110 grain ammo in a SW686?
- Thread starter COASTER
- Start date
It will take more than that.
But I do have a 686 8-3/8" bbl that I used to shoot a lot - and I mean a lot - of 110g bullets with tons n tons of slow powder (Winchester 296), and it does have some flame cutting on the top strap.
So I'm here to tell you that yes, it does do damage. But it takes a lot of rounds before it's an issue.
That gun is a safe queen these days. It still shoots great and will outlive me.
But I do have a 686 8-3/8" bbl that I used to shoot a lot - and I mean a lot - of 110g bullets with tons n tons of slow powder (Winchester 296), and it does have some flame cutting on the top strap.
So I'm here to tell you that yes, it does do damage. But it takes a lot of rounds before it's an issue.
That gun is a safe queen these days. It still shoots great and will outlive me.
Well, I got my gun in March 1984 and starting hand-loading that June. For the next couple years, it was my mainstay gun and I shot it most every weekend.
During that time, I was in my experimental phase of ammo loading. Keeping in mind that I was 22 years old, 10 feet tall, and bullet proof. I loaded with more bravery than common sense. My 686 took the brunt of it. I was particularly fond of Sierra's 110g JHC bullet that I loaded with tons of slow powder. I bet I was laughed at behind my back a lot by old-timers at the range - with my silly flame-thrower rounds.
But I digress. Thank you for your indulgence. Now, to answer your question:
My 686 seems to function just fine. The concern would not be so much the flame-cutting of the top strap. That by itself doesn't affect the gun's function. I mean, at some point, the flame cutting would cut the gun in two, but many other things would wear out long before then. The forcing cone and barrel/cylinder gap are areas of concern. Of which, both seem fine on my gun.
686's are pretty though. And - as I understand it - the impetus for their existence - the L-frame - was that S&W's K-frame 357's didn't hold up well to extensive use of full-power, light bullet ammo. Keep in mind that all guns will eventually wear out.
Fast forward 30 years and two more 686's later (a 4" purchased in 1986; and a 3" purchased in 2013) and the lighter bullets have fallen out of favor for me. When I got the 4" in '86, I was still shooting a lot of 125's, but with medium speed powders. I've shot that gun a lot too - and it also has some flame-cutting. My preference eventually moved to 158g slugs - and loaded with medium and medium-slow powders at that. My shooting style and loading style has changed a lot. I think all ammo flame cuts to some degree. But light bullets with lots of slow powder is the worst - due to the extensive duration of the powder burning into the top strap with each shot.
During that time, I was in my experimental phase of ammo loading. Keeping in mind that I was 22 years old, 10 feet tall, and bullet proof. I loaded with more bravery than common sense. My 686 took the brunt of it. I was particularly fond of Sierra's 110g JHC bullet that I loaded with tons of slow powder. I bet I was laughed at behind my back a lot by old-timers at the range - with my silly flame-thrower rounds.
But I digress. Thank you for your indulgence. Now, to answer your question:
My 686 seems to function just fine. The concern would not be so much the flame-cutting of the top strap. That by itself doesn't affect the gun's function. I mean, at some point, the flame cutting would cut the gun in two, but many other things would wear out long before then. The forcing cone and barrel/cylinder gap are areas of concern. Of which, both seem fine on my gun.
686's are pretty though. And - as I understand it - the impetus for their existence - the L-frame - was that S&W's K-frame 357's didn't hold up well to extensive use of full-power, light bullet ammo. Keep in mind that all guns will eventually wear out.
Fast forward 30 years and two more 686's later (a 4" purchased in 1986; and a 3" purchased in 2013) and the lighter bullets have fallen out of favor for me. When I got the 4" in '86, I was still shooting a lot of 125's, but with medium speed powders. I've shot that gun a lot too - and it also has some flame-cutting. My preference eventually moved to 158g slugs - and loaded with medium and medium-slow powders at that. My shooting style and loading style has changed a lot. I think all ammo flame cuts to some degree. But light bullets with lots of slow powder is the worst - due to the extensive duration of the powder burning into the top strap with each shot.
Thank you for your response Nick_C_S.
I can identify with being indestructible at 22. I still get that feeling but have wizened enough to take a step back and rethink what I want to do.
Evidently you have a lot more experience with the 686. Thank you for providing some very good insight on light load effects. Sure appreciate it. My 686 is a late 80's which I bought from an LEO turn in to a local LGS. Sure is pristine.
Between the '86 and '13 that you have did you notice a difference in the quality of workmanship? I hear from peers at the range that the newer ones are not as sturdy as the older makes. Not sure what they mean.
Thanks
I can identify with being indestructible at 22. I still get that feeling but have wizened enough to take a step back and rethink what I want to do.
Evidently you have a lot more experience with the 686. Thank you for providing some very good insight on light load effects. Sure appreciate it. My 686 is a late 80's which I bought from an LEO turn in to a local LGS. Sure is pristine.
Between the '86 and '13 that you have did you notice a difference in the quality of workmanship? I hear from peers at the range that the newer ones are not as sturdy as the older makes. Not sure what they mean.
Thanks
Flame cutting can ba a funny thing, I had a beautiful 624 that after about 100 rds showed flame cutting with nothing but lead 246gr factory ammo. It stopped after a certain point which I think is pretty common. Now my uncle had an old Colt medium frame revolver in 38spl that had depression machined in the top strap. I'm assuming it came that way?
A lil' bit. The trigger in my newest 686 (7-shot, 3"bbl) is a little gritty just before hammerfall. But I don't mind. The older ones are much smoother - especially my 8-3/8"bbl - it has the smoothest trigger of the three. The 4" from 1986 is very close though.
I also don't like the extractor star on the new ones. I can't explain it. You'd have to see them up close. But you can tell they're not made with as much workmanship.
On the plus side, I like what they did with the rear sight blade, and how it mounts to the frame - much nicer than the old ones.
The barrel on the new one is thicker too - real beefy. More weight - which is especially good because it happens to be the 3" bbl.
All the new ones produced now days are round butt frames. The old ones are square butts (except the short barreled ones). Now I know that's an over-simplification. A S&W expert may have to chime in and explain the changes from square to round butts, etc. At any rate, I kind of like the round butt because my hands are kind of small, and it's also easier to conceal (yes, I carry my 3", if I haven't mentioned it). Square or round - personal preference.
Anyway, some poo-poo contemporary S&W's. Not me. I bought two in the last year (the other being a Model 67, which I love love love); and fully plan on buying more (629 on the wishlist). They are the best double-action revolvers.
Here's the 3" with Hogue bantam style grips. This is how it looks today. The bantam grips makes the round butt obvious. It's also easy to see how it's more concealable - it doesn't have that sharp corner on the very bottom/back - which is where printing is most likely to occur when attempting to conceal.
The gun actually tucks away amazingly well.
The gun actually tucks away amazingly well.
Never say never... and I've never worked in the gun repair or sales industry. But it's usually the report that any flame cutting HAPPENS... but only to a certain point and doesn't tend to go any further. There may be evidence that flame cutting simply ruined/destroyed/ENDED a Smith & Wesson revolver, but I don't know where to look or who to ask to give me the backstory.
Of course, this is a forum full of enthusiasts with many experiences, so someone may appear to give me a dozen stories of exactly that!
To the actual question posed by the OP, my answer is NO, you won't hurt a late-80's S&W Model 686 by shooting 500 rounds of 110gr .357 Magnum ammo through it, even if you did it in one shooting session. (that would be long, tiring, and expensive.) Frankly, the difference between 500 rounds of .357 Mag/110gr done over four hours or over 14 months isn't likely going to be ANYTHING different.
Now, with all that said?
I simply love S&W revolvers from the 1980's. It's just because those were my formative years and my first two handguns ever were 80s era Smith & Wesson revolvers. If you have one that is MINTY or nearly so, it would mean enough to me (personally!) to just not put it through the ringer. And 500 rounds of 110gr .357 Magnum is a genuinely harsh environment. So, me being -ME-, I would opt for something else rather than my MINTY 80s-era 686.
For example, I bought a Model 28-2 last August for a good, low(ish) price and it's ugly as hell and it's been tinkered with and such. It doesn't carry a lot of "value" but it's a solid, enjoyable workhorse. Through THAT tank, I would put 1,500 rounds of 110gr .357 Mag out of it, and I'd do it in one day. (but only if YOU are buying the ammo!
)
Of course, this is a forum full of enthusiasts with many experiences, so someone may appear to give me a dozen stories of exactly that!
To the actual question posed by the OP, my answer is NO, you won't hurt a late-80's S&W Model 686 by shooting 500 rounds of 110gr .357 Magnum ammo through it, even if you did it in one shooting session. (that would be long, tiring, and expensive.) Frankly, the difference between 500 rounds of .357 Mag/110gr done over four hours or over 14 months isn't likely going to be ANYTHING different.
Now, with all that said?
I simply love S&W revolvers from the 1980's. It's just because those were my formative years and my first two handguns ever were 80s era Smith & Wesson revolvers. If you have one that is MINTY or nearly so, it would mean enough to me (personally!) to just not put it through the ringer. And 500 rounds of 110gr .357 Magnum is a genuinely harsh environment. So, me being -ME-, I would opt for something else rather than my MINTY 80s-era 686.
For example, I bought a Model 28-2 last August for a good, low(ish) price and it's ugly as hell and it's been tinkered with and such. It doesn't carry a lot of "value" but it's a solid, enjoyable workhorse. Through THAT tank, I would put 1,500 rounds of 110gr .357 Mag out of it, and I'd do it in one day. (but only if YOU are buying the ammo!
)Nick_C_S, thank you for the information and the great pictures.
Sevens, thank you for your insight.
I believe I am a little more comfortable with my 686 with new jnowledge.
I will report back my experience and post a picture of the beauty as well.
Thanks again, Folks!
Happy and safe plinking!
Sevens, thank you for your insight.
I believe I am a little more comfortable with my 686 with new jnowledge.
I will report back my experience and post a picture of the beauty as well.
Thanks again, Folks!
Happy and safe plinking!
It's the velocity of the ejecta.
Lighter bullets use a larger propellant charge, and with that larger charge there comes a greater velocity.
It's that enhanced velocity coupled with the amount of ejecta that causes the flame cutting.
Sorry if this makes no sense.
We just got back from Applebee's and they had a special on PBR.
$1.99 for a 16 ounce. I had 6 of them,....
You would too if you had to put up with my brother in law
. (long story)
Lighter bullets use a larger propellant charge, and with that larger charge there comes a greater velocity.
It's that enhanced velocity coupled with the amount of ejecta that causes the flame cutting.
Sorry if this makes no sense.
We just got back from Applebee's and they had a special on PBR.
$1.99 for a 16 ounce. I had 6 of them,....
You would too if you had to put up with my brother in law
. (long story)I've read it explained as the burn cycle of the propellant charge is "more" done and capped by the heavier bullet (which is l-o-n-g-e-r) and by the time the 158 grain slug has made it far enough in to the forcing cone that the ferocious blast and associated plasma cutting torch-like blast meets the open air (and meets the underside of the top strap), the worst and most intense part of the burn has already finished.
With 125gr and 110gr slugs, that ridiculous burn, blast and violent fire are still at peak and the shorter bullet does NOT cap that event and keep it corked inside the cylinder -- much of it is subjected directly to the underside of the top strap.
With 125gr and 110gr slugs, that ridiculous burn, blast and violent fire are still at peak and the shorter bullet does NOT cap that event and keep it corked inside the cylinder -- much of it is subjected directly to the underside of the top strap.
Thanks for the info folks. There's lots of good information on this valuable web site.
Hal, Been there and surfed it when it comes to the 'ol PBR beer specials. Hard to beat those $2 PBRs...I've been guilty of imbibing and posting and my nuggets of wisdom sometime make lots less sense than your explanation.
I've checked my .357mag inventory and none of mine have bullets as light as 110 gr, my two 686+ revolvers should be safe!
Hal, Been there and surfed it when it comes to the 'ol PBR beer specials. Hard to beat those $2 PBRs...I've been guilty of imbibing and posting and my nuggets of wisdom sometime make lots less sense than your explanation.
I've checked my .357mag inventory and none of mine have bullets as light as 110 gr, my two 686+ revolvers should be safe!
I once shot a box of Fiocchi 110gr. FMJ-TC Black Mamba out of the Ruger SP101 DAO I had: 50 rounds were enought to develop some signs of forcing cone erosion. The super-hot, super-velocity gas and unburned powder that follow a light bullet are not very friendly whith the external surface of the forcing cone and its beginning. And not because the Ruger is a weak revolver.
On THR there's a member that once said something like that: "When I was young and stupid I ruined a perfectly fine Ruger GP100 shooting hot light rounds in few months".
On THR there's a member that once said something like that: "When I was young and stupid I ruined a perfectly fine Ruger GP100 shooting hot light rounds in few months".
SteelChickenShooter
New member
My understanding is that hot lighter loads can / or have /or do damage an older model 19 because it has a little weakness in the area of the forcing cone. But the 686 is made different by eliminating this weak spot. So my opinion is that one should not be overly concerned about damage to a 686.
When I bought my model 19, I inspected the forcing cone and adjoining areas for any sign of cracking, burning, etc and found mine to be free of any sign of fault or damage. I did a thorough cleaning and inspected the area under a B&L stereo zoom microscope and it clearly showed no sign of any damage that is or may be found on other model 19's.
Again, my understanding is that the 686 is made better and stronger so I would not expect to see damage in your situation.
When I bought my model 19, I inspected the forcing cone and adjoining areas for any sign of cracking, burning, etc and found mine to be free of any sign of fault or damage. I did a thorough cleaning and inspected the area under a B&L stereo zoom microscope and it clearly showed no sign of any damage that is or may be found on other model 19's.
Again, my understanding is that the 686 is made better and stronger so I would not expect to see damage in your situation.