Icon's Thoughts On Smith & Wesson L-frame models 586 & 686

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's All-

I t'was sitting here wondering what you fine folk's might
think old timers (Icons) of the professional art of hand-
guning would think of Smith Wesson's L-frame revolvers
such as models 586 & 686? When speaking of Icon's,
I'm referring to folk's like Elmer Keith, Ed McGivern, Bill
Jordan and other's. I'm sure that they would not approve
of MIM hammers and triggers, the deletion of pin barrels
and recessed chambers, and the end of the square butt
frame as we knew it; but what else might not they like?

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Poohgyrr]

I sure can't speak for them, but it would be interesting to be able to ask. I wonder what Keith would think of the 696 as a second gun? Kind of like the J frame compared to the K & N frames.....

 

[Josey]

POLITICS! Bangor Punta, "the agreement", no blue finishes, hi-glo sights, no magna-grips, lightweight materials, too much CNC and CAD, too little R&D and human polishing/finishing and lawyer proofing/trigger and internal locks. Did I miss anything? Well maybe. Convicts in management positions.

 

[Old Fuff]

I think you might be surprised. Ed McGriven had small hands, and preferred S&W K-frame revolvers with both round and square butts. I think he would liked the slightly larger and heavier gun because it would help control recoil while still having his favorite grip(s).

Bill Jordan would have liked the “86†series guns for the same reason, and it would have been easier to craft his favorite handles on the round butt because there’d be less metal to work around.

Elmer Keith on the other hand, preferred larger cartridges and therefore was much happier with the N-frame, but I think he would have given a “thumbs-up†for those who were willing to carry the “smaller Magnum.â€

I don’t believe any of them would have missed the recessed chambers. The need for them passed away along with balloon-head cases. They’d probably accept the change in barrel mounting and lockwork until something gave them trouble. Then the whole world would know about it. McGivern and Jordan in particular would have given the new revolvers a real workout. As it was, both men lived during a time when quality control wasn’t an issue.

 

[Blueduck]

Bill Jordon I would think would not care much for it, think he wanted as light as possible from the 19 which he had a hand in. Reading of Keiths handloading habits think he would wonder why put extra metal in the bbl instead of the cylinder

That said I think they are great guns, a lot of people think of the 586 and 686 as "modern" guns and miss the historical significance. Sure their were (are) a few Colt Pythons and Rugers in police holsters, but I think it would be hard to argue the 586/686 was not the final evolution of the service revolver. Thats a little something to be proud of.

 

[Lone Star]

I knew Bill Jordan slightly, and he once showed me a Smolt, made by putting a Python bbl. on a S&W K-frame. He also had a special heavy barrel put on an ancient S&W M&P once carried by an ancestor. He very much liked the heavy bbl. on S&W's M10.

I think he liked the M586/686 just fine. He never intended the M19 to be shot MAINLY with full magnum loads; this is clear from reading his, "No Second Place Winner".

As I recall, Skeeter Skelton liked the balance of these guns in point shooting, but preferred the looks of older S&W Magnums, with the shorter barrel lug.

Lone Star

 

[Ala Dan]

Very interesting Lone Star my friend; many
thanks for sharing that story!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[RON in PA]

I think that McGivern would love the 586/686 pistols as IMHO they have the best DA trigger pulls (designed that way) of the Smith revolvers. Same for Jordan.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Did I miss anything? Well maybe. Convicts in management positions.

Actually, I've got a hunch the old-timers wouldn't have objected to an ex-convict who went straight. Ex-convicts who go round and round and round the revolving door would have been a different matter altogether, of course.

 

[Gewehr98]

Dunno what Elmer Keith would've thought about the 696.

He liked his .44 Special loads "warm". And there isn't a whole lot of meat in the 696 cylinder walls.


I do load his 240gr wadcutter design in my own 696, albeit at a more sedate velocity.

 

[Poohgyrr]

240gr wadcutter

Now there is an idea

 

[Gewehr98]

Yup, they shoot fine in my 696, and look like this:

(From Penn Bullets, I'm sure others make them, too)

 

[RWK]

Dan, my friend –

I suspect our distinguished â€gurus†of earlier generations would fundamentally have liked “L†Frame Smiths. Here’s why:
a) They are very reliable and durable;
b) They are very accurate;
c) They are comparatively affordable;
d) They can easily handle large doses of virtually all .357 loads (and unlimited .38 Special +Ps)

It’s true today’s best revolvers do not have the type of manpower-intensive artisanship of their predecessors of 30 – and more – years ago. Further, they incorporate many cost-reducing materials, manufacturing technologies, and design features. BUT, THEY ARE EXCELLENT SIDEARMS – BY ANY STANDARD.

In sum, these men were very professional, proficient, and perceptive shooters, BUT THEY WERE ALSO INTENSELY PRACTICAL. That realism (IMHO) would require Elmer Keith, Ed McGivern, Bill Jordan, etc. to recognize revolvers like the M686 are outstanding, albeit designed and fabricated to be economical.

Warmest regards -- Roy