Nyeti/Tamara...this is all y'alls fault.

[Eli]

Bought myself this (no dash 686) for a graduation present. Even though I'm 100% in the Glock corner, I've always wanted a custom "fightin" revolver.....which is what I intend to turn this one into.



http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee95/ceelfi/my%20686%201.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee95/ceelfi/my%20686%203.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee95/ceelfi/my%20686%202.jpg

[ACP230]

Good-looking gun.
I skipped the L-frames for Ks and Ns.
Sometimes I think I made a mistake there.

[JHC]

No lock. Nice. IMO K frames are too little to enjoy magnum loads but the L isn't bad. You'll love that. Hang onto it. It seems departed L frames are some of the most regretted sold guns.

[Dagga Boy]

Good-looking gun.
I skipped the L-frames for Ks and Ns.
Sometimes I think I made a mistake there.

I am sort of in the same boat. While I have a bunch of "L"s, I really like either the AK's as true .38 guns and the N's as pure magnum guns. Where I really like the L frames is as 5 shot .44 specials.

With that being said,great looking gun and will likely be a joy to shoot, especially with .38 practice loads. Anytime I can help being an enabler, it is a good day.

[Jeep]

Anytime I can help being an enabler, it is a good day.

You have no idea of the havoc you are wreaking on our bank accounts!

[Zeke38]

In all fairness to the 27s and 28s, the L frame is probably the best 357 Smith has ever built. I shoot full bore 357s in mine and it is highly accurate and comfortable to shoot. Heavier calibers require N and larger frames.

I also have a Model 69 44 Mag built on a L Frame it speaks greatly to the inherent strength of the frame.

[Wheeler]

In all fairness to the 27s and 28s, the L frame is probably the best 357 Smith has ever built. I shoot full bore 357s in mine and it is highly accurate and comfortable to shoot. Heavier calibers require N and larger frames.

I also have a Model 69 44 Mag built on a L Frame it speaks greatly to the inherent strength of the frame.

The heavy .357 loads pioneered by Keith and Skelton will beat an L frame to pieces. If you're sticking to factory loads other than the Buffalo Bore then an L frame will last a lifetime.

[Dagga Boy]

In all fairness to the 27s and 28s, the L frame is probably the best 357 Smith has ever built. I shoot full bore 357s in mine and it is highly accurate and comfortable to shoot. Heavier calibers require N and larger frames.

I also have a Model 69 44 Mag built on a L Frame it speaks greatly to the inherent strength of the frame.

The key is how many .357's. I was around in the days of many agencies who regularly trained with and shot .357 Magnum in high numbers had major issues with the 686's. San Bernerdino County Sheriff's comes to mind. I recently was going to buy a .357 5" model 27 that was apparently a former Dallas PD gun that lived on full house .357. I could tell because there was enough flame cutting in the top strap that was the depth of a big paper clip wire. Lock up was great and timing was on. You would not see this with an L frame. For an individual, you will likely be fine with an L frame. For a .357 magnum only agency back in the day not so much.

[Tamara]

Nice find! In the frame behind the crane, where the serial and model numbers are, is there an "M" stamped? This would indicate that the gun had been through the recall for the fp bushing.

[Tamara]

I recently was going to buy a .357 5" model 27 that was apparently a former Dallas PD gun that lived on full house .357. I could tell because there was enough flame cutting in the top strap that was the depth of a big paper clip wire. Lock up was great and timing was on. You would not see this with an L frame. For an individual, you will likely be fine with an L frame. For a .357 magnum only agency back in the day not so much.

How many rounds was the DPD qual course?

[Dagga Boy]

How many rounds was the DPD qual course?

Not sure. I ll check with Dobbs, he may know. This gun had deeper flame cutting than I have ever seen, and what was weird was how nice the gun was in general.

[LSP972]

Gas cutting is as much a function of the top strap metal as anything else. I have seen K frames with a big groove burned in, yet were still acceptably tight. One 4" M-66 in particular, that I know the history on, had a discernible but not deep groove after 5K or so of various 158gr factory .357s, over a ten+ year period. Another 2.5" blue M-19 brought to me had a seriously gas-cut top strap, about like DB described, and the user swore he shot mostly .38s, shooting magnums only for quals, twice a year.

My personal 4" M-66, issued to me in 1978 and shot regularly for ten years, has a discernible groove, but nothing alarming. I estimate I've shot no more than a couple of thousand "magnums", of various stripes; but that gun has had untold thousands of .38s through it.

BTW, ditto on the L frame not particularly liking full patch .357s. The L frame was born directly due to complaints about K frames shooting loose with just a modicum of "magnums"; but in all fairness, the original M-19 was never intended to be fed a lot of .357s. The L frame was… but they didn't quite hit the mark.

OP, I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but truth is truth. OTOH, yours is a no-dash, and that's good. It pre-dates the time when S&W really began to ramp up the production shortcuts and quality (and quality control) took a near-fatal nose-dive.

But if you plan to shoot a lot of full-house .357s in it, look for that M like Tamara advised (and it is behind the YOKE; Colts have cranes; S&W's have yokes). If it isn't there, either revise, sharply downward, your planned magnum usage or send it back to Springfield. If that hammer nose bushing lets go, all sorts of unpleasant side effects will follow.

.

.

[JAD]

Buddy who shot a lot of IDPA with an almost exclusive diet of the 140 Silvertip flame cut his 586 the same way. The gun is still tight and has a beautiful trigger.

[serialsolver]

Is the flame cutting caused more from fast burning powder that can be used in 38sp and 357mag instead of just 357mag use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[45dotACP]

So is flame cutting an issue on guns like Ruger GP100s as well then?

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[Croesus]

A 4" 686 was the revolver I was issued and trained with at the Border Patrol Academy. Your revolver looks to be in great condition. I don't think I would change a thing. If the carry up is good, you have a great fighting gun -- no custom work needed.

RE: flame cutting. Any 357 can exhibit flame cutting. I have come to the conclusion it is more a function of the load and the powder used. Magnum rounds, heavy for caliber charges of slow burning powders, all contribute. From my experience, tends to be self limiting; progresses to a point and then stops. If you look at pre-war SAA's and some pre-war/ early post war Smith's -- some have a top strap machined from the factory with a grooved where flame cutting would be exhibited. The Ruger 357 Max was known for being very tough on the top strap. I've shot buckets of 38 through 357 revolvers, lots of handloads -- primarily W231 & 125-158 gr bullets. No issues with flame cutting or forcing cone erosion.

[Dagga Boy]

I don't know how much damage is done by extreme flame cutting, but it is an indicator to how much shooting has been done with what is likely duty ammunition. That was sort of my point. As I have said, the L frame is better than the K frame as far as Magnum use, but they were not what many people believe in regards to durability for shooting high numbers of full house Magnums. Both the GP 100 and the 27's and 28's were far better in this regard.

The reality these days is that no agencies are really issuing and shooting tons of .357 magnum in large numbers of guns,most it it sort of a mute point. In the non-government sector, I also think the Joe Citizen who shoots several thousand full house .357 Magnums every year for decades is a Unicorn as well. So, essentially, for the OP...enjoy that 686. It will likely do everything you want it to well and should be very enjoyable to shoot and train with.

[Jeep]

I also think the Joe Citizen who shoots several thousand full house .357 Magnums every year for decades is a Unicorn as well.

You have to be correct in that view. After all, who can afford all those magnums? .38 Special is (sadly) expensive enough these days.

[Eli]

Nice find! In the frame behind the crane, where the serial and model numbers are, is there an "M" stamped? This would indicate that the gun had been through the recall for the fp bushing.

Nope, no recall mark.




OP, I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but truth is truth. OTOH, yours is a no-dash, and that's good. It pre-dates the time when S&W really began to ramp up the production shortcuts and quality (and quality control) took a near-fatal nose-dive.

But if you plan to shoot a lot of full-house .357s in it, look for that M like Tamara advised (and it is behind the YOKE; Colts have cranes; S&W's have yokes). If it isn't there, either revise, sharply downward, your planned magnum usage or send it back to Springfield. If that hammer nose bushing lets go, all sorts of unpleasant side effects will follow.



So, essentially, for the OP...enjoy that 686. It will likely do everything you want it to well and should be very enjoyable to shoot and train with.


No worries. I'm a die-hard "plastic fantastic" guy. If I can't stick a light under the front end (and thus far, if it doesn't say Glock on the slide), I'm not really interested in using it in any serious manner.

This gun will probably see less than a thousand rounds a decade and 999 of them are going to be .38 practice ammo. This is basically going to be a a 4cyl Mustang wearing a 5.0 badge.....it'll look the part, but it's really just going to be a range toy.

[LSP972]

Then I would not send it in; its likely to come back with MIM parts- or worse.

Again, as nyeti said, enjoy it. I wasn't trying to be Debbie Downer; I was just weaned that way. Police armorers and helicopter pilots are both generally brooding introverts... because they know that if something bad hasn't happened yet- its about to.:cool:

.

[Dagga Boy]

Then I would not send it in; its likely to come back with MIM parts- or worse.

Again, as nyeti said, enjoy it. I wasn't trying to be Debbie Downer; I was just weaned that way. Police armorers and helicopter pilots are both generally brooding introverts... because they know that if something bad hasn't happened yet- its about to.:cool:

.

Imagine being both......;-)

[LSP972]

Imagine being both......;-)

No thanks. I've got a ton of time riding around in the back of Hueys, Chinooks, the occasional Loach, and one memorable excursion in the front seat of a Cobra. Been in two crashes.

My risk-taking days are DONE.;)

.

[Jeep]

My risk-taking days are DONE.;)

.

Now that is the voice of an optimist!

[LSP552]

No thanks. I've got a ton of time riding around in the back of Hueys, Chinooks, the occasional Loach, and one memorable excursion in the front seat of a Cobra. Been in two crashes.

My risk-taking days are DONE.;)

.

You left out the parachute accident. :D

[LSP972]

You left out the parachute accident. :D

Yeah, well, we were talking helicopters. But come to think of it, that was out of a Chinook… at night. Not the helo crew's fault, though.

.

[Jeep]

Yeah, well, we were talking helicopters. But come to think of it, that was out of a Chinook… at night. Not the helo crew's fault, though.

.

An accident on a night jump out of a Chinook and you are still hear? You've got to tell us the story.

[Brian T]

Not sure. I ll check with Dobbs, he may know. This gun had deeper flame cutting than I have ever seen, and what was weird was how nice the gun was in general.

"Back in the day, late 80's up through the 90's it was 50rds twice a year, but more practice was always encouraged."

This according to a Detective that's been with DPD almost 30 years.

[LSP972]

An accident on a night jump out of a Chinook and you are still hear? You've got to tell us the story.

PM inbound.

.

[OnionsAndDragons]

What's the saying about helos? My old man isn't around to set me straight on it.

I think it was: from the moment it rolls off the assembly line those things are trying to kill you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JAD]

You have to be correct in that view. After all, who can afford all those magnums? .38 Special is (sadly) expensive enough these days.

There are, in fact, people who don't care whether ammo costs $5 or $50 a box.

This was back at the turn of the century, and my buddy was a very good programmer.

[Drang]

What's the saying about helos? My old man isn't around to set me straight on it.

I think it was: from the moment it rolls off the assembly line those things are trying to kill you.
They don't really fly, they just beat the air into submission. With some models, if you listen close, you can actually hear the air screaming, begging for mercy.

[entropy]

"Some aerocraft slip through the air caressing it. Helicopters beat it into submission."

[NEPAKevin]

Engineer/gunner dude to Airborne dude: You jump out of perfectly good Helicopters.
Airborne dude: There is no such thing.

[LSP972]

LOL.

This pretty well covers it. The second version used to be the Cobra crew's mantra in my cav unit. Of course, a few of the lift platoon (Huey) pilots who squired us around were frustrated gun bunnies, and took NOE flying a bit too seriously at times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Flight

.

[jh9]

The key is how many .357's. I was around in the days of many agencies who regularly trained with and shot .357 Magnum in high numbers had major issues with the 686's. San Bernerdino County Sheriff's comes to mind. I recently was going to buy a .357 5" model 27 that was apparently a former Dallas PD gun that lived on full house .357. I could tell because there was enough flame cutting in the top strap that was the depth of a big paper clip wire. Lock up was great and timing was on. You would not see this with an L frame. For an individual, you will likely be fine with an L frame. For a .357 magnum only agency back in the day not so much.

Out of curiosity, was this during the time frame they were using the floating hand? Early 686s, but not too early. -1s maybe. I don't have my 681-2 handy to see if that was standard.

I've heard tell that those were terrible about developing issues with the janky pin setup (and thus timing issues).

[Dagga Boy]

All those modifications were Smith trying to fix the issue. They were improvements, but the fact was (unlike Smith's ad campaign back then) was that size does matter in regards to durability on hard recoiling guns.

[LSP972]

Out of curiosity, was this during the time frame they were using the floating hand?

I've heard tell that those were terrible about developing issues with the janky pin setup (and thus timing issues).

It was worse than that. The floating hand was yet another corner cut/cost-saving measure that came back to bite S&W in the ass BIG-TIME. The change occurred in the 686-3 circa 1989 or so, although that first batch of L-frames we got had a few 686-2s with it.
We don't have enough band width here for me to detail just how totally FUBAR that floating hand was. By 1991 or so, enough police armorers were gathering pitchforks and torches to march on Springfield that they finally woke up and went back to the old, proven method.

Incidentally, the floating hand was NOT a new innovation in 1989. It had been looked at in the 30s, as a possible manufacturing expedient. Back in those days, company management was more concerned with their image of quality product than they were with the bottom line, so that abortion went back into the company vaults as yet another idea that didn't pan out. Fifty years later, some ambitious bean counter pulled it out, dusted it off, and presented it as a way to make more profit.

.

[jh9]

It was worse than that. The floating hand was yet another corner cut/cost-saving measure that came back to bite S&W in the ass BIG-TIME. The change occurred in the 686-3 circa 1989 or so, although that first batch of L-frames we got had a few 686-2s with it.
We don't have enough band width here for me to detail just how totally FUBAR that floating hand was. By 1991 or so, enough police armorers were gathering pitchforks and torches to march on Springfield that they finally woke up and went back to the old, proven method.

Incidentally, the floating hand was NOT a new innovation in 1989. It had been looked at in the 30s, as a possible manufacturing expedient. Back in those days, company management was more concerned with their image of quality product than they were with the bottom line, so that abortion went back into the company vaults as yet another idea that didn't pan out. Fifty years later, some ambitious bean counter pulled it out, dusted it off, and presented it as a way to make more profit.

.

Interesting. I'd heard much badness said about the floating hand. IIRC it was L-frame / 686 only? Was wondering if that was part of the problem.

[LSP972]

IIRC it was L-frame / 686 only? .

That, I couldn't tell you. Those four batches of 686's were the last revolvers we purchased, and I don't recall ever being inside a K or N frame of that era.

.

[LSP972]

jh9,

You aroused my curiousity, so I did a bit of research.

The floating hand was first introduced in 1986 on the 66-3, then on the 27-4 and 29-4 in 1988. My source didn't know exactly when the factory went back to the pinned/sprung hand on those models, but he suspects it was the same time they ditched it on the L frame (early 90s).

And speaking of those, it first appeared on the 686-1 and 681-1 in 1986; earlier than I had thought.

We had no cadet classes from 1986 to 1990; the last guns we bought prior to those huge 1990 classes were 66's in 1984. So the first we knew of this abortion was in January of 1990 when that first batch of 686s arrived, with truly horrible DA pulls. Keep in mind, no internet back then. Information was exchanged via print media and FTF encounters. I remember hearing Dwight Van Horn (legendary LASO instructor/armorer) griping about some new S&W revolver thing at the Nats in the late 80s, but we were all pretty well into the grape about then and it didn't stick in the personal hard drive. I recalled that moment as soon as we opened up the first 686 and saw that abortion.

.

[jh9]

jh9,

You aroused my curiousity, so I did a bit of research.

The floating hand was first introduced in 1986 on the 66-3, then on the 27-4 and 29-4 in 1988. My source didn't know exactly when the factory went back to the pinned/sprung hand on those models, but he suspects it was the same time they ditched it on the L frame (early 90s).

And speaking of those, it first appeared on the 686-1 and 681-1 in 1986; earlier than I had thought.

We had no cadet classes from 1986 to 1990; the last guns we bought prior to those huge 1990 classes were 66's in 1984. So the first we knew of this abortion was in January of 1990 when that first batch of 686s arrived, with truly horrible DA pulls. Keep in mind, no internet back then. Information was exchanged via print media and FTF encounters. I remember hearing Dwight Van Horn (legendary LASO instructor/armorer) griping about some new S&W revolver thing at the Nats in the late 80s, but we were all pretty well into the grape about then and it didn't stick in the personal hard drive. I recalled that moment as soon as we opened up the first 686 and saw that abortion.

.

Awesome. Thanks for the insight. Most of the guns I've actually been inside were post MIM or at the earliest post Tomkins CNC. Always keen on hearing more about the earlier guns.

I was looking at 66s not too long ago, so that's something else to keep an eye on.