Author Topic: 686 vs model 28 (Read 1871 times)

swamphunter · « **on:** March 22, 2010, 02:34:09 PM »

I have a line on a six inch model 28 at a local dealer. The cylinder has a bit of pitting on the outside, but the cylinders and bore are bright. He also has a new 686 which I really like. The model 28 is half the price of the 686. Being from Canada, I don't know too much about handguns. From what I have read the 28 is a large frame (N), while the 686 is smaller (L). I have fairly small hands. Which would be the better shooter? Is the 28 stronger because of its larger frame? I like the look of the full underlug, does it reduce recoil/muzzle jump? Which do you think would be better for me for target use? Are they both easy to get holsters etc for?
Thanks,
Swamp

krod47nw · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2010, 05:01:09 PM »

Both are excellent revolvers. You described the differences well. You didn't mention the barrel length on the 686. For target use I prefer the 28, although I have large hands. The only real decision makers you have to deal with are; the fit in your hand and the impact on your wallet.

Kevin

Wyo. Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2010, 05:37:06 PM »

Swamphunter, I am not up on all the S & W models......but I like older Smiths...Just bought a 4 inch model 28 to go with my 6 inch model 28...the newer Smiths are nice, but for my taste I like the older models...the under lug barrel doesn't appeal to me....but it is all in individual tastes...I like older things as the Fonz said, "I wish it could be 1955 forever."""""

Graybeard · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2010, 07:08:11 PM »

Taste in guns is a very individual thing. Me I'd go for the 686 over the 28 but then I never have seen a reason to use the big N Frame for a little .357 magnum personally.

swamphunter · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2010, 04:04:03 AM »

Thanks for the advice.
Are they both about equally accurate? How about recoil? Is trigger pull generally smoother on one rather than the other? The 28 has the original service wood grips. Are rubber grips a good idea, and can you easily get them?
Thanks again,
Swamp

Graybeard · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2010, 04:30:15 AM »

Recoil is more based on gun weight than any other factor between the two of them. Which is heavier depends on barrel length. The N frame is heavier than the L frame but that full lugged barrel is much heavier than the thinner M28 barrel so if barrels are both say 6" the guns will be similar in weight and I honestly am not sure which would be the heavier. I don't think you'll see enough difference to matter and besides the .357 mag in such full size guns has little recoil to worry about.

My favorite grip for N frame guns is the Pachmayr Presentation grip. It is made in both small and large size and one or the other will feel better in your hand. I like the small best. If you have real large hands then the large might work better. I don't care for wood grips on either and am partial to Pachmayr's on all my S&W revolvers.

krod47nw · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2010, 02:16:15 PM »

I think GB is right. The weight should end up about the same. I think the 686 may have it distributed more to the barrel, and the 28 would be more on the frame. Again this falls to personal preference.

As far as trigger pull, all S&W revolvers are good and can be made better easily. The production date of the 686 would factor into how similar the two trigger feel. The newer models have a little differnt trigger feel to me and have completely different parts than the earlier ones.

I also aggree that rubber grips are the way to go for a shooter. The wood grips look great, but don't do much for comfort.

My suggestion is spend some time in the store with both of them. Feel the difference in grip and how they point and aim. I'm sure one will feel better than the other to you. Again personal preference.

Kevin

swamphunter · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2010, 03:50:36 AM »

Thanks for the input fellas. I'm hoping to get to the gun shop today to finger them both up.
Wish me luck!
Swamp

swamphunter · « **Reply #8 on:** March 26, 2010, 04:42:08 AM »

Got there and the 28 was gone. Dealer said that it sold an hour before I arrived. Not meant to be I guess.
Take care,
Swamp

bilmac · « **Reply #9 on:** March 26, 2010, 06:50:52 AM »

The question is moot for swampy now, but to continue the discussion, I kinda feel like the older blue guns had better triggers. We had some stainless guns in our office that had atrocious triggers and absolutely had to be smithed . Maybe that was just some poor years, but I have never handled a blue gun with a poor trigger.

PawPaw · « **Reply #10 on:** March 26, 2010, 09:34:30 AM »

regarding the triggers, I've got a J-Frame model 60-0 and a K-Frame 66-0 and a couple of 28s. I've never fingered a 686, so I stayed out of the discussion.

To my way of thinking, SW made some of the finest triggers I've ever felt on a production revolver. I haven't handled a new revolver in years (I"ve got mine), but the older triggers, especially in single-action mode feel just like a good trigger is supposed to feel.

Old Fart · « **Reply #11 on:** March 26, 2010, 09:52:01 AM »

My old 28 has been with me for years, somewhere around 30 I think.
It's a good shooter and had an action job done on it many moons ago.
I used to crank some real fire breathers out of it.
No so much anymore, mostly slow/light 38's.
The big heavy frame has always been a benefit in the past.
Now days it just feels right.
But like others have said it really boils down to what feels good.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2010, 02:42:50 AM »

Im with greaybeard. I never saw a use for a N frame 357. Heck i balked when they went from the k frame to the L frame. Got to admit thought the L frames turned out to be nice guns. Now if smith would just make another run of them in 5 shot 44 special stainless and then come out with the same in a 41 mag id probably have to open up the check book.

Tom C. · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2010, 04:50:49 AM »

My first handgun was a S&W Model 27-2 in 1974. I still have it, and it is still perhaps the most accurate .357 I have. These days I have several more .357s including a 686SSR and 627PC. While the L frame 686SSR is a great gun, I haven’t warmed to it like I have the 627PC. I like stainless, 5” N frame guns, including .357. It is just a personal thing.

P.A. Myers · « **Reply #14 on:** April 02, 2010, 07:02:10 PM »

A full bore 357 is a formitable blast and the use of an 'N' is warranted. I have 28s and a 686-6inch. The 686 gets the most traffic.

AkRay · « **Reply #15 on:** April 09, 2010, 02:38:32 PM »

Having owned both, I think the 686 is the trimmer 357, so it's a little easier to holster and carry. Oddly enough, I think the cylinder is a hair longer than the Model 28s, so it chambers 200 gr cast bullets.

southernutah · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2010, 06:30:15 PM »

had a 28 Highway Patrolman years ago that a friend bought form me . turned it into a 38-44. i went to the smaller frame 65 then to the 686.
I read somewhere that stainless that is the same tends to gall when rubbed againts each other verses the same in carbon steel.It also said if 2 different stainless steels were used it didn't gall as much.

Rutin2tin · « **Reply #17 on:** April 13, 2010, 02:00:28 PM »

FWIW: Late last year, I took a friend (who wasn't certain about gun ownership) to the range with My S&W 686-1 6", and on his first shot he drilled the X-ring dead center at 25 yards. He now owns a beautiful Model 19 circa 1979, and a S&W 686-1 6".
Model 28's are fine handguns, but I have to give the nod to the 686.

S.B. · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2010, 01:36:53 AM »

I'd opt for the 28. My reasoning would be strength and durability. The original .357 was built on the N frame by S&W in 1935. Plus what ever you save in price, you can spend for ammo?
Steve

pneuby · « **Reply #19 on:** May 19, 2010, 11:28:23 AM »

The L-frame will withstand any 'modern' .357 and probably a fair bit of handloading experimentation. That said, S.B. has a point. The N-frame was Thee original Magnum, when that .357 pill was exiting at velocities that would be though extreme by modern loading manuals. Just take a look at the forcing cone on each model.

Graybeard · « **Reply #20 on:** May 19, 2010, 11:51:22 AM »

Quote from: pneuby on May 19, 2010, 11:28:23 AM

The L-frame will withstand any 'modern' .357 and probably a fair bit of handloading experimentation. That said, S.B. has a point. The N-frame was Thee original Magnum, when that .357 pill was exiting at velocities that would be though extreme by modern loading manuals. Just take a look at the forcing cone on each model.

Tis right, tis right. BUT I was shooting the .357 back when the factory ballistics were listed as 1550 fps for a 158 grain JHP. Now I didn't have a chrono all those years ago and cannot verify that velocity but I'll tell ya flat out the recoil of those loads years ago where way more than anything you can lay hands on today. I reloaded to what the books back then said was similar velocities and in fact was known a few times to slightly exceed the amount of 2400 the books said was OK as well.

I did it in Model 19s and fired many thousands of rounds thru them with no apparent ill effect on them. Sure I went to the 586/686 guns when they came out and must admit to likely then quite well. Still what I use these days are Model 66s like my old M19s other than of SS not blued steel. For day to day use I'll take the M19/M66 but if I were still competing with a .357 as I used to I'd go for a long barrel 686. I had one with 8-3/8" barrel and the four position adjustable front sight and I'm here to tell ya I've never owned a more accurate revolver and that includes my FA83s and FA97s. Back when my hands weren't so shaky as they now are and my eyes were 20/15 I shot many freehand groups at 25 yards that were an inch and under for a full six shots. These days I am lucky to shoot a group double that from a solid bench position. Ah to be young again.

S.B. · « **Reply #21 on:** May 19, 2010, 02:39:41 PM »

link=topic=203514.msg1099097474#msg1099097474 date=1274304503]
Tis right, tis right. BUT I was shooting the .357 back when the factory ballistics were listed as 1550 fps for a 158 grain JHP. Now I didn't have a chrono all those years ago and cannot verify that velocity but I'll tell ya flat out the recoil of those loads years ago where way more than anything you can lay hands on today. I reloaded to what the books back then said was similar velocities and in fact was known a few times to slightly exceed the amount of 2400 the books said was OK as well.

I did it in Model 19s and fired many thousands of rounds thru them with no apparent ill effect on them.[/quote]

Wonder what kind of shape those same guns are in today? Do you know any of the current owners, are these guns still in service?
Steve