686 vs 686 Plus

If I recall correctly, there used to be concern about the 7 and 8 shot revolvers going out of time quicker than the standard 6 shot revolvers. Never had one so I couldn't really say for sure.

I think some people may be concerned about the thinner cylinder walls, but they are still as thick or thicker than most, and the cylinder walls are not usually one of the potential weak spots on a revolver (i.e. it really shouldn't be a problem).

To me, for a home defense gun or carry gun there is no reason to go with a 686 over a 686+. They are the same sized gun (they are the same gun) and the extra round can come in handy in a self defense situation. Most of the reasons I can see for going with 6 over 7 in a defensive gun would be if you were comparing different guns altogether. A Ruger GP100, a Taurus, and possibly a K-frame, can be $50-100 less (or even better), so if you can't really afford the 686/686+ I can see going with a 6 shooter (though Taurus makes the 7 shot revolver on a relatively small frame in the 617). Size: if you want something smaller and find an L-frame too much to carry I can see going 6 shots (or maybe even 5) over 7 (though again, if you are fine with only a 2" barrel there is the Taurus 617). Reputation/brand loyalty/model preferences, maybe you are a Ruger shooter and just want or like the GP100 more. A combination of these factors may also play, you can't quite afford the 686 but don't trust Taurus 617, so you go with a 5 or 6 shot Ruger, I may disagree about Taurus, but that is a decision for each person to make.

There is only one situation where I can see someone going with a 686 over a 686+, if it is a range gun (and other circumstances exist). For a range gun, one doesn't really have an advantage over the other. If you already have plenty of speedloaders that will work with the 686, or you just like the rhythm of 6 shots per cylinder, and since it is a range gun there is no practical/functional advantage to having 7 shots, than by all means pick the 686. If you are extremely frugal and you find the 686 for $20-40 less than the 686+, and it is a range gun, why not save a few bucks if that is your priority (though for a defensive gun, I'd argue that the 16-17% increase in capacity is worth an extra $20-50).

I prefer the 686 because it was issued to me and didn't cost me a dime!

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

chaim said:

There is only one situation where I can see someone going with a 686 over a 686+, if it is a range gun (and other circumstances exist).

Click to expand...

There are also some gun games where a 686 would be legal/optimal and a 686+ either not-legal or sub-optimal.

chaim

I'm sorry I know there's no logical explanation (other than I'm a very conservative traditionalist), but everything else being equal I would still take the Model 686 over the Model 686+. Just me being me I guess but there's just something fundamentally unnatural (and could maybe affect the whole time/space continuum thing), about having more than 6 rounds in a full size revolver. Going down one to a 5 shot cylinder is okay (like having a .44 Special in an L frame size gun), but definitely no to 7 and don't even think about going with an 8 round cylinder! It's just way too much to even contemplate!

Thicker walls is what pushed my to the 686. My gun is used for range fun, hunting, and carry. It's essentially (for me) the perfect gun. Large enough to hold well, heavy enough to absorb recoil, and powerful enough to take a large whitetail at any range where you can hit it. My 4" is easily accurate enough for a 40 yd shot (soda can group or better...better in this case) at which point I prefer a long gun

The only upside I see to the 7 shot gun is 1 more round to throw at a running deer or intruder. The downsides I see are that its untraditional so there are less usable speed loaders, and with thinner walls you can more easily damage the gun with really hot loads. That's a concern for me since I run near, at, or occasionally slightly over max published loads.

For me, I just wonder why they went to the trouble and expense to squeeze in the 7th? If they go that route I would much rather have a 327 that holds 8 or 9.

Plus, because I don't compete and want the extra round. But I have a 686 Competitor also, so................................ it depends on your use. Competition requires a six shooter. Self defense and range fun means as much capacity as possible is a good thing.

I bought a 686+ 3" just because.
-mike

Regular 686..............because Bianchi Speed Strips only hold 6 rounds !!

QUOTE: "...Thicker walls is what pushed my to the 686..."

Except that the cylinder rotation cut-out notches (the real Achilles Heel in revolver formats in terms of cylinder strength) in the Plus reportedly has more metal (thicker) than the "non-Plus" revolvers do. But, regardless, having an extra round on board in a self-defense scenario is way more desirable to me than having thicker walls in the cylinder. Having a six or seven round capability in non-self defense situations is a non-issue for me.

There are many who say 5 rounds in a J frame is not enough. A full size revolver will carry 6. Why not carry 7 rounds at the same size and weight? For 100 years a 7 round 1911 was considered a good SD handgun. I would say 7 rounds of .357 Magnum is just as good.

More is better these days so go with the M686+ or go with an 8 round N frame if you want even more. The S&W M327 weighs only 35oz and holds 8 rounds. That is lighter than the M686.

I feel that my 3" 686+ is demonstrably more than 16% 'better' than a 686.

I got the 686+, to have the extra round.

WestKentucky said:

Thicker walls is what pushed my to the 686. My gun is used for range fun, hunting, and carry. It's essentially (for me) the perfect gun. Large enough to hold well, heavy enough to absorb recoil, and powerful enough to take a large whitetail at any range where you can hit it. My 4" is easily accurate enough for a 40 yd shot (soda can group or better...better in this case) at which point I prefer a long gun

The only upside I see to the 7 shot gun is 1 more round to throw at a running deer or intruder. The downsides I see are that its untraditional so there are less usable speed loaders, and with thinner walls you can more easily damage the gun with really hot loads. That's a concern for me since I run near, at, or occasionally slightly over max published loads.

For me, I just wonder why they went to the trouble and expense to squeeze in the 7th? If they go that route I would much rather have a 327 that holds 8 or 9.

Click to expand...

5-star makes very nice speedloaders for the 686+.

I have both and don't really have a preference.

Howdy

The whole 'thicker walls' concept is a non-issue. Smith and Wesson has been making 357 Magnum revolvers on the K frame for many, many years, and the K frame sized cylinder, with its relatively thin chamber walls, has stood up just fine to 357 Magnum pressures all those years. Even with the thin cross section at the bolt cut.

The issue with K frame sized 357 Magnums was the relief cut on the underside of the forcing cone. This relief cut was necessary to clear the gas collar on the cylinder. But the reduced thickness at the relief cut sometimes lead to a cracked forcing cone with some high velocity 357 ammunition. That was the idea behind the L frame, a larger diameter cylinder, with more clearance between the gas collar and the forcing cone. This meant that no clearance cut was required on the forcing cone, and split forcing cones would no longer be a problem.

It just so happens that the larger diameter cylinder was big enough to add one more chamber, hence the 7 shot 686.

For what its worth, I picked up one of the 7 shot 686 revolvers a couple of years ago. I bought it on a whim, as I did not own any L frame Smiths at that point. I must say, it is not my favorite Smith, but that is because of the ugly full length underlug and the MIM parts. I'm more of a traditional Smith guy.





Just for the fun of it, here is a photo of the backside of three cylinders. Left to right, a K frame Model 19, the L frame 686, and an N frame Model 28. You can see there is not much difference between the amount of metal between chambers of the Model 19 and the Model 686.

My view on this has been influenced by an interest in the sporting use of the revolver, for which the 7-shot is essentially useless (speedloader options for them are more limited as well). When I wanted/needed more than 6 in a revolver, I went straight to moonclipped 8.

If I were SD and I were concerned about capacity in the context of SD, I don't think a single extra round would ameliorate that concern. Either way, I'd either make darned sure my reload skills were up to snuff, carry a BUG, or simply carry a semi-auto instead.

"because Bianchi Speed Strips only hold 6 rounds !!"

FWIW:

-the 'Tuff Quickstrip' is available in 7 (and 8) round versions for 38/357 (and other sizes for other cartridges).
-the 'IHL Speed Strip' is available in an 8 round version, which will presumably hold 7 rounds

(as an aside, I use the 8 round versions even for 6 shooters - if you load them 2 rounds, gap, 2 rounds, gap, two rounds they are quicker than the 6 round versions (because you load two rounds that are in a line into two cylinders that are in a line; the gap prevents what would be cartridge #3 interfering while loading #1 and #2))

Sergei Mosin said:

Can someone expand on the competition aspect?

Click to expand...

I don't have all the details because I don't compete. Mr. Borland will hopefully add on to this as he knows the specifics about revolver competitions, as do others that have commented.

The bottom line is this, when shooting in a revolver competition, typically, from my understanding, more than a six shot revolver is not allowed. I don't know if there are different leagues where 8 shot N frame guns are allowed, but I've never heard of one. I don't exactly have my ear to the ground on that though. I'm guessing small local gun clubs and private ranges have competitions where the allowed guns are less restrictive, but only you can investigate that in your are to find out.

MrBorland said:

If I were SD and I were concerned about capacity in the context of SD, I don't think a single extra round would ameliorate that concern. Either way, I'd either make darned sure my reload skills were up to snuff, carry a BUG, or simply carry a semi-auto instead.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. In general folks who carry a revolver seem to be less concerned with capacity, and more with shot placement, and that's how it should be as far as I'm concerned. Well placed shots end a fight, not a bunch of poorly slung lead. I carry my 686+ while hiking, and I have always considered the seventh shot to be a bonus more than anything else.

The above statement is not meant to imply that revolver shooters are better shots than people who carry a semiauto, nor that people who carry a semi are all just using spray and pray as their defensive tactic.

It just isn't right if it isn't a six shooter.

In the last couple years, I have acquired an S&W M986 (7 shots) and a Ruger Single Seven (7 shots). I'm kind of keeping an eye out for an S&W M620 (7 shots). An eight shot N frame could also be in the cards.

I'm learning to adapt.

If you are worried that six shots is not enough, then by all means get a 686+. The reliability of the firearm will not be an issue.

460Shooter said:

I don't have all the details because I don't compete... The bottom line is this, when shooting in a revolver competition, typically, from my understanding, more than a six shot revolver is not allowed.

Click to expand...

There are disciplines/divisions that allow 8-shot revolvers. There are disciplines/divisions that allow only 6-shot revolvers. There are, to my knowledge, no disciplines/divisions that would allow 7-shot revo's while prohibiting 8-shot revo's. So there's no good place to play with them.

Expressed a different way: Neither the 6-shot nor 7-shot revolvers will be generally be competitive against 8-shot revolvers in action/practical pistol shooting, but 6-shot revolvers have a few "safe spaces" where they are "protected" from direct competition with 8-shot revo's*, and can be competitive amongst themselves. AFAIK, there is no competitive "safe space" for 7-shot revolvers, so they just have to mix it up with the 8-shotters (which will all be moonclipped); it's a huge competitive disadvantage, so nobody does it.

*In much the same way that weight classes create a safe space for physically smaller boxers to fight without having to take on someone twice their size.

I don't know that any sanctioning body that specifically disallows the use of a 7-shot revolver itself, but in each case, you'd be seriously handicapped by using one. I'll explain:

IDPA: You can show up with a 7-shot revolver, but you may only load 6 rounds. That means you'd have to index the cylinder to a live round at every reload. On top of that, AFAIK, speedloader availability is largely limited to the twist-release types (e.g. HKS). Speedy Safariland CompIIIs or JetLoaders simply aren't available in 7-shot configuration. Push-release SL Variants are available in 7-shot configuration, but SL Variants in general are very hard to find.

USPSA/ICORE: You can use & shoot whatever you like (6, 7, or 8-shot). You'll be handicapped against the 8-shooters for obvious reasons, but you'll likely also be handicapped against 6-shooters because target arrays generally require 2 shots per target. With a 7-shooter, then, you'll either 1) be doing a "static" reload while everyone else gets to reload while moving/transitioning to a new target, 2) shoot an extra (unnecessary) round on a target (on the clock, of course) every cylinder to get the moving reload or 3) simply shoot 6 and dump the extra during the reload.

Thanks for helping to clear it up Dave an Mr. B.