686 version history

S

Shrinkmd

New member
My 686 has a -6 after it. Anyone know what the various updates have been over the years. I also have a 617-6, so that info would be appreciated as well.

Thanks!
 
Despite the lack of replies here, I have a question along these lines:

At what point did S&W go to a two-piece barrel on the 686? Has this model always had that "feature" or was it introduced in a specific year/"dash" model?

Is the "PowerPort" barrel also two-piece construction?

And what year did the hammer lock get added?

Thanks in advance,

-- Sam
 
For the M686:
-1) Radius stud package and floating hand
-2) Change hammer nose, bushing and parts (results of the recall)
-3) New yoke retension system
-4) Change rear sight, drill and tap topstrap, added Hogues, discontinued SB, changed thumb latch
-5) Changed frame to eliminate cylinder stop stud, went to MIM parts
The engineering changes (dash numbers) don't follow suit across the board for all revolvers. The different numbers will mean different changes for the different models. I suggest any S&W fan to get a copy of the "Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson".

The 2 piece barrel on the M686 started this year I think. The Power Port was originally on the old style barrel. I don't know if they Power Ported a 2 piece barrel. I think the internal locks started in 2001 or 2002.
 
Thanks again. I'm still tossing around options for my next gun in my head. Don't like the lock, don't like the idea of two-piece barrels. I may just end up with an older N frame (probably a 28, due to the cost of 27s), though in all honesty I prefer the styling of a full underlug. Or it could even be a different brand all together. We'll see. There's plenty to choose from!

-- Sam
 
The lock is, unfortunately here to stay. I would rather see S&W license the Taurus design and put it on the hammer. Here's a thought: maybe somebody could manufacture a "filler" so that owners who want to can remove the lock and replace it with something that looks more like a large pin. Sure, that's still not all that aesthetic, but it sure beats having a hole in the frame.
 
Assuming money were no object what would some of the methods you could use to "fill" the hole if you removed the lock?

Weld it closed? Fill it with silver solder? Not familiar with either technique; just flinging $#!? at the wall to see if anything sticks... ;)
 
What's wrong with the lock? Honestly, I don't mind about the lock "hole" on the frame. It doesn't really have much to interferr with the action itself right? Also, what's wrong with a two piece barrel? Does it affect the accuracy or something?
 
What's wrong with the lock?

An honest question but I think it's one of those things where if you have to ask then there may be no way I can explain it to you.

I'm really not trying to be a smart ass.

I guess it is a gut level reaction that comes from what I see as S&W going out of it's way, to an unecessary level, to do damage control as far as the gun control crowd is concerned.

To add fuel to the fire there have been a number of discussions in which it has been reported that the lock has locked up all by itself thereby rendering the gun unuseable. That is very troubling.

Maybe it's the new reality and I just have to get used to it. The lock is a non-issue for a lot of people but, on the other hand, for a lot people it is a big deal.
 
npcolin said:
Honestly, I don't mind about the lock "hole" on the frame. It doesn't really have much to interferr with the action itself right? Also, what's wrong with a two piece barrel? Does it affect the accuracy or something?
Click to expand...
Yes, but some people do mind the hole in the frame, in addition to the potential (unintentional) lock-up issue. Not everyone shares the same criteria for what constitutes desirability in a firearm. What I like may be unimportant to you, and vice-versa.

The two piece barrel (I've been told) precludes the owner's ability to have the barrel chopped or ported. I'm still trying to get info on this.

In general, S&W is doing quite a number of things to cut costs and appease the anti-gun crowd (even though the only thing they could do to really appease them would be to go out of business), and many of these things are anathema to those of us who appreciate the fine products S&W used to make.

These days I would (and did) seriously consider buying a new Ruger vs. a new S&W.

Instead I got a couple of older Smiths, from before the lock/MIM/cost_cutting days. They may be 30 years old, but they're still better guns than the new ones.

And yes, I realize manufacturers always need to watch costs, and that S&W was doing so even "way back when". But at some point the MBAs, beancounters, and lawyers got too much sway in the company, like they do in most places these days.

-- Sam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top