686 strong enough for full-house .357?
- Thread starter Dr. Dave
- Start date
Quantum Singularity
New member
Yes, moderate .357 mag usage is fine but not heavy usage. The 686 WILL go out of time with heavy .357 magnum usage. I've seen many 686s do this. The Ruger GP 100 OTOH, CAN take a heavy beating with .357 magnum and it will still ask for more abuse!
Quantum,
I'm a bit doubtful that there is that much difference in strength between a GP100 and a 686. A M19 maybe. The 686 was designed to correct the problems with the M19. I doubt that many shooters will ever see either one wear out. I admit that I don't shoot either (I prefer my M27 and M627) but I just don't see this as a problem and I know a lot of steel shooters that aren't having timing problems with their 686+ guns. (and they certainly shoot them more than average). I tend to be a bit dubious about most of these claims since I've been told that shooting mag loads in my Python will "shoot it out of time". After nearly 40 years of pretty steady use with everything from target .38's to fairly stiff .357 loads I'm still waiting for a problem.
I'm a bit doubtful that there is that much difference in strength between a GP100 and a 686. A M19 maybe. The 686 was designed to correct the problems with the M19. I doubt that many shooters will ever see either one wear out. I admit that I don't shoot either (I prefer my M27 and M627) but I just don't see this as a problem and I know a lot of steel shooters that aren't having timing problems with their 686+ guns. (and they certainly shoot them more than average). I tend to be a bit dubious about most of these claims since I've been told that shooting mag loads in my Python will "shoot it out of time". After nearly 40 years of pretty steady use with everything from target .38's to fairly stiff .357 loads I'm still waiting for a problem.
Quantum Singularity
New member
sw627pc,
I can't speak for all 686 or 686 plus owners, but I have shot mine loose before (I have a 686 plus) and I don't use .357 magnum that much. It was not a big deal money wise, but I wasn't happy to have to be without my revolver while it was being fixed. Additionally, my buddy (who owns a range that rents guns) has had to send the rental S&W's for repair far more than the rental Rugers.
I can't speak for all 686 or 686 plus owners, but I have shot mine loose before (I have a 686 plus) and I don't use .357 magnum that much. It was not a big deal money wise, but I wasn't happy to have to be without my revolver while it was being fixed. Additionally, my buddy (who owns a range that rents guns) has had to send the rental S&W's for repair far more than the rental Rugers.
Quantum.....are you shure your 686 went out of time due to heavy loads, or perhaps because of extremely rapid firing rate?
I have had both 686 and 696 lose timing due to the hand pivot pin bending slightly. I attribute it to dumping a cylinder in a second or less. The mass of cylinder being stopped and started puts a lot of strain on the pivot pin. I have shot some rather stoutish loads at normal rapid fire rate with no problems in either gun.
I have only encountered the problem with stainless Smiths, never with real steel ones. My fastest have been first run model 36s. Only maintenance with real steel ones has been fitting new hand every couple hundred thousand rounds.
Sam.....inquisitive ol fart
I have had both 686 and 696 lose timing due to the hand pivot pin bending slightly. I attribute it to dumping a cylinder in a second or less. The mass of cylinder being stopped and started puts a lot of strain on the pivot pin. I have shot some rather stoutish loads at normal rapid fire rate with no problems in either gun.
I have only encountered the problem with stainless Smiths, never with real steel ones. My fastest have been first run model 36s. Only maintenance with real steel ones has been fitting new hand every couple hundred thousand rounds.
Sam.....inquisitive ol fart
Quantum Singularity
New member
C.R. Sam,
I honestly can't answer that. I didn't bother to ask the gunsmith what caused the timing to go bad...I just assumed it was shooting .357 magnum loads. I never heard that rapid fire could also cause it but I will look into that.
Oh, mines a 686 plus stainless BTW if that makes a difference?
I honestly can't answer that. I didn't bother to ask the gunsmith what caused the timing to go bad...I just assumed it was shooting .357 magnum loads. I never heard that rapid fire could also cause it but I will look into that.
Oh, mines a 686 plus stainless BTW if that makes a difference?
I think we need a larger statistical base. I have only owned two stainless Smiths....686 and 696. (Probably over a hundred blue Smiths.) Both do not hold up to rapid fire practice (at McGivern speeds), the hand pins bend.
I have also noticed that over the last thirty years or so, .357 mag ammo from major manufacturers has decreased considerably in both pressure and performance. Our litiginous atmosphere has probably dictated the mellowing out of the available ammunition.
Even Lee Juras's touted Super Vel super high velocity loads ran around 30,000 pressure, well within the normal limits for .357mag.
I have driven 180gr JHPs through the fat part of bowling pins, without adverse effect on my 686. Not a comfortable load to shoot from a snubby tho. And not polite in an indoor range.
Till convinced otherwise, I believe the timing problems with the stainless Smiths are due to rapid cylinder rotation and not a load strength factor.
Sam....cantankerous and crotchety ol codger.
I have also noticed that over the last thirty years or so, .357 mag ammo from major manufacturers has decreased considerably in both pressure and performance. Our litiginous atmosphere has probably dictated the mellowing out of the available ammunition.
Even Lee Juras's touted Super Vel super high velocity loads ran around 30,000 pressure, well within the normal limits for .357mag.
I have driven 180gr JHPs through the fat part of bowling pins, without adverse effect on my 686. Not a comfortable load to shoot from a snubby tho. And not polite in an indoor range.
Till convinced otherwise, I believe the timing problems with the stainless Smiths are due to rapid cylinder rotation and not a load strength factor.
Sam....cantankerous and crotchety ol codger.
Quantum Singularity
New member
Regardless of what caused it, my Ruger GP 100 has not needed to be retimed yet. My 686 plus has. I have actually rapid fired the Ruger more than the 686 plus.
IPSCBoy I am.
And my wife is one, too.
We shoot GP100's, and I dabble in 5.5" Redhawks. All are stainless (but, oddly, all ARE stained).
My current fav, my 44 (240's at 877fps. You do the math), has had numerous rounds through it DA. I'll let you all know if it needs re-timing.
And my wife is one, too.
We shoot GP100's, and I dabble in 5.5" Redhawks. All are stainless (but, oddly, all ARE stained).
My current fav, my 44 (240's at 877fps. You do the math), has had numerous rounds through it DA. I'll let you all know if it needs re-timing.
VictorLouis
New member
If you are seeking a vehicle to explore the outer limits of handloading for .357, then surely the Ruger is your better bet. If you want the smoothest shooter, then that would be the Smith.
I have not personally encountered anyone who's has ever shot a K-frame out-of-time. If you mean increased endshake, or flame cutting of the topstrap, then yes. Endshake, or the fore-and-aft movement of the cylinder on the crane, can be corrected by fitting the proper width of shim(s). Flame cutting goes only to a point, them appears to wear no further, which is really a cosmetic issue. In any case, that's why the L-frame was created.
Rapid fire is supposed to be the culprit with timing problems, but I have only seen this evidenced in Colt revolvers. I've handled them NIB that were not right! The mass of the cylinder is set into abrupt rotation by a relatively small, thin hand, or pawl, then promptly halted by a tiny bolt or cylinder stop. But, both of these parts are braced by the edges of the frame windows from which they protrude. It would seem to me that the greater the rotaional mass of the cylinder, the more propensity there would be for this to occur. The L-frames would be more of a concern, whereas the J-frame would be less so.
C.R., I do respect the wisdom of your years, and your experience. However, I do not think that stainless steel is the issue, as the internals of Smiths have always been chrome-moly. Though, at first, they were electroless nickle coated to match. Now, I've read elsewhere that they've gone over to MIM internals, though they are finished in a case-hardened appearance. If THAT is true, then there may be cause for some concern with undue wear. I have limited knowledge of sintered metal production, but I am put-off by it. If I need some correction here, please let me know.
I have not personally encountered anyone who's has ever shot a K-frame out-of-time. If you mean increased endshake, or flame cutting of the topstrap, then yes. Endshake, or the fore-and-aft movement of the cylinder on the crane, can be corrected by fitting the proper width of shim(s). Flame cutting goes only to a point, them appears to wear no further, which is really a cosmetic issue. In any case, that's why the L-frame was created.
Rapid fire is supposed to be the culprit with timing problems, but I have only seen this evidenced in Colt revolvers. I've handled them NIB that were not right! The mass of the cylinder is set into abrupt rotation by a relatively small, thin hand, or pawl, then promptly halted by a tiny bolt or cylinder stop. But, both of these parts are braced by the edges of the frame windows from which they protrude. It would seem to me that the greater the rotaional mass of the cylinder, the more propensity there would be for this to occur. The L-frames would be more of a concern, whereas the J-frame would be less so.
C.R., I do respect the wisdom of your years, and your experience. However, I do not think that stainless steel is the issue, as the internals of Smiths have always been chrome-moly. Though, at first, they were electroless nickle coated to match. Now, I've read elsewhere that they've gone over to MIM internals, though they are finished in a case-hardened appearance. If THAT is true, then there may be cause for some concern with undue wear. I have limited knowledge of sintered metal production, but I am put-off by it. If I need some correction here, please let me know.