Revolver Noob: S&W 686 vs Model 27

The 619 model is an L frame ( same as 686 ) but its a 7 shot ...fixed sight gun in .357 mag ......and I think they were only made in 5".

686 models were made in 2 1/2", 4", 6" and 8 3/8" barrels...and while they have a 7 shot version it was called the model 686 Distinguished Combat Magnum plus...built on a round butt L frame...and the more common 686 Distinguished Combat Magnum Stainless is a SQ Butt L frame...

a subtle difference...
 
Last edited:
Thanks...

I have a lot of different grips on my guns ...the old finger groove wood S&W target grips are hard to come by for the K frames...but the first model 19 at lower right ...it does make it a little tight on clearance to the frame if you have big hands..

the aftermarket grip on the mod 27 blued at left ..is fine / and the stock target grips like what is on the model 27 4" in the photo ..is fine even with big hands...

But if you have big hands ...shooting the model 27 or 686 should both be fine ...maybe not so much in the K frame mod 19 or 66's ..

I swap grips around on my guns a lot ....but for the most part the rubber grips, if I have them from Hogue, etc ...that might have been on the gun when I bought it ...all get replaced with something I like better.
 
If I want to shoot my revolvers...in tactical drills.../ or just for the heck of it...

I tend to group my guns ...for the range day ...so I might stay with K frames....like a mod 18 ( .22 ) 4" - and then a mod 19 or 66 in 2 1/2" or 4" ...and work thru my drills. If I mix in the L frame or N frames...its at the end of my range session...( with each gun, work on my draw and re-holster...and making the gun come up just right for my first shot ...and some reloads ( which I really suck at, if I don't practice them pretty often ). I really like the Jet speed loaders on the K frames...

Or if I feel like shooting the heavier guns....I may start with a gun like a model 617 .22 / L frame in 4" or 6" ...then go to an L frame 686 ...and then to an N frame model 27 ...maybe mix in an N frame in .44 mag ...in some length...just for the heck of it.

Its about having fun ...and practicing...

just like if its a Sig day for me...a 239, a 226 ...maybe an X five ...come out to play ....

but no matter what ...as you start down this journey of revolvers...make sure you have some fun with it .../ and if you buy a S&W revolver you really end up not liking at all ...they're really easy to sell ...and usually make a buck on them.

After all these years for me playing with DA S&W revolvers...I'm dipping my foot in the Single Action Army world for the first time...this gun hobby just keeps leading all of us down a new path.../ and as long as you're having fun...its all good.
 
Both are good revolvers. Either will serve you well for the remainder of your life with proper care.
There is something about the model 27 that sets it apart. In it's day, it went for the same money as the Colt Python. IMHO they scream quality and craftsmanship from the old school. They are starting to climb in price as demand goes up. Worth noting, the model 28 is much the same gun with a lesser finish. Not bad, just that the 27 took things to the next level. A 28 would be an attractive alternative should you come across one. Both are built on the N frame. Previously the heaviest of the S&W frames (until they introduced the X frame in recent years.) For a range gun, I prefer them heavy. I own a S&W 627 PC, It's sort of a hot rodded descendant of the 27 in stainless. It won't be my last N-frame.
The 686 is a very good design. Think of it as a reinforced K frame. Some prefer the older S&Ws without the underlug barrel of the *86 guns, but that simply a matter of taste.


One could go on for a while about the pros & cons of each. At the end of the day, it boils down to what you like.
 
As others have mentioned, the weight of the Model 27 and the 686 are close. For example, SW lists the six inch 27 at 48.5 oz. and the six inch 686 at 44.9 oz.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57959_757780_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...750051_764965_-1____ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

The reason is that the underlug of the M27 is only long enough to cover the ejector rod. The underlug of the 686 runs the full length of the barrel. This causes the balance to be different. I like the M27 as the 686 is a bit muzzle heavy for me. I would suggest you handle both if possible.

Also, as previously mentioned, the 686 has a smaller diameter grip frame. I have small hands and find the target stock of the M27 to be a bit too large. I put some after-market stocks on mine for shooting and they're good to go.

The M27 is an absolutely gorgeous gun. Mine (with original stocks):

SW_Model_27-3_4in_DSCN1391-1.jpg


SW_Model_27-2_6in_DSCN1425.jpg
 
I handled a used, mint condition pre-lock Model 27 with a 3.5'' barrel and loved it, until I saw the price tag. If I had an extra $1000.00 laying around, I'd be posting pictures of it right now. However, I get paid in chickens and that fine revolver is long gone.

About those goofy locks, what would it cost to take the revolver to a smith and remove the lock, and fill it in? I handled another used S&W that had that done.
 
rue the day

One of the low points in my gun swapping life was when I had to have a M29 and traded away a pinned and recessed M27-6" w/ partridge front sight to obtain a .44 Mag.

Man do I regret that.
 
I've seen some gripes about the newer versions with the lock on them. Is there a mechanical reason I should perhaps look at older pre-lock versions, or is the aversion more due to, IMHO, the silly nature of the lock on guns?
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsIWXd_9xPE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaR6NdBzZO4

I advocate nobody buy these lawyer engineered things so S&W gets the message and gets rid of them. They have already started doing it on hammerless J frames probably because Ruger is kicking their ass through the goalpost of life saleswise.
 
^While I have no issues buying used, I highly doubt the demand for S&W revolvers would even come close to being met by prelock used sales only. However in my case, a small number of issues with the lock is not going to steer me away from buying new or used postlock. When the money is saved up, what's available is getting bought :D

@KyJim I'm still trying to track down an actual 686 and 27 to fondle. Grip size at least I think the 686 should be just right from my experience with the 619 at the range. However if making the 27 just right is just a matter of some aftermarket grips, it's going to be darn hard to resist those classic looks
 
I advocate nobody buy these lawyer engineered things so S&W gets the message and gets rid of them. They have already started doing it on hammerless J frames probably because Ruger is kicking their ass through the goalpost of life saleswise.
Click to expand...

Does S&W make PC guns without the lock? Yes, they are unsightly and annoying. Functionally, they are irrelevant. Life is too short to let that stop me if I want the gun, YMMV.
 
Originally posted by kcub
Quote:
I've seen some gripes about the newer versions with the lock on them. Is there a mechanical reason I should perhaps look at older pre-lock versions, or is the aversion more due to, IMHO, the silly nature of the lock on guns?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsIWXd_9xPE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaR6NdBzZO4

I advocate nobody buy these lawyer engineered things so S&W gets the message and gets rid of them. They have already started doing it on hammerless J frames probably because Ruger is kicking their ass through the goalpost of life saleswise.
Click to expand...

First off, I have doubts about the authenticity of those videos (they would be fairly easily faked), but even if they are real, there is nothing in them that proves the IL is the cause of the malfunction. From the angles visible in the video, it cannot be see whether the IL "flag" is up and, the "flag" engaging the recess in the hammer is what actually locks the action of the gun. If a S&W revolver locks up in the manner shown in the video without the "flag" being in the upward position, you can pretty much guarantee that there is breakage of some internal part and the lock certainly isn't the only part in a S&W revolver that could possibly break.

Also, I'd like to know where you get your sales figures from because according to the ATF, S&W produced 36,339 more revolvers than Ruger did in 2010 (the last year for which the ATF has statistics available).

http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2010-final-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf
 
Maybe Smith does sell more snubs than Ruger, but that misses the salient point.

How else do you explain Smith removing the lock on hammerless snubs (that directly compete with the Ruger LCR)? Marketing pressure is the only answer I can rationalize. There's a crack in the armor, so why not force them to get rid of all of them? You don't have to put up with it just because some overpaid suit at Smith and Wesson wants you to. But it's a free country so do what you want to do, brother.

If you want to secure a handgun from unauthorized people you need something like a small button combination safe that you can quickly get to if you need it but nobody else can (who doesn't know the combination). I raised 2 children around many guns safely that way.
 
Originally posted by kcub
How else do you explain Smith removing the lock on hammerless snubs (that directly compete with the Ruger LCR)? Marketing pressure is the only answer I can rationalize. There's a crack in the armor, so why not force them to get rid of all of them? You don't have to put up with it just because some overpaid suit at Smith and Wesson wants you to. But it's a free country so do what you want to do, brother.
Click to expand...

This was explained when S&W first released the run of lockless J-Frames: they had several no-lock frames left over and decided to simply go ahead and build guns on them. Also, the Ruger LCR has a lock as well (its under the grips) as do their newly-produced SA revolvers and some of their semi-autos (I know that the P345 does and I think that the SR9 and SR40 do as well). If you hate things engineered by lawyers so much, perhaps a Ruger isn't necessarily the gun you should be looking at either.
 
Not looking at an lcr, please tell me the sp101 doesn't have one.

Why would they do that? You have to remove the grips, unlock it, put the grips back on, load it, then point it at the criminal? I doubt they'll be that cooperative.
 
The key that virtually all M686s have full underlug barrels whereas most M27s do not. This adds weight, but it's all out in front of the gun rather than within the frame. Consequently, the M686 is more muzzle-heavy. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of personal preference.
Click to expand...

The 686 Mountain Gun as a partial underlug, much like the M27.

As to the comments on weight, the two weigh nearly the same with the same barrel weight. I have a 686, 586, and 4 N-frames (610, 625JM, 625MG and 629) all in 4" barrels. For practical purposes they all weight the same, feel the same in the hand, and handle the same. And, as you can tell, they are great guns!

Since you're use is all range, I don't seem a material difference between the two models. You'll find the 686 more commonly available and cheaper.
 
Not looking at an lcr, please tell me the sp101 doesn't have one.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the SP101 and GP100 don't currently have them (though I wouldn't be shocked if they implemented the feature in the future). To my knowledge, Ruger rolled out their locks on the P345 first followed by their single-actions (I know the centerfire SA revolvers like my younger brother's .41 Mag Blackhawk have them, not sure about rimfires), and then the SR9 and LCR.

Why would they do that? You have to remove the grips, unlock it, put the grips back on, load it, then point it at the criminal? I doubt they'll be that cooperative.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, if you want to routinely use the lock you're supposed to drill a small hole in the grip through which you can insert the key to actuate the lock.

Really, I think the locks are intended for storage and transport. It seems obvious to me that when the gun is being used for carry or nightstand duty, it should be unlocked. I might consider locking the gun when I leave it at home while I'm away or when its packed in my luggage if I didn't already have other means of securing it (safe and locking pistol case).
 
Last edited:
Well I shot a 619 at the range today, which I think is the same frame size as the 686, and that fit me pretty darn well. So I'll have to find a 27 or 28 to handle somewhere to see if its too big for me. The 619 was a joy to shoot, now if only the DA pull on some of my semi-autos was as nice as that DA pull was.
Click to expand...
Well you may have found the right revolver for you. The 619 is a L frame. Has the same grip as the K frame. Has a half lug barrel which balances better in my opinion. I owned a model 28-2 4 inch. I loved the classic look and no question it could handle 357 magnums. But because I have very small hands I was having a hard time reaching the trigger. I you have big hands this is not a problem. I have since sold the 28 and now have a 686-2 4 inch. Shoots a lot like my model 19 except for being a little muzzle heavy. If I ever find a 619 or 620 I feel that would be perfect. Feels like a K frame but is heavy enough to take 357 magnums.
Regards,
Howard
 
@webley/kcub FWIW the current production 22/45's have locks also.

@roaddog28 I definitely considered the 619/620 after shooting it, I would get it in lieu of the 686 if it was in stock and the 686 was not, however I still want to handle a 27 before making the decision. I just have to figure out where one is to handle. Speaking of which, Winchester is in Riverside County, correct? I'm over in Orange County. Do you have any suggestions on shops to look at? I was hoping Turners would have one to look at but no luck.
 
Hi,
There is a gun shop on Beach Blvd at Westminster blvd. They carry a lot of revolvers and could have a model 27 or a 619 or 620.
Good luck,
Howard
 
sweet thanks, so far looking at turner's, riflegear and oc armory has been no luck. Still need to check grant's out also, but the shop you mentioned would be close to the range I use so that's a plus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top