Compare frame size of S&W 686+ and Taurus 627


PDA






Trifler
August 27, 2007, 05:45 AM
Can anyone give me a size comparison between the S&W 686+ 7-shot and the Taurus Tracker 627 7-shot revolvers? I haven't been able to find any stores with either of these in stock to look. Taurus lists their 627 as a "Compact" frame while S&W lists their 686+ as a "Medium" frame. Their weights are listed about the same with only a 3 oz difference (40 vs 43 oz for the 6" versions).

If you enjoyed reading about "Compare frame size of S&W 686+ and Taurus 627" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
edhaus
August 27, 2007, 08:24 AM
The Taurus 627 in SS with 4" barrel lists at 28.8 ounces empty.
The S&W 686 7 shot with 4" barrel is 38 ounces empty. This info is from there websites. I, too, am interested in these 2 revolvers and look forward to the comments that will come. Taurus also has a ported barrel.

Brian Williams
August 27, 2007, 10:15 AM
The Tracker or Compact frame is the same as a K frame, not an L frame.

MCgunner
August 27, 2007, 11:16 AM
For a Taurus L frame equivalent, look at the 608. They're strong, reliable, well built guns. Actually, they're a little between an N frame and an L frame in size. They offer an 8 shot version. As stated, the trackers are K frame sized guns, better for hiking and totin' afield, but not as strong.

http://taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?id=249&category=Revolver

highfive
August 27, 2007, 12:11 PM
For me it looks like you are looking at these 2 revolvers based on the capacity. I have a Taurus tracker 4" in 357 and is the one I actually carry basically most of the time.

When I bought it I was able to look at both (Cabela's Austin) and I went with the Taurus. First because I already have taurus guns and never had any problems with any of them. it was cheaper, lol And it actually feels real good in my hand. As for the sizes when you have both they're real close in size, I actually would say around the same but probably somebody will disagree with me. And the S&W is heavier. Both feel real good. It would be a one on one decision, tough one though, lol

Haywood
August 27, 2007, 12:12 PM
I have a 608 and a 627. The 608 gets a little heavy when plinking. The 627 is my favorite of the Two. When cammping I have carried both IWB for short times. They are both 4".

MCgunner
August 27, 2007, 12:51 PM
My own outdoor hiking 4" .357 is an older M66 six shot, works for me. They're very accurate weapons. the 66 in feel and look and everything external is a dead ringer for my old K frame M19 Smith and Wesson except it has an improvement I like, a round forcing cone (no flat spot at the bottom) and a little more space and beef in the frame there than the 19 had. That was a problem on the 19, forcing cones cracking at the flat part. I had it happen on me with a M10, only shooting .38 slightly +P! It had the pencil barrel and I got a 4" heavy barrel from gun parts inc and had a smith install it. It's been okay since. But, I've been leery of M19 forcing cones since that happened and I've read a lot more about 'em and the problems they had with police departments. The Taurus seems stronger in the forcing cone area, looks it anyway and doesn't have a rep for splitting forcing cones like the K frame Smiths did.

Of course, if I wanted strength in the gun, I'd get a Ruger. Had a Security Six for a good while. But, this danged Taurus is so bloomin' accurate, I'll not sell or trade it away. Accuracy trumps all else with me in an outdoor revolver.

Trifler
August 27, 2007, 04:26 PM
For a Taurus L frame equivalent, look at the 608. They're strong, reliable, well built guns. Actually, they're a little between an N frame and an L frame in size.

The reason I looked at the Tracker over the 608 was because I didn't want to have to use moonclips.

Taurus also has a Model 60 that appears to be virtually identical to their Tracker 627. Any thoughts on that?

S&W's Model 620 is another 7-shot .357. It's only available with a 4" barrel, but it might be an option for those of you interested in a 4".

Based on the comments it sounds like the Tracker 627 is easier to carry than the S&W 686+. Which is easier to shoot?

Whatever I choose is going to be a bedside gun and a regular practice gun.

L-Frame
August 27, 2007, 08:21 PM
If it's a 7 shot, it's got to be closer to an L than a K frame. I just looked at my S&W 19 and there is no room at all for a 7th hole.

MCgunner
August 27, 2007, 11:17 PM
If what you want is a bedside gun/practice gun, weight is your friend, not your enemy.

Trifler
August 27, 2007, 11:26 PM
If what you want is a bedside gun/practice gun, weight is your friend, not your enemy.

I agree with you for the most part. It isn't weight I'm concerned with. It's frame size for my small hands.

flashman70
August 29, 2007, 02:37 PM
I have small hands (esp. short fingers) and have no problem with my 686 w/ 4" barrel.

Trifler
August 29, 2007, 04:34 PM
I have small hands (esp. short fingers) and have no problem with my 686 w/ 4" barrel.

That's good news. Just to confirm, that's the 7-shot version?

flashman70
August 29, 2007, 04:56 PM
That's good news. Just to confirm, that's the 7-shot version?

Yep.

Redneck with a 40
August 29, 2007, 09:41 PM
The Taurus Tracker is plenty strong, no doubt. My owners manual states that it is rated for 158 grain bullets at 1450 fps. I've never loaded my rounds anywhere near that, but that is what it says. I'd say its built closer to L-frame strength. A true K-frame would not withstand those rounds for very long at all.

I've got about 1000 of my reloads through my tracker so far, 125 grain remington semi jacketed hollow point at 1350 fps, the gun is still very tight, extremely accurate. I think they are well built.

If you enjoyed reading about "Compare frame size of S&W 686+ and Taurus 627" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!