I'd recommend them both! The competitor is really a nice shooting gun and even warm magnums are a breeze to shoot. The three inch 686+ is a fantastic trail gun and also easy to shoot warm mags out of. It just does so with more muzzle flash.
I wonder if the placement of the S&W logo was a year-model thing, or if they did some one way and some the other? My no-dash 686 and no-dash 586 (from 1982 and 1983, respectively) both have the S&W logo under the cylinder release. You can see in the photo in Post #17 above. The logo does look good on the side plate, though.
Based upon my limited experience, the early models don't necessarily need any trigger work to be slick. They may need the spring strength reduced in order to be really light in D/A and lighter than stock in S/A, but not necessarily any stoning or anything like that. My '82 model 686 with lightened mainspring has a lighter and smoother action than any of the three Pythons that I've compared to, or than any other full-size revolver I've handled; it is just outstanding. My all-stock '83 model 586 is slick, but the action is heavier than the 686 because the springs are factory stiff. My 67-1 with a lighter mainspring also isn't as sweet as the 686, but it could probably use some more rounds through it, and could also benefit from even lighter springs including a lighter rebound spring.
You traded a boat anchor for a boat motor! That should get you someplace in life. When you replenish your funds, get a good, used Ruger Security-Six.
My 1963 Model 12-2 has a smooth DA pull and a fine SA pull that is slightly heavier than my 1975 Model 65-1 or 1982 Model 13-3. I attribute this to the assumption that the 12-2 was carried more (based on remaining finish) and shot less than the two heavier guns. It has been my experience that the more you shoot a S&W revolver, the better the trigger gets. After 35 or 45 years, they're all good!
Soon well see logos on top and bottom. Like cars, no angle is left to leave doubt from outside or inside. 
