Modern 357 - 66 vs 686

[quickdraw03]

First, this forum was helpful in the decision on a 22 revolver, and I’m picking up a 4” 617 tomorrow. Thank you!

I’m looking to add a modern 357 to the mix as a reshuffle my collection. I’m trying to decide between a 2.75” 66 or a 3” 686.

I like the appearance of the 686 more, but it’s a fair bit heavier. However, it’s the favorite gun of so many that’s hard to overlook.

I know the right answer is both, but which would you pick first?

Thanks,
QD

 

[Telecaster]

If you plan to shoot magnums much, the 66 will leave your hand buzzing. Big squishy grips might help, but the 686 is much kinder to your hands. It’s not that much bigger or heavier, either.

If you’ll be limiting the magnum use, the 66 in 2 3/4” is a great gun.

 

[shocker]

I picked the 66-8. Sleeved barrel, ball detent lockup, adequate heft to tame 357 recoil. If I wanted a seven shooter then the 686. Otherwise I want the more svelte k frame.

 

[Old cop]

I shot my 4” 1973 Model 66 this week and it’s still my favorite range toy. Full house .357 loads bark but are easy to control w/factory target grips.

 

[Scharfschuetzer]

With your decision for a short barrel, I assume that you will be carrying concealed with the weapon. In this case I'd definitely choose the Model 66 over the larger L Frame. It's still a fairly heavy weapon for all day carry unless you are a fairly large person, but it's heavy enough for magnums without undue recoil.

 

[The Norseman]

Match made in Heaven?

Congratulations on your new S&W Model 617 22lr 4"Bbl.
What I like about it is, it is Heavy, but Steady, and
inexpensive to shoot.

I don't have one yet, but I would get a S&W Model 686 357Mag
4"Bbl, to match my 4"Bbl 617. I own 2 617s; 6" and 4" barrels.
I have a 686 6"Bbl. I just like all.

I shoot a lot, so I appreciate well made, and accurate Revolver.

 

[quickdraw03]

Thanks for the thoughts. My grandfather had a 6” 617, which I found muzzle heavy way back when.

To one posters point, I do want to carry this gun. More in the woods than for a CCW / personal protection. I’ve got a 342 that just disappears for true CCW.

Easier to shoot or easier to carry always seems to be the choice.

I have some 4” and 5” N frames for the range.

 

[CH4]

For current production guns I like the 686 snub better because of its one piece barrel and 7 shots.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

For the woods you can open belt carry unless wherever you live says that it's not permitted. For an openly carried belt gun I'd go with the 686 and for concealment the 66.

I had several Model 19s (a 66 is a stainless steel Model 19, in case you don't know) in 2.5" and they were not difficult to conceal. But for open carry in the fields and woods the 686 makes more sense; you'll never notice the weight.

M686:

3"

2.5"

4" in a Dave Workman holster:

 

[bigwheelzip]

... I do want to carry this gun. More in the woods than for a CCW / personal protection.

My 3" 686 goes on woods walks with me, loaded with 180gr. Buffalo Bore for the bigger critters. It comfortably handles the recoil from that load, but I don't like to shoot it anything lighter.

 

[gnystrom]

I have debated the very same question with myself in the past. I have two 3" L frames. A 586Lcomp and a 686+. Both shoot very well at 25yds offhand and recoil is minimal. I wear XL gloves and tried a friends new Mod. 66 and found the trigger guard kept giving my driving finger a good thump on every shot. I am sure a grip change would fix that but given the more robust frame on the 586/686 series plus the extra 1/2" sight radius, I am very happy I chose what I did.

 

[ContinentalOp]

Tough choice. Normally, if I were in your position, I'd go with the K-frame for ease of carry, but I'm not sure how I feel about the 2-piece barrel. The L-frame is do-able, but won't be as comfortable, especially if you're planning on doing some extensive hiking (ounces=pounds). I've carried a 4" 686, but that was as an armed guard with a duty belt and holster, sometimes up to 12 hours/shift (a couple times it was 16 hours), and mostly standing a fixed post.

So, I guess if I were limiting myself to new guns, I'd go with the 686. However, since you implied this was more for 4-legged protection, maybe a 69? It's not .357 Magnum, but .44 Magnum would be more effective against animals than a .357 Magnum, presuming you could shoot it well. Or use .44 Special, maybe something from Buffalo Bore. I will admit to being a bit biased, in that the only L-frames that interest me enough to get one would be the .44s, either a 696 or a 69.

If I were dead-set on .357 Magnum, I might try to find an older 2.5" or 3" K-frame, though that can be difficult. Or possibly a Ruger SP101 (the GP100 is about the same size as a L-frame, so nothing really gained there, aside from not having the internal lock). A Kimber K6S might be an option. I believe they're offered with 3" barrels.

Just my opinion.

 

[Jimmyjones]

I normally carry a 640-1, when I wander west, I carry a 3" 686+ w/ Pachmeyer Compacts, IWB w/ BB 180's.

 

[Sevens]

Absolutely everyone is going to be different, so there’s never going to be a cut ‘n dried “correct” answer.

From my point of view, the ONLY limitation on carry size is with regards to where you will be and if you are forced to be discreet, typically by employment. In other words, I would be tough and carry the bigger and heavier gun each time.

Any gun that you would ever use defensively is a gun that you should practice with OFTEN, and with ammo that replicates carry ammo.

If you practice with heavy .357 in a short barrel K-frame, it’s going to knock you around. Between the two choices, I would choose the 686.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

No real wrong choice, IMO.

Since you already have a J-frame snubbie & a couple long barrel N-frames I'd lean toward the 2-3/4" M66.

I have the new 66-8 snubbie & think it's very manageable & accurate. Get some cushie grips for extended magnum use if you like.

Then, for your next 357, I'd get a 5" or 6" M686 for serious shooting & full loads. My 5" 686+ is an awesome shooter.

.

.
.
.

TALO 686-6+, 5" bbl.
.

.

 

[stansdds]

What is the intended purpose for this revolver? For carrying, the Model 66 is lighter in weight than a 686. If this is going to be a range gun, the 686 is a better choice.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

The 66 is a good gun, but I prefer the 686+. The 4' barrel 686 still weighs more but is "carryable", but, depending on what you want, you might want to look at a J frame for carry. They can disappear into your pocket and hold 5 rounds of 357. Hell on recoil with 357, but if you need it, you will not care. Happy trails with whatever you choose, these are my choices:

 

[BigBill]

My ruger Police six 2 3/4” barrel barks with magnum loads. I’m not fond of short barrels. My first s&w revolver was a m58/4” 41 mag. I like the way the bigger frame handles magnum loads.

 

[BB57]

I've carried a 3" 686+ and a 2 1/2" 686+ as well as a 2 1/2" Model 66 and a 3" Model 19.

I've also carried Ruger 2 3/4" Speed sixes and Security Sixes.

Here's my take on things:

- The 3" barrel isn't noticeably heavier than a 2 1/2" barrel but it does produce more velocity with .357 Magnum loads.

- The 3" barrel isn't any harder to carry or conceal, so on balance if the choice is between a 2 1/2", 2 3/4" or 3" barrel, get the 3".

- The 686+ will be about 4 oz heavier than a Model 66 in the same barrel length (40 oz loaded versus 36 oz loaded). The Speed and Security Six split the difference at about 38 oz loaded. However, with a well designed holster and carry belt there is zero difference in comfort. Both can be comfortably carried all day.

- The size differences are over blown. The 686 is a bit wider in the cylinder than the Model 66, but most leather K frame holsters will accommodate an L frame (snugly), so the difference literally isn't much. What difference there is in width can be offset by or over shadowed by the holster design.

- Someone commented that a Model 66 will be less comfortable when shooting it. I disagree. The 4 oz difference is weight makes it even easier to shoot the 686 with .357 Magnum loads, but at 36 oz, a Model 66 is still comfortable to shoot all day with .357 Magnum loads.

- In terms of recoil reduction you'll get a lot more benefit by moving away from loads using heavy charges of slow burning powder. The recoil is significantly greater with 20-21 grains of powder exiting the muzzle at about 3x the velocity of the bullet than is the case with 8-9 grains of a medium burn rate powder. In a 2 3/4" or 3" barrel the difference in muzzle velocity will be in the 0 to 50 fps range:

Slow burning powder:

Charge Weight: 21.0 gr
Muzzle Velocity: 1300.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight: 2.4 lb
Bullet Weight: 125.0 gr

Recoil Velocity: 15.5 ft/s
Recoil Energy: 9.0 ft•lbs
Recoil Impulse: 1.2 lb•s

Medium burning powder:

Charge Weight: 9.0 gr
Muzzle Velocity: 1300.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight: 2.4 lb
Bullet Weight: 125.0 gr

Recoil Velocity: 12.2 ft/s (21% less)
Recoil Energy: 5.5 ft•lbs (39% less)
Recoil Impulse: 0.9 lb•s (25% less)

Load selection makes a LOT more difference than 4 oz of revolver weight.

 

[quickdraw03]

Great advice all.

I’ve got a 3” 686+ in bound. Look forward to breaking it in.

Now to figure out which grips I like!