the lone gunman
Member
You are not likely to ware out either of them,buy what YOU like or you wont be happy. As for me I have a 586 8 3/8. would never get rid of it. A 586/686 4" would be a nice carry.
686 Mountain Gun
- Thread starter ChefJeff1
- Start date
- Status
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
The GP100 and the S&W 686 are both strong enough for as many full-house loads as you can manage to put through them without breaking your wallet or wrists first.
revolverforums
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 105
Product loyalty and bias is as strong in the gun market as it is in motorcycles, cars and just about anything you see so take what you read with a grain of salt. Yes I am a smith and colt nut. Rugers are all right I guess, the best thing is you don't need a safe with them. After all people don't break in to steal Rugers.
Wolfeye
Member
"I know not the question of the thread but if your looking for a light 357 have you looked at the 386 or 327? They both probably cost more but would be easier to find at the moment."
Another common option out there is the model 620. It's not much different than a 686MG. Another, more common option that's lightweight is the 5" j-frame in .357, though I strongly doubt that it can handle a steady diet of magnums.
Another common option out there is the model 620. It's not much different than a 686MG. Another, more common option that's lightweight is the 5" j-frame in .357, though I strongly doubt that it can handle a steady diet of magnums.
madcratebuilder
Member
Rugers LOOK stronger because they are investment cast compared to the forged S&W. Both have to pass the same proof testing.
Go buy a new S&W and a new Ruger. Put 5000 rounds through both then sell them. What one brings a higher price, a much higher price?
Both the 686 and the gp100 are great hand guns, either gets the job done.
Only thought I have is why, when S&W makes a really nice practical gun, they only crank out a small number and then move on to what some have called "rooney guns"?
The 686 "Mountain Gun" is what the definitive L frame probably should have been in the first place. If law enforcement had not developed a comprehensive lust for semiautos in the 1980s they and GPs would probably be in wide use today.
And not bad choices, either.
The hit ratio would probably be a LOT higher.
The 686 "Mountain Gun" is what the definitive L frame probably should have been in the first place. If law enforcement had not developed a comprehensive lust for semiautos in the 1980s they and GPs would probably be in wide use today.
And not bad choices, either.
The hit ratio would probably be a LOT higher.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I agree with the above post recommending the S&W M620 but for field carry you might consider the fixed site model, the M619. Both are as light as the M686MG but with a much lower price tag. I had a M619 and it was a great shooter.
Stainz
Member
The 619/620 4"-er replacements for the 4" 65/66 came out at the '05 SHOT Show - and were initially $615/$669 MSRP. The 619 didn't garner the LEO or security sales, and was at least temporarily dropped a year or so back - premature, I think. The 620, a short-lugged 686+, persists - but at $814 in the '08 catalog, where the 4.3 oz heavier 627 Pro lists for $964. That $150 difference translates to ~$120 at a decent dealer's markup - especially considering the standard features (See my earlier post!). The additional 4.3 oz penalty isn't much for an 8-shot N-frame, either. Still, the 620 is a great revolver!
Stainz
Stainz
Tamlin
Member
I was looking for a mountain gun too, but in .44 mag. I have several Rugers, including the GP100, and decided that the .44 would be a S&W (since I didn't have either a .44 or a S&W). I also liked the idea of having "mountain gun" stamped on the side - but when I actually handled one, it just didn't feel right to me. I ended up getting a regular 629 instead. It was a used one with the big target stocks on it - I replaced those with a rubber Hogue monogrip - it feels great! I personally like larger guns, especially when shooting magnum loads. The mountain gun's barrel was much thinner, and the gun weighed less than the regular 629. While this might make a difference in carrying it around all day, I prefer the extra weight to absorb more of the recoil. I've carried my GP100 on my hip all day long in the woods and was never bothered by the weight. Owning both brands now, I would simply say to get the one that you want. Smiths do have better triggers, but the difference in price may not be worth it to some people. If you want a great gun for less money, get the GP100. If you really like the Smith and don't mind paying for it, get the Smith.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Johnboy53
Member
The 686 is just as good as a ruger, but the Smith will go up on resale more than the ruger. Ruger has a backing, but not like the one Smith has. Vist the S&W forum and see how much they are backed.
Stainz
Member
Tamlin,
Below are one of my 625MGs in .45 Colt, practically indistinguishable from the 629MG, and a regular 4" 629, SKU 163603 - which is 'always' in production. Some of it's additional two ounces are in that non-tapered barrel, the remainder in a larger hammer and trigger. Also, the regular 629 has orange ramp front/white outline rear sights, while the MGs are blk/blk. I had a 629MG - now I have the regular 4" 629. That .500 Magnum Hogue grip really helps with recoil - muzzle rise is still there, however, with 'real' magnums.
I didn't know what happened to the 619 and the 3" 64 - both just evaporated from the consumer catalog. I bought an unissued/unshot (Except at S&W!) 4" 64, made a couple of years ago, security guard trade-in last summer. The best $315 I ever spent at the pusher's! Of course, a 3"-er would be nice... I have an '02 vintage 2" 10-11. Those guns are fine home protectors - all +P rated, of course.
Stainz
Below are one of my 625MGs in .45 Colt, practically indistinguishable from the 629MG, and a regular 4" 629, SKU 163603 - which is 'always' in production. Some of it's additional two ounces are in that non-tapered barrel, the remainder in a larger hammer and trigger. Also, the regular 629 has orange ramp front/white outline rear sights, while the MGs are blk/blk. I had a 629MG - now I have the regular 4" 629. That .500 Magnum Hogue grip really helps with recoil - muzzle rise is still there, however, with 'real' magnums.
I didn't know what happened to the 619 and the 3" 64 - both just evaporated from the consumer catalog. I bought an unissued/unshot (Except at S&W!) 4" 64, made a couple of years ago, security guard trade-in last summer. The best $315 I ever spent at the pusher's! Of course, a 3"-er would be nice... I have an '02 vintage 2" 10-11. Those guns are fine home protectors - all +P rated, of course.
Stainz
The L frame .357 Mountain Gun is indeed a rare bird and well worth the extra money over a regular L frame.
This debate over which is stronger or more durable is a debate for another time and place. I really doubt that you could shoot enough over your lifetime to wear either one out. Both have good points and both have bad points. The bottom line is, if YOU want the MG-----go for it.
This debate over which is stronger or more durable is a debate for another time and place. I really doubt that you could shoot enough over your lifetime to wear either one out. Both have good points and both have bad points. The bottom line is, if YOU want the MG-----go for it.
- Status
