New Smith & Wessons: 619/620

T

threefivesevenmag

New member
Hello All,

Just wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to handle or fire one of the new Smith & Wesson 619/620? I really like semi-lugged revolvers and was wondering if they felt any better or damped recoil much better than the older Model 66?

Thanks for input.
 
I posted something similar a couple of days back. If you read the post there is a guy towards the bottom that gives an opinion. The thread is titled --Anybody shot both the 620 and 686? I just finished renting an SP101 -- it is just down the page a bit. Like you he has a 686. He also seems to like the 620 very much.
 
To be honest, I've never liked the L-Frames because of the full lug under the barrel (If I wanted a Python, I'd buy a Python!). I much preferred the graceful lines of the Model 19/66 or 27/28/29/57 with their partial lugs.

I fired a 686 with a 6" barrel and found it, well... awkward. It was if the gun didn't balance right for me and the dimensions were all wrong. Probably from a lifetime of owning K & N Frame wheelguns.

A couple of weeks ago I saw a Model 620 at a local shop and handled it. With a 6" barrel it's balance was very good. The K-frame sized grips were familiar and the reach to the trigger & hammer felt fine. What really surprised me was that repeatedly spot-aiming after regripping the gun put the sights right on target every time. I credit the K-Frame sized grip frame and the Houge grips. If the gun had been either a 4" (or even better would be a 5") it might have a new home by now.

The balance of the barrel is much better than the nose-heavy 686 IMO. The overall weight was pleasant and just hefty enough that I'm sure .38 +P's would still be fun and .357's easier to control (than a K-Frame). I didn't think I would like a "Seven-shooter" but the trigger surprised me by letting off a little "early" from what I'm used to and it was crisp and clean.

Would it shoot better than the M19/M66? I'm sure the extra weight will help with recoil and it's pointing characteristics were a good match for my hand (size 7 or "L" glove). It does have the 2-piece barrel which is unattractive IMO, but my 2.5" Model 66 has one too along with the lock and neither has caused a problem.

If you find that it points as well for you, I'd say buy it. It's handsome on top of it all too.
 
The 619 strikes me as one of the coolest revolvers Smith's sent down the pike in a long time: A seven-shot four-inch round-butt stainless L-frame M&P.

Toss the awful-looking Goodyears and fit some Eagle Secret Service grips or Ahrends, and it would be a hella CCW revolver. Too bad it's not available in blue as the 519.
 
The 619 is a great idea, a seven-shot Magnum M&P on steroids.

The one example I handled was NIB and (unfortunately) out of time on two chambers right from the factory...I would have bought it without the guaranteed trip to the gunsmith right after purchase.
 
Thanks everyone.

I will surely check out the 619. I think I'll make the short trip to the gunshop here in a few minutes. I like the fixed sights as well. Thanks for your input. That's no good about the timing problem. I hope another one comes your way soon.
 
What is meant by 'out of time' - being new to revolvers I would think it relates to the cylinder but wouldn't know how to check for the problem....
 
The 619 and the 620 are L frames. Just like the 686.

L Frames have the exact same size grip as a K frame.

the 619 and 629 have a two piece barrel and do not have the full underlug profile.
 
Texas Bacon,

Timing refers to the way the revolver indexes the chamber(s) into alignment with the barrel and locks up the cylinder prior to firing.

Those little notches in the cylinder are to receive the "bolt" that sticks up thru the bottom of the frame's cylinder cutout. There are notches in the rear of the star extractor, which the "hand" engages to turn the cylinder. If these notches are not machined correctly, the "hand" may turn the cylinder too much or too little to properly align the chamber with the barrel.

When squeezing the trigger all these parts move in a specific pattern. If the bolt doesn't engage it's cylinder notch properly, it's possible the cylinder could rotate out of alignment when firing.

Most out of time revolvers will "shave lead" -- spitting it out through the flash-gap between barrel & cylinder (usually to the discomfort of anyone next to you).

Typically to check timing, one slowly squeezes the trigger of an EMPTY revolver while using a finger on the cylinder to create a touch of drag -- just enough to keep it from gaining any inertia or "free wheeling". S&W's bolt locks the cylinder before the hammer reaches it's full arc rearward. If you can "snap" the hammer and then move the cylinder a touch you'll hear a *click* as the bolt engages the out of time chamber. Likewise if the hammer is just about to fall and the bolt isn't engaged, the chamber is out of time.
(You should hear that little *click* before the hammer is at full arc.)
 
A model 619/620 with a 6 inch barrell? Is that something new? I thought they were avaialble only in a 4 inch barrell.

I have a 686 4" barrel and it balances very well in the hands. I have shot a 6 inch model 686 and that did seem a little nose heavy. I decided against the 620 at the time becuase it was just coming on to the market. I was a little skeptical about the two piece barrell and don't really care for the 7-shots. There's a reason they call 'em six-shooters.
 
I'm also very interested in either picking up a 619 or a 686 as my first revolver. I want something to basically be a range and bedside gun, no CCW.
 
Thanks Bill.

I was up at the store playing with the 620 again. I'm leaning that way. I just have to learn not to play with other guns - brings too many options out on the table. I've now talked myselt into a new over/under and possibly a new .22 as I have an old Mark I. I like the 60 better for feel but I think it would be too light - the SP101 3" was fine for me but the 60 is lighter and I don't think that is the direction I want to go - lol
 
I have a 4" 586 (blued 686) and it feels perfect in my hand. The 620 felt a bit light and the 6" 686 full lug felt slightly muzzle-heavy. Both were barely noticeable difference, and if I only intended to use the gun for home defense the 620 would have been fine, and if the 6" was only for range, it would have been fine. The 4" full lug was a perfect combo of both worlds... FOR ME. Please, I urge you, go with what feels right in your hand. And shoot all the guns if you get a chance.

Also, my 586 was a limited run 586-7 from last year. Yep, 7 shots. I know "a revolver is only supposed to be six shots," but who says? And why don't semis have a stupid rule like that? Anyway, on a seven-shot, the cylinder notches are between the chambers instead of above them. Theorhetically, this thicker chamber wall should make for a stronger chamber. Regardless, I've put my 586 thru the paces with all kinds of hot loads and to me, the only disadvantage of 7 shots is that it isn't 8... although Smith makes an 8-shot .357 as well.

My 586 is my favorite gun I have ever shot. .38s are like plinking soft .22s out of it and it can throw fireballs downrange with big loads and handle them with ease. It is also scary accurate. I mean, really, I am not as good of a shooter as this gun makes me look. 586, 686 or 620, you are not going to be disappointed... and you'll probably end up buying another one in a few months, anyway. :)

gun5.jpg

586-7, limited edition, 4" .357 magnum
flame1.jpg

Same gun firing 110grain SJHP Magtech .357 magnum two days ago.
 
Is there anything about the 619 and or 620 that would make it a better option than the 686 or is it all just feel and perosnal preference? I absolutely love the full underlug on the 686 but I don't hate the one on the 619/620 either.
 
Aside from the lug, they are virtually the same gun. Now if you get into a Performance Center version, things change... but 619/620 vs 686 is really just a question of feel/lug, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top