is the 686 really stronger than the 66?

M

MountainMan

New member
conventional wisdom is that the 66 is not strong enough to handle lots of magnums, but the 686 is. however, when i compare the two side-by-side, the frames look very similar to me. the 686's frame is a little taller, to accommodate a larger cylinder, but the top strap and other parts of the frame don't look any stronger.

am i missing something, or is the supposed difference in strength just hype?
 
To C.R.Sam's post I would add:

That the full length barrel underlug of the 686 also helps tame recoil & retards wear when compared to the Model 66.

Then again, the Model 66 might be better for carry due to an overall lighter weight.
 
Simply put, YES.

The 686 has heftier dimensions in a number of critical areas.

While the dimensional differences are small, the difference in strength is substantial.
 
I was around when S&W brought out the L-frame 357s. They made a big deal out of the fact that the heavier frames were more suited to a constant diet of full power loads whereas the K-frames were designed for practice with 38spl and light use and carry of 357 ammo. I always liked the light trim package of a model 19 or 66. Another big advantage of the 586/686 was that it looked more like a Colt Python. A fact that was not lost on the buying public. I wouldn't worry about wearing out a 66 with normal useage, but the 686 is no doubt stronger.
 
thanks for the replies. i have a couple of questions:

1) how does a barrel underlug retard wear? i assume the added mass causes the gun to accelerate less when fired, thus reducing stress on some parts, but it seems that it might also result in greater stress to some parts, since they have more mass to pull against.

does this imply that a 686 with a shorter barrel would wear more quickly than one with a longer barrel?

is it generally true that heavier barrels result in longer-lasting revolvers? would that imply that mountain guns and snubbies wear out faster?

2) is there any place where one can find out details about the dimensional differences between the K frame and L frame?

thanks.
 
The barrel really has nothing to do with the amount of stress a gun frame can take. Cutting the hole for the barrel through the frame actually weakens the gun.

The full underlug just adds weight to the gun, which helps tame recoil.
 
Maybe the heavy barrel doesn't retard wear - but I thought less kick back would reduce some of the force that "loosens" a revolver. Just a thought!
 
Greeting's Again Folk's;

Using mild target loads, I don't think that any of
us could ever wear out a S&W model 66; much less a
686?:)I don't recommend feeding a handgun a steady
diet of magnum ammunition. With that said, I've never worn a handgun completely out; and I've shot
HOT magnums in .357, .41, and .44 caliber's, using
a variety of launch platforms.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
Kevinich:
That was Smith & Wesson's reasoning, when they "improved" the .44 Mag. The heavy barrel DID reduce recoil and helped lesson wear. They also made some internal "improvments" in all of their magnum handguns.

Back (WAY BACK!) in 1970-71, H.P. White Labs did extensive testing on all of the popular handguns of that era. They fired five normal factory rounds in each handgun, followed by one proof round. At the end of the test, only two were still operating normally. A Smith & Wesson model 10 and a Colt 1911A1. The test seemed to confirm that high pressure meant more wear. Only the two low-pressure rounds (.38 special and .45 ACP) lasted to the end. All of this was covered in The American Rifleman in summer or fall of 1971.
 
For a time, back in the '70s, my department issued the M-66. Because of vicarious liability concerns we trained with magnum ammo as that was what was crried. In two to three years we started having serious problems with our M66's. Frame streching, battered out of time, and cracked forcing cones.

The 19/66 is based on the old M&P (later known as the Model 10). It was designed and inteded from it's conception as a 38 Special. All Smith did with the 19 was to lengthen the cylinder slightly and heat treat it to take higher pressures. A steady diet of magnum ammunition is abusive to the K Frame.
 
Wearing out is relative....

I have officially beat a K frame Smith into retirement. It's an old model 13 that I carried as a Border Patrol Agent around 1980.

What "wears out" is the top strap. It stretches over time. At some point, the end play in the cylinder becomes too great and then it starts pounding the recoil shield in recoil.

The L frames have a much stronger top strap. Therefore they last longer with higher intesity (higher pressure) loadings. Oddly enough, it's the lighter bullets (110-125) that develop the higher pressure to damage the guns. That's why the older K frames held up until the 1970s. I still think of a "real" 357 Magnum load as a lead 158 grain SWC over 2400 powder.

The added weight of the barrel underlug does not make the gun stronger. It does absorb recoil, at the expense of having to carry a heavier gun all day long. Also, that additional weight keeps the gun out of firing position longer... that is, one has more weight to move back into "battery", so to speak. That's why a four inch K frame is "quicker" in multiple shots and multiple target scenarios.

I replaced that old M13 with a M581 (four inch barrel, blue, fixed sights). I still have both guns, the 13 in a place of honor and the 581 in the sock drawer. I still shoot the 581 from time to time.
 
What "wears out" is the top strap. It stretches over time. At some point, the end play in the cylinder becomes too great and then it starts pounding the recoil shield in recoil.

The L frames have a much stronger top strap. Therefore they last longer with higher intesity (higher pressure) loadings.
Click to expand...

this is exactly what i expected, but when i place a 686 and a 66 side-by-side, i can see no differences in the dimensions of their top straps. are there fractional differences i just can't see?
 
I still have a 6" 66 K frame that I got in 1980 from my dad. Still shoots great and has had quite a few 357s through it. But I break out a 4 inch Model 28 N frame when I want to shoot very hot 357s. I have seen 66s that were "shot loose". Never a 27 or 28. Those things are TANKS.
 
Yes, the 686 is stronger than a 66...

according to a recent discussion I had with S&W. Since I just sent 2 K-frames back because the forcing cones were splitting, I had a detailed discussion as to why this was happening. One of the guns is a M19-8. Since it is less than two years old and has had fewer that 300 factory 125 grain medium velocity Remington GS through it (along with about 1000 .38 Special factory loads) I was curious why they had to scrap my M19 so soon.

The reason for scrapping is that there are no longer any barrels for M19s remaining in order to fix any that come in needing barrels.

The reason the forcing cone failed is that these guns, according to S&W, should not be fired with jacketed 125 grain .357 magnum loads. Only use 158 grain .357 Magnum loads, they tell me, as the 125 grain jacketed bullets are too snappy for the K-frame forcing cone.

Look at the forcing cone of a K-frame and you'll see that the bottom of the forcing cone is trimmed in order to allow the shoulder of the extractor rod collar to fit when the cylinder closes. The L-frames are completely round at the forcing cone. BTW, the J-framed .357s are also complete due largely to the fact that there is one less charge hole.

Funny that my older K-38 has a complete forcing cone.

Anyway that is the line I got from S&W... don't shoot light jacketed .357 Magnum bullets from a K-frame... 158 grains is OK.

I'm still grieving over my recent loss... but have found a P&R 19-2 that could offer some condolence...
 
Thanks for the kind words, Sam. But at least there was still room to turn the barrel on my three inch (now 2-15/16 in.) M13-4. It went in along with the M19. I think I got one of the last cylinders for that, too. It looks real nice... all new and such and I was afraid to shoot her... for a couple hours.
 
Yellowstone, you left something out

If they are 'scrapping' your gun, what are they going to DO FOR YOU?:confused: A new 686 perhaps? What about some $$ back to you?:rolleyes: You can buy one of the M19 barrels that should certainly be available in some gunsmith's inventory somewhere.:o
 
I don't understand why some people just don't take S&Ws word for it. I'm sure they didn't engineer the L frame (or re-engineer the K, depending on your point of view), just because they had nothing better to do.

I remember a gun rag article, and my memory is faint so no flames, please. A 5,000 round blow-out test was done on the 686 and a comparable Ruger DA. Hot, hot 125 grain, 5000 in a row. After the test, they showed the forcing cones. Both began to show similar damage, but accuracy was only starting to drop off. Conventional wisdom has it that 158s are much easier on barrels. They don't slam into them as violently, relatively speaking!

It should go without saying the L is the way to go if you plan on using your gun in such a manner. Most people don't. And the K frame does make a more elegant and lighter piece.

justinr1
 
VL, they are replacing it with a M66 Hi-Viz. And, my dealer said it just came in... so today I'll replace the M19 with the P&R gun I found and get another, yet different, M66. Man, it don't get much better than an unanticipated 2 gun day!

justinr1, yeah I hear ya pard. The replacement M19-2 will be fed only 158 grain maggies... as will the M66 that came in today. Of course, they'll still see lots of .38s, but I'm thinking of going to the 158 grain loads for them too.

BTW, when S&W scraps something they apparently destroy the entire piece. The frame has to go since the serial number can't be used. I suppose the innards could be saved, but it seems that innards are still available. The barrels and frames are unique to the model. So, once they are outta barrels, they are out of the parts, essentially, for that model.

That said, I bet ya they come out with a Heritage M19 sooner or later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top