19/66 vs 586/686

Brian Williams said:

I wonder if S&W made the 5/686 with a shrouded ejector rod instead of the heavy underlug, how many of them would they sell. I made a 586 into a shrouded rod by grinding off the under lug in front of the Ejector rod lock lug. It was a real sweet pointer and would still be in my care but I needed another project to finish. I would love to take a 581 and remove the underlug to replicate a model 10/13.

Click to expand...

S&W also made a 619 and a 620. 619 was a shrouded fixed sight L frame. Basically a 686 with fixed sights without the full under lug. The 620 is the adjustable rear sight shrouded version.

none of the revolvers were the same guns after the transition to injection-molded parts no matter what they were or are called.

Virtually no interchangeable parts

I wonder if S&W made the 5/686 with a shrouded ejector rod instead of the heavy underlug, how many of them would they sell.

Click to expand...

S&W, a few years back, made a "stocking dealers' special" run of 686s (+ versions, 7 shot) with a 5-inch barrel and a nice shrouded half-lug ... came with Ahrends finger-groove cocobolo stocks, fiber-optic front sight. Best 686 I ever had -- locked up tighter'n a bank vault, incredibly accurate. I foolishly sold it after owning it for only about a year, mainly 'cause at the time I felt I didn't need a revolver for range use only -- I like to carry 'em. Silly me.

I still think the 4-inch 19 or 66 is just a better "feelin' " gun, though. Packable, but a joy at the range, too ...

S&W also made a 619 and a 620. 619 was a shrouded fixed sight L frame. Basically a 686 with fixed sights without the full under lug. The 620 is the adjustable rear sight shrouded version.

Click to expand...

The problem with those is they all had the fiasco 2 piece barrel assembly.

I see the often repeated allegation that the L-frames were made to replace the K-frames because of some "weakness" in the K-frames when shooting magnum rounds.

I've just never seen it in real life. I have a 66-2 with over 25,000 rounds through it. 4000 of those were the dreaded 125 grain 357. Its as tight as a tick.

I did have a 686-3 go out of time and it only shot 38's during its time with me. After the repair I dumped it.

Funny how the K-frame magnums continued to be made right alongside the L-frames for twenty five years.

Some "weak" gun, huh.

Thaddeus Jones said:

I see the often repeated allegation that the L-frames were made to replace the K-frames because of some "weakness" in the K-frames when shooting magnum rounds.

I've just never seen it in real life. I have a 66-2 with over 25,000 rounds through it. 4000 of those were the dreaded 125 grain 357. Its as tight as a tick.

I did have a 686-3 go out of time and it only shot 38's during its time with me. After the repair I dumped it.

Funny how the K-frame magnums continued to be made right alongside the L-frames for twenty five years.

Some "weak" gun, huh.

Click to expand...

We carried Remington 158gr SJHPs and a number of M19s were shooting loose over a period of time. Like a number of other agencies, the word was to practice with 38s and qualify with 357s, otherwise carry a N-frame. Since the Ks were a more comfortable carry than the Ns on a 10-12 hour shift, we simply practiced with 38s.

As the Smith & Wesson website states, the K-frames were designed for 38s and the L-frames for continuous 357mag usage.

My 686P round count is way into the thousands and all with factory/handloaded magnum ammunition. Your 4,000 rounds of magnum ammunition is a drop in the bucket for a department issue revolver that sees service over a number of years.

FWIW, I sold my M66-1 to purchase a Colt 1911 combat/target, they're only tools.

Personally, I prefer the 19/66 over the 586/686. All are great guns; it just
comes down to what purpose each will serve. As a former PO [who at one
time carried revolvers]; "lighter was better", as any extra weight certainly
will be noticed. For long-range precision target work, I find the 6" 686 to
fill the bill nicely.

Brian Williams said:

The problem with those is they all had the fiasco 2 piece barrel assembly.

Click to expand...

That is why I prefer the model 19 or model 66. If I really want a revolver to shoot 357 magnums only then the 686 or even a Ruger GP100. I have owned at least two each of them. I just would not carry them. Too much bulk.
Howard

Brian Williams said:

I wonder if S&W made the 5/686 with a shrouded ejector rod instead of the heavy underlug, how many of them would they sell. I made a 586 into a shrouded rod by grinding off the under lug in front of the Ejector rod lock lug. It was a real sweet pointer and would still be in my care but I needed another project to finish. I would love to take a 581 and remove the underlug to replicate a model 10/13.

Click to expand...

Why not go to a vented Dan Wesson?

Someone earlier said that the majority of responses favor the 19/66. I haven't counted them but even if that is so, most of the K-frame buying public must be on this board as sales were not good enough nation wide for S&W to keep the K-frame magnum in production.

I always preferred the N-frame for full power magnums and started my LEO career carrying one. I recently proved to myself, with a timer and on paper, that I actually shoot the L-frame better. Not sure why but it is just faster and more accurate both in presentation ("clearing leather" - LOL) and follow-up shots.

I've always considered the K-frame a 38 Special and the only ones I've owned were so chambered. There are no K-frames currently living in my safe.

Dave

Both are good, pick the right tool for your job, carry, service, competition, hunting et, et.
I think the K frame is the perfect platform for .38 specials. IMHO it reached its pinnacle with the Masterpiece Series. Along comes modern metallurgy and design and the K is bored blueprinted for the .357 Magnum. As the platform was not really designed for magnums there were a few issues with stress in the forcing cone area. The L frame was created around the .357 Magnum. No issues.

Guillermo said:

So as mentioned, if you want to concealed carry, the K frame is best.
A range toy or open carry or nightstand gun, or a gun that you shoot hotter loads out of, the L frame would serve you better.

Click to expand...

I agree.

After the forcing cone cracked on my Model 19, I tend to shoot 38 Special level loads in it almost exclusively. (S&W replaced the barrel at their cost back in the eighties, by the way).

My wife's 586 "keeps on truckin'".

Both are great hand guns.

I'm really partial to my snubb 66's, but that's me. You need to do a considerable amount of situational shooting to find the one that suits your taste.

GS

Why not go to a vented Dan Wesson?

Click to expand...

Because I do not like the cylinder latch of the Dan Wessons. Love the Swap barrel and wish I had sent a 586 to Weigand before he quit modifying 586s for swappable barrels.

most of the K-frame buying public must be on this board as sales were not good enough nation wide for S&W to keep the K-frame magnum in production.

Click to expand...

I was kind of thinking the same. In the 25 years I have been shooting handguns I see far more 686s at the range than any K-Frame Smith.

Owning several Model 66s and 686s through the years I much prefer the 686 for shooting of 357 mag ammo. For carry use I liked the 2 1/2" 66.

If it is to be shot extensively with nothing but magnums, you want the bigger gun. It will be more durable and more pleasant to shoot. The lighter gun is fine for its original purpose - ".38 Specials for practice, .357s for 'business,'" as the saying goes - is lighter to carry and tends to balance and point better. The sizes of the grip section of the frames are identical.