SW 686 Snub

KyJim · February 29, 2008, 08:20 PM

I've been looking at a SW 686-3 with wood combat grips (finger grooves) and 2 1/2 inch barrel. I'm wondering how difficult would one be to carry and how much recoil and muzzle flip there would be in .357 magnums (not .38 spl). Thanks.

gmoney · February 29, 2008, 09:07 PM

Just go ahead and purchase !!!! , You will not regret, the one you are describing is exactly like mine even down to the wood finger groove grips.. The 686-3 has enough weight that it will handle anything you want to shoot and smoothly............

RPSmith · February 29, 2008, 09:19 PM

KyJim,

Be aware that that gun is NOT STAINLESS. It is straight steel with either nickel or blue finish. I have just gone through the same process with a dash-3 686 and found that they are a 1990 or 1991 piece but unlike the 686+ they are not a stainless gun. Just letting you know because I presumed they were and could see others making the same mistake.

That said: That 686 is a fabulous gun with enough heft (even in 2" snub) to handle .357 rounds without you wincing everytime you pull the trigger. Understand that it is a K-frame revolver and, as such, is a larger frame than a J-frame which will pull similar duty without the weight.

I have a 686+ 4" inch which is a fabulous shooter and a joy to behold. It is the handgun against which I judge all my newer pieces. The 686 is a quality platform and as long as you understand what you are buying, you will not be disappointed. Good luck, RP.

Hafoc · February 29, 2008, 10:07 PM

Hmm.. I'd thought the 686, or any S&W revolver with a three-digit model number starting in 6, would be stainless. Yes? No?

svenrh · February 29, 2008, 10:10 PM

All 686's are stainless.
586's are blued, possibly nickel.

laytonj1 · March 1, 2008, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Be aware that that gun is NOT STAINLESS. It is straight steel with either nickel or blue finish.

Then it would be called a 586. 686's are stainless. Although there were some 686's made that had a blackened finish applied to the stainless that resembled blue.

Jim

RPSmith · March 1, 2008, 09:51 AM

Trust me, I just went through this. After quite a bit of research, this is what I found:

The 686+ is always stainless and has a seven shot cylinder; the 686(no plus) is not always stainless and has a six-shot cylinder. The 686 2" snub was only made in 1990 and 1991 and came only in nickel or blue. There is a 686+ 2" snub and it is stainless.

1990 and 1991 are the only years that the 686(no plus) came in a 2" snub. It also goes by the name of the Distinguished Combat Magnum. It is not a stainless gun. (I know, it breaks my heart too!)

My source for this info was Davidson's.

Tamara · March 1, 2008, 10:53 AM

The person you talked to at Davidson's was wrong.

ALL S&W 686 REVOLVERS ARE STAINLESS. Don't just trust me on this, call S&W. Email Jim Supica or Roy Jinks. Examine any 686 you care to. Again, ALL S&W 686 REVOLVERS ARE STAINLESS.

Quote:

There is a 686+ 2" snub and it is stainless. ... 1990 and 1991 are the only years that the 686(no plus) came in a 2" snub.

2.5" is the factory barrel length on L-frame snubbies. My 2.5" 686-3 (Serial #BEU0xxx, circa 1990) was most definitely not carbon steel.

Quote:

It also goes by the name of the Distinguished Combat Magnum.

"Distinguished Combat Magnum Stainless" is the name for all 686 revolvers.

cma g21 · March 1, 2008, 11:54 AM

RPSmith wrote:

Quote:

Understand that it is a K-frame revolver and, as such, is a larger frame than a J-frame which will pull similar duty without the weight.

As Tamara said, it's an L-frame, not a K-frame.

RPSmith · March 1, 2008, 09:35 PM

I would love to be wrong on this one.

I'll recheck my sources and get back to you.

P.S. I'll take it on the chin for the K-frame/L-frame typo.

Tamara · March 1, 2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPSmith

I would love to be wrong on this one.

Get ready to be happy, then.

PS: I recommend getting a copy of the SCSW3E. Very authoritative, very handy. Sounds like the salesperson at Davidson's could have used a copy, too.

KyJim · March 1, 2008, 11:17 PM

Thanks for the input. The revolver is definitely stainless. It has a chrome plated trigger and hammer to prevent galling. Galling is the tendency for stainless parts to stick to each other (cohesion). I knew this was a problem with some stainless semi-autos in the early 80s but did not know it effected revolvers.

It always comes down to choices.

Tamara · March 1, 2008, 11:39 PM

S&W stainless wheelguns had flash-chromed triggers and hammers 'til sometime in the late '80s/early '90s, mostly for cosmetic reasons (the triggers and hammers were carbon steel.) After that, they went to case colored pieces like the rest of the S&W line to simplify production.

**Mike Irwin** · March 2, 2008, 01:13 AM

"Be aware that that gun is NOT STAINLESS. It is straight steel with either nickel or blue finish."

100% INCORRECT.

ANY Smith & Wesson revolver that starts with a 6 is made of stainless steel.

There are NO exceptions to that rule, which has been in place since S&W introducted the Model 60 in 1965.

"The 686 2" snub was only made in 1990 and 1991 and came only in nickel or blue."

Also 100% INCORRECT.

No 2" Model 686s were ever made; they were all 2.5", and all were Stainless Steel. NOT nickeled, not blued, and the 2.5" was a standard barrel length in the 686 for more than 10 years.

bakelite · March 2, 2008, 02:45 AM

Got one in a trade the other day guys. Haven't shot it yet. It's like new. I just don't know if I'll keep it though.

SAWBONES · March 2, 2008, 03:01 AM

KyJim, as to your original questions, as an owner of a 686 with 2.5" barrel, I can say that it's a relatively easy gun to carry, and soaks up .357 Magnum recoil pretty well. It's bulkier and heavier than a J-frame, of course, but still fairly compact.

Kreyzhorse · March 2, 2008, 07:11 AM

Quote:

I've been looking at a SW 686-3 with wood combat grips (finger grooves) and 2 1/2 inch barrel. I'm wondering how difficult would one be to carry?

Jim - I would think the recoil in that gun would be very manageable. It's not bad in my Ruger SP 101 with 2 inch and something or other barrel so it should be even less in the S&W.

By carry, do you mean as in weight or as in concealed? I carry a 6" 686 during hunting season and camping trips and its not bad with a good belt.

I would think concealed would be a different story however. The cylinder was create a nice bulge to overcome. I think it could be done during winter pretty easily though with layering. Summer is going to be a little more difficult but if you have other carry options during the summer then its a moot point.

Tamara · March 2, 2008, 07:20 AM

The problem, as pointed out above, will be concealing the gun. A good belt will help mitigate the weight issue, but CCW-ing a medium- or large-frame revolver can take some creativity.

Of course, if you wear a good enough cover garment, then a pancake rig OWB or a shoulder holster (if that's your bag, baby) is an easy solution to the problem. IWB, in something easily available from a mass-production manufacturer, I'd recommend a Bianchi "Pistol Pocket". Also known as their model #3S, you're looking for part no. 13769, assuming you're a rightie. It's adjustable for rake and has a thumbbreak. I use it when I CCW my 3" K- and L-frame guns. One thing to be very aware of if you are thinking of carrying a gun like this IWB is the fach that there's a lot of steel above the belt and very little barrel down your trousers to stabilize it; a very rigid belt designed for the purpose is a necessity.

SAWBONES · March 2, 2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

A good belt will help mitigate the weight issue, but CCW-ing a medium- or large-frame revolver can take some creativity.

Actually, a traditional "string holster" used with a good belt works quite well for casual CCW carry in the appendix position with a 686 "snubby". Not for use by those who expect to be running and jumping, but quite sufficiently stable for sedentary carry.

Walkalong · March 2, 2008, 06:36 PM

I have a 2 1/2" 686-3 with combat grips and I love it. I would pick up another one day if I find one in better shape for a good deal. I had a chance at it or a 2 1/2" 686-1 in great shape, but did not want to spend the extra money, just in case I did not like it. After I shot mine, I wished I had bought the nicer one instead. Too late.

Muzzle flip is pretty good and recoil is STOUT to be sure. I do not, or at least have not yet, carry it, but I would carry midrange .357's or hot heavy 38's if I did.

February 29, 2008, 08:20 PM	#1
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	SW 686 Snub I've been looking at a SW 686-3 with wood combat grips (finger grooves) and 2 1/2 inch barrel. I'm wondering how difficult would one be to carry and how much recoil and muzzle flip there would be in .357 magnums (not .38 spl). Thanks.

March 1, 2008, 11:39 PM	#13
Tamara Moderator Emeritus Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 16,002	S&W stainless wheelguns had flash-chromed triggers and hammers 'til sometime in the late '80s/early '90s, mostly for cosmetic reasons (the triggers and hammers were carbon steel.) After that, they went to case colored pieces like the rest of the S&W line to simplify production. __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

March 2, 2008, 01:13 AM	#14
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,393	"Be aware that that gun is NOT STAINLESS. It is straight steel with either nickel or blue finish." 100% INCORRECT. ANY Smith & Wesson revolver that starts with a 6 is made of stainless steel. There are NO exceptions to that rule, which has been in place since S&W introducted the Model 60 in 1965. "The 686 2" snub was only made in 1990 and 1991 and came only in nickel or blue." Also 100% INCORRECT. No 2" Model 686s were ever made; they were all 2.5", and all were Stainless Steel. NOT nickeled, not blued, and the 2.5" was a standard barrel length in the 686 for more than 10 years. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

March 2, 2008, 02:45 AM	#15
bakelite Member Join Date: February 11, 2008 Location: BAMA Posts: 28	686 snub Got one in a trade the other day guys. Haven't shot it yet. It's like new. I just don't know if I'll keep it though.

March 2, 2008, 03:01 AM	#16
SAWBONES Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 1999 Location: The third dimension Posts: 670	KyJim, as to your original questions, as an owner of a 686 with 2.5" barrel, I can say that it's a relatively easy gun to carry, and soaks up .357 Magnum recoil pretty well. It's bulkier and heavier than a J-frame, of course, but still fairly compact. __________________ "Humani nihil alienum"

February 29, 2008, 09:07 PM	#2
gmoney Senior Member Join Date: August 27, 2004 Location: Toulon, IL Posts: 329	Just go ahead and purchase !!!! , You will not regret, the one you are describing is exactly like mine even down to the wood finger groove grips.. The 686-3 has enough weight that it will handle anything you want to shoot and smoothly............

February 29, 2008, 09:19 PM	#3
RPSmith Senior Member Join Date: July 19, 2007 Posts: 270	KyJim, Be aware that that gun is NOT STAINLESS. It is straight steel with either nickel or blue finish. I have just gone through the same process with a dash-3 686 and found that they are a 1990 or 1991 piece but unlike the 686+ they are not a stainless gun. Just letting you know because I presumed they were and could see others making the same mistake. That said: That 686 is a fabulous gun with enough heft (even in 2" snub) to handle .357 rounds without you wincing everytime you pull the trigger. Understand that it is a K-frame revolver and, as such, is a larger frame than a J-frame which will pull similar duty without the weight. I have a 686+ 4" inch which is a fabulous shooter and a joy to behold. It is the handgun against which I judge all my newer pieces. The 686 is a quality platform and as long as you understand what you are buying, you will not be disappointed. Good luck, RP.

February 29, 2008, 10:07 PM	#4
Hafoc Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2005 Posts: 552	Hmm.. I'd thought the 686, or any S&W revolver with a three-digit model number starting in 6, would be stainless. Yes? No?

February 29, 2008, 10:10 PM	#5
svenrh Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2007 Location: God's Country Posts: 100	All 686's are stainless. 586's are blued, possibly nickel.

March 1, 2008, 09:51 AM	#7
RPSmith Senior Member Join Date: July 19, 2007 Posts: 270	Trust me, I just went through this. After quite a bit of research, this is what I found: The 686+ is always stainless and has a seven shot cylinder; the 686(no plus) is not always stainless and has a six-shot cylinder. The 686 2" snub was only made in 1990 and 1991 and came only in nickel or blue. There is a 686+ 2" snub and it is stainless. 1990 and 1991 are the only years that the 686(no plus) came in a 2" snub. It also goes by the name of the Distinguished Combat Magnum. It is not a stainless gun. (I know, it breaks my heart too!) My source for this info was Davidson's.

March 1, 2008, 09:35 PM	#10
RPSmith Senior Member Join Date: July 19, 2007 Posts: 270	I would love to be wrong on this one. I'll recheck my sources and get back to you. P.S. I'll take it on the chin for the K-frame/L-frame typo.

March 1, 2008, 11:17 PM	#12
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	Thanks for the input. The revolver is definitely stainless. It has a chrome plated trigger and hammer to prevent galling. Galling is the tendency for stainless parts to stick to each other (cohesion). I knew this was a problem with some stainless semi-autos in the early 80s but did not know it effected revolvers. It always comes down to choices.

March 2, 2008, 07:20 AM	#18
Tamara Moderator Emeritus Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 16,002	The problem, as pointed out above, will be concealing the gun. A good belt will help mitigate the weight issue, but CCW-ing a medium- or large-frame revolver can take some creativity. Of course, if you wear a good enough cover garment, then a pancake rig OWB or a shoulder holster (if that's your bag, baby) is an easy solution to the problem. IWB, in something easily available from a mass-production manufacturer, I'd recommend a Bianchi "Pistol Pocket". Also known as their model #3S, you're looking for part no. 13769, assuming you're a rightie. It's adjustable for rake and has a thumbbreak. I use it when I CCW my 3" K- and L-frame guns. One thing to be very aware of if you are thinking of carrying a gun like this IWB is the fach that there's a lot of steel above the belt and very little barrel down your trousers to stabilize it; a very rigid belt designed for the purpose is a necessity. __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

March 2, 2008, 06:36 PM	#20
Walkalong Senior Member Join Date: May 30, 2007 Location: Al. Posts: 196	I have a 2 1/2" 686-3 with combat grips and I love it. I would pick up another one day if I find one in better shape for a good deal. I had a chance at it or a 2 1/2" 686-1 in great shape, but did not want to spend the extra money, just in case I did not like it. After I shot mine, I wished I had bought the nicer one instead. Too late. Muzzle flip is pretty good and recoil is STOUT to be sure. I do not, or at least have not yet, carry it, but I would carry midrange .357's or hot heavy 38's if I did.