S&w 619 620 vs. 686

[TNCARRYPERMIT]

What do you think about the SW 619 or 620 vs. 686???

THank you for your feedback in advance

 

[vcs700s]

I own a 620. The 619 and 686 are nice also.

I like the 620 because of the partial underlug. It seems less nose heavy to me.

 

[fishjar]

+1 on balance

Also my came with a great trigger

 

[vcs700s]

You are correct, the SA and DA on the 620 are unbelievably smooth and easy.

 

[Master Blaster]

IIRC the 619 and the 620 use the barrel shroud and liner system, which some say improves accuracy and others say cheapens the design.
S&W has sold lots of them and I havent heard about any coming off the frame. That happens with regular barrels even on Ruggers.

I have a 4 " 686+ the 619 and the 620 both come in 7 shot, I would recommend the 7 shot over the 6. The 686+ has a traditional one piece machined barrel, with a full underlug. It would be nice if they made that with a partial underlug in 4" and 7 shots.

I really like my 686+ 4", I also have a 6" 6 shot 686 thats great at 50 yards on the range and could even be used to hunt deer in the handgun season (6" or greater barrel required in my state) 619 and 620 are 4" only. You really cant go wrong with any of them so you have to decide if you want adjustible sights or fixed, and see how they feel, if you want fixed its the 619 IIRC.

Note the 2 piece barrel in the technical specs

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...d=10001&productId=14803&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y

 

[Oro]

which some say improves accuracy and others say cheapens the design.

The correct answer is it does both! Yeah, it's a cheaper construction method that doesn't look traditional or elegant, but it does improve accuracy - just like the Dan Wesson design from the 70s.

I have fired and considered buying a 620 and 520 (the short-run blued frame version of the 620). I decided to stick with my 686 (six shot). The interesting 520 I will buy when I find a good deal on one because it is unique. The 619/620 point a little handier without the full lug, but they also absorb recoil less well for that very same reason. Trade offs, Trade offs! My 686 is for powerful .357s, and for that I want recoil control and strength (hence the six shot, not the seven).

If you want a plinking/range gun you use with .38s and only shoot the occasional .357, then the 619 and 620 models are fine and accurate weapons. I am not implying .357 will harm them, but they will be less pleasant to shoot with .357 than the 686.

In this buying category, my "bang for the buck" gun is a used pre-lock 4" 686 six shot or 686+ if you must. Cheaper to buy now, and will be worth more in 10 or 20 years than a new 620 or 686 will be. Or try to find a good used 520, they will be novelties down the road.

 

[Master Blaster]

My 686 is for powerful .357s, and for that I want recoil control and strength (hence the six shot, not the seven).

The 6 vs 7 shot strength debate is just that. The 6 has more meat between the cylinder walls, but when cylinders do come apart they do it along the bolt stop notches. The 6 shot notches are over the thinest part of the chamber wall. The 7 shot notches are in the thickest part of the cylinder between the chambers.

Under normal conditions with in spec .357 ammo you will never have either cylinder fail.

The 7 shot may hold together better in a double charge/ severe overload.