Smith 686+ durability vs 686..?


PDA






jimbombo
June 7, 2012, 04:13 PM
Question: Is the 686+ SS 2.5" barrel going to be as durable as the Standard 6 shot 686 with 2.5" barrel? I know the cylinder walls of the 686+ are thinner, how does this effect the pistol? I am looking at buying a used revolver, so I am not sure how many magnum rounds have been run through it, But I will be running about 80% .38 special and +p through it...

Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Smith 686+ durability vs 686..?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CraigC
June 7, 2012, 04:17 PM
Not an issue whatsoever.

YJake
June 7, 2012, 04:20 PM
No problem present.

Just buy the 7-shot and keep'em guessin' :)

-Jake

rcmodel
June 7, 2012, 04:20 PM
I know the cylinder walls of the 686+ are thinner,Actually, both guns have the same size cylinder diameter, so the chamber walls under the bolt cuts are the same thickness.

There should be very little if any differance in durability.

rc

earplug
June 7, 2012, 04:27 PM
Less weight in the cylinder due to more holes. Less rotational mass.
Notches on cylinder and extractor get less wear as there is one more charge hole, spreading the wear. 1/6 verses 1/7.

jimbombo
June 7, 2012, 06:20 PM
Never thought of it that way earplug...good points!

56hawk
June 7, 2012, 06:33 PM
Actually, both guns have the same size cylinder diameter, so the chamber walls under the bolt cuts are the same thickness.

I believe the 686+ is actually stronger because the bolt cuts do not line up with the chambers.

Hanshi
June 7, 2012, 07:11 PM
It doesn't matter, IMO, because both are plenty strong and rugged.

BYJO4
June 7, 2012, 07:53 PM
Either one will last a lifetime if properly maintained.

Hondo 60
June 7, 2012, 08:02 PM
Both will last several lifetimes.
I wouldn't be the least bit concerned.

rswartsell
June 7, 2012, 08:44 PM
The cylinder for the 686+ is actually stronger, I don't think this is a durability issue as much as a kaboom resistance issue, but the weakest points of a modern revolver cylinder are typically the notches cut into the outside of the cylinder for advancing by the "hand" or "bolt".

In a 6 shot 686 cylinder these cuts coincide with the thinnest spot in the cylider wall, with the 7 shot 686+ they are offset of the thinnest spots and the cylinder is thus stronger. If you were really going to push the pressure limits with extremely hot loads, you would actually be better off with the 686+.

Durability with reasonable loads is a different issue and some study of the timing mechanism differences would be necessary to answer this, but I feel it is a moot point.

IMHO the differences will not be significant in your lifetime. Even with a lot of use.

jimbombo
June 8, 2012, 01:27 AM
Thanks Guys... Appreciate the input! I feel very comfortable buying either 686 right now.

NG VI
June 8, 2012, 01:32 AM
Loooooooooved my 686, you can't be a reasonable person and destroy an L-frame. Not without an insane amount of ammunition or unreasonable/missed problem ammunition.

TrailWolf
June 8, 2012, 01:58 AM
Less weight in the cylinder due to more holes. Less rotational mass.
Notches on cylinder and extractor get less wear as there is one more charge hole, spreading the wear. 1/6 verses 1/7.

Yes. This is correct. The + is stronger and will essentially last longer.

Go for the +, can't really explain it, but that extra shot makes a difference and I always feel like my 7 shots last a lot longer than when I shoot 6. If that makes sense.

My pre-lock 4" 686+ was my grail gun and my favorite gun of any type I've ever owned.

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm33/harry1922/c4e25327.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm33/harry1922/2f2f4f56.jpg

.

ArchAngelCD
June 8, 2012, 01:58 AM
If 6 rounds of .357 Magnum are good 7 rounds are even better. I like the additional round and agree there are no issues with either.

If you enjoyed reading about "Smith 686+ durability vs 686..?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!