which revolver ?
- Thread starter bozkurt55
- Start date
#4 All the above.....................
-2 changed hammer nose bushing
-3 new yoke retention
-4 drilled and taped frame.....Hogue grips
-2 changed hammer nose bushing
-3 new yoke retention
-4 drilled and taped frame.....Hogue grips
Last edited:
Mehutch
Member
686 no dash, 1980, introduced model
686-1, 1986, radius stud package, floating hand
686-2, 1987, changed hammer nose, bushing and associated parts
686-3, 1988, new yoke retention system
686-4, 1993, change rear sight leaf, drill and tap frame, change extractor, Hogue grips, the -4 eliminated the square grip frame on 4" and longer models.
The 686-4 is generally regarded as the apex of the design as the -5 introduced MIM parts and the -6 and -7 contain the lawyer lock.
The 686-4 is the top of the line, pre-lock 357 magnum. It does and will carry a premium price tag.
Now if you find a pre-lock S&W 686-4, 4 inch barrel with 7 shot cylinder... now you're talking the best there is. good luck.
Here are 3 of my 6 S&W 586's and 686's, all 686 7 shot S&W's, I love them:
686-1, 1986, radius stud package, floating hand
686-2, 1987, changed hammer nose, bushing and associated parts
686-3, 1988, new yoke retention system
686-4, 1993, change rear sight leaf, drill and tap frame, change extractor, Hogue grips, the -4 eliminated the square grip frame on 4" and longer models.
The 686-4 is generally regarded as the apex of the design as the -5 introduced MIM parts and the -6 and -7 contain the lawyer lock.
The 686-4 is the top of the line, pre-lock 357 magnum. It does and will carry a premium price tag.
Now if you find a pre-lock S&W 686-4, 4 inch barrel with 7 shot cylinder... now you're talking the best there is. good luck.
Here are 3 of my 6 S&W 586's and 686's, all 686 7 shot S&W's, I love them:
Last edited:
If you hate the internal lock then you will look askance at the later models that bear the same. if you do not care, and I am in that camp, then they are all equally wonderful, and I certainly would never pay a premium just because of the lack of an IL.
I find the 4" balances better than the 2.5"; I have not shot the 3" much but enough such that it now is my night time bedroom gun.
The only major difference between the 3 guns is that the 2.5" has a wildly fantastic action job and the others are box stock and just wonderful regardless....(not counting wood versus rubber stocks, of course)....
I find the 4" balances better than the 2.5"; I have not shot the 3" much but enough such that it now is my night time bedroom gun.
The only major difference between the 3 guns is that the 2.5" has a wildly fantastic action job and the others are box stock and just wonderful regardless....(not counting wood versus rubber stocks, of course)....
Attachments
Inusuit
Member
I don't own any of these revolvers, but I think what people are trying to tell you is that there is not much difference between the various versions you listed. The major change that some object to is the internal lock version which did not occur until the dash 6 and dash 7. There is no specific disadvantage to the 686-2, only a minor change from the 686-1 and no major difference from the 686-3. Any of the revolvers you listed would be excellent choices.
Do a search as there are many recent posts about this exact topic.
Mehutch
Member
Pre-lock and IL S&W, that is the question.
If I had a blind test of the two I could not tell which is which. Either you don't care, or it does bother you.
If it doesn't bother you...well your better off. If it does, it always will.
A S&W is a damn fine shooting gun, balance, trigger, looks and balance. It has a large field of style and calibers to chose from. The IL changes the aesthetics of this fine gun. It would be like painting a great American muscle car in pink. It just is not right, unless you like pink.
Some stories have circulated about the locks engaging during firing magnums, they are true, but rare.
I don't like the hole in the gun or the slight chance that my gun would lock up during practice or defending my family. All my guns are defensive guns potentially. I test all my hand loads thoroughly, I clean them regularly, each one is ready for action at any time.
The only thing I have questionable in my two 686's with the internal lock is will I be the next one who has a lock-up problem. That is why I installed the 'Plug".
That is my opinion and reason why.
"Thank you your honor, no more questions."
If I had a blind test of the two I could not tell which is which. Either you don't care, or it does bother you.
If it doesn't bother you...well your better off. If it does, it always will.
A S&W is a damn fine shooting gun, balance, trigger, looks and balance. It has a large field of style and calibers to chose from. The IL changes the aesthetics of this fine gun. It would be like painting a great American muscle car in pink. It just is not right, unless you like pink.
Some stories have circulated about the locks engaging during firing magnums, they are true, but rare.
I don't like the hole in the gun or the slight chance that my gun would lock up during practice or defending my family. All my guns are defensive guns potentially. I test all my hand loads thoroughly, I clean them regularly, each one is ready for action at any time.
The only thing I have questionable in my two 686's with the internal lock is will I be the next one who has a lock-up problem. That is why I installed the 'Plug".
That is my opinion and reason why.
"Thank you your honor, no more questions."
Last edited:
sac-gunslinger
Member
They all will work the same, which is to say fantastically well. Go out and shoot whichever one you purchase, don't go down a rabbit hole trying to cherry-pick features between versions.
Similar threads
