New Mountain Gun owners - tell us

[Law-dog]

How much difference in weight is the mountain gun? I carried K frames models 65 and 66 in law enforcement and those are still baseline weights that I can carry on a hip. The mountain gun barrel appeals to me just for the weight and the look. In stainless, it makes a very nice looking package for any use, back country or wherever.

Love my 1911s, including 10mm, and love the N frames, the 44s are comforting. And I love the big Rugers, but once they get over 40-45 ounces, they become a boat anchor. Then weight matters.

How much do they weigh? The new model 66 with the 4.25 inch barrel is 36.9 ounces. The 686 is 40.3.

It only matters to people who actually carry them outside I suppose but the whole concept of the Mountain in Mountain gun was a 3-4 ounce savings in weight. When the exclusives came in, I thinks sometimes the looks took over and function and practicality sometimes did not matter, seems to me. So, if there is still a few ounces shaved off it matters to us purists. If you have carried an N frame on the hip very far in the mountains you understand about the big gun pulling your pants down, so you go to a shoulder holster or a smaller gun. Mountains, pose problems, such as sometimes such as slinging your rifle and using your hands and arms to climb, a large handgun is not good, unless it is fairly light. That is why you see those scandium guns that are seldom fired but there just in case. Yes, I have faced a bear at 6 feet, it matters. The skinny barrel on the Mountain guns seems like a good compromise in any caliber.

 

[Rock185]

Some comparative weights; new Mountain Gun and others, all with ~4" barrels and wood grips. I had one of the original 686-5 Mountain Guns years ago, but can't recall the weight.
Anyway: weight of actual guns, not catalog weights..
New 686 Mountain Gun-34.7 oz.
686-5----------------39.1 oz.
686 no dash---------41.0 oz.
66 no dash---------36.5 oz.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Had always regretted not getting the 686 Mountain when they first introduced the limited run many years ago, so had my LGS order the Lipsey when they were announced at SHOT this year. Came in a few weeks ago. Fit and finish are good, grips are plain but superb. Action is smoother than most other current production I've felt. NO endshake, carry-up is perfect. There is no key hole above the thumb piece (yay) but you can see a bearing or buffer plate alongside the left side of the hammer when you cock it, so there might be some of the lock parts in there. I've not taken the side plate off nor removed the lockwork (was a factory-trained department armorer back in the day when we carried them on duty) for the reasons listed below, in case I do wind up having to send it back; don't want to void the warranty.
But the brass bead is missing from the front sight; the back of the front sight blade is drilled for it, but it's not there nor anywhere in the box. It was difficult to open and close the cylinder, and it got harder, until I had to smack the cylinder with the palm of my hand to open it, and a light rap to close it. Long story short, it was a nasty burr on the inside face of the crane lock. Firing pin protrusion from the recoil plate is minimal, though I have no way to measure it (I have several dozen DA S&Ws of both hammer-mounted and frame-mounted pins, so have some basis for comparison). Yep, misfires at a rate of 10 to 15%. It's not the strain screw. I suspect another burr, in the tunnel, as the more I fire and dry fire the pistol the fewer misfires I seem to have ('course, I loaded up a bunch of .38's with Federal primers after the first set of misfires, which may be helping, as Feds tend to be softer or more sensitive IME).
This particular pistol should never have passed QC inspection, if such a thing remains at S&W. To their credit I emailed customer service and got a prompt and courteous reply, saying they would send a replacement front sight blade, complete with bead. After two weeks with no blade yet I emailed again, mentioning the issues as well (which I had not on the first contact; I really don't want to ship the gun back for fear of loss). A different but equally pleasant individual said the order was in queue, waiting for a sight blade to arrive in order to ship. No idea when. They also sent a call-tag even though I hadn't requested one, which I thought signaled a willingness to address the issues.
I have heard several credible reports of flawless Mt. Guns, so I believe this one is just one of those which rarely but inevitably slip through. Which I guess means you should inspect any particular pistol before purchase if you can (not possible in this case; the whole initial production run was pre-sold at SHOT, or so I am told). JME.

My old 686 Mtn gun from the first run...........I really like it..........The new ones should be just as much fun.

 

[ladder13]

If you can find a new Transitional MG grab it, sure to be a collector. Pic courtesy of member NY-1

Whoever stamped etched that and whoever put that in a case should be fired, imo.

 

[pharman]

My Mountain Gun has a front sight that is VERY tall, see pic for rear sight, light strikes approx 10%, a grip that initially was so bad Mr Tyler sent another pair (which are quite nice, and currently live on my 3" 66, because reliable primer breakers get the good grips ). The firing pin issue is very frustrating. At 1150, I think 100% ignition should be a low bar, but no. The pics below show the sights and grips, sights are properly zeroed. The second grip picture is the first set of grips that came on the gun. Regarding the front sight, I have other Patridge type bead sights from Smith, and they are all much shorter. Overall, I would not recommend this revolver for any serious use, because of the light primer strikes. I was super stoked for this gun, and honestly pretty disappointed that it is not reliable.

For this revolver to be shipped with that set of grips on it is totally inexcusable...I can almost not believe that someone at S&W QC would let that get shipped with that set of grips...UNBELIEVABLE!