Smith & Wesson 686 plus 4" barrel

New 66 is an option if you don't want the underlug weight.

You basically have to know and have a negative opinion before hand about the key lock hole that has existed for 20 years to have a problem with it.

Because it's "hillary" you hear about it. You NEVER hear about the GP100 just being the ugliest gun in the revolver world thanks to Ruger's writing on it like a kid with a Crayon. The GP100 left side of the barrel and under the barrel has warnings everywhere. The new 1771 (7 shot GP100) also has "7 Shot" now printed on the right side of the barrel.

If the lock hole kills the looks, you have zero other options in the L frame size :)
 
If the lock hole kills the looks, you have zero other options in the L frame size.
Click to expand...
Noop. :rolleyes: Try a Ruger Police Service Six.

Good L-size Roscoe. Pick your desired barrel length.

Best of all, no esthetics-killing H-H.
 
End of production 1988 though...

And correct me, but doesn't the Ruger Police Service Six also have 4 lines of text on the left side of the barrel just like the GP100 that I mentioned?
 
And as nice as they were they aren't a 686.
What's wrong with getting an old pre-lock 686 or 586?
If that's your hang up?
 
Last edited:
And as nice as they were they aren't a 686.
Click to expand...
They also don't sport the dreaded, eye-gouging H-H, Pumpy. Need to read the fine print there a little closer.

What's wrong with getting an old pre-lock 686 or 586?
If that's your hang up?
Click to expand...
Nothing. Not a thing.

I'm fine with the pre-Hillary Hole S&W wheelies. Was never in love with the old L-frames generally, but they've become Old School classics from back in the day.

Which is why, if you peruse the auction sites, pre-H-H S&Ws command such a premium.
 
Not to appear passionate about something I'm not, Ruger has a real actual part problem in their revolvers. The transfer bar can have an issue of not moving enough out of the way and takes the full force of the hammer strike...broken transfer bar over time.

I've never actually read someone online even unverified say their S&W lock locked up on a 686.

So known issue that anyone can confirm with google on transfer bar breaking in Rugers vs not one actual person having a 686 lock up under fire.

Also, Taurus 66s have key locks on them too. Never once heard anything negative on it.
 
wild cat mccane said:
Not to appear passionate about something I'm not, Ruger has a real actual part problem in their revolvers. The transfer bar can have an issue of not moving enough out of the way and takes the full force of the hammer strike...broken transfer bar over time.

I've never actually read someone online even unverified say their S&W lock locked up on a 686.

So known issue that anyone can confirm with google on transfer bar breaking in Rugers vs not one actual person having a 686 lock up under fire.

Also, Taurus 66s have key locks on them too. Never once heard anything negative on it.
Click to expand...
But they weren’t blackmailed into adding these features by the govt.
 
Ah. So it's not an actual function of the revolver, bringing no issue with it. Pre lock S&W being fine with you, perhaps not knowing years before the lock is considered the worst quality period of S&W revolvers. If it were about function, you'd know that the scandinavian frames were the only revolvers to ever be considered to have failed and lock up.

And it's not appearance, because you've since retracted upon my picture that Ruger has always from day 1 had huge amounts of ugly writing on their Six and GP100 lines.

But here we are. In the mythical time period when S&W is being forced to do something by the US government yet a foreign company comes in during the same time period without even a physical safety and took over the entire American market including law enforcement (Glock).

Ie, the stories you hear about the S&W gun lock are mostly just wrong. Once you learn there was no "forced to by the democrats" to add the lock...you start to wonder if the anti lock crowd knows ANYTHING about the only alternative they prefer in Ruger Security/GP100 and Bill Ruger...

The writing on the Ruger revolvers actually is political history and an interesting one to read about the NRA going after the second largest US handgun maker at the time. Bill Ruger contended American could not tolerate the increase shootings and accidents by guns. Ruger put it's text on revolvers proactively long before, LONG before, the lock.

Now knowing this, yeah, the 686 with a lock, pretty cool gun and mechanically a world better trigger than most. I like my multiple 686s (all Plus of course). I dislike my GP100 has a transfer bar rattle and huge amounts of writing on it. Meh.
 
Last edited:
But here we are. In the mythical time period when S&W is being forced to do something by the US government yet a foreign company comes in during the same time period without even a physical safety and took over the entire American market including law enforcement (Glock).
Click to expand...

What Glock took over the revolver market??
 
Haters are going to hate. I do not like the hole, but they are beautiful regardless. Like a supermodel or hot chick with a mole on her face. I EDC a 2.5" 686+ with a 7 round speed loader. All 125 gr 357. I plan on sending it in to be cut for moon clips as well as installing night sights.

Congrats on your new purchased OP! Enjoy!

II9nFt2.jpg


o7UPCR6.jpg


h1XJtPf.jpg


araCg7O.jpg


6kOteM4.jpg


vONfEhJ.jpg


SoYCgCd.jpg
 
Last edited:
I could point out that Glock destroyed the US revolver market, but the point is Glock came to the US without an external physical safety or lock.

Yet the story goes, the US government forced a 10lbs double action revolver company to put a lock on it.

The reality is, one part of this story means the other can't be true. Even the Child Safety Act is only 2005 that requires a gun locks by the importer, seller, or manufacturer.

The 686 has sported a lock half as long as the GP100 has sported a shoddy transfer bar and writing all over the barrel. What do people complain about? a 2mm hole nearly covered by the cylinder release. The hole is smaller than the head of the screw holding the cylinder release in. The lock has only been a problem in the light weight scandium framed guns which aren't all that durable to begin with and non in current production.
 
Last edited:
Glock didn't destroy the US revolver market. The POLICE market was already in the process of switching over from revolvers to semi autos. Glock did, eventually dominate the police market, for a time, due to their marketing. The civilian revolver market is still very much alive, and since Glock doesn't make revolvers I don't see how you can claim Glock destroyed that market.


Yet the story goes, the US government forced a 10lbs double action revolver company to put a lock on it.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you are getting this story from, or why you're repeating it, but those of us who were there know it is completely untrue. The govt. didn't force anything.

What do people complain about? a 2mm hole nearly covered by the cylinder release. The hole is smaller than the head of the screw holding the cylinder release in.
Click to expand...

I don't know what other people complain about, but I do know why the S&W lock disgusts me. It's not the idea of a lock as such, it's the history of how it got there, and where they put it that ticks me off.

A bunch of big city mayors were getting together discussing the idea of suing gun makers because of the violence in their cities. The Clinton administration saw an opportunity to push their agenda. They had a long list of things they want done to guns and requirements for gun sellers, ONE of which was an internal lock. Another among that list was prohibiting anyone under 18 from being in a store where guns were sold. There were a lot of things on their list...

They offered gunmakers immunity from the lawsuits the mayors were expected to bring, if the gun makers signed on to their deal.

The British holding company (Thompkins Ltd) that owned S&W at the time, fell for it. NO other gunmaker did. A lot of people felt that S&W "caving in" to the Clinton's gun control deal was a betrayal. S&W stock plummeted. Thompkins sold S&W for a significant loss.

The lawsuits by big city mayors never happened. The Clinton "deal" fell apart, NO one but S&W signed on to it. (and I don't blame S&W people directly it was the people who owned the company that forced S&W to do it)

The whole thing was an ugly mess and though it took a few years Congress finally acted and removed the threat of lawsuits that the Clintons tried to use as leverage, by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms act.

That "little hole" would be covered by the cylinder latch, so S&W changed the shape of the latch. Functionally, no big deal. But visually a big deal. S&W had kept the latch the same for generations. That made a big difference and for some of us it virtually screams "look here! here's the hole!" And that is distasteful to me.

Other gunmakers have put internal locks in some of their models. In discrete places, that don't change the look of their guns. S&W didn't.

Buy and enjoy what you want, I don't want a S&W with the changed cylinder latch, a lock, or the other changes S&W has made since. Fortunately there's enough old guns to more than meet my needs and wants.

FOR ME, it's not about the mechanics of the lock or its potential for failure, it's about what the Clintons tried to do, and how the owners of S&W at the time went along with it when no one else did.
 
It is old news. The old British owners sold the company after the backlash. It's been decades now. If you do not like the lock, don't buy a S&W revolver that had one. They have prelock models AND some current models that do not have the internal lock. You also have the option to buy a lock delete kit too. There's options for everyone. No need to get panties in a bunch over others buying and liking what you don't like. No need to go above and beyond to let everyone know ad nauseam about what you do not like.

I don't understand why people who do not like a particular product feels the need to derail threats just to tell everyone else they are not interested in what the thread is about. I am not a fan of Glocks, but I do not go to every thread where someone is happy and are posting about their new toy just to be a negative Nancy. I typically will just avoid those threads. Get over yourselves already.


@Londy3 purchased a new firearm that he was happy about, and the peanut gallery felt the need to make the thread about them and what they do not like SMDH.
 
VAGuy said:
It is old news. The old British owners sold the company after the backlash. It's been decades now. If you do not like the lock, don't buy a S&W revolver that had one. They have prelock models AND some current models that do not have the internal lock. You also have the option to buy a lock delete kit too. There's options for everyone. No need to get panties in a bunch over others buying and liking what you don't like. No need to go above and beyond to let everyone know ad nauseam about what you do not like.

I don't understand why people who do not like a particular product feels the need to derail threats just to tell everyone else they are not interested in what the thread is about. I am not a fan of Glocks, but I do not go to every thread where someone is happy and are posting about their new toy just to be a negative Nancy. I typically will just avoid those threads. Get over yourselves already.


@Londy3 purchased a new firearm that he was happy about, and the peanut gallery felt the need to make the thread about them and what they do not like SMDH.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I too get tired of seeing this. You don't like it, fine, start your own thread saying how much you hate it. Why do some feel the need to post negatively on someones post showing off their new gun? Apparently you were never taught by your parents if you have nothing nice to say, keep your mouth shut.
 
That "little hole" would be covered by the cylinder latch, so S&W changed the shape of the latch. Functionally, no big deal. But visually a big deal. S&W had kept the latch the same for generations. That made a big difference and for some of us it virtually screams "look here! here's the hole!" And that is distasteful to me.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.

They took a perfectly functioning and esthetically-pleasing line of wheelguns and drilled a hole in the frames, and did so in a spot that required the historic geometry of the cylinder latch to be altered. ... That's strikes two and three right there.

Strike one was caving into the 'gommit' in the first place. :rolleyes:

Good gawd, what were these sniveling corporate poltroons thinking? :confused:
 
Totally agree.

They took a perfectly functioning and esthetically-pleasing line of wheelguns and drilled a hole in the frames, and did so in a spot that required the historic geometry of the cylinder latch to be altered. ... That's strikes two and three right there.

Strike one was caving into the 'gommit' in the first place.

Good gawd, what were these sniveling corporate poltroons thinking?
Click to expand...

It's not a deal breaker for me or millions of others who have kept S&W revolvers flying off the shelf for decades. If you do not like it, simply do not buy it and move one. There other options for you. No need to dwell on it. You could always start your own gun company, so that way you could put whatever features you want on your creation.

I meantioned that there are pre lock options, current models that have no interal lock, and a lock delete kit. If you have an issue with the cylinder release, there are companies that ALSO sell cylinder releases that cover up the lock. You could also buy a Colt, Ruger, Kimber, Taurus, Charter Arms, etc. I am not sure what the problem or obsession is? I am seeing people that spend a lot if energy focusing on what they don't like instead of just buying what they do like. Simply buy one with a lock, and remove or cover it up, or go with the one of other options on the market and stop over obsessing over it. Seems like some rather complain vs solving the problem, and moving on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top