686-6 vs no lock 686

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gunlaw

Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,047
Just picked up a 686-6, 6 inch barrel with Rosewood grips. The lock is hardly noticeable no effect on the trigger or other functions of the revolver. A friend has a 686 no lock and I see no difference.
Am I missing something or is the lock hate simply a matter of “they don’t make em like they used to.
 
I have several lock S&W pistols. Most of them are Airweights.

This 45LC shoots fine even though it has the lock.

6uETjKS.jpg


At the time the lock was attached, S&W went to a frame mounted firing pin. I talked to a S&W rep, they could not automate the drilling of the firing pin hole, for the hammer mounted firing pin.

It is a competitive market out there, so to cut costs, when they went through a product redesign, they removed the hammer mounted firing pin. I like the hammer mounted firing pin as the firing pin directly hits the primer, and that tends to provide better ignition. And, based on the models I have handled, S&W needed to install stronger mainsprings with the frame mounted firing pins, because energy is lost in the transition of hammer, to frame firing pin.

I just about broke my hand, getting to my wallet when a bud was willing to sell me this Midnight Blue Special:

GKPvF84.jpg

K9U92X4.jpg

LSsUkm8.jpg

WyNBIm6.jpg

I cannot say the safety lock S&W's are better or worse than the pre lock's, but the lock is just another thing to go wrong, and I wish there were not in the pistol. And I miss the firing pin on the hammer.​
 
That Midnight Blue is awsome. I do see your point about the hammer mounted firing pin but it appears Smith was able to engineer around it.
 
I have one L frame with the lock, a 686+ 7- shot, and a couple of J frames, too (317 .23 and 642 .38). All, so far, have been 100% reliable and fired every time.

I don’t like the look of the hole over the cylinder release, nor the rationale behind the fact it’s there, but it’s mainly personal bias on my part rather than a fear of failure of the locking system.

Stay safe.
 
I figure they went to the frame firing pin because they could not make a mold to put narrow slots and holes in a MIM hammer, which only has one hole. And I think that one is drilled.
 
All things considered for me, aside from collectibility, I'll take more recent pistols for their improvements (and cost to me savings) whether it means taking a lock along with them or not.

When one looks at what S&W actually did on most * - * increments, they are improvements on the respective platforms.

Sure, and cost cutting followed if not precipitated some * - * steps but the improvements for the owner outweigh the penny-pinching.

AS to trigger "feel" for me... I'd be surprised if I ever noticed on an Apples-to-apples comparison. Unfortunately, fellas will compare a new S&W to a broken-in, tuned or vintage hand-fitted gun and then the lock model has an unfair burden to meet.

Todd.
 
Slamfire said:

At the time the lock was attached, S&W went to a frame mounted firing pin.​
Click to expand...


​
Frame mounted firing pins on S&W revolvers are not new...their rimfire revolvers have had them for many decades prior to the switch for centerfire revolvers. I don't mind either variant of firing pin for center fire. The frame mounted pins on center fire revolvers came BEFORE the lock was added. I have several N-Frames with the frame mounted pin and no lock.

I absolutely detest the look of the hole in the side of the revolver for the lock, so I don't buy them. Nothing wrong with them I'm sure, but it is like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. They could have hidden the lock....I think Taurus may have done that?
 
Frame mounted firing pins are more robust, easier to replace, and can run with lighter hammer springs than hammer mounted during pins. There is not much upside to hammer mounted firing pins. I have run both types in USPSA competition and the frame mounted firing pin is superior. Name another firearm type that uses hammer mounted firing pins?
 
DR505 said:

​
Frame mounted firing pins on S&W revolvers are not new...their rimfire revolvers have had them for many decades prior to the switch for centerfire revolvers. I don't mind either variant of firing pin for center fire. The frame mounted pins on center fire revolvers came BEFORE the lock was added. I have several N-Frames with the frame mounted pin and no lock.

I absolutely detest the look of the hole in the side of the revolver for the lock, so I don't buy them. Nothing wrong with them I'm sure, but it is like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. They could have hidden the lock....I think Taurus may have done that?[/QUOTE
I always thought the Mona Lisa could use a Mustache. At least it would make the painting somewhat interesting.
Click to expand...
 
mcb said:
Frame mounted firing pins are more robust, easier to replace, and can run with lighter hammer springs than hammer mounted during pins. There is not much upside to hammer mounted firing pins. I have run both types in USPSA competition and the frame mounted firing pin is superior. Name another firearm type that uses hammer mounted firing pins?
Click to expand...

Colt SAA
 
DR505 said:

​
. . . S&W . . .

I absolutely detest the look of the hole in the side of the revolver for the lock, so I don't buy them. Nothing wrong with them I'm sure, but it is like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. They could have hidden the lock....I think Taurus may have done that?
Click to expand...

Taurus stuck their lock in the hammer itself.
 
I have S&W revolvers with locks and I have them without. The locks have never been a problem. I have never had firing pin issues with either so I can’t comment on that other than I have had no problems.

@ApacheCoTodd is correct on comparisons. I agree.

One thing not many folks ever mention is that spare parts will be more readily available in the future for the newer S&W guns. That is an important issue to keep in mind.
 
Pat Riot said:
I have S&W revolvers with locks and I have them without. The locks have never been a problem. I have never had firing pin issues with either so I can’t comment on that other than I have had no problems.

@ApacheCoTodd is correct on comparisons. I agree.

One thing not many folks ever mention is that spare parts will be more readily available in the future for the newer S&W guns. That is an important issue to keep in mind.
Click to expand...
Very good point.
 
The hole is constant, in-your-face reminder of everything that is wrong with this country. It makes me angry. Guns should make you happy- so I dont do the hole.

The MIM parts look like what they are- a cheap way of forming metal. If they put less effort into building them, I put less interest into owning them.

Finally, the current-production bluing, polishing, and stamping are all just sad compared to their vintage counterparts.

If it doesnt bother you, no worries. The new ones are perfectly usable guns, but they aint for me.
 
mcb said:
That's just an older and lower tech revolver. There are vanishing few other hammer fired actions that use a hammer mounted firing pin.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. Colt, Ruger, etc. all have frame mounted pins and they have worked well since their inception. Ruger single actions have frame mounted pins as well. I don't see a down-side to a frame mounted pin....easier to replace, less prone to breakage, protected by frame, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
It makes me sad that the gun makers have had to roll over for the lawers and whiners. I know the gun is dangerous. I don't keed the barrel marred by stamped warnings or built-in locks on the frame. Y'all have ruint a beautiful machine.
 
Not thrilled by the lock (or it's location), but it's not a deal breaker for me. As someone previously posted it's just another thing that can go wrong with a gun and to me a DA revolver should be as simple to operate as possible.
 
Slamfire said:
At the time the lock was attached, S&W went to a frame mounted firing pin. I talked to a S&W rep, they could not automate the drilling of the firing pin hole, for the hammer mounted firing pin.
Click to expand...

And yet my Model 686-5, made before the lock, has a frame-mounted firing pin, which makes me question the notion that the change from hammer-mounted to frame-mounted was necessitated due to manufacturing concerns.
 
I don’t have as many S&W revolvers as I want, a problem I’m trying to rectify, but my newest one is a 1980 model.

I look at It like this,
Some are CNC’d, some aren’t
Some have mim, some don’t
Some have no lock, some do


To be honest I would buy a new one, I’d buy a governor for a snake gun if the judge wasn’t so much cheaper, and if a good deal came up on something I’d use as range gun I’d probably buy that to. But they’d probably always be the redheads step child in the safe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
686-6 vs no lock 686
Replies
3
Views
273
Pat Riot
Pat Riot
J
  • Locked
Smith 686+ durability vs 686..?
Replies
14
Views
897
ArchAngelCD
ArchAngelCD
O
  • Locked
686-5 Muzzle Crown
Replies
3
Views
706
Jim March
J
B
  • Locked
Price check 90% 686
Replies
1
Views
292
Ala Dan
A
C
  • Locked
S&w 686
Replies
12
Views
1K
Ala Dan
A
Back
Top