New Revolver Recommendations?

[Mastrogiacomo]

Anyone that has read my posts knows I own a S&W model 442 which I really hate -- though I still have...

I'm considering buying another revolver, a .357 which I plan to still use the .38 ammo for to reduce the recoil. I've considered the model 60 in a 3" barrell and the 66 2 1/2". I REALLY like the look though of the Model 686 -- and I'm told I can get this in a 4" barrell. The grip looks perfect. Any recommendations for a recoil shy woman? I've given thought to the titanium version (if I've said it correctly) of the 686 but leery as it's only 17 oz and worry it might hurt the hands. Any feedback is appreicated. Thanks.

 

[TechBrute]

I have a 686 and a 686+, and I loooove both of them. The full lug under the barrel will help minimize the recoil, and if you shoot .38spl, you shouldn't have a problem.

 

[Walosi]

If you are recoil-shy, the heavier guns (M66, 686) will be heavier to carry and more pleasant to shoot. Both of the above are available in 4" versions, and both are very manageable with .38 Spec. ammo. I'm more or less "medium recoil shy" and don't care for the aluminum framed Js with hot .38s, let alone magnums. I won't even consider the lighter Ti-frames. The M66 is uncomfortable for me with the really hot .357 loads. The 686 is a pussycat with everything I've shot in it up to 158 gr. magnums. The M66 (K frame) and the 686 (L frame) have the same grip dimisions - grips for one are the same as for the other, and both come to hand nicely.

 

[Neal Bloom]

Another vote for the 686. Will really help with recoil.

 

[Brian Williams]

I carry a 3" mod 60 most days and some times I carry a 3" mod 13. I really like my mod 60 it is accurate and heavy enough to tame any recoil that a 38 spec +p could put out. My 60 is a pre357 so I carry 158 gr LSWC over 4.5 grs of win 231 powder. I do not know of any one here who would stand in front of me when I shoot.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I don't mind a heavy gun which is why the 686 has appeal. I would ONLY use .38 ammo through it though -- no .357 ammo. My 442 has a different grip now: a Hougue rubber grip which is longer and more comfortable. How comfortable will be more accuractely determined when I head to the range soon. As for the 686, I've always like the look of it, and I too tend to be leery of the Ti-frames. I just don't think these guns are pleasant to shoot given what I've read of them and the reviews of users. The heavier the better. How would the trigger pull compare to the model 442 and can you fire the 686 accurately? Thanks.

 

[Walosi]

My 686 was a MagnaPorted special run, for one of the distributors. I believe it had to have had action work done (smoothing, at least) and it is one of the most accurate snubs I've owned. I've fired another 2 1/2" and a 4" from standard production, and while they weren't quite as well done, they had good actions and both were accurate. I haven't had experience with the + version, but the six shooters are fine guns.

 

[Sprout]

I don't know anything about the 442, but the trigger on my 686+ is a joy, in both single and double action. And for accuracy: it's a tack driver.

The recoil with .38s is negligible. However, the double action trigger is a little long for some women with really small hands.

 

[Kahr carrier]

I also vote for the 686 they are well made on the L-frame and will take a steady diet of 357 loads.And with the Full length barrel lug they shoot quite well.

 

[Rob96]

Let me sneak in here and suggest the Ruger KGP-141.

 

[Tim Schlosser]

Ruger SP-101. Still smaller than a 686 but handles magnum recoil wonderfully. Shoot it once and you'll be hooked.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

Aren't the Rugers double action only? One of the reasons I dislike the 442 is that it's a double action only revolver and hard to use the trigger. This is why I'm looking to double/single action.

 

[Jim Watson]

Very few Ruger SP or GP revolvers are double action only. They are OK, but I still prefer S&W.

The 686 is built on the "L" frame and is a bigger, heavier, gun than the 66 which is a "K" frame gun, pretty much the same size they have been making since 1899.

HOWEVER, they take the SAME grips. The "L" frame was designed in the 1970s to be a stronger gun for regular use of magnum ammo, but they kept the same grip shape and size and kept the reach to trigger, hammer spur, and cylinder latch as close to the established "K" frame guns as possible. Any grip that will fit a "K" frame - and there are many, many to choose from - will fit an "L" frame. There are round butt and square butt versions and of course those are distinctive.

 

[Walosi]

The SP101 can be had in SA/DA or with a bobbed hammer in DAO. Mine is DA/SA, with a very smooth action out of the box, and for its' size and weight it does handle hot loads well. I weighs 26 oz. on my handy-dandy kitchen scale (not an electronic marvel, by any means). My 2 1/2" 686 weighs 36 oz. on the same scale. Thereby hangs the difference in shooting pleasure. If I fire two five-shot strings, rapid fire, from the SP101 (110 gr. Win. Mags) my hand is too numb to write for a few minutes. The same from the 686 produces no numbness - just a healthy spanking. The 10 oz. difference is huge, in the recoil management dept.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

I think from everything I've heard online, and checking their webpages for more info -- I'm probably going with the 686. I'm curious though, if the 686P gives another round more -- why does it weigh less than the 686, and is the weight difference noticable in recoil?

 

[Walosi]

The 686+ came out at the time I got my 686. Looked them over side by side and the difference was one round - the weights are hardly noticeable, but the extra hole in the cylinder accounts for it. I think you would have to fire each one, side by side, to tell any differnce in recoil, and I don't think you would get it on the first try. That said, I am too old and hide-bound to get excited over an extra round. Just slow to accept "thet thar new-fangled stuff".

 

[Nick96]

If you are still considering a 3" S&W M-60 you really should take a hard look at the Ruger SP101. It's very similar in size and weight to the M-60. And yes, it's available in a bobbed hammer DAO or traditional SA/DA spur hammer configurations. It comes in 2.25" and 3.25" barrel lengths. It also comes in 9MM or .32 Mag if those calibers are of interest. The SP is also built much stronger (equal or better than a larger S&W K frame). You may find that .357's are still a bit much, but +P .38's are no problem at all. The Ruger is going to cost less too - much, much less than a S&W 686.

The S&W 686 is a big gun. Much, much bigger and heavier than the M-60 or SP101. It's also got adjustable sights. The combination means better control, comfort and longer distance accuracy - but much less convenient to carry around. If a larger gun is an option, and portability is a factor, then a fixed sight 3" S&W M-13/65 (medium K frame) may be better (though you'll probably find you will need larger after market rubber grips for maximum control and comfort). The fixed sight 3" Ruger GP100 is in the size and weight class of the S&W 686. But the Ruger's factory grip is better designed (IE recoil management) - no protruding sights to snag - and again, the Ruger is going to cost less.

There are ongoing debates on the attributes of new out of the box S&W 686's Vs. Ruger GP100's. But the bottom line seems to be a Ford Vs. Chevy kind of thing. Both are similar - the choices seem to center on appearance and feel rather than practical form and function.

 

[yesterdaysyouth]

cdnn has the 66 3.25" round butt hi-viz front sight for 369....

i was shooting this gun yesterday.. with 38spl. recoil was almost none... even with 357 it was still fun... but then i enjoy recoil...

but i plan on buying a 686 and probally a 27 for blasting heavy mag loads...