a revolver I would not feel slighted with my 686-1.

 

[Goblin]

I'd say if you're going to shoot enough full-power magnums to wear any of those revolvers out, you need to just plan on buying another one down the road. I shot thousands of .38 Special and light magnums through a Python, along with a reasonable amount of full magnums, and it still looked new except for the bluing loss in the flame areas.

 

[Pythonman]

I've had multiple examples of the GP100 and probably 10 different Pythons over the years. I have had three S&W 686s, the ones made in the early 1990s. All three are comparable in strength of frame. Most of my Pythons had amazing actions and triggers. The internals felt like well polished glass instead of metal when pulling the trigger. The cylinder closing on those Pythons sounded like glass or something other than steel when closing and latching into place. They're uncanny that way. A few I had developed an out of time condition with not very many boxes of .357 ammo shot through them. The rest seemed ok and the oldest one, which I should have kept and which was from 1959 was well used, still in time and probably had the original factory tuned action still. Rightly or wrongly, the great feel of the trigger and action did not instill a feeling of reliability or durability. That's just how I felt about them. My 686s were all sweet guns. One 4" example I'd bought new back in 1992 I believe was used extensively for two or three summers at the range while I honed my craft of reloading for it. I'd buy boxes of 1000 Remington and Winchester JHP 125gr and 110Gr bullets from Midway when they didn't charge you for shipping and I'd go to town loading and then I'd blast it all off for the next three or four range sessions. I traded that gun off with over 3500 mostly .357 loads that approached factory power and that gun was still perfectly timed and the trigger was extra slicked up because I did all my shooting in DA mode only. I do miss that one. Now I have a 4" GP100 that I've had about 13ys which still looks and locks up like brand new. I havent shot it much because I just dont have the time I used to have for that activity but it's seen 2800 rounds of full blast .357s. I would agree the 686 and GP100 are well matched for durability and reliability. Naturally the 686 is capable of an amazing action tuning that just isn't in the cards for a GP100 but with lot's of dry firing and DA shooting the GP100 works fine for me. I also agree that the Python comes in last in this roundup but it's not really a fair comparision because I've never owned a new Python and have no idea what kind of abuse the ones I bought used that went out of time went through that could have sped the process up. Heck I know a guy with a GP100 that got as messed up and out of time as some of the Pythons I had. But having had several examples I've never repeated that feat! Never had a problem with any L frame Smith and Wesson's either.

 

[629shooter]

Well, I haven't shot my oldest one loose yet.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[scooter123]

I have to agree with those who say the 686 and GP-100 are pretty much neck and neck. While the Ruger does have a "beefier" frame it is a Cast Frame when the frame on the 686 is Forged, which allows it to be a bit lighter while retaining the same level of strength.

As for the Python, it's sort of the Ferrari of revolvers and ask anyone who has owned a Ferrari and they will tell you that they need continual maintenance. The same is true of the Python if all the reports I've heard in person and seen on the net are true.

Personally as much as I enjoy every Ruger I own I currently do not own one single Ruger revolver. Because from the Engineering standpoint you just cannot produce a spring that is more free from any influence of friction than the old fashioned single layer leaf spring used as the mainspring on all K, L, N, and X frame S&W revolvers. So my vote for the finest revolver would go to the 686, however my specific preference would be the almost never seen Mountain Gun version. Because semi lugged barrels are so much prettier than full lugs and they also balance in the hand better.

BTW, IMO the finest balanced 4 inch revolver ever made is the model 15/67 with the tapered barrel.

 

[Ashlander]

I'll chime in for the L-frames and GP100. I used to work in a gun store and never saw a Python come in that wasn't out of time or needy in some way (still great guns, and granted the sample was small, but my impression was they were high maintenance). And though my 686 shoots slightly better than my GP100 (both are 3"), the hammer stud on the 686 broke, which made me appreciate the GP100 drop-in design (no muss, no fuss). That's no a deal breaker (S&W warranty folks are fantastic), but it sure showed me that the Ruger people were thinking out of the then current box. If I could take only one handgun in a SHTF moment, I would grab the GP100.

 

[Flash_80]

The GP100 is built like a tank. However, I've had my 686 since January 12th 1992 and it left S&W sometime in 1985. Never a problem with it to this day. If you were to torture test both to the point of meltdown, my money would be on the Ruger, but unless you're hell bent on destroying it, I think you would be fine with whichever you preferred. I'll take the Smith for the trigger and just the looks. But my brother in law got the GP100 a few years back and I would not frown upon one either.

 

[OLDSTER]

Durability

Others may disagree, but I'd put the Python in last place as far as durability. It would take a lot of shooting to wear out a 686 or GP100.

+1 I agree

 

[Flash_80]

Thats been the consensus of what I've read over the years. The Python was the pageant queen. The 686 was the everyone's all american, and the GP100 was that rough looking dude over in the corner that you don't want to mess with.