Newest Purchase - S&W 686

[vortex0178 3]

Saw this on GunBroker being listed by one of my local shops when I lived in NY. Stopped in last weekend to check it out, and now it's currently waiting at my local FFL for my OGAM timer to run out. After shipping/FFL fees/taxes, the good deal I would have had, had I still lived NY, probably became average, but still came out to less than what I'd've spent on a new Ruger GP100. I'm also pretty sure I could minimize my loss should I decide to sell it, vs. the loss when buying either a new Ruger or new Smith.

 

It's a no-dash, S&W 686 6", AAC serial number, non-M stamped. Not sure what the production date would be; anyone have any info? Closest I have found with Google suggests an early 80s born date.

 

I'll probably send it back to S&W to get it M-stamped, but not before I shoot it first Any bullet/load recommendations? I bought 1k of Zero 125gr JHPs to start with, and will probably work up some test loads with Bullseye starting from high .38 special loads to the low end of magnum loads. All in .357 magnum cases.

 

Lastly, when reloading for rimmed pistol cartridges, do you bother trimming to get a uniform roll crimp? I trimmed for .44 magnum when I was reloading single stage, but now that I'm using a progressive it seems less convenient. If I wanted to trim, I assume it'd be best to resize/decap/prime in one cycle, trim, then expand/charge/seat/crimp in another cycle?

[junkmanted 54]

Cant help with the reloading but can tell you its a great pistol ,, i had the same one , sold it and regret it !

bought it new for 350.00 and sold it for 500.00 maybe 2 years ago . Take care of her and she will go up in value .

good luck with it

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Nice find. From what I read, yours would be a very early gun, dating to 1980. Supica & Nahas state that regular production started with serial number range AAD, with examples as low as AAA known. So, not a prototype, but prior to regular ptroduction.

 

It may be of interest to collectors and I think that I would hold off on sending it back for the "M" stamp (indicates the completion of a recall) until you investigate whether it affects collector value. There are S&W collectors who specialize in "no-dash" guns, and one that is pre-regular production and not recall modified may be worth a premium. I am not a member of the SWCA, but that is where I'd go to query some members about desirability of your 686. Maybe they'll tell you it's just a shooter, but one can never know. Here's the forum URL...

 

http://smith-wessonforum.com/forum.php

 

Again, nice find and good luck.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[bry@n 195]

Congrats. I agree with Pizza Bob. I wouldn't send it back unless needed.

 

I just recently picked up a 686-2 6" with woods grips. Great gun and I would like to get a 4".

[Sigman 41]

Can't help you with Bullseye powder, I didn't get accurate drops from my RCBS powder measure. For .38SP I've been using 4.2gr Universal Clays under a 158gr lead head in a .38SP case. For .357Mag I like 14.5gr 2400 under a 158gr SJSP. You'll need to adjust the load for a 125gr JHP.

[tony357 386]

Very nice revolver, i would not send it anywhere..

[Springfield1911 22]

Is the recall for the M stamp due to safety? If its safe..I would not send it in either.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Very nice.

 

(null)

[autoxnyc 4]

That recall is to replace the bushing where the hammer/firing pin goes through. Original was too large and higher pressure loadings would blast part of the primer into the opening and lock up the gun. You'll have to send it back to Smith to get it unlocked.

 

I think with the recall work they replaced the bushing with one with smaller hole. It's not really not a a problem until you shoot really hot loads.

[blksheep 466]

Very nice....

[vortex0178 3]

Brought the gun home today, and after clean up I got in a bit of range time... man, revolvers are awesome! Makes me regret not getting one as my first handgun. My first shot with it was a very lucky bullseye, and in general my groups were as good or better than my groups using my CZ, with much less effort to achieve the same results. Not sure if it was the longer sight radius, overall weight of the gun, or fewer moving parts or what - probably all three combined with a heavy dose of wheelgun mojo. I am definitely a fan.

 

Added a few pics. This is my first stainless gun and my first wheelgun, so maybe you guys can enlighten me - how often do you clean the front of the cylinder? Is it fine to leave those powder rings there or should I aim to remove them after each session? And are phosphor bronze brushes safe to use on stainless or should I stick w/nylon? Lastly there seems to be some staining on the hammer (see pic) - is there a way to remove that? My lead removing cloth didn't seem to make a difference. Thanks in advance for your input!

[Sandy 44]

Beautiful revolver !

[PeteF 1,044]

Not sure if it was the longer sight radius, overall weight of the gun, or fewer moving parts or what - probably all three combined with a heavy dose of wheelgun mojo. I am definitely a fan.

 

Added a few pics. This is my first stainless gun and my first wheelgun, so maybe you guys can enlighten me - how often do you clean the front of the cylinder? Is it fine to leave those powder rings there or should I aim to remove them after each session? And are phosphor bronze brushes safe to use on stainless or should I stick w/nylon? Lastly there seems to be some staining on the hammer (see pic) - is there a way to remove that? My lead removing cloth didn't seem to make a difference. Thanks in advance for your input!

 

Longer sight radius and barrel that is 100% of the time attached to the frame gives better accuracy.

 

I personally clean mine every time after a session. Especially if I'm shooting 38s. The lead remover cloth works really good for me.

On the hammer you can try some very high grit (1000-2000) sandpaper, or some car polish and elbow grease to try and remove the hammer staining.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

I guess you're making it a shooter . It would appear that a previous owner took a file to your front sight. Since it shoots fine and you aren't worried about collectability, I wouldn't let it bother you. To a collector that would affect value. The "no-dash" stainless guns came with a raw stainless front sight. On subsequent engineering changes, Smith realized it was harder to see and changed them to a black front sight. Doubtful that stainless blades are still available.

 

Beatiful gun. You're right - wheel guns are the nutz. Wait until you discover big-bore wheelguns

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Send that dirty wheelgun to me for a real cleaning. It will only take a few years, then you can have it back, lol!

 

Congrats! I really appreciate your comment about wishing that this was your first hand gun, how easy it is to shoot, etc. I've been preaching this very same info on the Forum for as long as I've been around, and most of the time to deaf ears.

 

Now you need a 629 or an older 29 to go with that .44 saddle gun I read in your signature line! Bob is right, wait till you get a Dirty Harry revolver! I've had my Model 29 since 1979!

[vortex0178 3]

@ Pizza Bob - Hmm, I didn't notice that about the front sight being filed down. Though the sight blade is integral to the barrel, not pinned in place, as it is in newer models. Oh well - it's just about dead on with the 125gr loads I was shooting through it so can't complain.

*Edit - Actually, in looking at some other earlier 686's (-3s and prior), it looks like all of those with integral steel front sights are slightly ground down at the top (more trapezoidal) instead of being a rounded triangle like the black sight blades? Like this: http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/280545000/280545534/pix502910818.jpg

 

@ Smokin .50 - Actually I was thinking more along the lines of a Super Blackhawk Hunter to go with the lever-gun; it's next on my list. Though I did see a guy at the range with a 629 V-Comp that was pretty sweet. Maybe one day, in the far future.

 

@ PeteF - I'll try some car polish, and maybe light application of a Dremel buffing wheel. If I go the sandpaper route would that affect the case hardening of the hammer? It is case hardened, right? I remember reading that somewhere...

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

If I go the sandpaper route would that affect the case hardening of the hammer? It is case hardened, right? I remember reading that somewhere...

 

Only very early stainless Smiths (models 60 & 66) had stainless hammers. Smith found that SS was not really suitable for hammers, so switched to carbon steel that was case-hardened and then applied a flash coat of hard chrome to match the appearance of the SS gun. I'm assuming that what you are seeing is the deterioration of the hard chrome plating on the hammer. I think any attempt to correct it, especailly with abrasives, will only worsen the appearance. You would probably have to go pretty far to affect the case hardening as that was done to the carbon steel part prior to plating. I'd let well enough alone. Short of changing out the hammer or removing it and having it re-chromed, there is probably not much that can be done.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

PS: While a 29 is nice, I was thinking more along the lines of a 24 or 25. As for a companion for your Marlin, I'd go short-barrelled SBH with the round trigger guard (you'll thank me) packed in a nice Tom Threepersons holster from El Paso Saddlery. Here's the gun...

 

http://www.ruger.com/products/newModelSuperBlackhawkStandard/specSheets/0813.html

 

Here's the holster...

 

http://www.epsaddlery.com/pc-65-9-1920-tom-threepersons-2-to-7-12-barrels.aspx

 

I love spending other people's money.

 

PB