[Hawk]

In the ongoing search for older S&Ws, a couple of 686s have turned up locally. One a "no dash" and one a "-1".

If memory serves, these are the models that need some kind of work done and are thereafter marked with an "M" under the crane. Neither of the ones in question have the "M".

Is the "M" really neccessary? I hate sending firearms hither and yon. One of those 686s is in a barrel length I don't own yet and wouldn't mind having if the "M" is optional.

[StrawHat]

The -x indicates changes in the design or building of the S&W. Nothing needs to be done to older ones.

I have two 686 (no dash) that still go bang each time I pull the trigger and pile the bullets right where I aim.

Check on a S&W forum for a more detailed answer.

Good luck.

[hexidismal]

Model 686 and 66 smiths are kind of my thing.. and there isn't much if anything I don't know about them. I must say, and I mean no offense, but StrawHat's answer is very silly.. heh

If there is a recall on a piece of equipment that handles the kinds of pressures generated by .357 magnum loads, don't you think theres probably a good reason ? Just because yours work (for now), does not mean that it's wise to ignore a recall.

Quoting myself, from post #330 of the "The 686" Thread:
Smith and Wesson recalled the models 581, 586, 681, 686, or 581-1,
586-1, 681-1, 686-1 and 686CS-1 . High pressure magnum loads were resulting in cylinder binding on some guns. They were afraid it would cause failure to fires in the wrong situations, and also that people would have accidental discharges by improperly trying to release the cylinder. Those models, if they've been returned to S&W for the recall fix , should have an M (for 'modified') over the model number. If anyone has those models still unmodified, S&W will still pay the shipping costs and replace the offending parts for free.

In my opinion, no recall warning should not be considered optional when talking about a gun that is going to be shot. The only exception is collector's guns which don't get fired, which in some cases the "flaw" is valued. This is not the case in any 686.

Also, if you're wondering about the difference between the the 686 and 686-1 , its that the 686-1 was released a full 6 years later and differs in that it has a radius stud package and floating hand.

[Brian Williams]

Most ammo manufacturers have made their primers just a bit harder so there is not the problem with flowing primers in the S&W X86s like there was, but it is not been an issue with most folks. If you find one and desire to have it done a call to S&W and they will send a overnight label for you to use and they will fix it on their dime, to and from shipping included.

[FullClip]

I bought a used 6" 686 (back in 1986 or 1987) and first time I tried real 357 rounds in it (factory ammo as I hadn't bought 357 dies yet) the cylinder locked up so bad had to tap it open with a dowel. Was really bummed out and was gonna' trade it until a friend told me about the recall and even gave me the magazine that had the notice.
Anyway, one phone call, and I sent the gun to a gun shop right in Maine and had it back the next week. Free of charge and no problems since.

I have another 686 a few years later with a 2 1/2" barrel (non-dash ser. #) that I picked up cheap as I suspect the owner had it lock up on him. Anyway, no problems yet with that at all, even with full power handloads.

If you're gonna use any dash or non-dash 686 as a defensive piece, make sure to run a lot of the ammo that you'll be using through it to make sure it works and doesn't create any problems with reliability. Guess same is true for any gun.;)

[StrawHat]

hexidismal writes

"If there is a recall on a piece of equipment that handles the kinds of pressures generated by .357 magnum loads, don't you think theres probably a good reason ? Just because yours work (for now), does not mean that it's wise to ignore a recall."

I agree, I was not referring to a recall but to the dash numbers that, with S&W often mean little except to collectors.

I was unaware of the recall until hexidismal was so kind as to quote himself.

I have used both of the 686's I mentioned in competition with full power loads and target wadcutters.

I have used the 4" on duty and in qualification with full power 158gr loads.

In the 6 years I was shooting them, they never hiccupped, thank God.

Now that I am aware of the problem and the recall, I will address it.

Thanks for the info.

[spwenger]

...had been resolved by the "-1's." The problem was that some Magnum loads were forcing the primers to flow back into the firing-pin bushing. The fix was to install a firing-pin nose of smaller diameter with a correspondingly smaller hole in the new firing-pin bushing.

It was a Glaser Safety Slug, as I recall, that tied up the cylinder on my M-586, prompting the trip to the local warranty station, which was then nearly within walking distance from the range where it occurred.