This is another one of those urban myths that has taken on an air of credibility just because so many people keep repeating it. I don't think S&W has ever confirmed a single case of it happening. If you look at how the internal lock is engineered, it would be about as likely to happen as water running uphill. But makes for good scare tactic among folks who can't get over the politics behind the lock... I have a few revolvers new enough to have the lock, and I feel just as confident in them as any of my vintage ones. Of course the vintage wheel guns are so much sexier...
S & W 686 six or seven shot?
- Thread starter davem
- Start date
This is another one of those urban myths that has taken on an air of credibility just because so many people keep repeating it. I don't think S&W has ever confirmed a single case of it happening. If you look at how the internal lock is engineered, it would be about as likely to happen as water running uphill. But makes for good scare tactic among folks who can't get over the politics behind the lock... I have a few revolvers new enough to have the lock, and I feel just as confident in them as any of my vintage ones. Of course the vintage wheel guns are so much sexier...
buck460XVR
New member
....and that will get you a gun from the Bangor Punta era, considered by many to be the worst of quality. Some folks have short memories.
If one is going to have the gun long time and shoot it a lot, they should get a new one with the lifetime warranty and they will never have to worry.
And there are no pre-BP era 686s.
I have a 686 CS-1 that is a piece of art, in form and function from the BP era.
I would stack it up against any 686 made since.
My memory is fine, and just how many BP era revolvers have you personally seen/held that were in fact "sub-par"? And how many from that era that were copasetic concerning quality? How many current iterations of the 686 go back to S&W today for warranty work? I am confident that that number is greater than zero.
No such thing as ALL perfect for the total production numbers from any "era".
I think that we would all agree that there are some advances in production that we enjoy and celebrate, and also some "advances" that we would have rather not seen happen.
You pays your money and you take your chances.
Lol, Bamgor Punta certainly...
But have you completely forgotten all the S&W revolvers between BP-era and ~2000 when the ILS arrived? The Lear-Siegler and Tompkins guns?
Lots of different S&W revolvers attract some folks for their own reasons. I've currently got S&W revolvers that I totally love from the early 1920's, mid-50's, mid-70's and as late as 1994. But a couple of my favorites are from '88 and '89. None have the lock. And the one single L-frame I have is pre-lock and very much long after Bangor Punta.
I believe that both my 19 & 28 are Bangor Punta era. And they are fantastic.
But have you completely forgotten all the S&W revolvers between BP-era and ~2000 when the ILS arrived? The Lear-Siegler and Tompkins guns?
Lots of different S&W revolvers attract some folks for their own reasons. I've currently got S&W revolvers that I totally love from the early 1920's, mid-50's, mid-70's and as late as 1994. But a couple of my favorites are from '88 and '89. None have the lock. And the one single L-frame I have is pre-lock and very much long after Bangor Punta.
I believe that both my 19 & 28 are Bangor Punta era. And they are fantastic.
buck460XVR
New member
That was the point of my post. Folks snibble about current quality and then twenty years later it's the best thing since sliced bread. Look at Colt D.A. Revolvers. Folks thought at the time they weren't worth the price, so Colt discontinued them.... now folks pay a premium for the same gun and claim their worth every penny.
I have 686s from the BP era, post BP and as late as last year. All are fine weapons and all are accurate and reliable. The Hillary hole does not bother me, nor does the lock itself. I see little or no difference in the appearance or the accuracy between them, but if I was looking for another, since used 686s sell used for more than they sold for originally and almost as much as a new gun, I'd probably go for a new one with a lifetime warranty. just sayin'.
Seems reasonable except...
I don't know where you shop used guns but a pre-lock 686 can be found for significantly less dough then a box-fresh new one. And... S&W backs them also.
My buddy just snagged his 686-1 (M stamped) for $565, $25 to ship, $15 transfer, no tax. Gunbroker. I checked it out yesterday and it's terrific.
What's a new one cost?
Who on this globe would suggest that a new one is a better product?
I agree that the OP could br entirely happy with a brand new 686, but won't agree that it's a bad idea to suggest or shop for a used one.
I don't know where you shop used guns but a pre-lock 686 can be found for significantly less dough then a box-fresh new one. And... S&W backs them also.
My buddy just snagged his 686-1 (M stamped) for $565, $25 to ship, $15 transfer, no tax. Gunbroker. I checked it out yesterday and it's terrific.
What's a new one cost?
Who on this globe would suggest that a new one is a better product?
I agree that the OP could br entirely happy with a brand new 686, but won't agree that it's a bad idea to suggest or shop for a used one.
wouldn't the seven shot HAVE to be weaker than the 6? not a huge concern, but for a handloader and someone who likes to play with fast/heavy loads, would this be an issue? would a six shot be good for ruger only loads? I know there is no special designation for ruger only loads in .357mag, but they are known to handle realy hot rounds for a longer period of time, just think that extra metal maybe good in the long run.....maybe it doesn't matter one bit.
Technosavant
New member
Nope. Here's why: On the six shooter, the cylinder stop notch is cut right at the thinnest part of the cylinder- right where the charge hole is the fattest. With the seven shot, the notches are BETWEEN the cylinders since, with a charge hole lined up with the barrel, the bottom of the cylinder is between the charge holes. So theoretically, a seven round 686+ will be stronger.
Still, I'd not run Ruger only loads through one. I just don't like flirting with disaster quite that much. If you choose to handload heavy loads, make sure you work up the load gradually and pay close attention to pressure signs (you probably know this already, but I just feel compelled to state the obvious here).
buck460XVR
New member
Not according to many folks here. Many are willing to pay more for a pre-lock than a new Smith. Not me.....and "significantly less" means more than $100 to me. I have no problem with used guns and buy a few myself, but I don't assume what ain't true when it comes to the warranty on it.
You keep telling us this, but it's not the truth. If you read the warranty that comes with all Smiths covered by their "lifetime warranty", it is the lifetime of the original purchaser, not the lifetime of the gun. While Smith does and has done warranty work on guns not owned by the original owner....they don't have to and you read more and more posts from folks that bought used guns that had to pay not only for repairs, but the one day shipping to and from. Ruger gives no warranty at all with their new guns, but they still stand behind them.....for now. This does not mean they will cover them forever in the future or for even a year after purchase sometime down the road when times get tuff or their stockholders want more profit.
Quote: So theoretically, a seven round 686+ will be stronger.
You're exactly right and you beat me to making the point. That said, I think most of us would agree that the differences in "strength" between the 686 vs the 686 Plus is pretty much a moot point when it comes to practical usage. Personally, I like having the extra round on board and see no real downside to having it.
You're exactly right and you beat me to making the point. That said, I think most of us would agree that the differences in "strength" between the 686 vs the 686 Plus is pretty much a moot point when it comes to practical usage. Personally, I like having the extra round on board and see no real downside to having it.
Only downside I have seen is a good Galco holster for either is $78.00 out the door. I've owned both and prefer the 7 shot. Just me I guess. You can do a lot of bodily damage with 6 or 7 in a 357. If that doesn't do it time to get out of Dodge as the saying goes. I like semis and own a few. I'm just a better shot with a wheel gun. In 1977 my first hand gun was a snub nose security six. Being 18 I was stupid to ever trade it off.
Technosavant
New member
dgludwig said:
Pretty much. I don't have a 7 shot L frame (my 586 is a 6 shooter), but if I were buying a new one and the 6 and 7 round versions were sitting right next to each other, I'd pick up the 7.
But then, I also have a 327 too... BOW BEFORE THE 8 ROUND CYLINDER.
I've got plenty of 7 round speedloaders. They aren't hard to find. Matches requiring a six round revolver is one thing; counting on a handgun to save your bacon is another. If your goal is to compete in a shooting game that requires a six round revolver, then the six round capacity Model 686 is an obvious choice. On the other hand, if you're carrying a revolver for self-defense, the Model 686 Plus has no downsides. "Flexibility" is no substitute for a real life shoot-out.
I can't count on a 6-shot to save my bacon? 
As I said...YMMV. If you feel you're better off with the 7th round, terrific. Me? I have 6- and 8-shot revos to save my bacon, and which I can shoot matches with. Sounds more flexible to me.
And the last time I checked, there aren't any Safariland or Jetloader push-release type speedloaders for the 7-shot, so while you may have a bunch of twist-type loaders, options for the 7-shot are more limited.
As I said...YMMV. If you feel you're better off with the 7th round, terrific. Me? I have 6- and 8-shot revos to save my bacon, and which I can shoot matches with. Sounds more flexible to me. And the last time I checked, there aren't any Safariland or Jetloader push-release type speedloaders for the 7-shot, so while you may have a bunch of twist-type loaders, options for the 7-shot are more limited.
If the argument is selecting gear for a real life shootout, is the S&W L-frame really the front-runner here? Not that this WAS the question but when one post details how the 7-shot is nixed for sanctioned gun games, and the next immediate response is "life or death shootout!" ...then I suppose THIS next post should say "pfft, 8-shot N-frame!" or 7+1 Coonan or 15+1 Glock 20.
It's a vicious gun forum cycle.
Ahh, Mr. Borland beat me to it. Fast & accurate, that guy.
It's a vicious gun forum cycle.
Ahh, Mr. Borland beat me to it. Fast & accurate, that guy.
QUOTE: I can't count on a 6-shot to save my bacon?
Sure you can. If you have the misfortune of getting into a gun fight, you're one round better off than somebody with a five shooter. And he's three rounds better off than the guy armed with a derringer. Likewise, having an eight shot revolver gives you a one round advantage over one having seven shots.
I never said or even implied that a six shot Model 686 is a bad choice for a self-defense revolver. The op's thread title was "S & W 686 six or seven shot?" In comparing these two revolvers, I'm only making the obvious observation that having one more round on board might make a difference in terms of the outcome of a self-defense scenario. I don't see this potential advantage as being a "downside".
Sure you can. If you have the misfortune of getting into a gun fight, you're one round better off than somebody with a five shooter. And he's three rounds better off than the guy armed with a derringer. Likewise, having an eight shot revolver gives you a one round advantage over one having seven shots.
I never said or even implied that a six shot Model 686 is a bad choice for a self-defense revolver. The op's thread title was "S & W 686 six or seven shot?" In comparing these two revolvers, I'm only making the obvious observation that having one more round on board might make a difference in terms of the outcome of a self-defense scenario. I don't see this potential advantage as being a "downside".