Revolver Advice

S

SteelEye

Inactive
I own a number of semi-autos and would like to buy my first revolver. When I read through posts to this forum, I get the feeling that revolvers are not all that simple and care free that some make them out to be.

My current leanings are toward a 686 or 629. I want a good range gun with the remote possibility of competition.

What will I need to do to keep the gun running? What’s all this stuff about gaps, cylinder alignment, rotation? How do you clean them?

Your opinions are appreciated.

Thanks,
S
 
My advise is go with the 686(357 Mag), don't know anyone who competes with a 629(44 mag). Unless it's a sihloutte type match. hpg:cool:
 
Last edited:
S&W 686 is a dang good gun and cheaper to feed than a 629, also a dang good gun.

"What’s all this stuff about gaps, "
The gap between the cylinder face and the forceing cone.
Usually not a problem.

"cylinder alignment,"
How each hole in the cylinder aligns with the forceing cone.
Usually not a problem.

"How do you clean them?"
I clean them reluctantly:p
With a Bore Snake and Hoppe's
 
I own both, a Smith & Wesson 629-5 "Classic", 5"
barrel .44 magnum, and a 686-5 D.C.M., 6" barrel
.357 magnum.:) Both are excellent shooter's, with
the 629 having a factory buttery smooth, clean and
crisp double action; while the 686's ain't as smooth,
its not half bad either!:cool: :D For plinking and
informal target shooting I'd recommend the 686;
if shooting pin's or plate's, I opt for the 629.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
The things you mention, gap, cylinder alignment, rotation etal are example of where you might expect to see wear over time. None of these are regular maintenance items and will most likely not be an issue until you have shot many, many thousands of rounds through it.

Maintenance on a revolver is to clean the barrel and each cylinder after shooting and to coat the gun lightly with oil before you store it away. Since you're cleaning the cylinders it is slightly more work than cleaning an automatic but you don't have to dissassemble and reassemble it. IMHO, it a wash.

The 357 mag models are perhaps the most versitile handguns ever made. You can shoot anything from the mildest 38 to the most hairy chested 357mag with just one gun. Although each revolver will have some particular ammo that it works best with, revolvers will fire anything that fits in the holes. Unlike semi-automatics you will never have to worry about "Will my gun feed xyz."

In new revolvers, the 65 or 686 are on the medium frame while the 627 is the large frame. To give you an idea of the actual size difference, here is a picture of a large frame S&W 357mag and a medium frame one. Both have the 4" barrel.

standard.jpg


I hope this helps.
 
While I don't recommend it, many police officers who carried revolvers never cleaned or maintained their service revolvers. Most revolver designs are durable enough to perform without cleaning or maintenance. Shoot and enjoy.

Your local gun store, or the many folks who frequent the shop, would be happy to show you how to clean a revolver. Or, just ask any certified NRA Instructor to send you the NRA published materials on firearm cleaning and maintenance. I would recommend a used 686 to start.
 
Glad there's no maintenance

Are there any advantages of the 627 over the 686? In California, only the 627 with 5" barrel is approved. I'm allowed to buy the 686 in any size, and most sizes of the 629.

The Realist in me says go with the 357. The Bad Boy says get the 44 for the true Big Bang Experience.

Best thing is to rent a few and see what I feel like after the session.

Thanks for the help.
S
 
I have both a 686 and a 629 and enjoy both.

I believe the 686 has a larger, stronger frame than the 65 (which I also have). I believe the 686 is an "L" frame while the 65 is a "K" frame. :)

I have several revolvers and find cleaning them is a bit easier than my semi's. Never have had ANY maintenance problems with any of them.
 
Which One ?

Go with the 686 and you won't go wrong ;)
I have the 686 2 1/2 and 4" , both great handguns and easy to maintain:)
Also have the 629 but it's a little more pricier to shoot ;)
 
Get the .357, probably the most versatile chambering you can get (as others stated you can shoot .38s and .357s out of it). The 686 is one of the best examples of .357 revolvers out there (I have a 6" 586, the blued version, and I love it, as well as a 3" 65 that I also love). OTOH a .44mag can be nice (esp. the S&W 629) but it can be a bit much to shoot often (some people don't like the recoil and the price of ammo is very high).
 
The 627 is on the same larger frame as the 44Mag, and is an eight-shot 357 :cool:. It's also a "custom shop" gun so the trigger is generally very nice, and it uses moon clips for rapid reloads. Pricey, big, but otherwise really dang cool. The only S&W that I'd consider buying, myself.

The 627 is generally considered the finest competition revolver available as long as you can do that sport with the .38 or .357.

Like the .44Mags, the 627 is an "N-Frame", the largest current S&W platform.

The 686 is built on a smaller frame, and is available either as a six-shooter or seven-shot (the + model). It's a better carry gun, but as it's an "L-Frame" it can stand a steady diet of hotter loads than the next size smaller...

...the "K-Frame" six-shooters such as the model 66/65. The K-frame was originally built for the .38Spl, and later beefed up for the .357. Still, too much hot ammo can eventually wear these prematurely, which is why the L-frame was developed.

The J-Frames are the smallest, in .38 or .357 they're 5-shooters.

OK?

If you want a carry gun that you'll shoot mostly .38 through, the K-frames with a 2.5" barrel are great. Ted Nugent packed such a thing all the way through the height of his touring days in the late '60s/early '70s (see also "God, Guns and Rock'n'Roll" :cool: ). If you're going to do more range play with hot ammo and still have something that can be carried, that's what L-Frames are for.

(Ruger fan note: the GP100 is basically "L-Frame sized" and eats out of the same 6-shot speedloaders. The now-discontinued Security/Service Six series was more or less "K-Sized", the Redhawk is more or less "N-sized", the SP101 is a massively beefed up J-class gun and the SuperRedhawk is a beefier frame than anything S&W has *ever* made, although there are rumors of S&W prototypes designed as "SRH killers".)
 
For a first revolver I have to recommend a 357. It is an exceptionally versatile round and you do have the option of shooting 38 Specials. In general, the 686 or Ruger GP-100 seem to be the best combination of size, weight and durability. You might luck out and find a police trade in 686 cheap!
 
Are there any advantages of the 627 over the 686? In California, only the 627 with 5" barrel is approved. I'm allowed to buy the 686 in any size, and most sizes of the 629.
Click to expand...

The reason that you can only get selected models in California is simply the cost. It costs almost a quarter million dollars to certify a model for sale in California and California Law requires separate certificaions for EVERY modification. That means each barrel length has to be certified. Want it blued? Certify. Stainless? Certify. Wood grips? Certify. Camo finish? Certify.

I know that doesn't make sense but that's the way California does things.
 
Going off-topic for a minute:

That's an interesting statistic, your assertion that it costs $250,000 to test and certify each model here in California.

If your assertion is correct, then based on the current number of gun models on the certified list (790), manufacturers have spent a total of:

790 x $250,000 = $197,500,000

to have all guns on the list certified.

Also, based on that testing fee, considering the FEG PA-63 I recently bought for about $150, the manufacturer would have to sell:

$250,000
----------- = 1667 individual firearms at retail price to break even off
$150 the testing fees.

With some even more inexpensive guns, the break-even point would be even higher. Example-for the Cobra (ex-Davis) derringers, designed to sell for about $70 retail (yes, they are on the list), the manufacturer would have to sell:

$250,000
----------- = 3571 units
$70

One more interesting statistic-if the $250,000 testing fee is correct, then Smith & Wesson, which currently has 129 approved models on the list, must have spent:

$250,000 x 129 = $32,250,000

to have all its models tested. That's a pretty big capital outlay, particularly considering how shaky that firm has been lately.

As a matter of academic exercise, Jar, what's your source for your assertion for the $250,000 testing fee? I'm not questioning it, mind you, I'm just trying to understand the economics of the gun testing process here in California.

Bob
 
Mea Culpa. That was what S&W said they spend each Year in certifying California handguns.

It came from a thread with one of the S&W folks over on S&WForum. I went back and checked the thread and I was off. It is more like 8-10,000 per gun. But they still have to certify every single damn variation.

Can anyone explain why a pistol with a 3" barrel and the same one with a 5" barrel should have to be certified separately? How about a blued model instead of SS?
 
Can anyone explain why a pistol with a 3" barrel and the same one with a 5" barrel should have to be certified separately? How about a blued model instead of SS?
Click to expand...

Because the purpose isn't to certify guns for safety, but to discourage handgun sales in California. ;)
 
Tamara is exactly right. The purpose of all the recent anti-handgun laws in CA is not to make California safer, but to make it as difficult as possible to buy a handgun. If it becomes too much of a pain in the nether regions, the number of gun sales will decrease. That is, in fact, starting to happen.

I hope all of you in the other states are paying attention.

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