I have a most likely stupid question. I am interested in getting a larger frame 357. Other than frame size what is the difference between say a 586 and a 28? I thought I saw somewhere that some N frames have shorter cylinders so can't take as large as a round. That doesn't make sense to me and maybe I just dreamed it. I want to be able to load at least 158 grain bullets, so will it make a difference. Yes, I am an idiot. I am much more versed in single action autos and SAA than double action revolvers.
Stupid question!
- Thread starter Big Arm
- Start date
Photog
Member
The only two differences to me are that the 28 frame is larger and the 586 has a full lug under the barrel. Also the N frame 357's, be it 28, 520, 27 etc. will last for tens of thousands of rounds of full house 357 loads. There is no difference in cylinder length and the N frame will take any standard length 357 ammo.
Double-O-Dave
US Veteran
Hi Big Arm:
Welcome to the Forum. A Model 586 is an L-frame revolver, while a Model 28 is an N-frame revolver. Size matters - if you don't believe me, try fitting an L-frame revolver in a holster made for either a K-frame or an N-frame, or vice versa, and you'll quickly see the difference.
Either the L-framed Model 586, or the Model 28 will handle 158gr. bullets in either .38 Special or .357 Magnum. Due to the larger frame size and weight, the Model 28 will help soak up recoil better - assuming similar sized barrels. The Model 586 has a fully shrouded ejector rod, which some people like, and others don't, due to the extra weight of the ejector rod shroud. The Model 28 has a truncated ejector rod shroud (it doesn't extend to the end of the barrel like the Model 586), which many people like due to less weight at the end of the barrel.
You would be well served by either revolver, but the Model 28 should have slightly greater resale value than the Model 586 as the Model 28 is no longer being made. I shoot a Model 686 with 6.0 inch long barrel, which is the stainless steel version of the 586, and I do quite well with it. To me, the size of a Model 28's grip is quite a handful. I own a Model 625 (also an N-frame) that I shoot well, but the grip was made to K-frame dimensions.
Bottom line, I would suggest trying to see if you can handle, and more importantly, test fire both a Model 28 and Model 586, and make your decision accordingly.
Best of luck,
Dave
Welcome to the Forum. A Model 586 is an L-frame revolver, while a Model 28 is an N-frame revolver. Size matters - if you don't believe me, try fitting an L-frame revolver in a holster made for either a K-frame or an N-frame, or vice versa, and you'll quickly see the difference.
Either the L-framed Model 586, or the Model 28 will handle 158gr. bullets in either .38 Special or .357 Magnum. Due to the larger frame size and weight, the Model 28 will help soak up recoil better - assuming similar sized barrels. The Model 586 has a fully shrouded ejector rod, which some people like, and others don't, due to the extra weight of the ejector rod shroud. The Model 28 has a truncated ejector rod shroud (it doesn't extend to the end of the barrel like the Model 586), which many people like due to less weight at the end of the barrel.
You would be well served by either revolver, but the Model 28 should have slightly greater resale value than the Model 586 as the Model 28 is no longer being made. I shoot a Model 686 with 6.0 inch long barrel, which is the stainless steel version of the 586, and I do quite well with it. To me, the size of a Model 28's grip is quite a handful. I own a Model 625 (also an N-frame) that I shoot well, but the grip was made to K-frame dimensions.
Bottom line, I would suggest trying to see if you can handle, and more importantly, test fire both a Model 28 and Model 586, and make your decision accordingly.
Best of luck,
Dave
Kernel Crittenden
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
Any full size all steel S&W .357 will accept the SAAMI max COAL. Some of the J-frames (small 5-shots) and other exotic alloy frame/cylinder guns have restrictions, not in length but in bullet weight. (These lightweight guns recoil so violently a heavy bullet, like a 158 grainer, can break it's crimp and "pull" forward - locking the gun up).
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,074
- Reaction score
- 7,266
Kernel Crittenden is correct. As between the two revolvers (L frame and N frame), I would be inclined toward the L frame, even though I am not a fan of the full underlug barrel. The main reason is availability of parts for the L frame, which is still in production.
Smith61
Member
Ahhhh.....the N frame is still in production and was for four and a half decades prior to the L-frame...parts availabilty shouldn't be an issue.
BTW....Buy whichever fits your hand better and shoot it!
Last edited:
You didn't dream it.
Recessed N frame .357 Magnum cylinders = 1.62" OAL
Recessed K frame .357 Magnum cylinders = 1.67" OAL
Non-recessed L frame .357 cylinders = 1.62" OAL
Non-recessed N frame .357 cylinders = 1.58" OAL
While L frame .357's have a cylinder that's the same length as a recessed N frame, they will accept a slightly longer cartridge because the rim sits proud in the non-recessed cylinder. I've never encountered a problem in an N frame, but I've never loaded anything heavier than 158's. I can tell you that a factory 180gr Black Talon STX has about .040" clearance in an N frame. The only time I could see it being an issue is when custom loading certain profiles of heavy bullets.
Last edited:
Perfect! Thanks for the information. I would be doing mostly 158 grain so that should be no problem at all. I thought I had seen that somewhere, but you can never depend on the internet!
BigBill
Absent Comrade
I vote for the s&w m28 or m27 for a 357 magnum N frame revolver. We can get smaller or larger grips if need be.
Since the ruger RedHawk is no longer offered in 357 magnum and in 41 magnum I'll take the s&w N frame. If the RedHawks were still offered I'd own both anyway.
Since the ruger RedHawk is no longer offered in 357 magnum and in 41 magnum I'll take the s&w N frame. If the RedHawks were still offered I'd own both anyway.
Last edited:
For years I have read that the Model 27 cylinder is not long enough to shoot Keith style 170 grain bullets in .357 Magnum cases, without seating them deeper and crimping over the front driving band. I have never had a need to load such bullets, staying with 158 or lighter, grain bullets.
For comparison, I measured an old model 66 cylinder I had also. It measured 1.676, and the recess was, as close as I could measure about .05, leaving enough room for 1.62 maximum overall cartridge length. About .05 longer than the 627.
I believe that if this was a problem, that Smith would have fitted longer cylinders at some point. A good time would have been at the beginning of the stainless guns. But they stayed with the same length cylinders in new guns. My 627-5 has a cylinder length of 1.577, the same as a 627-2. Contrast that with a 629-3 cylinder of 1.700. It would not have been hard for Smith to standardize the N frame cylinders for the 627 the same as the 629 at 1.700 if there had been a need to do so.
I don't think anyone need worry too much about cylinder length in different frame sizes.
For comparison, I measured an old model 66 cylinder I had also. It measured 1.676, and the recess was, as close as I could measure about .05, leaving enough room for 1.62 maximum overall cartridge length. About .05 longer than the 627.
I believe that if this was a problem, that Smith would have fitted longer cylinders at some point. A good time would have been at the beginning of the stainless guns. But they stayed with the same length cylinders in new guns. My 627-5 has a cylinder length of 1.577, the same as a 627-2. Contrast that with a 629-3 cylinder of 1.700. It would not have been hard for Smith to standardize the N frame cylinders for the 627 the same as the 629 at 1.700 if there had been a need to do so.
I don't think anyone need worry too much about cylinder length in different frame sizes.
You would be served well by either gun. I have a 4" 686 and a 4" 28-2. I actually prefer the L frame over the N frame in that caliber. The stock makes all the difference on either gun. I think if you were to fire both guns with the same exact stock you wouldn't find any difference in perceived recoil, but the L frame would be more comfortable to shoot due to the reduced weight. As I said, I believe you would b happy with either gun. One thing to remember, the L frame was the first frame size designed specifically for the .357 magnum cartridge. So which one could digest more magnum rounds is probably a moot point. 
I have a pre-model 28, which is a wonderful gun, but I really prefer my two L frames for shooting. If I had to carry an N frame with me for any length of time in the woods, I'd be tired out. Now I know why all those old state troopers were so tough. 
I view L frames as just slightly heavy K frames. I view N frames as gigantic guns. Just my opinion. Choose what's right for you.
I view L frames as just slightly heavy K frames. I view N frames as gigantic guns. Just my opinion. Choose what's right for you.Huh? Weight is your friend in regard to perceived recoil. Ever shot a Scandium N frame vs a steel one?
... or a scandium J frame vs a steel one?
Faster handling qualities... sure, but less perceived recoil?? I don't think so.
For the extra heavy weight .357 loads I make I will sometimes exceed the SAAMI cartridge OAL; they fit fine in my 686, but won't quite fit in my 27 or 627 due to the shorter cylinder length. Those are specialty bullets I use for hunting. That being said, I haven't loaded any in decades as these days I use predominantly .45 Colt, .41 Magnum, and .44 Magnum as my hunting revolvers of choice.
For me the most significant difference between N and L frame .357s is the L frame’s shorter trigger reach. That provides better leverage to work the DA. This assumes both are fitted with similar style grips. S&W’s unfortunate choice of rubber stocks that cover the back strap negates some or all of a new 686’s shorter trigger reach when compared to a 28 with traditional wood. None of the revolvers under discussion recoil enough to justify extending their trigger reach with a rubber cushion.
Recoil is not an issue because both 586s and 28s are heavy for .357s. For decades 6” 28s were cataloged at 44 ounces. S&W currently lists 6” 686 pluses at 44 ounces and 6” 686 6 shooters at 45 ounces. 4” 586s are a couple ounces lighter than 4” 28s but stock choice can make that much difference. The weight difference is insignificant but standard full lug L frames are significantly more muzzle heavy than 28s., That’s the second handling difference that makes them more competitive target revolvers in my hands.
Despite the L frames advantages I shoot my 28s more often. I could claim 28s make better trainers for big bore N frames but really 28s are just nostalgic. That’s a good enough reason to choose a 28 for your only big .357.
Recoil is not an issue because both 586s and 28s are heavy for .357s. For decades 6” 28s were cataloged at 44 ounces. S&W currently lists 6” 686 pluses at 44 ounces and 6” 686 6 shooters at 45 ounces. 4” 586s are a couple ounces lighter than 4” 28s but stock choice can make that much difference. The weight difference is insignificant but standard full lug L frames are significantly more muzzle heavy than 28s., That’s the second handling difference that makes them more competitive target revolvers in my hands.
Despite the L frames advantages I shoot my 28s more often. I could claim 28s make better trainers for big bore N frames but really 28s are just nostalgic. That’s a good enough reason to choose a 28 for your only big .357.
Similar threads
