686-6 vs no lock 686

mcb said:

But very few complain about the fact that nearly all Dan Wesson sand Korth revolvers use two peice barrels...

Click to expand...

True. I figure the buyers of those guns understand that design feature before making a purchase.

I'm referring to the S&W models that never had a two piece barrel and were redesigned for manufacturing cost reasons. I guess it's only a matter of time before the more traditional Ruger revolvers have two piece barrels, too. (GP, SP, Blackhawk, etc.)

chicharrones said:

True. I figure the buyers of those guns understand that design feature before making a purchase.

I'm referring to the S&W models that never had a two piece barrel and were redesigned for manufacturing cost reasons. I guess it's only a matter of time before the more traditional Ruger revolvers have two piece barrels, too. (GP, SP, Blackhawk, etc.)

Click to expand...

I am 50/50 on my opinion of sleeved barrels. I won’t go into an issue I had with one here but I will say this:
I had an opportunity to get a new model 19 Carry Comp. I was very interested in it until I saw that it was a two piece barrel. It was like tossing ice cold water on two young lovers. That interaction ended abruptly.
The new model 10s and 19s have two piece barrels.
My 327 NG has a two piece but I haven’t had issues with the gun itself. But it wasn’t a traditional S&W revolver.
My new model 25 is a one piece. I would not have bought it if it was a two piece barrel.

I don't care about the lock so much as I just like the old ones a lot better anyway.

I have one with a lock, a 642. If I ever get it working properly I might consider carrying it. Ironically, I gave my Taurus 85 to my FiL when I got the Smith. He still has the Taurus. It still works fine.

The new ones are okay, I guess, but the triggers just don't feel like the ones on my best older Smiths.

Sort of just to troll: To me, the newer Smiths feel like a pretty good Taurus with a slightly better finish.

Pat Riot said:

I am 50/50 on my opinion of sleeved barrels. I won’t go into an issue I had with one here but I will say this:
I had an opportunity to get a new model 19 Carry Comp. I was very interested in it until I saw that it was a two piece barrel. It was like tossing ice cold water on two young lovers. That interaction ended abruptly.
The new model 10s and 19s have two piece barrels.
My 327 NG has a two piece but I haven’t had issues with the gun itself. But it wasn’t a traditional S&W revolver.
My new model 25 is a one piece. I would not have bought it if it was a two piece barrel.

Click to expand...

Your statement is exactly what I mean. I don't mind something like a Night Guard, or an R8 having a two piece barrel. But the curmudgeon in me doesn't want to see that on model numbers from the past.

Oh well, I'll die off soon and the younger generations will be plenty happy.

Tallball said:

I don't care about the lock so much as I just like the old ones a lot better anyway.

I have one with a lock, a 642. If I ever get it working properly I might consider carrying it. Ironically, I gave my Taurus 85 to my FiL when I got the Smith. He still has the Taurus. It still works fine.

The new ones are okay, I guess, but the triggers just don't feel like the ones on my best older Smiths.

Sort of just to troll: To me, the newer Smiths feel like a pretty good Taurus with a slightly better finish.

Click to expand...

Except you don't need three S&W revolvers like you do with a Taurus Revolver, the one you're shooting, the spare one in the range bag, and the one back at Taurus being fixed.

I have the Pro Series SSR S&W 686-6 .357 Mag. 4.2" the lock doesn't bother me at all.

I have both a 686-nd and a 686-6, both in pristine condition. I've wanted to shoot the nd, but I've made it a collector's piece. And every time I go shooting, I end up taking my Ruger Security-Six because I enjoy shooting it more.


But concerning my nd, I've never had it fixed via the recall. I've heard some say they have nds as well and they have never had problems.

Any recommendations on what I should do?

BTW, the nd is beautiful. I wonder how the Midnight Blue is applied to stainless steel as some of you have. Do you know how durable the finish is as compared to bluing on 586s? And how expensive is it compared to the stainless finish. Is it applied by S&W or a third party?

--

The lock hole doesn't bother me, and I've never had a lock unexpectedly engage, but I am considering deleting the internal locking part for added insurance. Note: my revolvers are range and future hunting firearms, not my SD guns.


Wow! That was easy.

chicharrones said:

What I like about the S&W frame mounted firing pin is it's easier to service or replace.

Click to expand...

I'll be, I had never noticed!

NIGHTLORD40K said:

The K and L-frames are taller between the cylinder release and the machined cutout for the hammer, to provide room for the lock mechanism. It gives them a different shape which some, myself included, do not find attractive. I suppose it might also increase weight by a tiny amount as well.
The N-frames are unchanged from the classic profile because they were already big enough to accommodate the lock without modification.

Click to expand...

I own several examples of each, and I like both. I do prefer the aesthetic of the pre-lock guns, and the fact that the locks exist at all does kind of irk me. But I won't pass up a good revolver just on account of the lock.
However, I do not like the blued finish on newer smith revolvers. It just seems to me that it lacks depth and it looks more black than the older blueing.

I did remove the lock and make a stainless plug for my M69, mainly just to see if I could and how it would turn out. I like the way it turned out, but haven't decided if I want to go through the trouble to make them for the others.

ApacheCoTodd said:

There's a big one. Watching parts disappear altogether or become unreasonably expensive is quite disheartening.

Todd.

Click to expand...

Well, that is something to consider.

v8stang289 said:

I own several examples of each, and I like both. I do prefer the aesthetic of the pre-lock guns, and the fact that the locks exist at all does kind of irk me. But I won't pass up a good revolver just on account of the lock.
However, I do not like the blued finish on newer smith revolvers. It just seems to me that it lacks depth and it looks more black than the older blueing.

I did remove the lock and make a stainless plug for my M69, mainly just to see if I could and how it would turn out. I like the way it turned out, but haven't decided if I want to go through the trouble to make them for the others.

View attachment 1000582

Click to expand...

That's a really nice job--how difficult was it to do?

Something beside the lock on the new S&W j,k and l frames, but not the n frame, I have noticed. The frame, where the hammer rides, is not dished and rounded. It’s more of a straight slant. It changes the profile and ruins the look of the revolver. This along with the lock, has turned me away from new S&W revolvers. This doesn’t make them bad revolvers, they just don’t appeal to me. I heard old timers, say they were done with S&W, when they did away with pinned barrels and recessed cylinders. I will take an older prelock S&W revolver anytime one come along.

Alaskamike said:

That's a really nice job--how difficult was it to do?

Click to expand...

Not too bad. I made the plug with a 1/4 stainless bolt. Chucked it in my drill press, cut the head off and used files to "turn" it down and smooth it out. Then cut a shallow groove and cut it to length. Used the spring and catch from the original lock to hold it in place. It's not perfect, but it works