# S&W Preference



## bwanatom (Nov 10, 2008)

Hi forum,
I have somewhat asked this question before, but now I have narrowed it down to S&W. I have listed 5 s&w models of Revolvers here, I am interested in anybody's opinion regarding which one they would choose, and why? 
Thanks a load,
bt 


Model 686 6" Weighted Barrel 
357MAG
SKU: 170319
Caliber: .357MAG/.38+P
Capacity: 6 Rounds
Action: Single/Double Action
Barrel Length: 6" Weighted
Front Sight: Millett Patridge Dovetail
Rear Sight: Adjustable
Overall Length: 11 1/2"
Weight: 53 oz.
Grip: Hogue Rubber Finger Groove
Material: Stainless Steel Frame and Cylinder
Finish: Glassbead 

Model 686 Plus Revolver 6", 7-Shot
SKU: 164198
Model: 686P
Caliber: .357MAG/.38+P
Capacity: 7 Rounds
Barrel Length: 6"
Front Sight: Red Ramp Front
Rear Sight: White Outline Adjustable Rear
Grip: Rubber Grips
Frame: Medium
Finish: Satin Stainless
Overall Length: 12"
Material: Stainless Steel
Weight Empty: 43 oz. 

Model 686 Revolver - 6", 6-Shot
SKU: 164224
Model: 686
Caliber: .357MAG/.38+P
Capacity: 6 Rounds
Barrel Length: 6"
Front Sight: Red Ramp Front
Rear Sight: White Outline Adjustable Rear
Grip: Rubber Grips
Frame: Medium
Finish: Satin Stainless
Overall Length: 12"
Material: Stainless Steel
Weight Empty: 44 oz. 

Model 686PP Revolver 6"
SKU: 164272
Caliber: .357MAG/.38+P
Capacity: 6 Rounds
Front Sight: Patridge Front
Rear Sight: Adjustable
Grip: Rubber Grips
Frame: Medium
Finish: Satin Stainless
Overall Length: 11 3/8"
Material: Stainless Steel
Weight Empty: 44 oz. 

Model 27 - S&W Classics 6 1/2" 
Blue SKU: 150341
Bright Nickel " 150342
Caliber: .357MAG/.38+P
Capacity: 6 Rounds
Barrel Length: 6 1/2"
Front Sight: Pinned Patridge
Rear Sight: Micro Adjustable with Cross Serrations
Overall Length: 12"
Grip: Checkered Square Butt Walnut
Material: Carbon Steel
Finish: Bright Blue


----------



## unpecador (May 9, 2008)

None of the above. I would prefer (and want) a 686 but with a 4" barrel.


----------



## Teuthis (Apr 9, 2008)

If you prefer barrels longer than 4" on a .357, which I also do, the Model 27 can't be beat. I had one and it was a great shooter that absorbed recoil like a big Ruger does. It was superbly built and accurate. I really liked that 6.5" barrel. I also had an L frame model 686, and I liked it too; but I was never as enamored of it as the N-Frame Model 27.


----------



## bwanatom (Nov 10, 2008)

> If you prefer barrels longer than 4" on a .357


Thanks, for target shooting I would like a longer barrel, unless of course it is for carrying, which I totally understand. I think long barrels are classy looking, like cadilacs. I respect the saying "to each their own". I am a target shooter enthusiast, not necessarily a good one, and it would be counter-intuitive to not like a longer barrel for this activity. 
Yes Teuthis, I love the looks of the Model 27, and read a lot of good things about it. It is absolutely sharp looking. 
ty,bt


----------



## unpecador (May 9, 2008)

I don't "struggle" with any idea why anyone decides to do the things they do, to do that would be pathetic in my opinion. I'm not a "target shooter enthusiast", I only want to own and shoot guns for self defense purposes. I'm not a big fan of revolvers, I only want one because of the reliability aspect. I prefer the 4" barrel because it doesn't feel awkward and clumsy to me and I'm adequately accurate with it.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Bwanatom, if your choices were numbered 1-5, top to bottom, then #4 would be my first choice. I've always wanted Power Port gun, it should help reduce muzzle-flip with all ammo, but at the cost of a slightly reduced sight radius.

#3 would be the second pick, very close to #4 for the top spot.

#1 would be virtually the same as #3 if the barrel weight is removable (not sure), so it is next-most desirable on the list.

#2 is basically the same gun, but the seven-shot cylinder, while an advantage in firepower, also makes it a bit more difficult to find things like speedloaders. Still, about the same gun as the others, above.

#5, the N-frame, while bull-strong and accurate, would be my last choice because I regularly shoot using the trigger-cocking double-action mode. The N-frame has a larger grip frame, and thus larger grip, than all the other guns listed, which are L-frames (can use K-frame grips in most cases). The smaller "L" grip/frame makes all the difference for my hand size in trigger reach needed to control the DA trigger pull. If you have large hands, or intend to use the weapon exclusively in single-action mode, then this info will not factor into your choice.


----------



## bwanatom (Nov 10, 2008)

Thanks djniner, 
I like the way you give reasons for your decisions, it is helpful to me. 

thanks for your replies, bt


----------



## unpecador (May 9, 2008)

Maybe not, as well as a few other words but nevertheless, apology accepted.


----------



## Dsig1 (Dec 23, 2007)

bwanatom said:


> Personally, I struggle with the idea why anyone would want a shorter barrel,


First of all, I vote for the Model 27 as well. It's an awesome gun.

Second, I have two .357's with 6" barrels that I primarily use for target practice, but, I do want a 4" one for a home defense gun (for ultimate reliability) in the bedroom. I've tried my 6" guns but they are a bit bulky and barely fit into the mini safe next to my bed.


----------



## bwanatom (Nov 10, 2008)

Thanks Dsig,
Yes, primarily I'm a want-a-be target shooter. I live alone, and don't have anybody to protect but me. I have yet to come to grips with using a gun for self defense. The scars it must leave on a person to shoot another, to me anyway, is frightening. As far as target shooting, I love the time at the club trying to improve and meet new people. Somehow, it's a release of stress for me. I also see guns as a "work of art", with so much history, and lore. 
thanks again, bt


----------



## bwanatom (Nov 10, 2008)

Well, this is the "new kid" on the block!
Ain't she cute! After deciding not to buy the .50 cal version(not really), I slapped the plastic down on the counter and bought this one. Ah.....what the heck, it's only money

Model 686 Revolver - 6", 6-Shot
SKU: 164224
Model: 686
Caliber: .357MAG/.38+P
Capacity: 6 Rounds
Barrel Length: 6"
Front Sight: Red Ramp Front
Rear Sight: White Outline Adjustable Rear
Grip: Rubber Grips
Frame: Medium
Finish: Satin Stainless
Overall Length: 12"
Material: Stainless Steel
Weight Empty: 44 oz.

_*The flowers really set it off*_









Anyways, thanks for the input from all of you. 
bt (now penniless)


----------



## Bob Wright (May 10, 2006)

Teuthis said:


> If you prefer barrels longer than 4" on a .357, which I also do, the Model 27 can't be beat. I had one and it was a great shooter that absorbed recoil like a big Ruger does. It was superbly built and accurate. I really liked that 6.5" barrel. I also had an L frame model 686, and I liked it too; but I was never as enamored of it as the N-Frame Model 27.


I am of the opposite opinion. I find the L-frame grip better suits my hands for fast DA firing, and the bore axis is lower in my hand. Further, the longer cylinder of the L-Frame will accept my 173gr. cast SWC bullets when crimped in the crimping groove. The Model 27 lets the bullet noses protrude, tying up cylinder rotation. In my opinion, the L-Frame .357 Magnum from Smith is the ultimate DA .357 Magnum:










My 586s, a 4" and a 6", along with my Model 19s.

Bob Wright


----------



## bwanatom (Nov 10, 2008)

Thanks guys, good info. This is a bit, below, I found on the web.
bt

The "L"-frame family of revolvers is one of the youngest and smallest of all S&W families. It was announced in 1980 with four models, all chambered in .357 magnum - 581, 681, 586 and 686. All those revolvers were similar in design, and differed only in materials and sight types: models 581 and 586 were carbon steel, 681 and 686 - stainless steel; models 581 and 681 had fixed rear sights, models 586 and 686 had ajustable sights. The idea behind the whole "L"-frame family was to create revolvers, strong enough to withstand a steady diet of full-power .357 Magnum ammunition while being comfortable to carry for long periods. Basically, these guns were intended as "ideal" service revolvers in 357 magnum. Previous S&W revolvers in .357 Magnum had some drawbacks from that point of view: K-frame revolvers like Model 19 or Model 66 were light but not strong enough for constant usage of powerfull ammunition; N-framed guns, like Model 28 or Model 627 were exceptionally strong, but also too big and heavy. So "L"-framed guns were born as compromise between K and N frames - grip part of the "L" frame is similar to "K" frame, and cylinder part is much stronger, like that of "N" frame.


----------



## Bob Wright (May 10, 2006)

bwanatom said:


> Thanks guys, good info. This is a bit, below, I found on the web.
> bt
> 
> The "L"-frame family of revolvers is one of the youngest and smallest of all S&W families. It was announced in 1980 with four models, all chambered in .357 magnum - 581, 681, 586 and 686. All those revolvers were similar in design, and differed only in materials and sight types: models 581 and 586 were carbon steel, 681 and 686 - stainless steel; models 581 and 681 had fixed rear sights, models 586 and 686 had ajustable sights. The idea behind the whole "L"-frame family was to create revolvers, strong enough to withstand a steady diet of full-power .357 Magnum ammunition while being comfortable to carry for long periods. Basically, these guns were intended as "ideal" service revolvers in 357 magnum. Previous S&W revolvers in .357 Magnum had some drawbacks from that point of view: K-frame revolvers like Model 19 or Model 66 were light but not strong enough for constant usage of powerfull ammunition; N-framed guns, like Model 28 or Model 627 were exceptionally strong, but also too big and heavy. So "L"-framed guns were born as compromise between K and N frames - grip part of the "L" frame is similar to "K" frame, and cylinder part is much stronger, like that of "N" frame.


Add to this the fact that the L-Framed gun had a newly designed action, slicking up an already super-slick double action mechanism.

Bob Wright


----------



## bwanatom (Nov 10, 2008)

Hi,


> Well, this is the "new kid" on the block!
> Ain't she cute! After deciding not to buy the .50 cal version(not really), I slapped the plastic down on the counter and bought this one. Ah.....what the heck, it's only money


Well that was wednesday. Today is of course saturday. Today was the first time I shot this gun (s&w 686-6, 6"). I had approx 40 rds thru it(38sp 158gr. RNL) when it had a jam. A round stuck in the barrel, a pin fell out, the cylinder came loose and would not reset back into the frame, the trigger would not budge, and the hammer was stuck as well. A "S&W" having problems this early. I thought it was one of the most reliable guns out there? I took it back to the "place of purchase", and they are going to replace it, based on the damage that was done, and what might be done (to the barrel). All that glitz and glamor I displayed with the original post has faded and wilted. How discouraging. :smt022
bt


----------



## thercman (Apr 13, 2008)

WoW! I am sorry to hear about your misfortune. Glad you weren't hurt in the process. Maybe you just got a bad apple so to speak. I am currently looking to purchase a 686 as well only with a 4" barrel. I hope this isn't going to start showing a trend or design flaw.....


----------

