Just announced. Unfluted cylinders, vented ribbed barrel, extended cylinder release, orange front sights, cut for moon clips, ramped lug.
686+ (5 inch barrel) - http://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms...del-686-plus-0
686 (4 inch barrel)- http://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms...ries-model-686
That orange front sight is an eye sore (why is the whole thing orange??) but maybe it works? Hope the triggers are actually tuned.
Last edited by FPS; 11-07-2017 at 04:45 PM.
That lock though!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's with the unfluted cylinder? Maybe my ignorance is showing, but the only thing I can see it does is add more mass to slow down a DA press and accelerate the peening of the cylinder notches. Maybe it slightly absorbs some recoil, but that's not where I'd add mass for that purpose.
I think I'd still go with the older model: http://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms...model-686-plus
I do love the way it balances, but can't figure out what it's optimized for outside of Steel Challenge.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
Following Kimbers lead? (K6S)Originally Posted by OlongJohnson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Seriously! Why is that lock still around?
Does the lock keep you away from all recent S&W revolvers?
This country needs an enema- Blues approved sig line
Not Dr. House, but for me, a resounding "Yes."
This... so much this.
It does. As long as that lock is on the guns, I’m not buying them.
I’ve had two guns with locks, and I sold them both, because they’re 44 Mags (69 and 629) and I didn’t trust that either of them wouldn’t engage the lock with the anti-predator loads I was running in them.
Tom Givens reports he’s seen it happen (involuntary lock engagement), and that’s good enough for me.
I know an algorithm exists for deactivating them and plugging the holes, but why should I have to do that? For the price a Smith revolver fetches, it shouldn’t require ANY additional labor nor parts to make it, “carry worthy,” whether you’re concerned about 2 or 4 legged predators.
If they take that lock out, that’d also get rid of that bizarre whale slope hump at the posterior part of the frame around the hammer housing. That thing is just silly. I could definitely do without that too.
Until then, with Ruger’s piss-poor QC in revolvers as of late, I’ll stick with older vintage Rugers and Smiths, or just say, “F-it,” and roll a Shield in lieu of a J frame, and an M&P or a Glock in lieu of a K or L frame, unless it’s for purely anachronistic nostalgia, or a special application like pocket or ankle BUG carry. My Shield doesn’t work well on my ankle, and my OCD won’t let me get a Kahr or a G43 added to the squad along with its assorted ancillary support equipment. I guess I’ve become a curmudgeon?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes.
Reply With Quote