New 686 Mountain gun

[atlatl]

I recently picked up my 686 mountain gun which I ordered the day after they were announced at SHOT show. I carefully examined it at my dealer prior to completing the paperwork and found that the barrel was not canted, the timing was good, the barrel cylinder gap was excellent and there was no endshake. The right sided grip has a slight gap next to the side plate, but I chose to ignore this. I find the grips very comfortable.

On closer examination at home, I noticed that there is a very significant .032" gap between the top surface of the crane and the frame when viewed from the left side. Fit is good when looking at the crane to frame fit from the muzzle end. By comparison, my older Smith & Wesson 629-4 has only a few thousandths gap in the same location.

The ball detent appears to fit into the crane well, and there is no discernible play when trying to wiggle the cylinder up and down, is this something that I should address with Smith & Wesson or just choose to ignore as the rest of the revolver seems good?


Thanks.

 

[BoulderTroll]

I recently picked up my 686 mountain gun which I ordered the day after they were announced at SHOT show. I carefully examined it at my dealer prior to completing the paperwork and found that the barrel was not canted, the timing was good, the barrel cylinder gap was excellent and there was no endshake. The right sided grip has a slight gap next to the side plate, but I chose to ignore this. I find the grips very comfortable.

On closer examination at home, I noticed that there is a very significant .032" gap between the top surface of the crane and the frame when viewed from the left side. Fit is good when looking at the crane to frame fit from the muzzle end. By comparison, my older Smith & Wesson 629-4 has only a few thousandths gap in the same location.

The ball detent appears to fit into the crane well, and there is no discernible play when trying to wiggle the cylinder up and down, is this something that I should address with Smith & Wesson or just choose to ignore as the rest of the revolver seems good?


Thanks.

That's a decision only you can make. The gap there is fairly tight on mine, but I haven't inspected the rest of the gun thoroughly enough (I'm bad about doing that when completing the paperwork). That said, I've seen others of these in reviews that have a pretty large gap there as well. Personally, if you are happy with the rest of it, I would just keep it and forget about the gap, but like I said, it all comes down to how much it bothers you.

 

[b737lvr]

I recently picked up my 686 mountain gun which I ordered the day after they were announced at SHOT show. I carefully examined it at my dealer prior to completing the paperwork and found that the barrel was not canted, the timing was good, the barrel cylinder gap was excellent and there was no endshake. The right sided grip has a slight gap next to the side plate, but I chose to ignore this. I find the grips very comfortable.

On closer examination at home, I noticed that there is a very significant .032" gap between the top surface of the crane and the frame when viewed from the left side. Fit is good when looking at the crane to frame fit from the muzzle end. By comparison, my older Smith & Wesson 629-4 has only a few thousandths gap in the same location.

The ball detent appears to fit into the crane well, and there is no discernible play when trying to wiggle the cylinder up and down, is this something that I should address with Smith & Wesson or just choose to ignore as the rest of the revolver seems good?


Thanks.

My 442 has a similar gap. It has zero effect on the functionality of the weapon. Modern S&W revolvers are not hand fit but rather assembled using parts that all fall within some sort of tolerance range. Sometimes you get a gap sometimes you don’t. Glock is the same way. Sometimes you get a tight slide to frame fit sometimes you don’t.

Just enjoy your revolver, take care of it, and if you experience any issues with function somewhere down the line then utilize the lifetime service warranty that came with it.

 

[Beju]

My 442 has a similar gap. It has zero effect on the functionality of the weapon. Modern S&W revolvers are not hand fit but rather assembled using parts that all fall within some sort of tolerance range. Sometimes you get a gap sometimes you don’t. Glock is the same way. Sometimes you get a tight slide to frame fit sometimes you don’t.

Just enjoy your revolver, take care of it, and if you experience any issues with function somewhere down the line then utilize the lifetime service warranty that came with it.

Heck, even in the hand fitting days, they might leave obvious filing/grinding marks on the inside of frames/slides, probably figuring that you wouldn't be seeing it often. I've seen it on the yoke/frame of a Model 60, and I've seen it on the top inner part of a SIG P228 slide.

 

[SLT223]

How does it shoot?

 

[b737lvr]

Heck, even in the hand fitting days, they might leave obvious filing/grinding marks on the inside of frames/slides, probably figuring that you wouldn't be seeing it often. I've seen it on the yoke/frame of a Model 60, and I've seen it on the top inner part of a SIG P228 slide.

I’ve found that the real tight hand fit revolver seems to encounter more problems than the newer assembled revolvers. Sure, they run like glass when they’re squeaky clean and fresh. But no matter which ones I’ve owned I get about half way through a box of 50 before the action starts to get resistance and slow down. I’ve not encountered this one time with new production models. I’ve mentioned before that we’ve shot a couple hundred rounds between cleanings with my grandmothers 22 magnum j frame. I didn’t even need to clean it, I just couldn’t stand not doing it out of habit.

My 1903 Hand Ejector First Change and my Model 10-9 are my last “old” production revolvers I’ll own. I still appreciate older revolvers for their craftsmanship but my experience with wheel guns has sold me on newer production pieces.

 

[Yendor357]

At, post a pic, please.

 

[atlatl]

For reference a folded $20 fits in the gap easily and is approximately 0.020 thick.

 

[b737lvr]

For reference a folded $20 fits in the gap easily and is approximately 0.020 thick.View attachment 756305View attachment 756307

100% normal. Enjoy your absolutely stunning revolver.

 

[The Norseman]

Hmmm…that space looks usual between the
top of the yoke/crane and frame. It must be
there for closing with the ball and detent to
work correctly.

I went and looked at my S&Ws, all Yoke to
Frame fit is Business Card or less.

Thanks for bringing this up. I will have to
put “Top Yoke to Frame Gap” on my
inspection list for when my M.G. 357mag
comes in.

 

[Beju]

All of my S&W revolvers are tighter than that (MIM 686, 64, 625, 642UC, pre-lock 10), so it looks a bit odd to me.

However, I can't say what S&W considers to be in spec.

 

[atlatl]

Yes, that is why I asked whether I should see if Lipseys or S&W would correct it. My other Smith and Wessons (629s and M&P 340) are all MUCH tighter- to the extent that a single thickness of paper slips in with some drag.

 

[b737lvr]

Yes, that is why I asked whether I should see if Lipseys or S&W would correct it. My other Smith and Wessons (629s and M&P 340) are all MUCH tighter- to the extent that a single thickness of paper slips in with some drag.

Let me put this in some perspective.

In 1913 a hand fit Smith & Wesson I frame model 1903 Hand Ejector .32 SWL was sold MSRP at $1,750 in today’s equivalent inflated currency (possibly even more if you consider the gold exchange rate). This was during a time when the entire economy of scale was built around revolvers, too. Today a brand new L frame 7 shot stainless steel revolver with hand crafted wood grips, built with significantly stronger metallurgy, target sights, lifetime service warranty, and includes a nice big hard case with padded interior MSRPs at only $1,199 in an industry that has basically made revolvers irrelevant collector items (except to some of us).

If your expectations in buying any revolver in 2025 is to be built with tight precision and little variance in tolerance then you have 3 choices. Buy a more expensive brand, bid on old models from gunbroker, or build yourself a Time Machine.

I personally believe your concern is trivial. Your revolver has zero finish issues and looks frankly to be the best example of the new mountain I’ve seen. You’ve said yourself it is functionally flawless. You are quite literally making a mountain out of a molehill in your head by hyper focusing on a simple variance in tolerance.

If you were to go back in time to 1913 and show the Wesson boys your revolver and that you only paid $37 they probably wouldn’t believe you.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

FORGET about it........Enjoy your new pistola.

 

[BoulderTroll]

Yes, that is why I asked whether I should see if Lipseys or S&W would correct it. My other Smith and Wessons (629s and M&P 340) are all MUCH tighter- to the extent that a single thickness of paper slips in with some drag.

I'd suggest returning it or selling it and buying another. Whether we agree or disagree, it clearly bothers you, and apparently to a level you would not be happy with it. My guess is that S&W will tell you it is within tolerances, as I've seen others with a gap just as wide. But you'll never be pleased with it, and no point spending that amount of cash on something that you see a glaring issue with every time you look at it.

 

[atlatl]

Let me put this in some perspective.

In 1913 a hand fit Smith & Wesson I frame model 1903 Hand Ejector .32 SWL was sold MSRP at $1,750 in today’s equivalent inflated currency (possibly even more if you consider the gold exchange rate). This was during a time when the entire economy of scale was built around revolvers, too. Today a brand new L frame 7 shot stainless steel revolver with hand crafted wood grips, built with significantly stronger metallurgy, target sights, lifetime service warranty, and includes a nice big hard case with padded interior MSRPs at only $1,199 in an industry that has basically made revolvers irrelevant collector items (except to some of us).

If your expectations in buying any revolver in 2025 is to be built with tight precision and little variance in tolerance then you have 3 choices. Buy a more expensive brand, bid on old models from gunbroker, or build yourself a Time Machine.

I personally believe your concern is trivial. Your revolver has zero finish issues and looks frankly to be the best example of the new mountain I’ve seen. You’ve said yourself it is functionally flawless. You are quite literally making a mountain out of a molehill in your head by hyper focusing on a simple variance in tolerance.

If you were to go back in time to 1913 and show the Wesson boys your revolver and that you only paid $37 they probably wouldn’t believe you.

I appreciate your reply, I don't believe I am trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill... I simply asked for the collective wisdom available on this site. I have owned a total of seven Smith & Wesson revolvers prior to this one all of which were made from the late 80s to present none of which have a gap between the frame and crane greater than a thickness of a sheet of paper.

As my experience is limited, I wanted the opinion of others. I may reach out to Lipsey's or Smith & Wesson but wanted to ascertain whether my concern was valid.

Thank you.

 

[Invictus357]

Over the years, the Ruger GP100 and SP101 had varying gaps and crookedness in this area. One of my first GP100s had a large gap. It was so bad the cylinder crane looked bent. I sent it back to Ruger who promptly fixed it.
The ones manufactured in the last 3 or 4 years are much better. My newest GP100 is outstanding in fit and finish. I wish all of my SW gun's barrels were on that straight.
If you are not happy with it, I suggest you get SW to look at it.

 

[sniper]

I recently picked up my 686 mountain gun which I ordered the day after they were announced at SHOT show. I carefully examined it at my dealer prior to completing the paperwork and found that the barrel was not canted, the timing was good, the barrel cylinder gap was excellent and there was no endshake. The right sided grip has a slight gap next to the side plate, but I chose to ignore this. I find the grips very comfortable.

On closer examination at home, I noticed that there is a very significant .032" gap between the top surface of the crane and the frame when viewed from the left side. Fit is good when looking at the crane to frame fit from the muzzle end. By comparison, my older Smith & Wesson 629-4 has only a few thousandths gap in the same location.

The ball detent appears to fit into the crane well, and there is no discernible play when trying to wiggle the cylinder up and down, is this something that I should address with Smith & Wesson or just choose to ignore as the rest of the revolver seems good?


Thanks.

My experience with revolvers...Smith & Wesson, Dan Wesson and Ruger over the last 50 years has been...I never even looked at the side crane to frame gap! I always looked at the front gap to tell if the crane had somehow been bent. Which was dumb, since all my revolvers have been bought new. I am not a newbie, but far from an "expert" in all things guns.
Just for the halibut, I looked at my present Ruger, and lo and behold! There WAS a gap between the crane and frame! (Side view) A business card went in with moderate drag, and a 5X7 note card went in with less. It's been that way since new, survived a reliability check from a gunsmith, and is ready in all respects for the next range day.
"Hmmmmm", sez I...have we been too much involved in websites, which are populated with many people new to firearms, and persons such as I, who enjoy shooting our guns, but have not had real problems with any of our firearms? The power of suggestion is great, and after reading of constant present-day Quality Control problems, and guns that don't quite act right, many of which are true, do we see hobgoblins where there are none?
Just wondering.

 

[BoulderTroll]

"Hmmmmm", sez I...have we been too much involved in websites, which are populated with many people new to firearms, and persons such as I, who enjoy shooting our guns, but have not had real problems with any of our firearms? The power of suggestion is great, and after reading of constant present-day Quality Control problems, and guns that don't quite act right, many of which are true, do we see hobgoblins where there are none?
Just wondering.

I agree 100%. The internet has placed QC issued under a microscope and blasted the results from a loudspeaker. I'm not saying QC issues don't exist, or should be downplayed, but I believe they have always been there, with the only difference being we now have instant access to seeing and hearing about them. When we bought guns 30 and 40 years ago, we didn't have forums and photos to compare them to with a fine-tooth comb, and we just assumed they were good to go, until/ unless they failed.

 

[b737lvr]

I agree 100%. The internet has placed CQ issued under a microscope and blasted the results from a loudspeaker. I'm not saying CQ issues don't exist, or should be downplayed, but I believe they have always been there, with the only difference being we now have instant access to seeing and hearing about them. When we bought guns 30 and 40 years ago, we didn't have forums and photos to compare them to with a fine-tooth comb, and we just assumed they were good to go, until/ unless they failed.

My last model 36 no dash that was LNIB from an estate had a poorly fit yoke button and the hammer would drag the left side of the frame. I had to hone down the yoke screw and there was nothing I could do about the hammer drag. Wound up selling it to someone who didn’t really care. In fact there were some big batches around 69-71 that would lock up completely.

QC issue have always been there. Ask GunBlue on YouTube, the Model 29 was considered junk for a long time. Huge issues with frame stretching, timing issues, you name it.