Model 586 or Model 27 Classic??

[Sneakshot92]

Hi all. After a trip to my lgs i've had to reconsider things a little bit. I originally posted a thread (not sure how to link it) titled "Which Model 27 Classic??" to see what you all think about each of the barrel lengths available.
After a trip to my lgs he recommended I look closer at the 4 and 6 inch 586 classics. What's your take on these in comparison to the model 27 classics?
They appear to be beautiful guns all around, but it's made my choice a lot tougher.
I understand the 586/686 guns may have better balance and handling, but I've never handled one. Just another few layers of confusion.

I hope you all can help me with this.

* FYI, we have similar taste in firearms and he has never turned me wrong on any of the dozen or so guns i've bought from him.

 

[mcb]

As I said you in your thread on the Model 27, a 6-shot 357 Mag in an N-frame seems unnecessarily over built and too heavy to me especially if you going to be carrying this revolver, and not just using it as a range toy. The 586 and its stainless brother the 686 are the work horse of S&W 357 Mag revolvers. It is lighter to carry than the M27 and still beefy enough to take the abuse of shooting as much full house 357 Magnum as you can stand unlike its little brother built on the K-frame (13, 19, 65, 66). Many believe the S&W L-frame (586, 686 and others) chambered in the 357 Magnum are the pinnacle of the combat revolver. The only thing I might add would be to take a serious look at the 686+ a 7-shot version of the 686. Unfortunately I don't think they have made a 7-shot version of the 586 so you would have to switch from blued steel to stainless.

And I say all that as someone that does not like 357 Magnum.

 

[Sneakshot92]

As I said you in your thread on the Model 27, a 6-shot 357 Mag in an N-frame seems unnecessarily over built and too heavy to me especially if you going to be carrying this revolver, and not just using it as a range toy. The 586 and its stainless brother the 686 are the work horse of S&W 357 Mag revolvers. It is lighter to carry than the M27 and still beefy enough to take the abuse of shooting as much full house 357 Magnum as you can stand unlike its little brother built on the K-frame (13, 19, 65, 66). Many believe the S&W L-frame (586, 686 and others) chambered in the 357 Magnum are the pinnacle of the combat revolver. The only think I might add would be to take a serious look at the 686+ a 7-shot version of the 686. Unfortunately I don't think they have made a 7-shot version of the 586 so you would have to switch from blued steel to stainless.

And I say all that as someone that does not like 357 Magnum.

Lots of good points there. I like my wheelguns to be 5 or 6 shooters personally. The main reason I'm considering the model 27 is because it has the nostalgia of the original 357 magnum gun witout the price tag of one.
As far as carrying goes there won't be much for holster time. This is mainly going to be a range queen, although a couple hours in a holster at a barbecue isn't out of the question. The miles on whatever I end up with will be very few.

 

[Fiv3r]

I would go with whatever sings to you best. A range gun is a range gun. If you aren't trying to carry it or worry how it hangs on your hip or in your grip out of of a defensive draw, then gets what makes you happiest

I am a 686 fan. I find the 686 in 4" to be about my most perfect ideal of a do it all .357 that not only handles well and wrings enough out of the .357 but also looks the part of a classic fighting gun. My personal carry choice is the 686+ snub nose. On a hip or in a shoulder holster it offers the lines and feel of the classic 686/586 with the trade off of a bit more shift in balance due to the extra round stuffed in there.

The 686 is the gun I cant seem to quit in a cartridge I always swear off as too noisy and flashy for SD, yet just like an Ex that brings out the best worst of me, I type this with the 686+ under my arm. Bump in the night, parts unknown, into town, to the cabin, the 686 handles it.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

The main reason S&W developed the L frame was to get around the problem of split forcing cones with 357 Magnum revolvers built on the K frame.

Because of the geometry of a K frame, there had to be a small flat cut onto the bottom of the forcing cone to clear the gas ring on the cylinder.

Here is the forcing cone of a K frame model 13-2. Notice the slight flat at the bottom, which reduces the thickness of the metal at the bottom of the forcing cone. Although this feature has been on all K frame revolvers since 1905, it was never a problem with 38 Special ammunition.






This is not my photo, I found it on the internet. But this is what a split forcing cone looks like. Several theories are advanced as to why 357 Magnum ammunition will cause this to happen, most think it happens with high velocity, relatively light bullets. For this reason, it is often recommended that K frame 357 Magnum revolvers get shot mostly with 38 Special ammunition and a limited amount of 357 Magnum ammunition. I have several K frame 357 Magnum Smiths, but I generally only shoot 38 Special ammunition out of them most of the time.






Here is the forcing cone of a typical N frame 357 Magnum revolver, a model 28 in this case. Because there is more vertical distance between the center of the cylinder and the bore, there is no need for a clearance cut at the bottom of the forcing cone.






I only own one L frame Smith, this Model 686-6. As you can see, there is no flat cut onto the bottom of the forcing cone, because the frame is about midway in size between a K frame and a N frame.






I really cannot advise you very much about the 586 or 686 series revolvers. I only have this one, it is a seven shot 357 Magnum. Frankly, I am not pleased with it, it has some issues that never would have made it out of the factory 'in the old days'. Yes, I am an old curmudgeon and prefer the older revolvers. I very much doubt I will be buying any more new Smiths because I am not pleased with the quality of today's Smith and Wesson revolvers.

And frankly, despite what some seem to think, I think a six shot revolver is fine, I have no need for a revolver that holds 7, 8, or 10 rounds in the cylinder. It just makes me burn up ammo faster than I really want to.

 

[cfullgraf]

Several theories are advanced as to why 357 Magnum ammunition will cause this to happen, most think it happens with high velocity, relatively light bullets.

I split the forcing cone on my 1980 vintage S&W Model 19 with a steady diet of full power 158 grain 357 Magnum loads. I was competing in IHMSA Handgun silhouette at the time and using the Model 19 in the revolver class.

I only mention this because the idea that only high speed light bullets will crack the forcing cone on a K-frame gun is not entirely correct. Any steady diet of full power 357 Magnum loads could result in a crack forcing cone on a K-frame gun.

But that is not what the OP is asking.

As noted, the 586/686 series revolvers (S&W L-frame) were introduced by S&W to have a smaller revolver capable of shooting a steady diet of 357 Magnum ammunition without limitations of the K-frame guns. The 586/686 series of guns have the same grip frame as the S&W K-frame guns but the cylinder and frame are larger.

The Model 27 is more robust than the 586/686 series guns but at a penalty of size and weight. So, the user needs to decide which route they want to use.

I've had good luck with the current production S&W revolvers, they shoot well, but the fit and finish is not as nice as the older versions that I have purchased used.

The OP might look at buying a used Model 27 or Model 586.

 

[firedawg60]

Go with whichever one feels best, has the best balance for your tastes, and is the most aesthetically pleasing. There is only an ounce or so difference in weight in comparable barrel lengths, and both are going to be heavy by today's standards as a carry gun.

 

[Sneakshot92]

Go with whichever one feels best, has the best balance for your tastes, and is the most aesthetically pleasing. There is only an ounce or so difference in weight in comparable barrel lengths, and both are going to be heavy by today's standards as a carry gun.

True enough. Which one would YOU buy?

 

[firedawg60]

True enough. Which one would YOU buy?

I would be happy with either, but would go with a 27 and most likely replace the stocks with Magnas, nice stags or similar and a Tyler t-trip. Just my preference for feel.

 

[CajunBass]

I have never cared for the L-frame guns. I got no valid reason for that, they just don't interest me. I think I'm just an old timer who figures K's and N's were good enough for Skeeter, they're good enough for me. Nothing at all wrong with them though. You've probably figured out I'd get a Model 27.

Regarding the Model 19's forcing cut. Others, especially Driftwood have explained the problem with cracked forcing cone. I'd like to point out however that the current Model 19, the -9 Model has also eliminated the flat spot at the forcing cone. I suppose they're too new on the market to say it will never happen again, but at least in theory they shouldn't suffer with that particular problem.

Here's a shot of the forcing cone on my -9. Not as heavy duty as Driftwoods Model 28 though.



For all the talk about cracked forcing cones, and 357 Magnum ammo, the only one I've ever seen in wild was on a Model 15, 38 Special. Go figure.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Ive got both. I like em both. If I were gonna carry either around the ranch, itd be the 686 just cuz its stainless. Cant go wrong either way.

Honestly, once you get one S&W revolver, you ARE going to want more, so dont fret too much over which one to get first, hehehe.

 

[bannockburn]

Another fan of the L frame versus the N frame in a .357 Magnum. To me the added size and weight of the N frame doesn't handle or work as well as the more size proportionate L frame.

The Model 586 or 686 is like the "Goldilocks" gun: not too small like a Model 19 and not too big, like a Model 27.

It's just right!

 

[Sneakshot92]

Ive got both. I like em both. If I were gonna carry either around the ranch, itd be the 686 just cuz its stainless. Cant go wrong either way.

Honestly, once you get one S&W revolver, you ARE going to want more, so dont fret too much over which one to get first, hehehe.

I'm sure i'll want more than one. I'm a budding revolver nut. I've got 4 right now and by monday it will be 5. All but one are 357's.

 

[Sneakshot92]

Another fan of the L frame versus the N frame in a .357 Magnum. To me the added size and weight of the N frame doesn't handle or work as well as the more size proportionate L frame.

The Model 586 or 686 is like the "Goldilocks" gun: not too small like a Model 19 and not too big, like a Model 27.

It's just right!

View attachment 923962

Oof. That's a pretty pairing!

 

[mcb]

I'm sure i'll want more than one. I'm a budding revolver nut. I've got 4 right now and by monday it will be 5. All but one are 357's.

You definitely need to branch out then. 357 Mag is nice until you start using revolvers in other cartridges. Moonclips is where the revolver really starts getting interesting and fun.

 

[Sneakshot92]

You definitely need to branch out then. 357 Mag is nice until you start using revolvers in other cartridges. Moonclips is where the revolver really starts getting interesting and fun.

I've got a list of 10 guns to buy in the next 2 years. Only 3 of them are 357's. There's 2 44mags, 2 45 colts & a 460 S&W on there to name a few.

 

[DR505]

I have both N and L frames in .357 magnum. I prefer the N frames myself. They carry just fine. A Model 27 4” was my first LE revolver. You can’t go wrong with either. The main thing here as that you aren’t looking at a Ruger

 

[mcb]

I've got a list of 10 guns to buy in the next 2 years. Only 3 of them are 357's. There's 2 44mags, 2 45 colts & a 460 S&W on there to name a few.

Don't forget about the revolvers chambered in rimless cartridges like 9mm, 10mm Auto, and 45 ACP. They bring a different spin to the revolver game.

 

[Jim Watson]

I have K frame hands and therefore would pick the 586.
I shoot IDPA and side by side comparison of K, L, N, and I frames show my M67 to be the most effective .38. If I were shooting magnums, I would want one of the heavier revolvers.

 

[earlthegoat2]

586 L-Comp is a 7 shooter but it is not a Classic by any stretch. Just me nitpicking about the existence of a 7 shot 586.

It is probably not what your looking for.

 

[bannockburn]

Sneakshot92

Oof. That's a pretty pairing!

Those S&W knives designed by Blackie Collins, like the S&W Survival Knife along the Bowie Knife, and the Folding Hunter, were an incredible buy for the money! Should have bought more of them at the time!

 

[Rexster]

Hand size, and finger length, can be important factors. My hand are not wide, but they are long, so a N-Frame can feel quite nice in my hand, but my index finger is not quite long enough to get good placement on the face of an N-Frame trigger, in double-action mode. Sadly, I adjusted my hold to allow enough finger on the trigger, which meant that the base joint of my thumb took much more punishment, than if I had held the weapon properly. This uneven recoil affected my right wrist adversely, too. I figured this out, after about five years of shooting .44 and .41 Magnums. I then sold several N-Frames, only keeping my S&W Model 58, .41 Magnum, for sentimental reasons, as I had carried it during some adventurous moments, as a duty handgun.

Life would be much better, today, if I had stayed with K-/L-Frames, with which I had started, for DA shooting. (Working in policing/law enforcement means much DA shooting.) Single-action shooting, of course, means that the trigger is farther to the rear, for a shot, allowing an ergonomically proper hold, but, I had thought, in the Eighties, that one “needed” to use big-bores, for defense. By 1990, I knew better, but the damage was done, and by age fifty, in 2011, the long-term effects started becoming apparent. Folks now know me as “Lefty.”

So, to get back on the original question: For most shooting, and for all defensive tasks, I would rather have an L-Frame. The Model 27-series is more aesthetically pleasing, to the eyes, and I would love to buy one of the beautiful samples that cycle through the inventory of a large local firearms dealer.

 

[Tallball]

N frames fit my XXL hands better, and I prefer to shoot heavier handguns.

For carry a K/L frame would be way easier.

My Model 28 doesn't have the fancy finish of the 27, but it's an excellent shooter.

Smith And Wesson Model 28

• Tallball
• Mar 15, 2019

 

[sabbfan]

For me I’d go with the L frame, the N is more suited to larger calibers unless you’re looking for an 8 shot 357. My own personal opinion, the N is larger than it needs to be for 357 magnum in a 6 shot.

 

[BobWright]

I have had experience with both the N-Framed Model 27 and Model 28, plus considerable experience with the Colt Python. I've left them all for the S&W 586, which I consider the finest double action .357 Magnum revolver to come along yet. All of the above mentioned guns, except the 586, have rather short cylinders which would not accommodate some of my 173 gr. SWC bullets, but the Model 19 and 586 digested with ease. Would I take the 586 over the Python? In a heartbeat!




Bob Wright