Quandry? Two 686s, no M Stamps

[boricua9mm]

I've been fortunate enough (wealthy enough?) to have picked up two pre-lock 686s in the past month. These are older no-dash 686s and neither has been modified per the old recall.

The first one is a 4" no-dash gun that was never sent in for the "M" recall, therefore, it is not marked with the M stamp inside the crane. I did some reading on the recall as well as reports from those who used their revolvers as-is without sending them in. I have ALWAYS been leary about shipping firearms out for anything. There's a lot of opportunity for disaster when shipping a firearm back and forth. For a gun that doesn't work, it's an easy choice, but for a functional one, I have always been hesitant.

I took the advice of "shoot it first and see if it locks up" and had great results. I fired a mix of ~200 of the following factory magnum loads with zero issues:

Remington UMC 125gr - This stuff cycled my previously owned Desert Eagle, so I know it's on the "hot" end of the spectrum

PMC 158gr JSP - Probably not the hottest of .357 Magnum loads, but a good representative sample of what's commonly available these days.

Magtech 158gr FMJ - In my experience, an inconsistent load, sometimes going bang, other times going BOOM with a large flash and noticeable "Magnum" recoil.

Buffalo Bore 180gr Hard Cast LFN - If you know this load, then nothing more needs to be said!

Reloads with Lil'Gun Powder and Hornady 158gr XTPs - I have to check the powder charge, but these loads also cycled the Desert Eagle with no problem, so would be considered "Hot" compared to most factory loadings.

Since the 4" no-dash gun passed this test with flying colors, I am of the opinion that sending it in would be unnecessarily risky, given my pretensions about shipping firearms around. I'd rather not take the risk in this gun getting drop kicked/run over in the shipping process, or potentially beat up on by a gunsmithing intern at S&W. Am I nuts? This 4" gun will not be carried, but it could potentially be a camping gun.

The second gun is a Grail gun for me, a CS1 3" 686, but this one also has no "M" markings. I assume that since this has no "M" markings that it was never actually in service with the U.S. Customs Service. If it was, it would have been modified, right? I have not yet shot this particular revolver, but should I simply perform a similar test as the one I did on the 4" 686 and call it a day? Obviously shipping this gun across the country carries much more risk than the more common no-dash 4" gun. Considering that my fears were put to rest with my 4" gun, should I follow suit, or am I nuts? This one might be a short distance hiking gun (2-4mi), if I can bring myself to actually carry it. I have other options that are better "beaters" so-to-speak.

Interested to hear the thoughts and opinions of pre-lock Smith owners on this subject.

Thanks in advance!

 

[texagun]

If your guns are just used for occasional shooters at the range and you are concerned with something going wrong by sending them in, I probably wouldn't bother with it. However, if these are going to be carry guns that require absolute reliability that you can depend on, I would definitely send them in. I have sent at least 4 guns in for the replacement of the hammer nose and hammer bushing over the years and all were expertly repaired with no problems and each took about 10 days to accomplish. I personally would send any unmodified gun in for the modification because I would like all my guns to be 100% reliable. I see no downside for not doing it.

 

[bannockburn]

At the time of the original recall I was directed by S&W to a local gunsmith who was authorized by them to do the work. Don't know if they still do this but it's worth looking into if you're that concerned about shipping your revolvers.

As to getting the work done in the first place, I myself would have the modifications done to both guns. I don't know if running some 200 .357 rounds through either gun is going to give you any assurance that the problem with the firing pin might not show up on the very next round you fire. I would think there's no telling when or if the problem may occur with your guns but to me it would be worth the peace of mind to have it done than to be worried that it could happen anytime I use them; in which case you're probably still going to have to ship them to S&W anyways.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Since the 4" no-dash gun passed this test with flying colors, I am of the opinion that sending it in would be unnecessarily risky, given my pretensions about shipping firearms around. I'd rather not take the risk in this gun getting drop kicked/run over in the shipping process, or potentially beat up on by a gunsmithing intern at S&W. Am I nuts? This 4" gun will not be carried, but it could potentially be a camping gun.

It's rare a gun disappears when sent overnight to the vendor. S&W will pay for the shipping and sent you a shipping label.

I have NEVER hard of a gun coming back from S&W that wasn't taken care of extremely well. All work i have ever seen or heard of was done to the highest quality control. They don't allow gunsmithing interns to beat on your gun.

You asked if you are being crazy, maybe a little... (IMHO of course)

 

[Kernel]

First, those are both awesome guns.

I've seen "M" and "2M" marked guns were the mark is under the crane. Is it possible your "M" is under the grips? Just wondering. S&W use to put a "R" there, under the grips, when a gun was returned for refinishing.

As far as shipping, I wouldn't let your concerns prevent you from sending them back to S&W. 1) It's pretty rare to have anything bad happen. And, 2) just insure the heck out of them. They're not family heirlooms (at least, you didn't say they were). Either one could be easily and rapidly replaced with enough funds.

 

[boricua9mm]

One reason for the testing of various loads is that the story surrounding the "M" recall & subsequent modifications involves reports of primers flowing back into the firing pin hole and/or bushing, preventing the cylinder from rotating. Rumor has it that this was more prevalent of hotter loads in the 1980s, and that perhaps this was due to a specific type of primer that is no longer used.

I know for a fact that the 4" gun doesn't have a primer flow issue. In fact there was no metal shavings or residue of any kind whatsoever in this area, only the typical carbon residue. The testing I performed on the 4" gun does, in fact, inspire my peace-of-mind more than the reasons for the recall detract from it.

This begs the question...how much of an issue is this really in this day and age?

I may start by sending in the more common, more easily replaced 4" 686 and see how that goes.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

This begs the question...how much of an issue is this really in this day and age?

I would think it was very sever!

S&W was going to make an engineering change on the M686, a new yoke retention system. The production like was not ready to implement those changes yet S&W did the upgrades on the M686-2 which addressed the problems fixed in the recall of the M686 and M686-1. The M686-2 was only in production one year, 1987 because in 1988 they did the new yoke retention system in the M686-3. If the problem was not serious I'm sure they would have waited one more production year and did both changes at the same time and that would have been the M686-2. (and probably have saved a ton of time and money)

Of course this is only deductive reasoning on my part because I have no proof...

 

[Radagast]

I've read of three cases of guns locking up in the last 10 years. If it a range toy only and you are happy with it, then leave it be. If it is a carry gun, then I would send it in.

The CS1 is hopefully a 686-2 or 686-3, they were shipped a year after the recall.

 

[boricua9mm]

The CS1 is hopefully a 686-2 or 686-3, they were shipped a year after the recall.

Do those guns exist? Mine is simply marked "CS 1" and "686" beneath it.

According to the information in this link, if the info there is accurate, then anything after August 21st, 1987 would already have the changes implemented. Thanks to your tacked thread, you've ID'd mine as a 1988 production gun. Without a dash number or an M stamp, the waters of overrun CS1s might be a little muddy?

I have an email in to Smith to see what they say about the 4" gun. I'll update the thread when I hear back.

I would think it was very sever!

From what I've been reading, it seems that the majority of guns did not lock up. To quote the original recall wording linked above...

"Although there have been very few reported incidents of cylinder binding, in view of our concern for our customer's safety and the reliability of Smith & Wesson products in all circumstances, we issue the following warning:"

I think the historical context is important to this discussion as well. Back then, Smith and Wesson wanted desperately to unseat the Python as the king of the hill. Any potential problem, no matter how unlikely, would have posed a significant threat to S&Ws reputation in the Law Enforcement market which the 686 was targeting. In that case, it's easy to see why the "change 'em all" attitude was adopted.

I was just a pre-teen shooting my father's Python and Smiths back in those days, so maybe someone who was using these guns for Duty purposes back then could shed more light on it for us.

 

[Radagast]

Interesting. The -1 was introduced in 1986, the M in 1987 & the -2 in 1987. The US Customs CS1 was product code 104228 in 1988. It's possible they were assembled in 1987. Let us know what S&W's response is.

 

[boricua9mm]

I'm still waiting on a response from S&W, but this morning I took a look at the primers on the spent brass from my testing session. There appreas to be very slight primer flow around the firing pin indentation, however, I was not able to feel it or catch it with a fingernail. It's definitely not enough to extend past the base of the cartridge and into the firing pin hole of the frame, but it is happening, albeit to a very very small degree.

 

[Kernel]

I've seen CS-1 mark guns in boxes with date codes ranging from June 1986 to August of 1989.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

Some of the problems with the cs-1 revolvers were a direct result of the Customs Service telling S & W how to build their guns, ie they specified the b/c gap to be no more than .003" and when the guns heated up they would bind just as S & W told them.

 

[jmr40]

I owned one of the guns recalled, as did several friends and relatives at that time. I contacted S&W and was given an address and phone # in an Atlanta suburb to do the recall. I called, set up a time and took 4 revolvers belonging to me, and friends. The work on all 4 guns took about 15-20 minutes including test firing a cylinder in each. It was an hour drive each way and no more than 30 minutes all together in the gun shop.

They may still do that. If a service center is close enough I'd go that route.

 

[DC Plumber]

I picked up a beautiful 586 no dash a few years ago, no "m" stamp. First session out it started locking up. I believe it was with Remington 125g JHP ammo. Called Smith, they paid round trip shipping and I had my gun back in my hands. Well worth it. Nothing worse than having a classic Smith and having issues at a public range with it. What an awesome revolver.

 

[BRFussell]

I have a 6" 686 that I sent back to S&W. When I picked it up at LGS I found they had also did a trigger job. It is the smoothest trigger I have ever shot. Not sure why they did it, but I certainly appreciated it.

 

[boricua9mm]

One thing I'm noticing is that there are people whose "non-M" revolvers had problems locking up immediately and there are those who have gone tens of thousands of rounds with no problems. The tendency on the internet is to repeat previously posted information and recommendations, but this one seems to be a little bit more complicated.

Here is a photo of the spent primers from my 4-incher; Remington 125gr and Magtech 158gr cases shown. I'm probably being extreme in calling this "primer flow" when I should probably call it a "rim." Like I mentioned previously, I cannot feel it with my callous fingers, and it is nowhere close to what would be required to lock-up a cylinder or firing pin. Just a data point, if nothing else...

 

[Jim Watson]

I would just shoot the 4".
What is the CS1 to be FOR?
Since I consider it to be a speculative investment and not optimum for any shooting I do, I would leave it original for the collectors.

 

[boricua9mm]

What is the CS1 to be FOR?

The CS1 is definitely a shooter-grade gun and since its a commercial overrun without the original box and docs, it probably won't ever be much a collectors piece, although it will certainly maintain or even increase in value. Then again, all pre-lock S&Ws seem to be increasing in value these days.

For me, the CS1 has the potential to be a woods/hiking carry piece, for those situations where I would be better served with a hot, hard cast load. I live in Central Florida, and the .357 Magnum covers a lot of ground with respect to our wildlife. It's hot for 10 months out of the year, so 3" guns like this one get the nod for easy concealability. Some small black bears are out there, and that would be where a hot, hard cast loading would be preferred. For all the other hiking/woods scenarios, a K-frame loaded with soft-point Magnums just makes more sense overall.

I shot the CS1 today; the primer indentations look absolutely perfect with no flowback/rims at the top of the crater. I don't think it needs any modification whatsoever, but I am tempted to get the free ride back home and have them bead-blast it again while it's over there.