I have a 686-no dash and it came with one of the sweetest DA/SA triggers right out of the box. Accuracy has been great.
The no-dash version may be the best .357 ever made.
When the 586/686 came out, Smith & Wesson wanted it to be its version of the Colt Python. They put a long underlug on the barrel and they really watched the tolerances. They wanted a gun that had the approximate weight, holding characteristics, slick action and superb accuracy that the Python had. And the gun magazine hacks were quick to run comparisons of the Smith and the Python. When they published their accuracy comparisons, it was clear that S&W had successfully produced its own Python.
Some people (like me) weren't exactly thrilled with the weight and the underlug barrels. These made the 586/686 a wonderful range gun, but unfortunately, Smith had produced a horrible trail/outdoor/camping gun. To make matters worse, Smith stopped production of the excellent Model 66 6-incher. Hunters who wanted a decent trail or hunting gun soon found they only had one viable alternative: the outstanding Ruger Security-Six. Then Ruger, for some insane reason, decided to "improve" the Security-Six by replacing it with a heavier, front-heavy gun that is a nightmare to carry in the field or pack while camping. In short, Ruger clearly wanted to steal Smith's thunder, but it wasn't able to deliver on a smooth action or superb accuracy. It's GP-100 is, in my view, a kludge that has poor balance and accuracy that is no better than the Security-Six. And it blazes a trail right through the point of diminishing returns. Is it rugged? Yes, but so was the Security-Six. So what did it give us that made it better? Less recoil? People who carry guns more than they shoot them really don't find that an improvement.
While I'm ranting, though the GP-100 resembles the 586/686, what most people don't see is that Ruger cut a brutal corner when it cut away the steel grip and put the support in a wooden grip. Thus, if one picks up a Security-Six and a GP-100, the latter tips forward, changing both the center of mass and the center of balance. Clearly the Smith 586/686 has far superior balance over the Ruger; and a 4-inch 686 has exceptional balance and a center of mass.
So the no-dash version of the 586/686 may be the best you can get, because it was designed to go head-to-head with the Python. But in truth, the current 686s may be equally as accurate. I've never checked them or seen anyone else who has compared them. Many people don't like the MIM parts in modern revolvers, but they add greatly to the smoothness of actions because they're not machined. That's why S&W revolvers and Ruger LCR revolvers have ice smooth actions. If there are any negative aspects (other than they're ugly on stainless guns), I don't know them. But I would prefer S&W to at least hard chrome the parts, ensuring that the parts don't wear.
The no-dash 686 is beautiful. Wood grips, hard chromed hammers and
triggers and an integral front sight (not pinned). Unlike Pythons, the S&W
586/686 have larger pawls and aren't as subject to going out of time.
