Older Smith and Wesson 586 as good as the 686?
- Thread starter Mopsie
- Start date
- Status
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Are they as good? Some might think they're a tad bit better but that'd only be an opinion. Just as good (if not better... oops, there's that opinion thing... as I prefer blue steel to the stainless look... just one idiot's opinion mind you) since it will show the day to day wear of a "using" gun, and that character wear is nice.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
The only difference is that the 586 is blued steel rather than stainless. This will make no difference in how it shoots compared the the 686, only in finish wear and corrosion resistance.
The older 586 is not "as good", it's better.
The carbon steel was more durable that S&W's stainless in abrasion areas like the hand & ratchet teeth, among other things.
Workmanship was better on those guns than on current 686 variants, and they had no MIM parts & no locks.
DA triggers were typically lighter than current S&W revolver triggers, too.
Denis
The carbon steel was more durable that S&W's stainless in abrasion areas like the hand & ratchet teeth, among other things.
Workmanship was better on those guns than on current 686 variants, and they had no MIM parts & no locks.
DA triggers were typically lighter than current S&W revolver triggers, too.
Denis
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
Better, I think.
gbw
Member
I don't like to spend a lot of time cleaning guns and tend to neglect the chore whenever my conscience allows it.
So for guns that get shot most I use stainless models far more than the blue ones because stainless is more tolerant of neglect. For show I probably like blue or nickel.
I doubt you could make a case that one is consistently 'better' than the other, S&W manufacturing tolerances in general have been good, but not that good, in many many years.
So for guns that get shot most I use stainless models far more than the blue ones because stainless is more tolerant of neglect. For show I probably like blue or nickel.
I doubt you could make a case that one is consistently 'better' than the other, S&W manufacturing tolerances in general have been good, but not that good, in many many years.
MachIVshooter
Member
As good? You bet. I have one of each. My 686 has been worked, so it shoots nicer. But I love my 586-4 that I bought a couple years back unfired with box.
content
Member
Hello friends and neighbors // My 1983 Model 586 6" has had the trigger worked so DA is smooth and SA is a breeze.
I did have to send it in to S&W for the firing pin /bushing recall but shipping and fixing were free and less than a week.
I have seen worked 686s that are its equal but none I'd call its better.
Mine is rough on the outside due to use and carry but the gap and lock up remain tight.
I'd say get what you like as far as proper finish for your area of the country. IMHO unless you live in the swamp lands the 586 will last longer, 686 will still rust if not properly taken care of just not as fast.
The 586 is definately the better looker.
I did have to send it in to S&W for the firing pin /bushing recall but shipping and fixing were free and less than a week.
I have seen worked 686s that are its equal but none I'd call its better.
Mine is rough on the outside due to use and carry but the gap and lock up remain tight.
I'd say get what you like as far as proper finish for your area of the country. IMHO unless you live in the swamp lands the 586 will last longer, 686 will still rust if not properly taken care of just not as fast.
The 586 is definately the better looker.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Given the choice between the two, I choose an older 586 over a new production 686 any day.
I like the looks of a hammer-mounted firing pin, and I think the workmanship on the older guns in better. The quality of the parts is better as well.
I like the looks of a hammer-mounted firing pin, and I think the workmanship on the older guns in better. The quality of the parts is better as well.
nalioth
Member
The S&W numbering system of that era used a "5" prefix for blued gun and a "6" prefix for a stainless model.
Hence, a 586 was a blued revolver (direct successor to the model 86), and a 686 was a stainless model revolver of the same pattern.
S&W had a 3-digit number system all figured out for it's lineup back then (designating finish, metal, auto or revolver, etc), but must have abandoned it as it introduced more new models than 3 digits could cover.
Hence, a 586 was a blued revolver (direct successor to the model 86), and a 686 was a stainless model revolver of the same pattern.
S&W had a 3-digit number system all figured out for it's lineup back then (designating finish, metal, auto or revolver, etc), but must have abandoned it as it introduced more new models than 3 digits could cover.
Guillermo
member
Smith & Clinton started using MIM parts somewhere inthe late 90s (someone can probably nail it down to the minute)
MIM parts are garbage. They are difficult to polish and smooth out. Some "smiths" won't due it due to customer dissatisfaction. A spring job is the best they can do.
So ANYTHING without MIM parts is superior to ANYTHING with MIM parts.
MIM parts are garbage. They are difficult to polish and smooth out. Some "smiths" won't due it due to customer dissatisfaction. A spring job is the best they can do.
So ANYTHING without MIM parts is superior to ANYTHING with MIM parts.
MachIVshooter
Member
They maintained 3 digit for revolvers, but the 3rd gen auto's went to 4 digit, as there were so many variants.
The auto system made more sense, though. First two denoted caliber (and single or double stack, as well as compact, for the 9mm models) It would be 39,59,69,40, 10 or 45. 3rd digit was action type and barrel length (0,1,2,4,6,7,8). The fourth was material/finish (3,4,6)
For 3 digit revolver models, the first denotes finish/material. 3,4,5,6. The last two don't follow a particular pattern, just model number. For example, the model 40 is .38 spl., but the 340 and 640 are 357 mag.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I also think the 586 is better than the 686 but I like a blue revolver.
Welcome to the forum Mopsie...
Welcome to the forum Mopsie...
madcratebuilder
Member
I think the carbon steel of the 586 is higher quality than the stainless steel of the 686. The end user well see no difference other than the stainless being more resistant to rust and corrosion. I like both.
Not really any difference
I have owned both and the difference is really just in the appearance. My 586 is not sitting there rusting as long as I run a bore snake through the barrel at the end of a shooting session and then clean it in a reasonable amount of time.
The big reason for a stainless gun to me is the enviorment. I bought my stainless model as a carry gun that I might have to bring with me to the docks. I also bought another officers 581 with a stainless finish. I found little to choose between the stainless and nickel gun. One was shinier, that was it.
I later bought a 6 inch 586 and it proved to be one of the most accurate guns I have ever owned.
I would take either one based on the features and price that I wanted to pay.
Jim
I have owned both and the difference is really just in the appearance. My 586 is not sitting there rusting as long as I run a bore snake through the barrel at the end of a shooting session and then clean it in a reasonable amount of time.
The big reason for a stainless gun to me is the enviorment. I bought my stainless model as a carry gun that I might have to bring with me to the docks. I also bought another officers 581 with a stainless finish. I found little to choose between the stainless and nickel gun. One was shinier, that was it.
I later bought a 6 inch 586 and it proved to be one of the most accurate guns I have ever owned.
I would take either one based on the features and price that I wanted to pay.
Jim
Confederate
Member
Both the 586 and 686 revolvers are fine. Either will suit you depending on your wants/needs. The 686 is technically superior because it's stainless steel, which resists corrosion better than bluing and it resists gas cutting better. It's also the same color all the way through, so it doesn't need any protective chemical treatments like bluing.
But these are only technical advantages. If you take care of your gun and keep it clean and oiled, you can expect years of trouble-free service. And if you get an early model, you'll get a beautiful bluing in the deal.
I personally prefer stainless. They keep their value better and I can polish mine until it's almost like nickel. If it gets nicked, I can refinish it myself. It also doesn't show holster wear.
But these are only technical advantages. If you take care of your gun and keep it clean and oiled, you can expect years of trouble-free service. And if you get an early model, you'll get a beautiful bluing in the deal.
I personally prefer stainless. They keep their value better and I can polish mine until it's almost like nickel. If it gets nicked, I can refinish it myself. It also doesn't show holster wear.
I'd argue the assertion that the 686 is technically superior because it's stainless.
The stainless 686 will offer superior corrosion resistance.
The carbon 586 will offer superior wear resistance, in certain moving parts engagements.
Both should shoot comparably, allowing for differences between barrels & other dimensions inherent to any other gun or guns.
Shot little & rarely exposed to corrosive atrmospheres or agents, no "technical" superiority between the 586 & the 686, IN S&W'S STEEL FORMULATIONS, and IN OTHERWISE IDENTICAL OLDER VERSIONS WITHOUT MIMS OR LOCKS.
Decide which is more important to you.
The 686 will not wear out in a year, the 586 will not lose its bluing in a year.
As far as gas cutting goes, I've neither seen nor heard anything about stainless being more resistant to it than carbon steel, IN COMPARABLE S&W REVOLVERS IN GENERAL. Flame cutting is a function of heat and high-speed gas particle impact erosion, the slightly harder carbon should actually be at least fractionally more resistant than the stainless steel formulation.
Older pre-MIM & pre-lock 686 (in my opinion) is LIKELY to be better built overall than current 686s.
All work, none are junk.
I stick with the older 586.
Denis
The stainless 686 will offer superior corrosion resistance.
The carbon 586 will offer superior wear resistance, in certain moving parts engagements.
Both should shoot comparably, allowing for differences between barrels & other dimensions inherent to any other gun or guns.
Shot little & rarely exposed to corrosive atrmospheres or agents, no "technical" superiority between the 586 & the 686, IN S&W'S STEEL FORMULATIONS, and IN OTHERWISE IDENTICAL OLDER VERSIONS WITHOUT MIMS OR LOCKS.
Decide which is more important to you.
The 686 will not wear out in a year, the 586 will not lose its bluing in a year.
As far as gas cutting goes, I've neither seen nor heard anything about stainless being more resistant to it than carbon steel, IN COMPARABLE S&W REVOLVERS IN GENERAL. Flame cutting is a function of heat and high-speed gas particle impact erosion, the slightly harder carbon should actually be at least fractionally more resistant than the stainless steel formulation.
Older pre-MIM & pre-lock 686 (in my opinion) is LIKELY to be better built overall than current 686s.
All work, none are junk.
I stick with the older 586.
Denis
22-rimfire
Member
I'd take the 586 any day over the 686 if I could find one. I prefer blued steel and it has that real nice deep blue S&W bluing treatment. The funny thing is the 686 sold for more than the 586 in the day. All that said, I would love to have a 5" 686.
mustachio
Member
I have a 586, w/6" barrel that I bought NIB in 1985. It has 10's of 1000's of rounds through it and it is as tight as the day it came home. This is one gun I will never sell.
PS: that is my 586 shown in the above post, except I have custom carved target grips on it by some guy in Idaho (I think) and I just can't remember his name. I had to send a pattern of my hand and he carved it to the size of my hand. Any one know who that may be?
PS: that is my 586 shown in the above post, except I have custom carved target grips on it by some guy in Idaho (I think) and I just can't remember his name. I had to send a pattern of my hand and he carved it to the size of my hand. Any one know who that may be?
Last edited:
- Status
