what is the real story on the 686

[Pizza Bob]

With respect to liable that's nonsense,

While you have made yourself liable, the offense is libel. Again, if this were as big a problem as you make it out to be we'd be hearing about it from more than one poster on an Internet forum.

BTW: I applaud you for any work you are doing with regard to curing/arresting glioblastomas. While the genetically modified polio virus looks promising in the (very) early trials thus far, cancer is something that must be attacked on multiple fronts.

Adios,

Pizza Bob<----no, I don't own a pizza parlor, just wish I did.

 

[Warren Sear]

...(blah, blah, blah)...

I detect a pattern here...

 

[ankona]

Warren BS spray would work also. Apparently all Colt 1911's with series 80 parts are also defective. If nothing else this will be entertaining.

 

[kbm6893]

I had a 686 no dash in 2.5" and 686-3 in 4". Sold them both and miss them both. As for which model I like the best, revolvers are six-shooters to me and I can't get into 7 shot revolvers. Have too many 6 shot speed loaders too

As for newer vs old, function same or not, I cannot get into MIM revolvers. I want firing pin on hammer and no black MIM hammer, trigger, or cylinder release. And the IL lock is not even an option. Not for political reasons. Just because it is too ugly.

Part of why I own a gun is pride in ownership, and the newer ones just don't hold up. Maybe they're tougher, but I haven't worn out my guns yet.

 

[M3Stuart]

I used to have a 6" 686-1.

It put holes in stuff.
It made holes galore.
So incredibly accurate,
You could hit Bangalore.
Though a bit barrel heavy, it was volcanic.
It was uncomfortable for long outings,
But I didn't panic.
I searched high and low.
Both on and offshore.
Now please stay with me,
Though my story doth bore.
The tale ended with "smileys".
When I traded up for a 4" dash four.

 

[M3Stuart]

All this talk of blastomas,
wobbly MIM parts
and cancerous pus.
Just reminded me that I forgot
To mention that my dash four is a 'plus'.

 

[Warren Sear]

You're a poet,
and didn't know it,
but your feet show it,
they're long fellows!

 

[Ranger514]

Luvs my six-inch dash 4 plus. I wish I'd never sold my 4-inch dash 3. It was the best service revolver I ever owned.

 

[ankona]

My final post here is that after three days of work I now understand how to remove this MIM defect. I sacrificed a DA MIM sear to understand how to push the tolerances of the entire DA cycle sequence and performance tune it. I then fit a fresh MIM DA sear to the action. So it is possible to fix contrary to what I originally posted. However it is very time consuming to do so. All things considered about six hours now that I understand what needs to be done to fix this factory timing issue. I have several other revolvers all which exhibit this problem and may or may not fix them too as I don't use them for self defense.

Adios

What no video; I am shocked. Your last post here? Too bad I already miss your articulate confabulations.

 

[RaylanGivens]

It seems we were just getting to know him, then he was gone. Oh, well.

 

[Hillbilly77]

First, I'll address MIM. MIM didn't cheapen up the guns. I read here that MIM actually costs S&W more money. They use it because it works. Sure, it's ugly...... But, it works.

Now, I'll answer the OP's question:

what is the real story on the 686

The story of the 686 is this:
In the early 1980's, S&W built the 586. They looked at it and realized that they had just built the perfect revolver.
Then, some drunk guy (at least I assume he was drunk) decided to ugly it up, and made one out of stainless.

 

[Voyager28]

I think 686s are so terrible that, during the life of this thread, I pick up my 4th one just this week end. It is a 6" Dash 4. So, that evens my count with Model 19s at 4 of each.

It is my opinion, and just my opinion, that S&W Model 19s and Model 686s are the best shooting revolvers ever produced by mankind.

Bob

 

[Tadeus67]

From my experience, and I should say that I am very fond of the J, K and N frames; the L frame represents the perfect medium size revolver.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

It seems we were just getting to know him, then he was gone. Oh, well.

the good die young.

 

[RaylanGivens]

the good die young.

I will process his leaving, get support from friends, and possibly journal my feelings of grief and loss. And, yes I will welcome him back, if he so chooses.

 

[Texas Star]

Succinctly, a M-686-3. I don't want holes drilled in the top strap, and I don't want a 7-shot version that I think is more likely to go out -of- time. I prefer the older cylinder release, too. And the traditional firing pin on the hammer.

I also want a four-inch barrel. That's just the most effective in balance and in not being too awfully nose-heavy. They should have made more 686's like the Mountain Gun or whatever they called those with normal (not full-lugged) barrels.

I sold my M-686 because it just seemed too nose heavy and not as well balanced as my Ruger GP-100. I also think the Ruger has the more durable action, with less likelihood that it'll need re-timing. And I like their crane lock.

Today, it costs fairly serious money for a man on a fixed income to have a gunsmith re-time a revolver, and I don't know of anyone local that I'd trust to do the job really right, who won't take maybe a year to get to the gun. And shipping to a factory takes time and money, too. And raises the possibility of loss or theft!

Jerry Kuhnhausen is a well known gunsmith and his shop manuals are considered the standard of their kind. I wouldn't take lightly what he says about S&W actions.

That said, if I had the loose cash, I'd probably look for a M-686-3 with four-inch barrel and keep it. It's an excellent revolver that'll take more .357 loads without loosening up or cracking the barrel throat that a K-frame .357 may do.

But if the gun is a basic 686 with the M mark or a later one through -3, I'd consider it a done deal if I had the money and the gun checked out perfectly. I'd even accept MINOR scuffs if I could polish them out by hand with Simichrome, etc.

BTW, I retained my M-66-3, which is easier to conceal and lighter to wear for long periods of time, day-in, day-out.
If not shot primarily with full .357 ammo and if the forcing cone is kept clean and free of residue, the K-frame .357's are excellent guns, very handy. But if lead residue builds up in the forcing cone, I think that contributes to the possibility of barrel throat cracking at that thin spot on the bottom of the barrel. Keep it clean!

Good luck in your quest for a really nice M-686, of whatever dash configuration.

 

[Dennis The B]

That the L framed 586 and 686 models bear a striking resemblance to Colt's Python, is no coincidence.

It's been covered in thousands, yea tens of thousands of internet blogs, magazine articles, books, etc., that the S&W K frame had weaknesses when it came to shooting lightweight (i.e. 110gr-130gr) .357 Magnum loads. The litany of "shortcomings", premature throat erosion, end shake, flame cutting, are well-documented.

To correct this problem, the L frame was designed and came into production. It's similar in size to the Colt I frame, maybe a tad larger, and it certainly fits the bill for a durable magnum revolver; all the benefits (same grip frame size as the K, etc.), without any of the shortcomings. Surely a plus for S&W and the market.

As the result of what I'm sure were the discussions in smoke-filled rooms among accountants and other sordid finance types, ( ) the decision was made to cheapen the apparent paragon of revolver evolution. Surely, an accountant who happened to read about MIM parts in the latest issue of "Financial Manager", knew better than metallurgists and engineers the need to switch to something other than forged steel. It didn't make a whit of difference that revolvers were struggling in a market now flooded with "Wonder Nines" with strange names such as "Grock", or "Glick", or whatever. How does one compete with the semiauto, especially with a gun concept founded in 1836?

By their very nature, revolvers are the most complex of both generally accepted types of handguns. And forged parts used to be part of an original casting process.

In the end, its about how much quality goes into the design, engineering and manufacturing process.

PS - I love my 686, 686-3, and my 586-4. Great revolvers, all. And I'm not giving up up my L frame look alikes, my three Pythons.

 

[rwsmith]

I got lucky...

I got a -1. It apparently doesn't need the 'M' upgrade. I find it perfect in every way except the 6" barrel IS nose heavy. The trigger is stupendous. I'd say any gun before 1997 is good. -3 and - 4 seem to be tops. I don't mind the balance, but if I had any reason to have the gun besides the target range I'd get a shorter barrel. Which is one reason shorter barrels are a premium.

 

[Helderberg]

You have started three separate threads and in all of them you allude to S&W "cheapening" their guns. You really should have qualified that with " in my opinion".

If you think that things like MIM components and ECM rifling have "cheapened" the guns, you are only half right. It HAS made them cheaper to produce. Your problem is that you seem to equate the use of new, more efficient technologies with cheapness, rather than improvement.

MIM components are more dimensionally stable, more precise and have smoother contact surfaces. ECM rifling, again, is more precise and, at one time, concerned the ATF because they thought it was so smooth and consistent you wouldn't be able to forensically differentiate one gun from another.

As for the lock, if you object to it on political grounds, you shouldn't be looking at a S&W in the first place.

If you object because you are afraid that it may malfunction, it takes all of 15 minutes to disable it without changing the external appearance whatsoever.

If you object to the lock on aesthetic grounds, remove it and plug the hole.

The guns being produced today are among the best ever. It seems that every succeeding generation lusts for guns from "back in the day". 20 years from now people will covet the firearms of today. I think you should get ahead of the curve.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. Finally !!!!!
Frank.

 

[jimbo728]

Love my 686-2 4". Almost shoots as well as my 6" no dash 586. That one is showing FC wear but is still a tack driver.
Jim