Questions on S&W 686

S

SonOfScubaDiver

New member
So, I have a couple of questions about S&W's 686. So far I have only looked at videos of this gun, and I'd like to get one. I just haven't had the time to look at one in person yet. I would really like to have a shootable 357 Magnum. A few months ago I purchased an SP101 with a 3 inch barrel. It's a great gun, and I love it. However, even after switching out the factory grip for Hogue grips, I have trouble shooting 357 Magnum loads out of it. The gun can definitely handle 357. That isn't the problem. The problem is that I can't shoot more than 10 or 15 rounds of 357 without it really hurting my hand. Because it's designed to mainly be a carry piece, there aren't many choices for grips to better handle the recoil of the 357. Well, at least not that I can find.

So, I've been looking into getting a larger framed 357. I don't plan on using it to carry very often, but maybe every now and then. I really like the looks of the 686, but I don't know how much bigger it is than the SP101. Do any of you happen to own both and have a side by side picture of them that shows the difference in size?

Also, is the 686 comfortable enough to shoot a hundred or so 357 magnum rounds through it at a time? I can't afford to do it all the time, but I'd really like to be able to take a 357 to the range and really give it a good workout every now and then.

I don't have much fun shooting the 357 cartridge through my SP101, which kinda defeats the purpose of having one for me. Of course, I can shoot 38 special target loads with no difficulty whatsoever, and have no problems with the 38 special +P rounds either, but I like the +P much better. It seems to me that the SP101 is really more of a really good 38+P gun than a good 357 Magnum, but that's just my opinion.
 
For me, the concussion (some folks call it muzzle blast) is the dominant factor in my tolerance for full house 357 loads and I am sure that the four inch barrel of my 686 plus is not helping things (though the concussion is mostly coming from the barrel/cylinder gap) so a larger frame might not buy you much if you are affected in the same way as myself. Just a head's up before you go spend your money.
 
There is no free lunch.
Smaller guns in .357 are going to give more felt recoil and torque.

I don't think I could do a hundred rounds of magnum in a 686 pain free, with my hands and wrists now , but I did fifteen years ago.

The L frames shoot like a N frame to me, very comfortable.

I did carry a 4in 586/686 in a pancake holster for several years, they are heavy but it can be done.
 
I wouldn't want to carry a 686 but if it's a range gun your looking for the 686 is a good choice. I only have experience with the 4" barrel but if I were to buy one today it would be the 5" or 6" barrel. As for a hundred plus .357 rounds through one during a range session? Not for me, I will typically put a box through it and then move to .38's or on to a different firearm.
I loved my SP-101 2.25" barrel but like you, it was not something I wanted to sling many magnum rounds through but it was very nice to carry.
Is renting a 686 at a range an option? If so, that's what I would do.
 
I’ve never owned a Ruger Sp 101, but I do own several 2 ½ - 3” K frames, which are close in size. Nome of them are fun to shoot with full tilt Magnum ammo. I can do it but not for long without developing hand and forearm soreness.
I currently have a 3” 686, which I find to be a big heavy revolver, that does not carry well with anything less than a duty style holster and duty belt. But it is a joy to shoot with real .357 Magnum ammo.
Just remember that everything is a tradeoff. Use the Ruger for CCW and the Smith and Wesson for shooting full power ammo.
 
I own several 686s and when I take them to the range, I shoot hundreds of rounds thru them with no issues. The 686 is capable of having the X-Frame shock absorbing grips put on them....and they can really help if one is sensitive to recoil. Recoil is a subjective thing....most guns designed for CWC are not the most pleasant to shoot. If I was going to suggest a .357 range toy, it would be a L-Frame, in a 5-6" barrel configuration with a full lug.
 
I owned a 6" 686 and it handled full house 357 loads quite nicely. The same loads in a 6" model 19 were noticeably sharper to shoot.

I now own a model 28-2 (n-frame 357) and it handles the fullest of full house 357s like 38spl from a k-frame. I joke with my brothers that I think I could shoot a 357 out of it with no grip at all on the frame! LOL! Joking of course, but it is a very nice shooter for 357. You can get yourself into a nice model 28 for roughly the same cost or less than a new 686. But they have gone up in price these days, I paid under $500 for mine 4 years ago and now I see others selling 28's in the same condition as mine for well north of $600, many over $700. If they are selling for that, I do not know. But it seems people have "discovered" them for the fantastic if not utilitarian N-frame 357 that they are.

In S&W world, the only thing that is smoother shooting 357s than a 686 is a model 27/28. (FYI, m27 and 28 are essentially the exact same revolver, but the m28 is a less refined, less beatified more utilitarian revolver)

My 28-2
 
I used to have a 4" 686-4. About as easy shooting as a .357 can get without going into N frame territory. I currently shoot a 2.5" 686+, which is a much lighter gun and I have no issues shooting over 150+ of full house .357s in one session, more if I have more ammo. As mentioned in an earlier post, the blast can be massive depending on the load, but that's a very different thing than recoil, which is more than manageable in an L frame gun.
 
SonOfScubaDiver said:
I purchased an SP101 with a 3 inch barrel. It's a great gun, and I love it. However, even after switching out the factory grip for Hogue grips, I have trouble shooting 357 Magnum loads out of it... The problem is that I can't shoot more than 10 or 15 rounds of 357 without it really hurting my hand.
Click to expand...
Before investing in another gun, you may consider trying out some "Short Barrel" .357 ammo in your SP101.

There is a BIG difference in pressure and velocity between full-house .357 and even the very hottest .38+P load. .357 Short Barrel loads are designed to split the difference, making them more comfortable to shoot, and most also use low-flash powder to mitigate the blinding muzzle and B/C gap flash that often results when firing full-power .357 at night through a short tube. :eek:

To more directly answer your questions:

The M686 is quite a bit bigger than the SP101, although I cannot offer any pictures. However, the SP101 is smaller than the S&W Model 66, which is based on the slightly smaller K frame rather than the L frame.

I used to own a full-lug M586 (basically a blued M686) with a full-lug 6" barrel, and it was quite comfortable when firing full-power .357 (and very accurate to boot), but it was honestly such a boat anchor that there's no way I would ever want to carry it without a shoulder holster; more proof that there is no such thing as a free lunch. (1) potent cartridge, (2) mild recoil, (3) small and handy gun: pick any two. ;)
 
one thing I need to point out, the full underlug "L" frame guns (586/686) weigh exactly the same as the same barrel length "N" frame guns.

So, total weight for absorbing recoil is the same. What differs is the balance. L frame guns feel muzzle heavy to me, and I don't really like that.

Here's a word of warning, neither you, nor I, nor the guns themselves are meant to shoot lightweight snub nose magnums all day long, day in and day out.

One friend of mine almost ended his shooting ability because he put a couple thousand rounds of .357 Mag through several of those guns one summer, doing testing and load development.

What he "developed" was nerve damage in his hands, wrists and forearms. To the point where he couldn't shoot anything bigger than a .22 for a long time. It's been over a decade, and today, he can almost shoot a box of 9mm before he has to quit. He's had several surgeries, and it looks like he may wind up having another this year.

Simply put, you CAN over do it, and you CAN BE INJURED, PERMANENTLY, if you do.
 
I have a .357 LCR for carry, but it's not something I can shoot much for practice. I switched to .38 +P for carry for better expansion out of the short barrel and better muzzle control.

I looked at a 686 and 586 for a range gun to practice with and went with the GP100 instead. I can practice speed loader loading with it without killing my hand, and the cylinder release is the same as the LCR (and SP101). That might be a small thing, but I figured if I'm trying to drill muscle memory for faster reloads it matters.
 
I bought my 686-6 .357 Mag.4" three months ago and put about 150 rounds through it. About 25 of those was .357 rounds. I really like shooting the Federal .38 Spl. 158 gr. the Fiocchi .357 Mag. 158 gr. wasn't kicking that much stronger to me anyway but had more punch.
 

Attachments

  • 17903884_1308901775855228_1079814527826896947_n.jpg
    17903884_1308901775855228_1079814527826896947_n.jpg
    72.8 KB · Views: 41
Short barrel loads? I didn't even know they made those in 357 magnum. I'll have to look that up. I know Speer has a Gold Dot offering in 38+P for short barrel revolvers. Maybe they have some in 357 too.

That 28-2 is beautimus! Me likey!

Ok. So, lemme see if I have this right because all the letters get a little confusing for me. The SP101 is about the same size as a K frame, and bigger than the J framen(lcr size). The 686 is an L frame, so I'm thinking it's more along the lines of the GP100. Does that mean that the M and N frame guns are for the 44 magnum Dirty Harry type guns? I'm guessing the X frame is that really long 50 caliber 500 something or another I've seen at the gun shops. I'd like to have some of this down before I go to the gun shops this weekend looking at the revolvers. I bought the SP101 without really knowing all that much about it. All I knew is that I wanted a 357, liked it when I saw it, and it cost less than the GP100. I've realized, after buying 5 guns in the last year, that I can't keep buying guns just on impulse. I want to know what I'm getting and how it compares to other guns. I know that S&W revolvers cost more, but I'd like to have at least one and really like what I've seen in so far on the 686.
 
J-frame is similar to the LCR, small and pocketable in the right pants. These are typically five-shooters. They hold six in .327 Federal Magnum, which is the most powerful thing I'm personally comfortable shooting in these little guns.

The SP101 is sort of between the J-frame and K-frame. These steel guns are a little bigger and a little beefier but with the same capacity as the J-frame/LCR. They feel slender compared to the K-frame and carry well. They are fairly comfortable to shoot in .38 special. The stock grips carry well but I prefer the longer Hogues for shooting. I was surprised to find that the wooden grips from Hogue are more comfortable and I think it's because they are just a bit bigger and fill my hand better. I think .327 Federal really shines on this platform but .357 still feels like a bit much.

The K-frame is a classic six-shooter and was very popular in .38 special. I suppose we can call this the smallest "full size" revolver in the modern market. I've only shot older K-frames in .38 special. It seems like a good balance.

The larger L-frame was made specifically for .357 Magnum. The GP-100 is its competition in this size range. These also tend to be six-shooters in .38 or .357 though the 686+ famously holds seven. One thing that used to hurt the L-frames for me was that even the supposedly ergonomic rubber stock grips continue to be released with exposed backstraps, allowing the steel frame to send shockwaves directly into my carpal tunnel. (I think they keep it that way for historical sentimentality or something.) Then I found a wonderful solution. It turns out that the L-frame and X-frame take the same grips. The X-frame grips not only cover the backstrap, they are cushy all around. They take the L-frame to the next level in shooting comfort and make full-power .357 magnum a ton of fun.

The N-frame and Redhawk were originally made for .44 magnum but are diversely chambered today. These are big guns.

The X-frame is extreme. They are big and heavy, which is good considering that they are chambered for the extremely powerful .460 and .500 magnums. Respectively, those offer the fastest and heaviest bullets you can send downrange with a handgun. These guns come compensated. As I mentioned above, they also have about the most comfy, shock-absorbing grips you can get for a revolver. With all of these features, the XVR feels more comfortable to shoot in .460 S&W than say, a Redhawk in the weaker .454 Casull (which is already much stronger than .44 magnum).
 
The ‘modern’ S&W frames are:

J frame. This is a small frame. They are typically the ‘snub nosed’ guns that folk like to carry concealed. Think ankle holsters.

K frame. Larger than the J frame and meant for everyday carry and use by cops and security folk and just your everyday shooter.

L frame. Larger than a K frame. Fairly recent in the S&W history. Folk where beating their K frame guns loose by shooting lots of full power .357 magnum loads in them so S&W came up with the larger L frame that could take the punishment on a daily basis.

N frame. Larger than an L frame. This is frame of Dirty Harry’s famous Model 29 .44 magnum. The Model 27 .357 magnum was an N frame gorgeous .357 magnum that people use to compare to the Colt Python in a never-ending Ford vs Chevy type of debate. The Model 28 was a Model 27 without the gorgeous deep blue finish, still an N frame. While able to take a lot of punishment a lot of folk who had to carry a gun a lot and shoot it only a little opted for lighter K frame guns.

X frame. Larger than the N frame. S&W got a LOT of publicity and sales from the Dirty Harry movie where none other than Clint Eastwood declared his .44 magnum ‘the most powerful handgun in the world’ and when folk found out his gun was an S&W Model 29 S&W could hardly keep them on the shelves. Naturally other guns came along to dispute the claim. (Ruger only .45 Colt loads, .454 Casull, .475 Linebaugh, .480 Ruger, etc. etc.) so S&W after a long while of putting up with these upstarts set the bar really, really high with their crew-served, 5-shot, X frame .500 S&W Magnum. (Just kidding about the crew-served.)

The above are the ‘modern’ frame letters. If you go back far enough there was an ‘I frame’ and an ‘M frame’ but those have been out of production for quite a while. (The M frame was quite small, as was the I frame…both smaller than the J frame I believe, but on this I could easily be mistaken.)

Any number of forum members here are more expert than I am about the all the different frame letters and ins and outs of why they were developed and sometimes dropped but the above is IMhO a decent rough explanation.

After, typing this all up I found the following which also explains this stuff. Sigh.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/161403-k-l-n-whats-frame-size.html

And after posting this I see Cosmodragoon has already answered the question. (And a good answer it is!) I believe I'll try to DOUBLE my typing speed by using BOTH fingers next time.
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
one thing I need to point out, the full underlug "L" frame guns (586/686) weigh exactly the same as the same barrel length "N" frame guns.

So, total weight for absorbing recoil is the same. What differs is the balance. L frame guns feel muzzle heavy to me, and I don't really like that.
Click to expand...

While weight is one factor in taming recoil, so is the balance. For me, full lugs tend to not "roll back" into the web of my hand as much as half lugs, because of this "balance" and thus the web of my hand takes less of a beating, when shooting legitimate "magnum" type loads all day long. This is one reason I tend to prefer DA grip angles as compared to the old fashioned SA grip angles. The tendency of full lugs to resist muzzle rise is why they tend to be faster on accurate follow up shots. Over the years I have found this whole "balance" thing interesting. Folks will prefer a 3 or 4" barrel over a 6" barrel because the "muzzle feels heavy". So they put up with more recoil because of the reduced weight, less accuracy because of the shorter sight plane and less velocities, all because the "muzzle feels heavy" on a gun, for the most part, they are going to rest on the bench at the range.

While we are talking about using a bench, I see the bench itself as part of the problem when shooting magnum type rounds. While they increase accuracy, and make so one can shoot all day(hard for most folks to shoot freehand all day), they also can contribute to discomfort from recoil. Folks tend to lock their arms and rest their elbow on the bench which reduces the absorption of the recoil by the arms and transmits this recoil directly to the elbow, especially if the elbow is resting directly on the hard surface of the bench. This produces a shock along the while bone system in the forward part of the arm. I've found that by either setting the rest far enough back so one's elbows do not hit the bench or using a pad beneath my elbow when restingit on the bench, helps considerably.
 
The N-frame and Redhawk were originally made for .44 magnum but are diversely chambered today.
Click to expand...

While the Redhawk might have been (and probably was) the N frame was not "made for the ,44 Magnum", it predates the .44 Magnum by close to 50 years.

Its easy to get it confused, because when S&W developed their .44 magnum, it used the N frame, because it was the biggest one they had. But the frame size had been in use since the early 1900s, and was usually referred to as the "44" frame, decades before the .44 Magnum.

Its the frame size used in the famed "triple lock" guns, and the .38-44 round was so named because it was a high pressure .38 round made to be used in the "44" frame size guns, and led directly to the creation of the .357 Magnum (in 1935), again, in the large 44 frames that later came to be named the "N" frame. The .44 Magnum round didn't appear until the mid 1950s.

(do not confuse the .38-44 with the much later .38/44, which was a wildcat made by necking a .44 Mag case down to use .357 bullets.)

as for shooting from the bench,
Folks tend to lock their arms and rest their elbow on the bench which reduces the absorption of the recoil by the arms and transmits this recoil directly to the elbow, especially if the elbow is resting directly on the hard surface of the bench. This produces a shock along the while bone system in the forward part of the arm.
Click to expand...

I've found this to be generally true with most folks, but I avoid that particular problem by holding the gun, when shooting from the bench. I use the bench to support my arms, NOT the gun. Yes, this does remove some of the "accuracy" given by the benchrest, but I'm interested in what I can do with a pistol more than what the pistol can do itself.

One word of caution, though, if you're shooting something that actually recoils, make sure there is enough room between your hands and the support to allow for that. NOT doing that can be quite painful!!! :eek:
 
For self-defense use, I'd recommend you consider the "Plus" version, offering the slight (major if you ever really need it) advantage of an extra (seventh) shot. Contrary to what many claim, in my experience, there is no difference between the trigger pulls of the two variants (686 and 686 Plus models) nor is there any strength disadvantage to having a cylinder with seven shots as opposed to six-in fact, some make the argument that the seven-shot variant is "stronger" than the six-shot model due to where the cylinder-notch cutouts are located (even if true, a moot point imo).
 
You might end up doing what many others do. Do the bulk of your fun and practice shooting with light loads (e.g., .38 Special wadcutters) and shoot just enough .357 defense loads that you know you can handle them and that the extra noise and recoil won't be a surprise if you have to use the gun in a serious situation.

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