The dreaded 66 vs 686 question

[poordevil]

The 686 is a Python (.41cal) size gun. My failing memory is that the L frame came about to answer the demand for those wanting to do a Smolt/Smyton Colt-Smith hybrid. Not to correct any failing of the K frame. As Bill Jordan said, one will get brittle elbow before he gets brittle forcing cone issues, shooting full .357 mag loads. (even 125gr)

If you want to shoot critters as well as targets, I think 6" vs 4" would be more valid as more velocity and power on target is more important than how the thing sits on a night stand.

And by the way , I have never owned an L frame but have a M-66-2 in 6" BBL

 

[hittman77]

That dreaded "felt recoil" is such a subjective thing, it's hard to answer that part of your question. I must be numb to it because recoil very rarely bothers me on these medium sized revolvers. On the other hand, some of my friends seem very sensitive to the (at least THEIR) perceived differences.

The 66 vs. 686 comparison is a lot like the Ruger Security Six vs. GP100 thing. For me, the K-Frame sized guns are the best fit and recoil isn't an issue. I find the GP100 and my 686 a tad nose-heavy and seem to take them to the range less. And, the full lugs aren't as appealing looks-wise either.

There. That's clear as mud, I'm sure.

 

[les.b]

I have both, and plan on keeping them both. As everyone else pointed out, with your original goal of 95% 38 spl, and 5% 357 mag., you will never wear out the 66. The 686 is just enough stouter in build that it can digest a continuous diet of magnums. Most of us don't shoot all magnums.

I think the 66 would be fine for your intended purpose.

Best Regards, Les

 

[Engine49guy]

The recoil difference between a 686 and a 66 is not noteworthy when shooting .38 special loads but .357 Magnum is another story.
Basically the heavier and longer the barrel the more it dampens the Magnum recoil.

That being said the L frame is a stronger design but has a larger cylinder diameter making it wider in the holster, If you want light weight and durability the 7 shot 686 Mountain gun is actually lighter than the 6 shot Model 66.

Pictured below top to bottom are Model 629-2 Mountain gun (44 Magnum), Model 686-5+ Mountain gun and Model 19-4.

 

[HorizontalMike]

Why just 6 or 7 Rounds?

I have had my 686-NoDash for over 30yr, and just love it to death. BUT, a couple of years ago I purchased a 627PC 2.62" and just couldn't believe my eyes/hands about how well it felt and shot (once tuned).

Geez, loaded it weighs just 0.4oz more than my 4in. 686, however, it has 8 (eight) .357 rounds vs the 6 (six) rounds in my beloved 686. And to beat that it also has a ~1-1/2in. shorter barrel! AND they both fit into my X-15 shoulder holster without modification.

Never thought my trusty 686 4in. could be bested... but now?... Hmm...

 

[kamloops67]

If you're going to carry it I suggest the 66
O ly reason being the narrower diameter cylinder will offer a lower profile when holstered

 

[Engine49guy]

The N frame has a much larger cylinder diameter than the K frame cylinder,
The result is the N frame spins up slower as it has to rotate further to lock up giving it a very nice feel.

1935 S&W N frame.357 Magnum (Reg Mag) introduced with long action .
1950 New short action hammer
1954 N frame Highway Patrolman (Pre Model 28) introduced as a cheaper alternative to the Pre Model 27.
1955 K frame Combat Magnum introduced (majority began to ship in 1956).
1980 L frame Distinguished Combat Magnum Model 686/586 introduced
1996 J Magnum Model 60-9 introduced

 

[gr7070]

You clearly like the 66 better. That's simply the right answer for you. Done.

If you need more reason, I have a hard time believing anyone would notice much difference in recoil between a 66 and a 686 regardless of which round they're shooting.

Heck, after the gun goes bangi don't notice the difference between a 4" and a 6" 686.

 

[Mumbly-Peg]

You clearly like the 66 better. That's simply the right answer for you. Done.

If you need more reason, I have a hard time believing anyone would notice much difference in recoil between a 66 and a 686 regardless of which round they're shooting.

Heck, after the gun goes bangi don't notice the difference between a 4" and a 6" 686.

I think you're right. I was pretty set on a 686 because I believe it to be a great all-around wildcard of a gun. I slept on it and I think I'm really just looking to see if someone would talk me out of the 66. Seeing that everyone views them as such similar guns kinda makes me lean towards the one I find prettier.

 

[BB57]

If you're going to carry it I suggest the 66
O ly reason being the narrower diameter cylinder will offer a lower profile when holstered

That is undeniably true.

But it's also not much of a difference.

My Model 66 has a cylinder diameter of 1.45" and my seven shot Model 686+ has a cylinder diameter of 1.56".

That's a .11" difference, just slightly more than 3/32". Both of them fit the same holsters.

 

[apollo99]

As per comment #9 above, the Patriots won, buy the 686.

 

[Mumbly-Peg]

As per comment #9 above, the Patriots won, buy the 686.

I don't look at it as the Patriots winning. More like the Falcons lost.

Anyway, I'm swaying with the wind on this one. Thankfully (?) I'm still waiting for my pistol permit to buy one. I like the idea of the ball detent (yay!) but am not a big fan of the black cylinder release (boo!) and I don't know where to stand on the two piece barrels. I imagine the triggers are case-by-case.

 

[Mehutch]

So here's the deal.

1) "I'm planning on buying a brand new 357 mag with a 4ish inch barrel." (??? 4ish).
2) "I like the looks of the 66 better with the 3/4 underlug." (Okay it is not for everyone)
3) "95% of my shooting is likely to be 38 special as I'm new to handguns." (Don't limit your self.)
4) "I also don't care about 6 shots vs 7, as I'd probably get a 6 shot either way." (You say that now)
5) "Is my reference to the looks of the 66 a non factor if it's going to break my wrist and I end up not shooting it anyway?" (It wont break your wrist)
6) "I forgot to mention- this will be a home/range/critter gun that will occasionally ride in a chest holster, not looking for CCW. " (for now)

Look, don't box yourself in to one thing and want more later. The S&W 66 is a fine gun, so is the S&W 686 with 6 or 7 shots, with full the underlug.
Both will out shoot your skills, both look cool, neither will break your wrist, and if you want to carry concealed the '4ish' inch barrel is very good.
Stainless or blue, 4 door or two, with a tie or not, man that is up to you.

This is cool too... but that is just me.

 

[amazingflapjack]

mod 65 3 or 4 inch with 38 spl +P ammo.

 

[Mark IV]

If we were talking about early models, I'd say 686 all the way (and an early 4" 686 has been one of my grail guns, for decades).
But, given that we seem to be talking about newer production models, and given the OP's criteria, I'd go with the cheaper, somehwat more nimble 66.
I actually had one of these new 66's for a little while. Though I traded it to a buddy (in a 2-for-1 deal I couldn't resist), the new model 66 was a very nice,solid pistol.

 

[GCF]

I have both Model 66 and a 686+ with 2 1/2" barrels.

Great pic! Having both, is probably the only real solution - to the OP's dilemma...

BTW, are those "out of production" Uncle Mike's grips? They just look right. Covered backstrap - for big hand ergonomics, w/ out being unduly bulky.

 

[Mumbly-Peg]

But, given that we seem to be talking about newer production models, and given the OP's criteria, I'd go with the cheaper, somehwat more nimble 66.

The 686 is actually cheaper, by a little. Not enough to sway me one way or another.

 

[BB57]

Great pic! Having both, is probably the only real solution - to the OP's dilemma...

BTW, are those "out of production" Uncle Mike's grips? They just look right. Covered backstrap - for big hand ergonomics, w/ out being unduly bulky.

They are the Uncle Mikes Grips, and I'm keeping them with the revolvers - but I prefer the Pachmayr Compact grips. They are just a little shorter and more concealable, still cover the back strap, and they fit my hand a little better. I have them on my 686, my Speed Six, and my 66.

 

[GCF]

They are the Uncle Mikes Grips, and I'm keeping them with the revolvers - but I prefer the Pachmayr Compact grips. They are just a little shorter and more concealable, still cover the back strap, and they fit my hand a little better. I have them on my 686, my Speed Six, and my 66.

I like the Pachmayr Compacs too. Got a set on my M65-3. For grins though, wouldn't mind checking out a set of the Uncle Mike's.

To the OP: Another thought, w/ regards to your dilemma. W/ the right grips, neither 66, or 686 will be overly tough to shoot w/ magnum loads. .38's will be a total non-issue.

I've got two 686's (2.5 & 4.0"), & a 3" M65-3 (shown attached). They are all very nice, & offer their own strong selling points.

Of the three, the 4" 686 qualifies as the best "all day" range gun, & the best choice for a steady diet of magnum loads. If I could ONLY keep one though, it would be the M65. Reason being, as a current city dweller, the 3" K frame is the most practical - it qualifies as both a range gun, & if desired, an everyday, easily concealed carry piece.

If I spent a lot of time on a ranch, or a wilderness type setting, my choice MIGHT be different...

 

[Bpx4st]

Try locating a a SS, early '70s model 66. They have SS sites, cylinder release & hammer. Not sure if the trigger is stainless or brushed steel but not the black. I don't like the black on the re-released 66's. Some say they're safe queens but if you're not a collector, just shoot it!

Wayne

Sent from my SM-T377P using Tapatalk