Did Smith & Wesson ever make an Endurance Package for the 686 .357?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
I was reading a little about the older Smith and Wesson 629 .44 mag's and how they added an Endurance package which strengthened and improved the gun so that it could take the recoil of the magnum round.

I Googled it and didn't find anything, but I was wondering if they also did an Endurance package for the S&W 686 (specifically a 686-4) .357 and if so could it still be sent in to S&W to have the improvement?
 
Last edited:
It could be argued that the 686 WAS the endurance package for the older, less stoutly built K Frames. They share grip frame and alot of lockwork if I'm not mistaken. The cylinder and frame near the forcing cone/ barrel are considerably built up compared to the K Frames, which was their short coming strength-wise.
 
gotboostvr said:
It could be argued that the 686 WAS the endurance package for
Click to expand...
Not just argued, but easily stated.

The original revolver chambered for the .357Mag was an N-frame. When the K-frame M-19, was chambered for the round, it was already very much over chambered. (the original intent was for LE to practice with .38Spl rounds and only use .357Mag rounds sparingly)

As the use of the .357Mag ammo in the M-19 became more common, the inherent weaknesses of the K-frame came to light. S&W's L-frame was there way of addressing these weaknesses by upsizing it to that of the Python while retaining the K-frame grip size
 
9mmepiphany said:
Not just argued, but easily stated.

The original revolver chambered for the .357Mag was an N-frame. When the K-frame M-19, was chambered for the round, it was already very much over chambered. (the original intent was for LE to practice with .38Spl rounds and only use .357Mag rounds sparingly)

As the use of the .357Mag ammo in the M-19 became more common, the inherent weaknesses of the K-frame came to light. S&W's L-frame was there way of addressing these weaknesses by upsizing it to that of the Python while retaining the K-frame grip size
Click to expand...

Where does the 686-4 fall into on that timeline?

What frame is it?
 
Aim1 said:
Where does the 686-4 fall into on that timeline?

What frame is it?
Click to expand...

The dash 4 was launched in '93.

The frame size is roughly exactly the same as the 686-0. Released about '81 if I remember, overall frame size falls between the K and the N. Importantly, the L frames retained the longer cylinder of the K frames as well to seat longer, heavier bullets well suited to hunting and knocking down steel silhouettes.

Oddly enough, N frames have shorter cylinders limiting use of some heavier >170gr bullets.

Speaking of no dashes, here's my early '81 686:
index.php
 
gotboostvr said:
The dash 4 was launched in '93.

The frame size is roughly exactly the same as the 686-0. Released about '81 if I remember, overall frame size falls between the K and the N. Importantly, the L frames retained the longer cylinder of the K frames as well to seat longer, heavier bullets well suited to hunting and knocking down steel silhouettes.

Oddly enough, N frames have shorter cylinders limiting use of some heavier >170gr bullets.

Speaking of no dashes, here's my early '81 686:
index.php
Click to expand...


Nice gun!

So the the 686-4 isn't an N or a K frame? It's no frame?
 
I agree that the 686 is the Endurance Package for the K frame. I have a 686 that has probably 10K top end rounds through it and is a tight as the day I got it. I'm sure it would shoot loose before a N frame, but doubt I'll see that day. I think K frames hold up very well with hot loads as long as you stay away from the 110 and 125 gr bullets. At leas they will last a lot longer than most people will shoot them.
 
The endurance package was engineered to address some specific issues the m29 was having with full power loads. One of those issues was that recoil could unlock the cylinder and it would spin backwards a notch, another was recoil causing the hammer to bounce. The 686 doesn't have any problems with full power ammo so no endurance package needed
 
AustinTX said:
Did you mean 620? The Model 520 was an N-frame gun.
Click to expand...

There are 2 different model 520s. The N frame 520 NYSP (a single run made for the New York State Police, but never delivered) and the L frame 520, which along with the 619, were intended as replacements for the then discontinued K frame .357s.
 
Lucky Derby said:
There are 2 different model 520s. The N frame 520 NYSP (a single run made for the New York State Police, but never delivered) and the L frame 520, which along with the 619, were intended as replacements for the then discontinued K frame .357s.
Click to expand...

Ah, I had totally forgotten about the L-frame Model 520 (since I pay almost no attention to anything released in the era of the lock). Bizarre / irritating of S&W to reuse a model number for a different gun altogether.
 
Last edited:
What problems are you encountering with the L-Framed gun that you require an endurance upgrade? I've put plenty of heavy .357 Magnum handloads and never had any problems.

I did have an early Model 29 that did have the "endurance package" installed. And I certainly never had any such problems with my 586 that occurred with my early Model 29.



Bob Wright
 
I couldn't really imagine what more Endurance you would need to add to the 686 before you beef it up beyond what a .357 can mathematically produce.

When I was choosing between a 686 and 66, I kinda liked the lines if the Combat Magnum, but the added warm and fuzzy of the beefiness of the L frame swayed me ever so slightly to go with the larger gun. Im sure either will outlive me, and I'm only 39. I would certainly go broke trying to kill the gun. That goes doubly if I were trying to cram enough powder and lead into a casing to send enough wrist breakers down range to wear it appreciably.
 
The problem, unlocking the cylinder, occurred only with light weight, high velocity bullets in the 29/629. Mainly they added another internal piece that blocks
the cylinder release when the trigger is pulled. The cylinder release is already blocked when the hammer is cocked. They of course incorporated this in all the larger calibers as well. It's not well documented in any of the S&W parts breakdowns or in Kuhnhausen's 5th edition. Here's a picture of it in my 5" 629 which I was stripping to send to Magnaport.



IMG_0707 Bolt Block.JPG
 
Eddietruett said:
I'm sure it would shoot loose before a N frame, but doubt I'll see that day.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure of that. Let's say you were going to shoot an N-frame loose with .357's. What would be the parts that wore out/failed/stretched? Are those parts any weaker on an L-frame?
 
Nope. No endurance package. There was no need.

Parts can certainly wear out, but L frames are robust 357 magnum revolvers.
 
ATLDave said:
I'm not even sure of that. Let's say you were going to shoot an N-frame loose with .357's. What would be the parts that wore out/failed/stretched? Are those parts any weaker on an L-frame?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure either, but I would think the larger frame would add some strength. I would guess the first signs would be end shake of the cylinder and lockup might not be as tight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Smith and Wesson "Endurance" Package?? What is it?
Replies
15
Views
8K
stu1ritter
stu1ritter
A
  • Locked
Pre-lock, Post Endurance package S&W 629 .44 mag pistols?
Replies
17
Views
2K
243winxb
243winxb
Huntolive
  • Locked
357 Decision: Dan W. Or SW 686?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
warnerwh
W
jski
  • Locked
Smith & Wesson "Endurance" Package"
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
CraigC
CraigC
K
  • Locked
Was the endurance package only on the 29/629 models?
Replies
7
Views
642
kmcdonou
K
Back
Top