Need Your Help with First Revolver Purchase

[otis24]

For all of the proselytizing about the extra rounds in the G17 over a 636, it is HITS that count, not rounds in the gun. The answer to the question is to practice, practice, practice! Too many people assume that having more rounds is a good thing... only if you intend to miss a lot.

If you intend to miss, you shouldn't own a weapon. The point of extra rounds is that you may miss for a variety of reasons (moving target, barriers, a round that fails to incapacitate, multiple assailants).

It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. It's better to have ammo and not need it than to need it and not have it.

We never know when we will need a weapon, that's why we carry. We never know when we will need more than five or six rounds of ammo. People do not fire with the intention of missing the target but it happens. And my bet would be that most human targets do not remain stationary.

 

[RevolverJim]

A 686 SSR might be easier to locate than a Mountain Gun 686.

 

[Doug M.]

There is one huge problem here that no one has addressed. Glock is very clear on this: reduced capacity mags are not to be used for duty/SD/serious purposes. Period. Full stop. Not open to discussion.

If you do not have standard capacity mags for the 17, a seven shot 686 makes good sense. Load it with .38 wadcutters or SWC and it will be a decent controllable gun to shoot. Look around the forum and you will see a couple responses I have written about the importance of target hardening - making your home unappealing to bad guys. Get through those steps, too.

 

[giants1]

Sluggish?

...Disadvantages are: that heavy barrel is sluggish for some...

At the risk of making clear(er) my newbie nature, what do you mean by "sluggish?"

FYI and in response to someone else's question I bought the Glock 17 almost three months ago and never heard of Freedom Week (California's moratorium on the 10 round mag limit) until after that time, so, absent another Freedom Week, I'm stuck with 10 round mags (it's illegal to go out of state to buy them and I don't look good in orange).

Thanks

 

[Darkenfast]

I should have explained better! By "sluggish", I meant the way the longer revolver handles in the hand. The same steadiness that helps hold the gun steady on target also works against the hands and arms moving the piece quickly. It's a function of barrel length and weight. Many people find the four-inchers to be handier. Some like other lengths. Some find a different weight barrel changes their length preference.

Again, no overall right answer. This forum has had multiple discussions about four versus six inch barrels (and other lengths as well), so a search will reveal a lot of interesting comments. It will also reveal that there's never been a satisfactory conclusion for overall use.

My disclaimer: I've owned two six-inch (Ruger Security Six and S&W 586), and one 2 1/2 inch (Model 19), .357s. Every time I've used someone else's four-inch revolver, I've thought: "Ooh, that's handy!", and then gone back to my longer gun. If I ever go down to the gun store to buy a new 686+, I will be waffling about it up to the time I lay the money down on the counter!

 

[giants1]

My LGS's website (finally) has the Model 686, 6 round, 4.125" barrel:

Model 686 | Smith & Wesson

My only concerns are that I'd like a 7 shot and that this one seems a little on the light side, at 39.7 oz, which concerns me about recoil reduction, because I wanted one in the higher 40s oz range. Thoughts?

 

[too tall]

While the op was about a second gun, it is also the stated use of that gun that these comments are made.

It's been stated that no one knows when or how many bad guys there will be. Or words to that effect.

For my home and life style I can anticipate what that scenario "might" be. Who, how many, and in some cases what they "might" be carrying.

If several bad guys come into my home intent on doing me serious harm, no matter if their buddies got shot and they keep coming, and they likely might not know who got shot until the shooting was over, then no amount of rounds in close quarters with multiple assailants after me are going to save me. My home is not that big. How big is yours?

If more rounds in one gun are better, more guns, and other tools in different locations in the home is also better. Think temporary hostage situation after initial firefight is over. As the saying goes, "prove me/that wrong".

I don't expect a multiple assailants home invasion. I do still plan for it by having multiple firearms and tools in several locations. I wouldn't advertise every tool I have, or that I only have two, or just one now, even on a gun forum. If someone is planning an attack, someone I know or just knows me, they are likely monitoring what is said.

More is better, you also plan to create your elements of surprise.

Use and practice with many tools. Run invasion, windows breaking, fire scenarios day and night and with other members of your home. Actually break some glass (no not your actual windows). Bad guys use distractions. If we talk about the sound from our guns of protection being a hinderance, then also talk, plan, run the other scenarios that create the other noises. Condition yourself and others to react under those conditions. If you're destracted from getting to your gun with xxx amount of rounds and the bad guys are already in the room you are in and quickly heading towards you, what good is more rounds?

Considering a 686 as well. Ran a box and a half of 38s through my 38 double action only over the weekend. Loved it.

 

[first-model]

My LGS's website (finally) has the Model 686, 6 round, 4.125" barrel:

Model 686 | Smith & Wesson

My only concerns are that I'd like a 7 shot and that this one seems a little on the light side, at 39.7 oz, which concerns me about recoil reduction, because I wanted one in the higher 40s oz range. Thoughts?

I think you're thinking too hard about this. But if you're really hung up on the weight, why not the 6" model? That adds about 5 oz to the weight of the gun.

Subjectively, I've found that felt recoil is a function of more than the weight of the gun and the barrel length. To wit: I have a Model 60 Pro Series (J frame) with a 3" barrel that feels like it has less felt recoil than my substantially-heavier K-framed Model 65 (which also has a 3" barrel). My guess is that the grip shape (and probably the grips themselves) on the 60 fit my hand better than the 65, but I haven't really cared enough to make a scientific study of it.

For what little it's worth: the best revolver that I own for managing felt recoil is my X frame 460 XVR. .45 Colt rounds in it feel like shooting .22 out of a Model 617. But it's a beast of a revolver at about 72 ounces, and it has a large rubber grip to boot ... so you take the good with the bad there.

Over the years I've learned that fit is a lot more important than the numbers. The easiest example I can give here are the semi-autos from Springfield Armory. They're good guns by any measure, but the ergonomics of the three that I've owned just haven't worked for my body geometry. The M&P line is a much better fit for me, but Glock seems to work the best. We can argue endlessly which gun is better on paper, but at the end of the day the Glock fits my hand the best, and (for me) that translates to tighter groups and better shooting.

I've also found that as my shooting has improved over time, my taste in guns has also changed. 10 years ago I hated the 1911 platform, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with one. Now, it's the gun I'm shooting the most at the range.

Long story short: don't get too bent over a few ounces. There are a lot of other forces at work—some that you can control, and some that you can't—that will ultimately decide whether a 686 is the right gun for you.

Mike

 

[giants1]

Changes

"...I've also found that as my shooting has improved over time, my taste in guns has also changed. 10 years ago I hated the 1911 platform, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with one. Now, it's the gun I'm shooting the most at the range..."Mike

Thanks, Mike.

When you mentioned that you disliked the Springfield semi's ergonomics, were you talking about the XD, 1911, or both?

Also, I thought that the 1911's trigger was the best out there, so can you elaborate as to what changed that you are now shooting better with a 1911?

 

[first-model]

When you mentioned that you disliked the Springfield semi's ergonomics, were you talking about the XD, 1911, or both?

I'm just talking about the XD. I've never owned a Springfield 1911, but I assume that the follow the same grip profile and angle of most other 1911 pistols.

And I have nothing against Springfield as a company; I know they make some excellent products. The XD's that I've tried just doesn't work with the geometry of my hand.

Also, I thought that the 1911's trigger was the best out there, so can you elaborate as to what changed that you are now shooting better with a 1911?

A couple of things changed.

I used to spend a lot of time focusing on my trigger pull, and I used to worry a lot about triggers having clean breaks and such. Some years back, I realized that I had it all wrong.

Over the past three years or so, I've shifted entirely to focusing on my grip. When I'm ready to break the shot, I just pull the trigger. I don't worry about staging it or trying to figure out what exactly is happening inside the gun; I just pull it as cleanly and smoothly as I can (with the appropriate followthrough, of course). For me, this has resulted in much tighter and more consistent groups. My splits are also faster.

So, in short, I think I was approaching the 1911 wrong when I first started shooting it. I had too much psychological dependence on the trigger, and my grip wasn't strong and stable enough to keep the rest of the gun steady. Once I realized that the make-or-break is in the mechanics of my grip and not in the trigger pull, the platform started to make a lot more sense to me.

Mike

 

[giants1]

Serial Number Checks before Buying New?

OMG!

The other day, I bought a Browning Buck Mark from my LGS, a big box store, which advertised it as new and when I inspected, it looked new and there was no indication or disclosure that it was either refurbished or used. The 4473 says it's "new," but the serial number indicates that it was made in 2014 (which Browning customer service confirmed, but I forgot to ask them for an explanation). I messaged the LGS, which was out of stock on this gun until mid-last month and explained that this is a common gun, so there's no reason for it to be 7 years old.

I'm newer to gun purchases, but all of my other guns were made in 2021.

Questions: this seems silly to ask, but do I need to bring a serial number decoder to the LGS when I pick up my S&W revolver next month?

If anyone has had this happen, what do the LGS do to remedy it? My state limits me to one gun per month and a 10 day hold, so I'm not thrilled about the added wait, if they offer an exchange.