"the best 686"

mjblucci

New member
OK lets have it out.... Right here, right now...
i had a -3 that i foolishly sold a few years back. Now that i'm going for my second 6'' 357, i wonder if anyone has any good tips on the differences between the dashes. Are they too small to make a bigger difference than prelock postlock
 
I prefer the no dash models, myself.
They have a self-aligning firing pin on the hammer, and a drop safety.
I've often wondered if the triggers felt better because they were 'worn in', or that they were made with more craftsmanship, or they were set to different settings-before the lawyers got in and ruined it for everybody.
 
Last edited:
truth be told

i guess foolishly selling them's how guys like us get those great revolvers to first place, huh? :)
those no dash models do look pretty solid.

i did enjoy learning how to work a double action trigger with my dash 3
 
mjblucci said:
i wonder if anyone has any good tips on the differences between the dashes.
Many purists consider the -4 version to be the pinnacle of M686 development, as it's the last version with traditional forged lockwork and a hammer-mounted firing pin, and it's the only such gun to combine these traits with a topstrap pre-drilled for a scope base and a 7-shot "Plus" option.

The -5 introduced MIM lockwork, an integral cylinder stop, the full-floating firing pin, and the corresponding flat-faced hammer.

That said, if you don't intend to mount optics and only need 6 shots, AFAIK there's otherwise little difference between the -4 and the -3 other than the cylinder latch.
caz223 said:
I prefer the no dash models, myself.
They have a self-aligning firing pin on the hammer, and a drop safety.
As stated above, all M686's through the -4 have the firing pin on the hammer.

All S&W revolvers that have visible hammers and were built after mid-1944 have a hammer block with the same basic (and nearly foolproof) design. All of them are drop-safe.
 
Last edited:
I have a -4, a -5 and a -6. All shoot very well. Because of this and the experience with them, I would never pay a premium for a pre-lock model intended for a shooter.
 
both of my 586's are -2's, I like them as early as I can get, but don't like factory recalls... -2's are just outside the "M" mod recall range.
 
The best 686 is the 681, but I'm not a fan of adjustable sights on a "DISTINGUISHED SERVICE MAGNUM". Actually I think S&W should have reversed the names. To my mind the perfect Combat Magnum should have fixed sights.
:cool:
 
It's been my experience that the 581 and 681 are way, way under-produced compared to the 586 & 686. I'd like to see some production numbers.

Mine is a 686-3, six-inch barrel. I love it, was the first handgun I ever purchased with my own dough. If I could change anything, it just seems to me like the SAME revolver with just one inch LESS barrel might balance perfectly. A four-inch feels nice, but it doesn't look the way I believe it should. I have myself convinced that a five inch would be the best.

I bought a dash-3 because I got it new in 1989 and that's what was available. In fact, it wasn't until many years later that I even learned there were dash-numbers and what they meant. Mine's a BEBxxxx serial number, and though I thought they were awful looking at the time (and you could still make that argument), I do often wish I had opted for the quick-adjust front sight that was available and you also don't often see these days.
 
Many would consider the -4 variants the most desirable, as they are the last of the hammer-mounted 686s. My vote, though, would be for the -5, as they're the only pre-lock version with a frame-mounted firing pin, which I prefer. The pinned front sight is another nice feature.
 
I have a 686-1 that I never sent back for the modification that is my choice. I carried it most of the time when doing night time mobile security patrols. It served me very well. It was my constant companion when checking buildings that were supposed to be locked but were not. It helped bring me home more than once especially when I needed to arrest a burglar or two. If I had to carry a revolver on duty and could choose my own, my 686-1 would be on my side ready to do its job.
 
i had heard about the dash numbers very early on in owning the -3. but its difficult to get down which ones had which developmental changes. As i had suspected, you all have had excellent info thus far.
 
I have always liked the -4 however I never say no to a -5 at the right price.

I had a black -3 I regret selling.

I do miss the flash chromed hammer and trigger on the -4 but it's made up for by the fact that most -4's I find are very clean and the sights are as other have mentioned easier to swap out or modify to a scope or the cylinder and slide fixed sight deal.

I like the 7 shot ones. An extra shot, why not?

The mountain gun was a -5 and I bet most folks would buy them all day long.

I agree the numbers on 681 production must be very much lower than 686 production. I see maybe 30 used 686's for every used 681.

I do not know why the fixed sight L frame never seemed popular, perhaps since the L frame came in at the end of the reign of the revolver as a service weapon folks who were going to buy an L frame as an upgrade, simply wanted the more featured model? I don't know.
 
I have a -1 with the M over stamp. It is a wonderful revolver with a 4" barrel. I then also have a Model 25 Mountain Gun in .45 Colt. It is even more wonderful. :)

I have just read about a rather rare Model 686 Mountain Gun on another forum. If you can find one of these, I would say it has to be the best 686. As far as I know all Mountain Guns come with 4" barrels.

The above is being stated as sheer opinion since I have never even seen a S&W Model 686 Mountain Gun. Hope I never do since I will probably want to buy it.
 
The 686 mtn gun is a 4 inch non-underlug barrel similar in profile to other offerings in the mg styled guns, with a 7 shot cylinder.

I could have bought one. I should have....
 
RsqVet said:
I do not know why the fixed sight L frame never seemed popular, perhaps since the L frame came in at the end of the reign of the revolver as a service weapon folks who were going to buy an L frame as an upgrade, simply wanted the more featured model? I don't know.
I think that's one major reason. IMHO the other major reasons are (a) there was never a 7-shot "Plus" model, and (b) 4" was the only barrel length offered.

Also, on the topic of uncommon M686's... aside from the Mountain Gun, another couple of special variants (and my personal faves...) are the two 5"-barrel Stocking Dealer Specials from the early 2000's. IIRC both came with orange Hi-Viz front sights, V-notch rear sights, 7-shot "Plus" cylinders, and cocobolo Combat stocks. The first version was a -5 with a full-underlug barrel; the second version was a -6 with "The Lock" and a half-lug heavy barrel.
 
I bought this 686-3 in 1991. I have a thing for 6" .357's. I don't hunt, so I have no need for a gun that's drilled for a scope, and I'm a bit rigid in believing that any revolver that I own needs to have six holes in the cylinder. Except, for maybe a .22. So, the "dash 3" is the gun that most closely represents my preferences and interests, as well as remaining true to the classic S&W revolver style.

SW686-33.jpg
 
I like the 7 shot ones. An extra shot, why not?
I can gather a small handful of reasons that occur to me, but I realize that there is room for both and absolutely a market for both, but I'm firmly in the camp that prefers the six shots rather than seven.

The cylinder, with the extra flute in it, looks "off" to my eye. And in the rimfires, where 10-shots are on board, that REALLY sets off a visual train-wreck, at least to me. However, plus-4 shots is quite an upgrade from 6 than a single extra shot. To me, I'm absolutely fine with 6. And aesthetics (admittedly!) have always meant a lot to me, and in some cases, maybe they mean a bit too much? I know what I like.

I also note for sure that I'm simply losing meat & metal in the cylinder for that extra shot that I didn't ask for, and the cylinder is pretty much -THE- place where all the pressure is contained. Obviously, S&W knows quite well what they are doing (with the exception of Japle's gun...), they don't ship out "dangerous" guns, but in some ways, I am a simple guy and the six shots and meaty cylinder press my happy switch. ;)

It does also complicate speed loader use if you've been running a 686 since the late 80s and you have a nice pile of speed loaders that now won't work with a 7-shot cylinder... but then again, that's genius marketing for any company in the business of selling accessories.

We've also discussed, in the past, if there is ANY different feel in the double action trigger stroke since your finger is now actually doing something slightly different... I would have to admit up front that if anything, it should theoretically improve the DA pull as your trigger stroke is now moving that cylinder slightly less distance. Now the first 686-plus (7-shot) that I ran had a VERY different DA trigger stroke than my 686-3, but I think I safely determined that something other than the shorter distance of cylinder turn was at work. But suffice to say, the much newer ILS gun with the newer-tech internals had a horrendous DA stroke in comparison to my favorite L-frame from the late 80s.
I do not know why the fixed sight L frame never seemed popular, perhaps since the L frame came in at the end of the reign of the revolver as a service weapon folks who were going to buy an L frame as an upgrade, simply wanted the more featured model? I don't know.
I can also say that on a .357 Magnum chambered revolver, at least being able to adjust the sights vertically is a huge advantage for me, damn near a requirement. Even at a short 10-12 yards, I can see on paper a good 2 to 3-inch difference in POA between target .38 loads and full-steam .357 Magnum. Being able to easily regulate your revolver for the load you shoot most, even if you only adjust the sights once is a much-appreciated feature, IMO.

But yes, the relative rarity of the 581/681 does definitely make my eyes light up when I see them. I would not argue with your suggested "30 to 1" ratio, it mirrors my experience. Frankly, I almost never see them. And while on that subject, I find there are way, WAY less 586's out there than 686's, too.
 
Back
Top