What Smith is just a little smaller than a 686?


PDA






marklbucla
July 14, 2008, 07:00 PM
When held in the finger grooves, the Smith 686 DA trigger is too long for my wife to reach. SA seems to be okay though.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7020/img5217aeq2.jpg

If a Bantam grip was put on it so her hand rode higher on it, I'd imagine that it might be manageable, though still a little longer than preferred.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7753/img5258aao1.jpg

Is there a slightly smaller .38 or .357 smith that we ought to take a look at for her? We like the heft in its ability to cut down the recoil.

ETA: That indentation on her index finger was where she was holding the trigger. She came around on it to illustrate that the LOP probably wouldn't bee too long if the grip were possibly changed.

If you enjoyed reading about "What Smith is just a little smaller than a 686?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Halo is for Kids
July 14, 2008, 07:07 PM
The Model 60 is a 5 shot .357 j frame. Pretty small to start but with aftermarket grips you can customize to suit her needs.
K frames are between J & L frames.

K frames are what, 65/66?

These are all model 60's from the manufactures site:
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/engraving/102430-1_lrg.jpg
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/178013_large.jpg
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/162430_large.jpg

GUNKWAZY
July 14, 2008, 08:19 PM
The 686 is an L frame gun and I personally would start by gettuing that big set of rubber Houges off and trying a different smaller set of grips.
Any K/L frame round butt grip will fit that gun.
Possible a set of uncle mikes may get you where you need to go with that gun. Tons of after market stuff is available.
This example below is a model 66, or should I say 5 model 66's with different grips. All of these grips would fit your 686. But notice the size differences.
You may just need the grips to go away, not the gun.

http://members.aol.com/toykwazy/66x5.jpg

Jeff (GUNKWAZY)

9mmepiphany
July 14, 2008, 08:27 PM
looking at her finger placement in your pictures, it looks like she has plenty of finger on that DA trigger...as a matter of fact, there's almost too much finger there.

you want to pull a DA trigger straight back with the pad, not the joint

un_lucky
July 14, 2008, 09:09 PM
you want to pull a DA trigger straight back with the pad, not the joint
I really don't understand were that ever came from. The easiest way to pull the trigger is the best way.

gsw-survivor
July 14, 2008, 09:16 PM
Would suggest first try some different grips, but to answer your question the next smaller frame is a K frame, such as model 13, 19, 65, 66. Still the grips are the problem, and the answre. Brad

ArchAngelCD
July 14, 2008, 09:26 PM
I'll add my voice to trying different grips. That's what the problem seems to be from the pictures you posted.

Also like said above, a K frame is slightly smaller and might be a better fit for your wife.

dlrjj
July 14, 2008, 09:28 PM
66, a K frame, would work. I have one and it is a smaller, quicker pistol than the 686.

9mmepiphany
July 14, 2008, 09:31 PM
I really don't understand were that ever came from. The easiest way to pull the trigger is the best way.

it comes from perhaps the best wheelguner in the world...Jerry Miculek

i have found that the easiest way is seldom the best way...it's only the easiest

jmr40
July 14, 2008, 09:33 PM
Going to a "K" frame probably will make no difference. Grips are the same size and I doubt trigger reach would be any different. The idea behind the "L" frame was to provide a stronger gun with the same size grip as a "K" frame.

Changing grips is probably the best bet.

machinisttx
July 14, 2008, 11:30 PM
Going to a "K" frame probably will make no difference. Grips are the same size and I doubt trigger reach would be any different. The idea behind the "L" frame was to provide a stronger gun with the same size grip as a "K" frame.

Changing grips is probably the best bet.

Exactly.

The next size down would be a J frame, and it will probably be too small for her hands.

IMO, look at Ruger revolvers. They don't have an actual grip frame. Instead, they have a grip "stud" that allows a much wider variation in grip sizes and trigger reach.

Oro
July 14, 2008, 11:45 PM
looking at her finger placement in your pictures, it looks like she has plenty of finger on that DA trigger...as a matter of fact, there's almost too much finger there.


Exactly what I thought. My suggestion is this:

Magna style grips, with a Tyler adapter. Teach her to use the pad of the index finger, not the joint. That gives more strength, but it creates an angular pull that wrecks consistency and accuracy.

Stock PC magnas with a Tyler, or perhaps some smooth aftermarket ones. Granted, the example I am posting below is a round-butt gun (k frame, but same size as the L), but it has a very slim profile and really nestles into the hand, either for me or for my girlfriend. But based on your pictures, it looks like your 686 is a -5 with a round butt?

On my girlfriend's 66, she has finger-groove Altamont grips, relatively slim and let her get a good grip. It is a round-butt, which was also a conscious decision to fit her hand.

I really think grips are the solution, not a different gun. The K is no smaller as mentioned, and a J just gets snappy and too light for stout rounds unless concealment is the absolute priority. If not, a K or L is better.

Round butt magnas with a tyler on a K/L frame:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd275/kamerer/S-W/19-5/IMGP3117.jpg

marklbucla
July 14, 2008, 11:56 PM
So if I read everything correctly, there will be no difference between the lengths to the trigger on a 67 and a 686?

Oro
July 15, 2008, 12:07 AM
Nope, no real difference. There may be a fraction, and I mean tiny fraction of an inch, but that is all. The K and L frames have the same grip frame. The L is slightly taller and a tiny bit longer in the frame, but that doesn't translate into much in the grip-trigger dimension.

But you can achieve a WIDE range of grips sizes by playing with different grip styles. And since it appears yours is a later model round butt, you have even more flexibility.

Also, a 67 is .38 only (I am guessing you know this?). It will recoil worse than a 686 because of the weight difference and also because of the lack of a full lug (where the weight is distributed - out front makes much more difference about recoil than if the weight is in the central frame or butt).

A 67 is a fine gun, but also a square butt, not a round butt. The 67 is about my favorite 4" K frame .38 - so if you want her to have a SD gun with .38 +p, that is a great gun, but it won't be any smaller really in the grip than the 686. It may be perceived as easy and more comfortable to a smaller woman because it's lighter, so less effort is expended holding it and can be focused on the trigger action.

Catherine
July 15, 2008, 12:08 AM
S&W Model 60.

Catherine

22-rimfire
July 15, 2008, 12:15 AM
I get rid of those grips and look at the smaller pachmayr grips if you like rubber. I like the pachmayr grips a lot for guns I shoot. I generally buy them for just about every double action revolver I plan on shooting.

ugaarguy
July 15, 2008, 12:17 AM
My short fingers find the Pachmayr Compac Pro best on round butt K/L frames, and the Magna / Tyler T combo best on square butts. The finger grooves on the Pachmayr Gripper Pro make it a bit long on the trigger reach for me. I wish the Compacs were available for the square butts.

Gator
July 15, 2008, 12:21 AM
i have found that the easiest way is seldom the best way...it's only the easiest

+1 Nicely said! :)

I agree with the new grip suggestions; the proper grips make a world of difference.

ArchAngelCD
July 15, 2008, 03:44 AM
kamerer,
I have to disagree with you about the K & L frame revolver not being different. Like you said, there is a slight difference but sometimes that's all it takes to make the shooter comfortable or not. I shoot both K & L frame revolver and the K frame is different even though they can use the same grips.
A 67 is a fine gun, but also a square butt, not a round butt.
If I'm reading this correctly you are saying the M67 is only available with a square butt. That's incorrect since S&W stopped producing square butt M67's in 1996. S&W is still currently producing the M67 and it does have a round butt as do all M67's since 1996.

Oro
July 15, 2008, 04:11 AM
ArchangelCD

1) If you think I don't understand the subtle difference in the K/L, I assure you I do. I understand it, and I employ it in my carry or shooting choice all the time. There is a "perceived" difference because of the location of the weight and design. It is NOT because of grip frame, which is what the OP asked about. Just go measure them and see this.

Brian Dale
July 16, 2008, 12:46 AM
I'm with the "change the grips/try different stocks" crowd.

The way that she's holding the revolver in the second photograph of your original post is probably going to beat up the joint at the base of her thumb and leave it very sore. You can easily guess how I know this.

Kathy Jackson fixed it for me: she's our own Member "pax," and there's a tremendous wealth of pertinent information at her web site, the Cornered Cat. (http://www.corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx) I was routinely holding an N frame Smith like your wife in your photograph #2. A similar grip is depicted in the photograph about half-way down Kathy's Trying on a Handgun (http://www.corneredcat.com/FirstGun/tryongun.aspx) page; the photograph there is captioned "A too-large gun."

The answer for me was to alter the stocks, not to replace the gun itself:

Hogue rubber Monogrip + pocket knife = the right fit for me.

I cut off the bumps which formed the finger grooves; then I removed much of the swell on the right side which made contact with the center of my palm. If it's ugly, but it works, then it's not really that ugly. Besides, you can tweak the fit of a rubber grip fairly easily (pick up a spare for twenty bucks if you don't want to carve up the original) and then go looking for some beautiful wood stocks with the same shape that you've found to work.

Be careful if you decide to carve; there's tough nylon or similar under the rubber and the shape of the Monogrip enhances the possibility of cutting oneself with the knife. The Monogrip tried to redirect my knife into various knuckles, so I kept doing it slowly. A stanley Surform tool might work, too.

I changed the way that I held the revolver, and my problem was solved.

Good luck to both of you (and thanks again, Kathy!).

Dr.Who
July 16, 2008, 01:06 AM
I second the 66. It is 6 shot and good balance

ugaarguy
July 16, 2008, 01:40 AM
The "new" 67 is an L-framed revolver that shares no resemblance to the previous other two decades other than the grip frame. The hammer and ignition system, barrel and shroud, frame and cylinder, etc., are all different. Yes, since 1996 or so they have produced a gun called the "67" - it is not a real 67 or on the same frame. It's just a cheap "L" and not worth discussing vs. the 686.
Actually the 64 and 67 (and model 10 for that matter) are still K frames. The 13, 19, 65 and 66 were discontinued because the K frame frame's undercut forcing cone couldn't handle light bullets at the velocities generated by full magnum pressure loads. Perhaps you're thinking of the 520, 619 and 620 which are L frames that were introduced to replace the 19, 65, and 66.

Yes, the current K frames use MIM hammers & triggers, and, yes, they have the internal lock work changes that occurred in 1998. They also have the internal lock that was introduced in 2001. However, the current L frames have the same changes. A current 686 also isn't anything like a the 686 made in the 80s with machined trigger & hammer and the lock work from that period.

Oro
July 16, 2008, 01:54 AM
Where are you coming up with this stuff? The 64 and 67 (and model 10 for that matter) are still K frames - they are not L frames. The 13, 19, 65 and 66 were discontinued because the K frame frame's undercut forcing cone couldn't handle light bullets at the velocities generated by full magnum pressure loads. Perhaps you're thinking of the 520, 619 and 620 which are L frames that were introduced to replace the 19, 65, and 66.

mea culpa. I was thinking of the 620/619. The thing that buffaloed me was S&W's marketing, which calls the 620 the "New Model 66" (this is on their website) - which it flat isn't. I forgot the "old" 67 is actually still made, and extrapolated their silly marketing to think of the 619 as the "new 67." I have one and like it, but an early 70s one, not a new one. I thought it had been discontinued. I am going to edit my post so it's accurate and no one takes it as gospel (I'm sure they are smarter than that anyway).

Wesson Smith
July 16, 2008, 02:27 AM
I vote for the Model 60 Pro. Perfect size, great sights. The .357 is just a tad stout out of it, but it shoots so fine in SA mode. I'm really pleased with mine.

briansp82593
July 16, 2008, 06:18 AM
I like the K frame for medium sized woman hands, Ive taught 3 with one, worked great as a smith would
(it was a 66)
If not a smith, try a SP101 they are sized just right for about everything.

If you enjoyed reading about "What Smith is just a little smaller than a 686?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!