Question about the larger .357magnums' durability.

C

chaim

New member
I currently have a K-frame .357 (a 3" S&W 65LS) and I really like it. Good size for general use. However, I now have all my basic handgun needs as I see them satisfied (K-frame or equivelent revolver in .357 or .38, J-frame or equivelent, small auto, full sized service pistol) sometimes twice (or even thrice) over so I am now fleshing out my collection somewhat.

We have all heard of K-frames having a limited lifetime after prolonged .357mag use (how much is fact and how much of that is myth isn't really important). Well, I now want a .357 that is sturdy enough to hold up to sustained .357 use for a lifetime. Either one of the sturdier medium frames (L-frame Smith or Ruger GP100) or a large frame (Ruger Redhawk, N-frame Smith, Taurus 608) will do.

Here is my question. Many of the larger framed .357s now hold more than 6 rounds (7 in some 686s, 8 in the Taurus 608). This obviously makes for thinner chamber walls (the cylinder is usually the same size, or nearly the same size, as the 6 shot version). Most of the long term strength of these revolvers is in the frame (or so I think). How much will the thinner chamber walls effect the long term durability? Since this is the main reason people usually buy these over the smaller medium frames (the K-frames and equivelent are a bit more handy) I doubt if the manufacturers would do this if it adversely effected durability but you never know.

The regular 686 or 586 are some of my top choices but I am also interested in the 7 shot 686+ and the Taurus 608 so I am very interested in your answers to this question.
 
The 7-shot 686 Plus is VERY strong. I can't see the thinner walls giving out, and if they ever did you could always just buy a new cylinder (I think). I've put LOTS of heavy duty loads through my 686 plus, and there is no sign of it wearing down!
 
Smith & Wesson or Ruger recommendations-

I employ the use of a Smith & Wesson 686-5, six-shot
.357 magnum with a 6" barrel. Great firearm, very capeable
of handling lot's of magnum round's; and it deliver's its
payload with outstanding accuracy.:D :cool: :) However,
there is absolutely nothing wrong with Ruger's Security Six
or GP-100 series of revolver's. Built like a tank, and probably
just as accurate; but the 6" 686-5 works for me.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
Ala Dan,
Right now my leanings in order are:
-6shot 586
-6 shot 581 (almost impossible to find at reasonable prices)
-6 shot 686
-7 shot 686+
-6 shot 681 (seems pretty common on Gunbroker and the least expensive, though I'm leary to buy a used gun that I can't see)
-Ruger GP 100
-Taurus 608

Sometimes the Ruger moves a lot higher and the Ruger Vaquero may come before any of these (it would serve my desire for a stronger .357 and it would be a single action wheelgun which I don't yet have, other than in blackpowder). Depending on the day (and my mood) any of these can be at the number one spot though this list is how it has been the most lately. All are no more than a hair apart as far as how much I like them (thus a really good deal on any one v. the others would push it to the top).

The main reason I'd go with the 686+ is that, as you can see, as of now the S&W offerings are my first choices and I'd buy used. If I limit myself to used, and I would prefer one I can check out first, well, sometimes you take what you can get. It seems lately that I've seen more 7 shot 686+s than 6 shot 686s on the used gun shelves.
 
. Many of the larger framed .357s now hold more than 6 rounds (7 in some 686s, 8 in the Taurus 608). This obviously makes for thinner chamber walls (the cylinder is usually the same size, or nearly the same size, as the 6 shot version). Most of the long term strength of these revolvers is in the frame (or so I think). How much will the thinner chamber walls effect the long term durability?
Click to expand...

Since the 7 shot 686+ puts the bolt stop notch between the chambers instead of directly over them like the 6 shot cylinder I doubt the thinnest portion is actually thinner on the 7 shot.

The 8 shot 608 Taurus is built on their large frame, which makes the N frame Smith look petite and dwarfs the L frame. The chamber walls are plenty thick on that gun and the 357 round is unlikely to ever stretch a frame that can handle at least high end 44 Mag loads (I'm not sure if the 454 uses different steel for the frame, or just a different cylinder/lockup).

My personal preference is for the GP100 over the 686 or 686+, but that's what I like better. I've shot thousands of rounds through a 686, it's a great revolver. You won't go wrong with a GP100, 686 or 686+.
 
chaim,

Too me, the Smith & Wesson 586 is harder to come by
than a 686.:eek: Usually, you do not find the 586's
lying around on dealers shelves in any condition.:( :D

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
The 586 is a good handgun. Since it's your first choice, go for it. If it were me though and since you have pretty much everything covered, I'd get a 6 1/2" Blackhawk. You can shoot them forever. They are bull strong and most in .357 are tack drivers. Unless you are planning to stick with one load I stay away from fixed sights. The point of impact varies greatly in the .357 with it's wide range of bullets and velocities.
 
If long term durability is the main issue, I go with the ruger. SA or DA it takes a real long time for either to show the effects of factory level Magnums. I have seen (and caused) frame stretch and carry up problems in all the Smith and Wesson Frames and regardless of frame size, it often doesn't take long for this to happen.

I did manage to shoot some end float into an early new model black hawk but this is because I was so impressed by the thick cylinder walls that I shot a good many extreme early-gunwriter loads through it. Gun never did get to the point of malfunction or loss of accuracy though.
 
durability

Some years ago I owned a S&W M 66.
It lasted 5 years and ~ 10000 rds.
Then it was worn out.
not the barrel, but nearly anythink else.
My friend carried and shot a Ruger Sec. Six for over 20 years and it was in a better condition ..
Thats for me..
wfg. b.
 
The newer 66's

don't use stainless on the internals. They work better. I started .357ing with a M19. Decided I needed more "strength" and bought a M28. Got tired of the ugliness and sold it and got a M27. Too damn heavy to lug around. Got a Python (actually 2 of em) and still hated the grip and the mushy double action and the timing finickyness. Finally ended up back with the M66 with 6" bbl and usually shoot .38's. Still the best holding gun for ME.
And the K frames have been tack drivers....for ME.

Can't abide the Ruger for its goofy Hi Standard Sentinel roots.
 
All of my reading points to such things as frame stretching, flame cutting, timing, and lockup issues when it comes to longevity. I have never had the sense that the cylinder strength is a factor until pressures get ridiculous (a "pilot error" crash.) Have I missed something?
 
Bela..."Then it was worn out.not the barrel, but nearly anythink else..."

Similar to my experience with a 686 in two years.

Sam
 
I concur with Ala Dan, I don't think I ever saw a 586 on a shelf. Had a 686, but prefer the GP-100 that I now have.
 
.357

You are missing a real treat... get yourself a N frame S&W in .357. The M28s are still often a good buy, and other than not having as nice a finish, they are as good and reliable as the classic M27.

A good one has an action to die for (or for an ED to die for) and are wonderfully accurate.

FWIW

Chuck
 
I own quite a few .357 revolvers. A lot of the one's you mention. I own a 686 and a 686 PC eight shot. I own a Model 28, 27, two model 19s, and a 66. I have a Redhawk, a blackhawk, a GP-100, and a SP101. Among others. If I could only own one, it would be the GP100 hands down. 4" Stainless.
 
444, said

"I own a 686 and a 686 PC eight shot."
Click to expand...

Are you so sure that the gun you say you own is a Model "686 PC eight shot", or could it be by chance a "Performance Center Model-627 eight round .357 Magnum" :confused:
 
My bad, 627 PC. Hasn't been out of the safe for a year.
I bought it for a friend's wedding present. I decided the hassle might be too great, so I gave them a coffee pot instead and kept the pistol which I needed like I needed a hole in the head.
 
At the risk of being redundant, I could be a S&W salesman if I had to! Of the ones I own, my 686 "Longbarrel" is, A.) Beautiful, B.) Has the best single action trigger ever(IMHO), C.) Groups around 3",
at 25 Yds. D.) Did I mention the stainless steel/old-fashioned wood grip combo is beautiful?, E.) Gets a lot of conversations started at any range -- the majority of remarks are very positive,
F.) I have put thousands of rounds of different factory/handloads through it with ZERO problems.

P.S. I'm not into hunting, so I don't really need the 8"-plus barrel, but I'm a big Dirty Harry fan and the big sucker just looks so cool!:cool:

Go ahead...make my day!
 
Hans, the 686 I have, has the 8 3/8" barrel. I haven't shot it much either, but I know it is accurate. I purchased it off Auction Arms.com with a Leupold 4X scope on it. I shot a few hundred rounds off the bench with it and the accuracy was very good. I then sent it to this gentlemen: http://www.clementscustomguns.com/default.htm
I told him that I wanted him to check it over and then do whatever to make it as accurate as he possibly could. I basically gave him free reign to do whatever he felt he needed to do and to his credit, he only ran up a bill of less than $300. I got it back and have not tried it yet. I decided the 4X scope was too much for any shooting other than off the bench and haven't set aside the money for another scope. I can't wait to try it out. I don't know, maybe I will put the 4X back on it and just shoot it off the bench. That was my original idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top