I just picked up my new Smith 686 PLUS today.

[AlongCameJones]

I'm thinking about adding a bead-blast job. Smith wants $170. I probably also have to pay shipping both ways. I've seen one independent gunsmith online that does it starting at $89. If Smith wasn't so cheap they could throw a nice bead blast in on factory guns.

 

[JohnKSa]

I believe the ‘plus’ refers to holding 6+1 rounds, nothing to do with fit or finish.

Correct.

Actually here is one here below at the link and she looks like a honey! This is what I was expecting on my new 686 PLUS.

The gun in the link will sell used for maybe 50% more than a 686 PLUS will sell for new.

 

[wild cat mccane]

You are referring to the scratches and possibly voids in your 686 finish?

That's totally normal and is on almost all 686s to a good degree.

If someone comes in and says that wasn't normal years ago, ask them if their memory is referring to the factory S&W polished 686. That looks exactly like a Python finish.

Those scratches, swirls, and small voids are so minor that a rag and hand polish will TOTALLY eliminate them...if you want a bright stainless steel look. It's 100% the course of the 686.

 

[AlongCameJones]

I want an EVEN satin look and sharp, crisp letters on the barrel without any bulges around the impressions. It might take an aftermarket bead-blasting or vapor honing job to achieve this. Smith & Wesson has had my desirable letter quality and finish quality on certain models and in certain years over the past. My cheap Model 642-2 in 2020 even has a much nicer finish and impressions quality than this overpriced new-model 686 of mine. The Model 642-2 is a mouse revolver in .38 SPL+P that retails about half of a new 686.

My Colt King Cobra that I bought new in 2020 and dumped on Armslist two months later had perfect letter impressions for barrel markings but a clear chrome-bumper finish that easily scratched and hazed like hell. it was my fault. I should have stayed away from any bright chrome-like finish. A King Cobra is a safe queen, not a carry psitol. The satin finishes are designed to camouflage minor scratches and haze and look much nicer than "chrome" guns with highly visible scratches.


I emailed the following message to Smith & Wesson:

June 5, 2021


Dear Smith:


I picked up a new Model 686-6 revolver yesterday at my local FFL gun shop and purchased online thru Gunbroker.com. It didn't appear to be obviously damaged but when I started examining the gun at home closer under my bright home office lights and with a magnifier, I am disappointed by the lack of quality in the finish as I had expected from Smith & Wesson. Back in 2005, I examined two new Smith stainless revolvers (including a Model 619 and a large-frame model in .41 Magnum) and they had very neat finish and crisp, neat lettering on the barrels.

My new 686 has lettering that looks rough around the edges and a finish on the barrel that looks uneven in shine. The 686 PLUS shown in pictures at Smith's corporate site gives the impression that Smith stainless revolvers have a high level of finish quality and the barrel markings look very clean and neat according to advertised pictures.

For the retail price of this new model gun I expected a much nicer finish on the barrel for my money. I have just registered this new Smith handgun online.


Model 686 PLUS 3" barrel
Serial Number: DNWW9558


Are your new production revolvers roll marked on the barrels? Why did barrel markings look so much neater on production stainless Smith guns circa 2005?

I have attached a copy of my bill of sale and a few photos of my new gun and a photos of this model from your corporate website for comparison.



Sincerely,
Along C. Jones
Smith & Wesson Customer


Here is Smith's comeback to me:

Hello Along,



We would like to thank you for your e-mail and contacting Smith & Wesson / Thompson Center. I have reviewed your photos, and these are in fact roll stamps and they can and do vary slightly. The markings that I saw in the photos are complete with not broken letters, so they are considered to be acceptable. Thank You for choosing Smith & Wesson / Thompson Center products. Have a great day.

Regards, Steve




Roll stamps with rough edges are 'acceptable' to Steve at Smith & Wesson as long as the markings can be read. Yes, the letters are unbroken and I can read them with a magnifier but the appearance is sloppy still. Neatness no longer counts. I can't understand why Smith bothered to make their "econo" revolver, the 642-2, look so nice but fudged in that looks department with a expensive flagship model.

 

[AlongCameJones]

PS - I called Smith & Wesson about a $170 bead-blast job they have listed at their PERFORMANCE CENTER® PRECISION GUNSMITHING website and spoke with a gent named Mathew there. It took about ten minutes to get a human on the phone. Matthew said their equipment for that sort of work was down and try calling back in about 3-4 weeks. Is Smith & Wesson lame these days or what? They seem about as bad as Big Three car dealerships which is why I only drive Toyota products. I asked Matt if Smith could give me a courtesy call in 4 weeks but he said "their system is not designed to do that". They seem to be very efficient at gouging customers on high-priced guns with substandard finishes.

 

[Ruger45LC]

I very nearly bought a 3" 686+ last week, I passed but I'm still holding on to the idea. Looks great, don't worry about imperfections, it's a production gun and if you intend on actually using it, it will get a scratch on it here and there. The main thing is if it shoots well. I have a 629 Deluxe 3" and it's a great shooter.

 

[AlongCameJones]

I'm not worried about scratches at all with satin or bead-blasted finishes. I like crisp numbers and letters on barrels, though. The letters and numbers on my 686 look like they were drawn on beach sand with a stick. Very lame for a wheel gun retailing for $900. Roll stamping displaces metal and pushes it outward and upward causing the surfaces around the letters and numbers to buckle slightly. This is why barrels can bulge when a button forms the grooves of the rifling. Metal is compressed or displaced, not removed. I believe the gunsmiths would dehorn the rough edges on the letters, numbers, cylinder and barrel and frame surface first by machining before blasting on the new satin surface.

Sometimes roll stamped characters look crooked or deformed. They can have uneven depths or uneven impression line thicknesses. It is a cheap marking method lacking precision and neatness.

I would be ashamed in my workmanship as a gunsmith to use roll stamping.

 

[JohnKSa]

...I started examining the gun at home closer under my bright home office lights and with a magnifier...

At least you were honest with them. I gotta say though, that level of scrutiny on the finish of a production line gun is kind of messed up. In a custom gun or maybe even a performance center S&W, that might be justified, but not on a standard production piece.

Very lame for a wheel gun retailing for $900.

You keep saying $900 like it means something. Try and find a decent quality 7 shot .357Mag stainless steel revolver for significantly less.

You mentioned going with Taurus--look at this picture of a new one. Pay attention to the lettering--you won't need a magnifier.

That's what you can expect. You got the quality you should have expected for the price you paid. The fact that you didn't expect that, even after a seller told you straight up to expect it has nothing to do with S&W.

I would be ashamed in my workmanship as a gunsmith to use roll stamping.

You can look at the pictures on the S&W website and easily tell that the barrel markings are roll stamped. If you were going to use your magnifier, that would have been the right time to do it.

Roll marking is a very common method for marking guns and honestly, this is the first time I can recall someone complaining that it's somehow a substandard process.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

... Roll stamping displaces metal and pushes it outward and upward causing the surfaces around the letters and numbers to buckle slightly. This is why barrels can bulge when a button forms the grooves of the rifling. Metal is compressed or displaced, not removed. I believe the gunsmiths would dehorn the rough edges on the letters, numbers, cylinder and barrel and frame surface first by machining before blasting on the new satin surface.

Sometimes roll stamped characters look crooked or deformed. They can have uneven depths or uneven impression line thicknesses. It is a cheap marking method lacking precision and neatness.

I would be ashamed in my workmanship as a gunsmith to use roll stamping.

With all due respect, I think your expectations are unrealistic, and your understanding of the manufacturing process is incorrect.

1. Smith and Wesson revolvers are not custom-made by gunsmiths. They are a mass-produced commodity, assembled in a factory from mass-produced parts by assemblers who each know how to put that part in the gun.

2. No mass production manufacturer of firearms goes back after the rollmarks have been applied to file or grind down the slight ridges of displaced metal around the rollmarks. These are factory produced firearms, not one-off custom guns.

3. It's highly unlikely that the bead-blasted finish is applied after the rollmark. I strongly suspect that the rollmark comes after the finish has been applied. Otherwise, the interiors of the characters would be satin finished.

 

[AlongCameJones]

Guns can be bead-blasted aftermarket: the markings on the barrel are already intact from the factory.

I'm a boomer and remember when $900 was a pretty chunk of change. I'm glad I at least got a cheaper Smith 642-2 last year with much better finish and neat markings. How ironic. New full-frame Smith revolvers were typically under $400 in the '80's. I even saw a nice new Model 619 in 2005 for about $400 with excellent finish and markings. I have seen what good things Smith & Wesson has done in the past for much less money. This is why this latest 686 of mine surprises me unpleasantly. Mine older eyes have seen the golden days of glory gone by.

 

[JohnKSa]

This is why this latest 686 of mine surprises me unpleasantly.

Again, the first seller, the one you were upset with for being honest with you, told you what to expect even though he knew it was going to cost him a sale. You may not be happy about what you ended up with, but claiming to be surprised doesn't make sense.

 

[AlongCameJones]

Doesn't make sense? Well, the ad photos at the S&W site make the finish look deceptively nice. If you bought a new Smith for $450 one year and it looked sharp to your eyes and then you paid double for another Smith gun a year later and it looked somewhat shoddy on the exterior, what should a rational person think? I ordered this 686 online. I expected a new $900 Smith to look no less nice than my new $450 Smith did a year ago also purchased by me online.

The first seller told me about swirl marks on new Smiths but I didn't believe him because my el-cheapo new 642-2 last year didn't show any such imperfections whatsoever.

Why did Smith give so much cosmetic attention to their cheapest model revolver? A little hammerless d/a-only aluminum J-frame .38 they call an Airweight in a finish they call matte silver?

 

[wild cat mccane]

So you know, the finish on that other revolver is cheaper. Bead blasting is just that, media blasting to a fine finish.

I suspect the 686 gets a rougher polished look....to look rougher while not going full bright stainless like the Python.

I agree with you though. It looks crappier. But when you know the others are just media blasted to look good (GP100), you know the 686 gets more attention just with a crap polish.

Your pushed lettering and harder indenting is a new one though. That I would annoyed by. Other than that, actually a good finish for a 686.

 

[ojibweindian]

Guns can be bead-blasted aftermarket: the markings on the barrel are already intact from the factory.

I'm a boomer and remember when $900 was a pretty chunk of change. I'm glad I at least got a cheaper Smith 642-2 last year with much better finish and neat markings. How ironic. New full-frame Smith revolvers were typically under $400 in the '80's. I even saw a nice new Model 619 in 2005 for about $400 with excellent finish and markings. I have seen what good things Smith & Wesson has done in the past for much less money. This is why this latest 686 of mine surprises me unpleasantly. Mine older eyes have seen the golden days of glory gone by.

900 bucks back then isn't even close to 900 bucks today. Obsessing over roll marks on a carry gun is way too OCD, and not in a good way.

 

[HighValleyRanch]

I never actually looked at the original photos, but from the description, I expected to see crayon like lettering!LOL
Huh, just a few minor imperfections that you need a magnifying glass to see?
Picky, picky, picky!

 

[AlongCameJones]

I need the magnifier to be able to read the lettering. The imperfections I can see with unaided eyes easily. I should have just found a beater .357 revolver at a pawn shop much cheaper had I known about the new 686 ahead of time.

 

[wild cat mccane]

Na. I think he has a point with the raised areas round the lettering.

That's totally different that uneven lettering imprinting that could otherwise be common...

 

[Jim Watson]

Slight correction, Aquila

"2. No PRESENT mass production manufacturer of firearms goes back after the rollmarks have been applied to file or grind down the slight ridges of displaced metal around the rollmarks. These are factory produced firearms, not one-off custom guns."

Look at a well preserved old Colt or Smith's markings.

 

[AlongCameJones]

Yes, I have seen some Colt and Smith handguns both with sloppy ridges around the marks and others of both makes, pistols and revolvers, that were neat around the marks. Those guns with neat marks either were machined after stamping or the marks were made with some kind of engraving process.

I've seen new Colt 1911-type 45's in the 1990's and 2000's with slides that looked roll-marked and crude. Over my lifetime, I've owned a pre-1964 Colt Govt. Model, a 1970's Series 70 Colt Govt. Model and a 1971 Colt Lawman Mk. III all with superb crisp lettering that didn't look rough roll-marked at all. That new Colt King Cobra I bought last year and dumped shortly afterward had the same crisp lettering quality my older Colt guns had. I dumped that new King Cobra at a loss of about $200 for a number of reasons: bright stainless barrel scratched or hazed real easily, trigger was crappy and Colt "customer service" over the telephone was virtually nonexistent.

I swore off both new Colt products and such shiny brightly-finished firearms from thereon. On revolvers, I either want a satin/brushed/blasted stainless finish or a brushed-looking, matte silver finish like my 642-2 has. These don't seem to easily show fine scratches or haze. These guns have finishes like a car painted with a metallic silver paint. Metallic silver, neutral or gray on automobiles hides dust, fine scratches and fine gritty haze well. On those older Colt 45 autos, I like traditional blue or the mil-spec finish of old. I like the way Glocks are finished for auto pistols. I like the way older Colt AR-15's are finished for mil-spec-looking rifles.

 

[JohnKSa]

Well, the ad photos at the S&W site make the finish look deceptively nice.

They aren't blown up to the extent that yours are, but I've looked at them and as I already posted, if you look at the closeup of the barrel, you can clearly see that the metal is pushed up from the roll marking.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/model-686-plus?sku=164194

You can also see finish scratches/swirls from the brushed finish in that picture and it's also obvious that the frame finish doesn't quite match the barrel finish.

I think he has a point with the raised areas round the lettering.

Well, 1) it's visible on the S&W website pictures as seen above, and 2) it's pretty standard to some extent or another on a lot of guns with roll markings. I'm not going to pull a ton of guns out of the safe, but the GP100 I bought in 1990 clearly shows it. Looked at a couple of Glocks, and although matte finish hides it and it's not very pronounced, you can still see it if you want to pull out a magnifier. It's VERY obvious on the Kahr I grabbed. I don't see it as being uncommon nor as being a new thing.