686 Mountain Gun

[ChefJeff1]

Hi, what are your thoughts on the 686 .357 mag. mountain gun? This should be able to handle a lifetime of full power loads don't ya think? I like the idea of the mountain gun configuration and the joy and versatility of the .357 mag. I've seen wolf tracks where I walk my dogs on a daily basis and I'll protect them just s they would me. Thanks, Jeff

 

[Rather-B-Huntin]

It might handle a lifetime of full house .357 shooting, but a Ruger GP100 will do so without question.

Don't get me wrong. I am very much a S&W fan. But if you're gonna shoot it a bunch, get the Ruger.

 

[ChefJeff1]

the Gp is always an option. this baby will be the big brother of my sp 101.

 

[BigBlock]

A GP100 would be a much better idea. Stronger AND cheaper. It will handle a lifetime of full power loads from both you, and your grandkids...

 

[abuelo]

ditto again GP100 will take it all and ask for more

 

[Hawk]

The 686 and GP-100 are pretty similar.

However, you're asking specifically about the "Mountain Gun" derivative which looks a little different and, I believe, weighs a tiny bit less.

Depending on how important any of the "Mountain Gun" features are to you the GP-100 may not be a satisfactory replacement.

Impossible for anyone else to guess without knowing why you're gravitating to the Mountain Gun variation rather than the standard 686.

The 686 Mountain variation is still an "L" frame which was pretty much built to handle lots of .357s. Both it and the Ruger will likely outlast whatever you throw at them.

 

[ChefJeff1]

ok, ok you caught me. I like it cause it says mountain gun on the side.

 

[LA Rondo]

She doesn't just say "Mountain Gun" on the bbl. The bbl has a different contour and the cylinder is shaped differently. On top of it, she is somewhat rare, not like a everyday GP100. I don't know why peeps throw that even into one basket.

The myth of the Ruger being stronger, is just that. A myth.

 

[loneviking]

An L frame S&W and a Ruger GP 100 will hold up equally to full power loads. It's the smaller K frames that sometimes 'shoot loose' using too many full power loads.

 

[ChefJeff1]

you're telling me. The one I was just watching on gunbroker just sold for 700.

 

[Hawk]

ok, ok you caught me. I like it cause it says mountain gun on the side.

That is one reason for wanting the mountain gun variant that simply never occured to me.

Toss a coin, snag either a 686 or GP-100, trundle off to a trophy shop and pay the dude to engrave "Mountain Gun" on the less expensive version.

 

[BigBlock]

Ask yourself this: Do I want the mountain gun just because it says "mountain gun" or would I rather have a GP100 which is nearly identical, except it comes with about 400 rounds of .357 in the price?

And, if you intend to use this as an outdoors packin' pistol as the name implies, a Ruger would suit you much better due to the ease of field stripping/cleaning and a more fault tolerant design. (more likely to work if it's dirty or wet or dropped)

 

[stiab]

Unless you already know where a 686 MG is, you might not have much choice as what to get. The .357 MG is vary scarce. There are probably a 100 or more of the GP100's out there for every 686 MG. I think either would be a good choice, but I would pick the Ruger only thru default if the 686 can't be found.

 

[22-rimfire]

My Model 57 says "Mountain Gun" too. Yeah, that is why I bought it. Have to admit though that it is the one I choose to shoot the most of the bunch however.

 

[lucznik]

I'm new here and I don't want to sound like I'm arguing but, I found this thread and since I own a 686+ Mtn Gun and my best friend owns a GP100, I thought I would throw in a few thoughts:

1. The Smith is the nicer gun; better fit, better finish, better trigger, and if it's any less stout than the Ruger, you'd be hard pressed to prove it.

2. The gun is phenomenally accurate. I have never owned a better shooting handgun.

3. The GP100 is a fine handgun. It is heck for stout and shoots as well as can be expected. I would be happy to own one. It is however, just not quite as nice as the Smith.

4. All that said, the 686+ Mtn Gun is very, very rare. I spent over two years searching for one before I caught a lucky break.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm so tire of hearing, "buy a Ruger instead of the S&W because it's stronger!" Sure, the Ruger is very strong but just because it's overbuilt doesn't make the S&W underbuilt.

The S&W Mountain Gun will serve you well for a lifetime as will the Ruger GP100 but the S&W will do so more comfortably on your hip while waling the dogs.

 

[revolverforums]

The 686 is a great gun. It can handle all the 357's you can afford to buy without issue. Not only that but in years when your ready to get rid of it for something else you can still take a profit from your investment. That is something you can't do with some guns.

 

[Stainz]

You folks who think Rugers are easily field-stripped and heftier need to take one down in the field - without that little pin to trap the hammer spring, as it is seldom trapped under the grip as delivered. One screw releases the S&W's cylinder & yoke.

Now, for heftier, compare apples to apples - the Ruger KGP141 to the S&W #164222 4" 686 6-shooter. The Ruger, with that massive shroud, which does help to keep the muzzle down during recoil, accounts for the additional ounce of weight over the S&W. Also remember - Rugers are cast SS - S&Ws are hammer-forged and heat-treated. They use the same design, just a bit larger (N-frame), for their 629 .44 Magnums - upsized again for the X-frames and .460/.500 Magnums. It works well. Lockwork-wise - S&W is simply better. QC-wise, no comparison. I've owned a myriad of Rugers - all were 'works in progress' as bought, new or used. S&Ws were 'right' out of the box. I sold off my Rugers this past summer - I'd rather have fewer revolvers - but S&Ws. YMMV.

Now, as a 686MG is scarce, perhaps an N-frame .357 Magnum, at less than 2 oz additional weight, is a consideration. It won't say 'Mountain Gun' on it - bit it's cool as a cucumber 'as-is'... and it carries eight rounds, .357M or .38 Special - the 627 Pro. Below is mine - with the HiViz front sight installed (Tool-less!) and Jerry Miculek wood grips, too. The OEM orange ramps and Hogue rubber are fine as delivered. It was $719 + new s/t locally.



Merry Christmas!

Stainz

 

[revolverforums]

Stainz I hate to get off topic but I recently picked up an SSR with the same slab side barrel and was amazed how how smooth and light the action was in double action shooting. What do you think of the action of the 627?

 

[LTR shooter]

I like the idea of the mountain gun configuration and the joy and versatility of the .357 mag.

If you like it get. The MG variation is the best L-frame for carry purposes.

I'm so tire of hearing, "buy a Ruger instead of the S&W because it's stronger!"

Yep I hear you , that one has been beat to death! Reading some of the posts here you might get the impression the Smith is made of cheap pot metal and is more fragile than a ceramic doll. Most would be hard pressed to wear one out. The thick invest cast frame of the Ruger gives everyone the impression that are invincible. The Smith forged frame does not have to be twice as thick.

Ruger would suit you much better due to the ease of field stripping/cleaning

As far as stripping the GP 100 in the field the one I owned was a pain just to strip at home.

 

[moxie]

For clarity on Rugers, if you don't have that little pin that traps the hammer spring, it is easily replaced by a paper clip, small nail, piece of wire, twist tie, etc. Not a problem whatsoever at all.

 

[Stainz]

"No pin... not a problem at all!". Yeah - unless you are 'in the field' rather than the basement/garage/office. Enjoy removing the cylinder quickly, too.

Ah, the 627 Pro has a 'tweaked' mainspring - which lately means, at least for this and my nearly four year old 625JM, a ground strain screw. This offers less pre-load on the leaf spring when the screw is tight, as it should be to prevent working loose. This also makes the DA pull lighter. If you replace that spring with even a standard strength Wolff leaf, with that hollow rib, the DA pull drops appreciably as the pre-load is lessened even more. The end of the strain screw - especially if it has been filed or ground - will intrude into the hollow rib, further lessening the pre-load - and the energy available for the firing pin. Failure to fires will occur - sometimes even with Federal primers. A stock, ie, full length, strain screw will get you back to no ftf's with Fed primers, but a simpler 'fix' exists.

I change the strain screw to a #8-32 x .5" hardened SS socket headed set screw. You'll need to travel to your local Home Depot - they have them plastic bagged in a big drawer-filled cabinet for 2/$.56. Get some blue Loctite, too. Get to the range, bringing a proper sized Allen wrench. Insure the revolver is empty. Replace the OEM spring and strain screw with a full power Wolff leaf and the new set screw, after coating it first with blue Loctite. Adjust it to where the leaf looks like it was - and test it with Win/CCI primed ammo. If you get ftfs, turn the screw in (CW) a quarter turn and repeat. Continue until you have no ftfs, then add a quarter of a turn and put a drop of blue Loctite on the set screw's threads and let it dry at least overnite. If the revolver initially has no ftfs, turn the set screw out (CCW) a quarter of a turn at a time until you get ftfs. Then repeat the earlier steps.

This works great with a .22LR rimfire, like my new 617, and takes little time to accomplish. It's well worth it, too. Future removal of the set screw is easy - returning to the original good setting is mechanical - and easily accomplished. Boy did I get 'off topic'!

Merry Christmas!

Stainz

 

[L-Frame]

A few comments:

I've owned 2 686 Mountain guns. Very nice. Can't go wrong with them. They are just expensive and hard to find.

If you look around, you can find GP-100's with fixed sights and a short shroud. Excellent guns. They are hard to find but much less expensive.

I'm tired of hearing stuff going both ways: Yes, Rugers are stronger than S&W L-Frames, but not by a lot, and certainly not by any amount that will make a difference to most people unless you shoot ridiculous loads on a regular basis. AND...

I'm tired of hearing how much nicer L-Frames are than GP-100's. Yes the action is a bit better, but newer Rugers are much nicer than they used to be and can be slicked up nicely, though probably not as good as Smiths. And, GP-100's are EVERY BIT as accurate as 686's and usually produce better velocity with the same round.

I've owned many of both. Wonderful guns. Buy both.

 

[ceadermtnboy]

Here is an idea. Buy the mountain gun because that is what you wanted! No need to get thoughts from others that make you feel better about doing it or perhaps change your mind. A handgun is personal and you should get whatever stirs your soul.

 

[BigBlock]

You folks who think Rugers are easily field-stripped and heftier need to take one down in the field - without that little pin to trap the hammer spring, as it is seldom trapped under the grip as delivered. One screw releases the S&W's cylinder & yoke.

Yeah, but what about that ridiculous side plate that a normal person shouldn't even attempt to remove? Try fixing that in the woods. Try throwing some dirt in there and see if it still works. Why would I even need to take the cylinder off?

The truth is, Rugers ARE stronger, this is an absolute fact. Sometimes the truth hurts, if you're a S&W snob. This is why ammo manufacturers often use GP100s to test their ammo. It's not about weight, or forged vs cast, it's about overall stronger construction, inside and out, and like I already said, a gun that is much more fault tolerant. The main point being a "mountain gun" is meant for wondering around the woods with...Ruger is simply a better tool for that particular job. Not to mention, the internals aren't made of pressed metal powder, and they have no locks to jamb. These are important things to think about with a WOODS type gun. They would not be so important for a nightstand gun.

I also always recommend Rugers to people who seem unsure of what they are looking for so they don't get ripped off with S&W prices. Rugers are more reliable guns for better prices. Alot of newbies don't even know to look at Rugers because the smith snobs make them think they are the only maker of revolvers in the world.

If anyone wants to prove me wrong, don't go off about how Smiths are "better", because they are not, how about some real facts as to why they should be chosen over the other? WHY do you think they are better? They aren't more accurate and they aren't better finished than a new Ruger. So what makes a smith "better"?