Revolver Noob: S&W 686 vs Model 27

sigcurious, if you want to know if an M-27 or 28 would be too big or not, just go find a 629, 29, 625, 25, 24 or 624 to handle. They're all N-frames, they all feel the same from the backstrap to the trigger with the same stocks.

I have 19 and 18 (K-frames) and a 629 (N-frame). While I love to shoot all of them, the 629 is borderline too big for me to manage well in DA mode. I handled a 4" 586 at a LGS today and I think it is going to find a new home tomorrow. I'm an out-spoken none-fan of full-lug barrels, but in this case I think I will overlook that in favor of something that should be a very nice shooter with .357 Magnum loadings. (I was also considering holding out for an N-frame 28 or 27, but see above points about how big they are.)
 
Webley's covered all of the salient points, including the lock issue, extremely well, so I won't reiterate what he has to say.

I've owned both a 686 (6" with a lock) and a 27-3 (4"), and I still own the 27. They're both superb and almost uncannily accurate guns that can handle just about anything in .357 chambering and handle it well. I sold my 686 in favor of the 27. My reasons for preferring the 27 are subjective. What I like may not be what someone else would like. I have very large hands -- I take XXL gloves -- and the 27 just feels better in them. A smaller gun, including one with a K/L gripframe just sort of gets lost in my mitts. The 27, on the other hand, is a perfect fit for me, the grip frame is just the right size, and the trigger falls perfectly under my finger.

I'd probably feel differently if I had medium sized or small hands. In that event, I'd almost certainly prefer the 686.

To the OP, my suggestion is to try both. Whichever feels better to you is probably the right gun.
 
The only correct choice is several variations of both the M27 and M686...and M28, M586..and the nickle plated versions...;)

M586 and M27 with a set of Sanderson thumb-rest target stocks I salvaged.

pair02.jpg
 
@madcratebuilder, That is the eventual choice most likely, I find myself attracted to firearms I think would be fun to shoot, for aesthetic reasons, and historic reasons(So tempted by Bud's current sale of Nagant Revolvers, but then I'd have to buy a mosin rifle too lol. I wouldn't want the revolver to get lonely!).

Although I am pleased to say my short list is down to around 10 handguns, mostly of the I think they would be fun to shoot variety, then I'll start in more on the other reasons.

Then of course there are rifles/shotguns...fortunately I can at least keep my desires for those to a minimum since there are only pistol ranges nearby and I can tell myself why own something I'll hardly ever have an opportunity to shoot. But that reasoning is only going to hold me off for so long :D
 
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,
Click to expand...

When deciding between the Models 619,620 and 686 you should keep in mind if it's important to you that of the three, only the Models 620 and 686 have adjustable sights; the Model 619 comes with fixed sights. Personally, I much prefer adjustable sights on handguns carried in belt holsters and/or used mostly at the range or for hunting. Fixed sights have an advantage when a handgun is carried in the pocket or some other"deep cover" site due to being less prone to snagging the sight on the draw; not a likely use for the relatively large Model 619. Some will argue that fixed sights are more rugged and less likely to be damaged with hard use. That may be true if the pistol is being employed on the battlefield as a combat weapon but, for whatever my experience is worth, thirty years of le duties has convinced me that the supposed fragility of adjustable sights is much ado about nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top