Why doesn't the 686 get more press?
- Thread starter MTAustin
- Start date
Sir, I can think of a few reasons the x86s don't get much press.
As others have correctly noted, the x86s very rarely have problems, and duty revolvers are out of fashion. These are probably the biggest factors.
Also, they weren't in police service very long. The autos largely took over soon after their introduction.
They're relatively recent and don't appeal to old-school Smith collectors. They've never been pinned or recessed.
In a similar vein, they don't have the classic "Smith look." The x86's full-lug barrel makes it look like a Python wannabe, which offends some Smith purists. On a more practical level, some don't care for the muzzle-heavy balance of the gun.
All that said, the x86 is a good, solid gun that's not nearly as popular as it deserves to be.
JMHO, FWIW.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
As others have correctly noted, the x86s very rarely have problems, and duty revolvers are out of fashion. These are probably the biggest factors.
Also, they weren't in police service very long. The autos largely took over soon after their introduction.
They're relatively recent and don't appeal to old-school Smith collectors. They've never been pinned or recessed.
In a similar vein, they don't have the classic "Smith look." The x86's full-lug barrel makes it look like a Python wannabe, which offends some Smith purists. On a more practical level, some don't care for the muzzle-heavy balance of the gun.
All that said, the x86 is a good, solid gun that's not nearly as popular as it deserves to be.
JMHO, FWIW.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
Ron,
I agree that the 586 and 686 aren't 'classic' looking Smiths, in the sense of the 27, 28, 29, 19, 15, etc. I'm also aware that they weren't a novel concept, but rather one made to compete head-to-head with Colt's Python (and Ruger's Service Six, sasu).
However, I still argue that, from a practical standpoint, the 5 or 686 is an improvement over previous S&W .357s. Stronger and more durable than the 19/65/66, trimmer than the N frames 357s. More significant to me, the 686 corrected the biggest drawback to the N-frame 357s: the shorter cylinder that did not allow the use of heavier bullets. With my 28, I'm pretty much relegated to bullets no heavier than 158 grains. The longer cylinder on the 686 finally allowed the use of Elmer Keith's Lyman 358429 170 grain bullet in a 357 Mag case, not just 38 specials.
I'll concede that the 'Classic' Smiths balance better in the hand due to the non-full underlugged barrels, and truthfully I prefer non-full underlugs. And yes, they were never pinned and recessed, but they didn't NEED to be. 357 case heads are plenty strong, and I've never shot a threaded barrel loose.
Like I said, from a purely practical, utilitarian standpoint, I still think the L frame 357s are superior, and deserve more attention than they normally get. We seem to be in a bit of a 'revolver renaissance' with guys like Massad Ayoob, John Taffin, Brian Pearce, even Dave Anderson and Clint Smith writing about the virtues of revolvers. All I'm saying is give the Ls their due.
I agree that the 586 and 686 aren't 'classic' looking Smiths, in the sense of the 27, 28, 29, 19, 15, etc. I'm also aware that they weren't a novel concept, but rather one made to compete head-to-head with Colt's Python (and Ruger's Service Six, sasu).
However, I still argue that, from a practical standpoint, the 5 or 686 is an improvement over previous S&W .357s. Stronger and more durable than the 19/65/66, trimmer than the N frames 357s. More significant to me, the 686 corrected the biggest drawback to the N-frame 357s: the shorter cylinder that did not allow the use of heavier bullets. With my 28, I'm pretty much relegated to bullets no heavier than 158 grains. The longer cylinder on the 686 finally allowed the use of Elmer Keith's Lyman 358429 170 grain bullet in a 357 Mag case, not just 38 specials.
I'll concede that the 'Classic' Smiths balance better in the hand due to the non-full underlugged barrels, and truthfully I prefer non-full underlugs. And yes, they were never pinned and recessed, but they didn't NEED to be. 357 case heads are plenty strong, and I've never shot a threaded barrel loose.
Like I said, from a purely practical, utilitarian standpoint, I still think the L frame 357s are superior, and deserve more attention than they normally get. We seem to be in a bit of a 'revolver renaissance' with guys like Massad Ayoob, John Taffin, Brian Pearce, even Dave Anderson and Clint Smith writing about the virtues of revolvers. All I'm saying is give the Ls their due.
TAC
Member
I'm glad my 686 isn't all Hoyty-Toyty!
Sir, I wasn't arguing with you or denigrating the gun. I was simply trying to answer your original question, listing possible reasons why the gun rags largely ignore the x86.
You might consider writing an article on the 686 and submitting it to a magazine. It could easily go under a headline like "S&W's 686: The Forgotten Magnum." Your writing is more than good enough for publication (I'm an editor for a trade pub in another industry), and the 686 is still made, so the ad angle is covered. Seems to me that such a submission would stand a good chance of getting published.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
You might consider writing an article on the 686 and submitting it to a magazine. It could easily go under a headline like "S&W's 686: The Forgotten Magnum." Your writing is more than good enough for publication (I'm an editor for a trade pub in another industry), and the 686 is still made, so the ad angle is covered. Seems to me that such a submission would stand a good chance of getting published.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
The L frames are my least favorite S&W revolvers, next to those tiny J frames. But I would still take one over most other handguns.
But if your wondering why it doesn't show up in gun magazines it's because S&W doesn't want them to. The gun manufacturers send guns to the magazines that they want to advertise, since that's all the magazines do anymore. S&W usually tries to push their new models or more expensive models first so that is what you get to read about. The 686 sells alright by itself and doesn't need extra ad space.
But if your wondering why it doesn't show up in gun magazines it's because S&W doesn't want them to. The gun manufacturers send guns to the magazines that they want to advertise, since that's all the magazines do anymore. S&W usually tries to push their new models or more expensive models first so that is what you get to read about. The 686 sells alright by itself and doesn't need extra ad space.
My lone L frame.................
Ron,
My apologies if I made it seem like I was offended or that you were arguing with me; not at all, I just enjoy a lively discussion and was merely addressing the valid points you brought up.
Thanks for the complimentary words, that means alot especially from an editor. Maybe I'll think about an article. Cheers.
My apologies if I made it seem like I was offended or that you were arguing with me; not at all, I just enjoy a lively discussion and was merely addressing the valid points you brought up.
Thanks for the complimentary words, that means alot especially from an editor. Maybe I'll think about an article. Cheers.
I have a 686, 6"(no dash) which I purchased at a gun show 3 months ago. I also have a Ruger Security Six" which I traded my son for a Springfield XD9SC (I got the better of the deal).
At the range they are almost clones. The 686 has a full lug and fireing pin as part of the hammer. The Security six utalizes a somewhat diferent configuration.
At the range they both shoot the same. Shoot a 38-P there is limited recoil. With a 357 load you know you have fired but it is a controlable comfort.
what more can I say.
At the range they are almost clones. The 686 has a full lug and fireing pin as part of the hammer. The Security six utalizes a somewhat diferent configuration.
At the range they both shoot the same. Shoot a 38-P there is limited recoil. With a 357 load you know you have fired but it is a controlable comfort.
what more can I say.
TwoGunsStanding
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 94
- Reaction score
- 0
I know I'm going to insult some of you, but when the L-frames came out, it seemed like S&W had just choked and gave into admitting that the Colt Python still had a strong following, and they wanted to get in on the demand. We had great N-frames, handy K-frames, and if you just couldn't fit yourself with those, well, the Colt fit in the middle. Personally, the N's & K's were all I needed, although I eventually DID buy a Python. The Python is still prettier than the L-frames. Okay, bring it on, but don't throw any sharp objects at me!!!!
TwoGunsStanding
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 94
- Reaction score
- 0
Isn't a 686 four inch heavier than a four inch Model 27 because of the underlug? It never felt trimmer or lighter to me.....
TAC
Member
I thought the L-frame was designed to address the shortcomings of the K-frame. If that's not the case, then why? And why did they discontinued the K-frame?
Twoguns,
Yep the Python had and still has a following- and yep part of the reason S&W brought out the 686 was to compete with the Python.
No there isn't much weight difference between the N frames and the Ls, but I didn't say "lighter" I said "trimmer" than the N frames. If you don't believe me, try dropping an L frame into a fitted N frame holster. The L frame utilizes a K frame grip, a smaller frame than the N, and a much less massive cylinder than the Ns. Granted, the 5 and 686 add weight by using a full underlug.
I tried doing a weight comparison between my 4" 686 and my 4" 28, but my bathroom scale is not precise enough and I don't have a kitchen scale, so I'm not able to definitively say if there is a weight difference (the bathroom scale said they were the same). BUT, the 686 is certainly not heavier than the 28.
I will say that while I prefer no full underlugs, I do appreciate the barrel weight with some of the handloads I shoot.
Yep the Python had and still has a following- and yep part of the reason S&W brought out the 686 was to compete with the Python.
No there isn't much weight difference between the N frames and the Ls, but I didn't say "lighter" I said "trimmer" than the N frames. If you don't believe me, try dropping an L frame into a fitted N frame holster. The L frame utilizes a K frame grip, a smaller frame than the N, and a much less massive cylinder than the Ns. Granted, the 5 and 686 add weight by using a full underlug.
I tried doing a weight comparison between my 4" 686 and my 4" 28, but my bathroom scale is not precise enough and I don't have a kitchen scale, so I'm not able to definitively say if there is a weight difference (the bathroom scale said they were the same). BUT, the 686 is certainly not heavier than the 28.
I will say that while I prefer no full underlugs, I do appreciate the barrel weight with some of the handloads I shoot.
Kamerer
Member
I did this last winter on a postal scale. They were within 1/2 oz. of each other, depending upon the grips. I think one was 41 oz, and the other was 41.5 ozs.
Bullseye Smith
Member
Here is a few more 686's. Later John
Wayne02
Member
I like my 686 well enough, however I feel they ruined the look and balance of the gun with the full underlug on the 4 and 6" guns. The K frame is the way a S&W .357 revolver should look and feel.
Majic1
Member
I guess you don't ever look at the used market.
