Quote:
sold my best 4" 67 and 4" 28 - superb actions, but they just didn't swallow .357s and act like the 586/686 does
I'm not sure how you can say this about the Model 28. It is an N frame, like the 27. Not as nicely finished but just as strong. I have one of each.
KyJim is offline
Jim,
Yes, I should explain why I sad that. I do like N frames - I still have a few and have three I will never, ever, ever sell (3" 629-1, 3.5" 27, and a 6.5" .455 Hand Ejector in .45 Long Colt). But the thing is the 4" 686 and the 4" 28 (or 27) weigh exactly the same to the ounce (mine each weighed 41ozs). The L is more compact, and with a much (relatively) heavier and underlugged barrel. I find that really alters the recoil characteristics between the two and in the favor of the L, despite the N's larger frame size. The barrel of the 586/686 makes it recoil more softly and get back on target quicker. Despite the nominally larger frame size on the 28, the weight is the same as the 686, and that weight is laid out to very specifically to tame recoil. Also the bore axis is slightly deeper in the hand, which helps, too. The 28 wasn't bad, but I just found the 686 more pleasant to shoot with full-power .357 loads. With .38s, it was no big difference, and the lighter barrel of the 28 made/makes it point quicker than the 586/686 - so it's always a trade off. So, for the person who prefers a 19 to, say, a 28 because it's lighter and points quicker, well, I bet they'd likely prefer then the 28 to the 586/686.
Now the thing that wasn't fair in retrospect is I have smooth targets on the L, and had the factory Magnas with a grip adapter on the 28. If I had plain targets on the 28 it might have been much closer. I have some N checkered targets, maybe I'll put them on the 27 (it is 3.5", so won't be perfectly fair) and re-do the comparison this weekend.
And, I wish I hadn't sold the 28, honestly, but now I have a 27 so unless I find one on firesale I doubt I'll replace it right away. That 28 had a MUCH nicer trigger and better b/c gap than the 27. I have NOTHING against them (except I really, really like the balance of the 3.5"). Mechanically, it was probably the absolute best made S&W I'd ever seen. Now you are making me mad because you are making me regret selling it!!!!
One of my future projects is to get a cosmetically challenged 28, cut the barrel back to just ahead of the locking lug/ejector shroud, making it like 3 1/16" effectively, then rounding the grip frame, bluing, and then putting on combat grips. Basically building the "Lew Horton" 28-3 that never got made when they did all the 3" 24-3, 624s, 29-3s, 629-1s, 657s. I always thought a 3" RB 28 would be an excellent gun. I think the .357 is the do-all chambering for a revolver, and it was silly to build those cool N frame 3" models in .44 and .41 and not do a .357. So if you ever see a cosmetically challenged but functional 28 that needs to be re-born and loved, point me to the seller!