Distinguished Combat Magnum.
Got to love that name!
Classy.
The guy who introduced me to pistol shooting back when I was a teen was a local PD officer. He carried a 586. Fond memories.
The L-frames have been a favorite of mine since shortly after they were introduced. We were issued S&W model 10s, along with a few Colts, and dump pouches when I started in '73. I soon transitioned to a personally owned model 66. When the L-frames came out in about '80, I started carrying a 586, then a 686. After I started carrying the 686, it wasn't unusual to pick up a point or two in my qualification scores. Always figured it was probably due to the extra weight of the L-frame over my previous K-frames. I carried the 686 till we started transitioning to semi-autos about '86-'87 IIRC.
I've owned half a dozen or so 686s, and still have a 686 I've managed to hang on to for a decade or so. Much as I like the K and N-frame .357s, the 686 has become my favorite .357...
I have "several" N frames and a few K frames.....and an unmentionable number of L frame/586/686 Smiths......but don't tell anyone, please
The 686 is where the curves cross and the planets all fall into alignment for me.
I have long been enamored with the S&W L-frame revolvers, especially the M681. At times, I have been fortunate enough to have a "M" recall-marked 681 and a QuadraPort 681+ from the Performance Center. I have always been impressed with how durable the design is, especially as it originated in the 19th Century. The L-frame is an example of an ultimate consumer durable product. They should be good for centuries with a modicum of care.
That lasted until some of the later design changes. Some were great, such as the cylinder stop being milled as part of the frame instead of a separate piece being pressed into the frame. The new thumb piece for the cylinder latch was a step forward. The ball bearing yoke lock was an improvement. The MIM ignition parts were not an issue except for how they made adding an over travel stop to the trigger an issue. The internal lock was a concern, but the thing that pushed me over the edge was the two-piece barrel design. Once the quality issues with that design started manifesting, most notably canted barrel shrouds, inconsistent and large cylinder gaps, and broken barrel liners, I was done with new L-frame models. So imagine my surprise when I saw a new 686+ with the older one-piece barrel design at the LGS. It had a seven-inch barrel with the usual S&W rear and red ramp front sight. Notably it was as well fit and finished as (if not better than) the old M681. I suspect it will last just as long as the older guns if not longer due to improvements in metallurgy.
I do wish that S&W would take a step forward. The L-frame of today is not much different from the K-frame of the late 19th Century. Ruger pushed revolver design forward with the GP100/Super Redhawk designs with modular construction and no side plate. S&W has used different materials and construction techniques, but the underlying design has not changed. With the popularity of autoloading rounds like 9x19, it may be time to bring back and revise the M547 design with its ability to extract rimless rounds. Or to introduce a new frame size so a round the length of the .38 Short Colt can perform at .38 Special or 9x19 levels in a smaller package. Perhaps redo the action of the J-frame so that a good DA trigger is a reality.
S&W is making record profits, so there are funds to invest for the future.
I've never seen a 2 piece barrel on an L frame
I carried a revolver for the first seven years I worked. My tastes ran towards durable and cheap so I carried a 4" GP-100. It was bone stock except I added night sights to it, the no longer manufactured bar-dot-bar setup that I loved.
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG