S&W L Frame 6 vs 7 shot?

gak · June 21, 2009, 10:29 AM

Is there any downside to the 7 shot 686 vs the 6 shot? Is the former less strong - "weaker" in the cylinder for instance--due to less metal? Otherwise--lighter gun, I assume...I assume that +1 round capability is one of the plusses of the step up to the L from the former K design, so why would one not opt for the extra capacity --other than perhaps obviously not being able to use a standard 6 speedloader?

The Terminator · June 21, 2009, 11:03 AM

I would think that the 7 shot models are taking advantage of more modern metallurgy. I have the 7 shot 386. I'll be the first to admit that a thicker 6 shot cylinder is inherently stronger, but the 7 shot is certainly strong enough. I have not seen a load that was recommended for 6 shot models only. Speedloaders are also available for 7 shot models. I also think that the 7 shot cylinders are taking advantage of the larger L frame vs the K frame.

Best -

223 shooter · June 21, 2009, 11:25 AM

All the 686s are L-Frames regardless of 6 or 7 shot. The 7 shot has thinner walls but the cylinder notches are offset , or not directly over each chamber. Like mentioned , there are not specific 6 or 7 shot loads listed in any of my manuals. Both versions have plenty of strength.

That'll Do · June 21, 2009, 11:49 AM

If I recall correctly, there was a thread not long ago that discussed the 6 vs. 7 shot L-frame. Someone spoke directly to a S&W Representative in regards to the cylinder strength. They said that while the 7 shot had thinner cylinder walls, it was in no way weaker than the 6 shot version.

dairycreek · June 21, 2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

I'll be the first to admit that a thicker 6 shot cylinder is inherently stronger, but the 7 shot is certainly strong enough.

Several years ago I was faced with the same question and called Smith & Wesson to seek an answer. Eventually I talked to a "senior engineer" and what he told me made some sense. S & W thought that the 7-shot revo would be a gun that would sell. However, they realized that they could not be in the position of producing or selling the two guns with one being stronger than the other. Liability being what it is these days that would have been an untenable legal position should the occasion arise. The engineer assured me that there was absolutely no difference in strength between the 6 and 7 shot revos.

FWIW

BillCA · June 21, 2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Is the former less strong - "weaker" in the cylinder for instance--due to less metal?

Saying it's "less strong" is a mis-statement. The heat treating of the steel will be ethe same. The steel used will be the same as the six-shot 686. What might be different is the fatigue strength of the metal under extreme conditions - such as a double-charged .357 case. And a double-charged case that causes a 7-shot cylinder to fail is probably going to bulge the topstrap of a six-shooter too.

gak · June 21, 2009, 02:00 PM

Thanks for the great answers! Another L frame question while I'm at it; overall weight (6 vs 6) and dimensional differences between the K's (say, 65 or 66) vs the L's? I would think a 7 shot L would be about the same ozs as a 6 shot K? Just being lazy; I know this has been covered, especially with the intro of the L era.

stevieboy · June 21, 2009, 02:45 PM

I think that the 6 shot and 7 shot L's weigh about the same, 40 ounces plus, depending on the barrel length. The L's are definitely larger than the K's and the difference becomes apparent when they are placed next to each other. Much of the difference in size appears to be in the frame window and in the cylinder. The cylinder is more robust on the L as is the forcing cone. As for weight, my K-frame 66 (4 inches) weighs about 36 ounces. An L-frame 686 4 inch gun weighs 42 - 43 ounces. That's about a .4 of a pound difference in weight, pretty significant. Much of that comes from the fully underlugged barrel on the L, but also from the bulkier frame and cylinder. The K and L grip frames, however, are the same size and you can interchange grips between the two series.

There's also a difference in perception when you fire a K vs. an L of equivalent barrel length. Recoil from my 66 is a lot snappier than it is from my 686.

Kreyzhorse · June 21, 2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

so why would one not opt for the extra capacity

Some people, me included, are just traditionalists. Other than that, it's simply a matter of preference.

The Terminator · June 21, 2009, 05:27 PM

Kreyzhorse is right, this is the first time that I have really come around to the idea of a 7 shot. I did have a Taurus 617 in stainless a few years ago, really liked it, but, 7 and 8 shooters did take some adjusting to for us old folks, who came up on revolvers, before the auto craze took over.

Many are the people who do not feel undergunned with 6, or even 5 shooters. Many, as myself, feel no need to keep 30 rounds of ammo on their person. A reload is nice, but really is more comfort than necessity for the average Citizen who is carrying.

Jim March · June 21, 2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

The heat treating of the steel will be ethe same. The steel used will be the same as the six-shot 686.

You do NOT know that, and cannot know it. Neither can I.

The kicker is that S&W has a LONG history of doing different heat-treats for different gun variants based on how strong they think it needs to be. That's why you can't take an N-frame six-shot 357 and bore it out to 44Mag even though N-frames of the same period were made as factory 44Mags.

Ruger uses the same heat treat on everything, which is why you see all sorts of wild conversions.

ActivShootr · June 21, 2009, 06:02 PM

What in the world will you be shooting through it to even worry about the cylinder failing?

CraigC · June 21, 2009, 06:04 PM

Personally, anything more or less than six flutes in a cylinder just doesn't look right. The big eight shot N-frames and ten shot K-22's with all those flutes just look funny to me. Six shots is what I'm used to and for the most part, it's what I'd prefer. With the notable exception of my 12-shot USFA 12/22 (six flutes!), I'm just not clammering for more capacity out of my sixguns.

postal1911 · June 21, 2009, 06:06 PM

Love my S&W 327 8 shot, great carry little recoil with +p
oh and fots my alaskan holster

ceadermtnboy · June 21, 2009, 06:15 PM

The biggest difference is the trigger pull. They are different and noticeable to me. The six shot has a longer trigger pull that is more consistant than the 7 shot and feels uncomfortable if you are used to a six shot S&W. However I have learned to really like the seven shot pull with a lot of dry firing and practice. As the 7 shooter breaks in the pull gets more consistant with less stacking , but it is still different. I still like the 7 shot better and have a 686 with a 5" barrel, and a 386 Scandium with 2-1/2 inch barrel and they make a neet combo for home defence and CC.

bigghoss · June 21, 2009, 08:40 PM

the old k-frame .357's like the 19 wore out far to quickly when shot exclusively with full power duty loads for practice and training so they went back to the L-frame. eventually they managed to stuff an extra round in the cylinder but the 6-shot version was very popular with competition shooters since most revolver matches are limited to 6-rounds. it made more sense to compeditors to have a gun that only held six rather than put 6 in a 7 and try to line up the empty chamber.

at least that's what I read in a magazine article written by Massad Ayoob

kmrcstintn · June 21, 2009, 09:53 PM

any L-frame is a step up from the K-framed .357 mag, but added bulk and weight is the trade-off; as far as 6-shot vs 7-shot goes I'll share this...among the various buy-sell-trade acquisitions that I had was a S&W 686 + and 2 different Taurus 66's w/ 7-shot cylinders and all I own are 6-shots; what deterred me? (besides the Taurus mainsprings weakening after @1000 rounds thru each)

it is very difficult to get a 7-shot speedloader to line up and allow cartridges to fall into the cylinder without perfect placement and a bunch of jiggling (my reload times were significantly higher with a 7-shot gun)

Elvishead · June 23, 2009, 04:01 AM

1-shot more

7 is better than 6, and 8 is better than 6,7 or even 5.

BlueTrain · June 23, 2009, 11:35 AM

While I have no personal objections to either a 7-shot L-frame or a .357 J-frame, it somehow strikes me as odd and just a little counter-productive.

In the case of the L-frame, it was introduced as stronger than a K-frame, to allow a longer life with magnum ammunition. Then, because there was all that metal in the L-frame, at least in the cylinder, someone decided there was room for one more chamber. Admittedly, the real difference in the two frame sizes may be the frames and not the cylinders, which are different, of course. Funny, Colt Official Police models and variations were already "L-frame" sized.

Then there are those handfulls of dynamite, the .357 J-frames. Anyone looking for lighter loads in .357 to shoot in them?

Don't you wonder how we managed to skip over the .38 S&W +P (regular, not special)?

Russ5924 · June 23, 2009, 11:47 AM

The way I look at it if you can't hit what you are aiming at with 6 what good is 7. What ever gun I carry if to be 5 or 15 that is it I carry no extras rounds

Fred1978 · June 23, 2009, 05:18 PM

What about the ratchet. The teeth that the hand engages on the 7-shot guns are alot smaller. Any reduction in timing durability?

jaydubya · June 23, 2009, 05:20 PM

For those who consider revolvers with more/less than six rounds to be problematic, I have three "six shooters", a JC Higgins .22 that holds nine rounds, an S&W 637 that holds five rounds, and a 686+ that holds seven. Oh yeah, and a 9mm Browning High Power that holds fourteen when topped off. I can handle this wild disparity.

Cordially, Jack

Webleymkv · June 23, 2009, 05:33 PM

Quote:

What about the ratchet. The teeth that the hand engages on the 7-shot guns are alot smaller. Any reduction in timing durability?

Wear on the hand, locking bolt, or locking notches seem to be the more common cause of timing issues than the ratchet, so I don't think that would be much of an issue. The six-shot N-Frames, which are generally considered to be the strongest .357 revolvers that S&W has made, are actually more prone to timing issues when subjected to a lot of hard, fast DA shooting.

The main reason for the upgrade to the L-Frame was the undue wear associated with the K-Frame when large amounts of full-power Magnums with 125grn or lighter bullets were used. The biggest issue was erosion and cracking of the forcing cones typically at the 6 O'Clock position. This was because the bottom of the forcing cone on K-Frames must be ground flat in order to clear the gas ring thusly making it thinner in the 6 O'Clock position. The larger L-Frames allow the forcing cone to be full thickness 360 degrees. None of the issues associated with the K-Frame had anything to do with the thickness of the cylinder walls. Also, it should be noted that issues with the K-Frame were dramatically reduced or eliminated alltogether when .38 Special or .357 Magnum with 140grn or heavier bullets are used.

While the six-shot L-Frames may theoretically be stronger due to the thicker cylinder walls, any loading hot enough to blow up a 7-Shot S&W is likely unsafe to shoot in any revolver.

Horseless Trooper · June 26, 2009, 12:15 PM

The downside for me is the fact that Safariland does not make 7 shot speedloaders. I have switched almost entirely to Safariland loaders for all my revolvers I can get them for. I find them much more positive than HKS.

Stainz · June 26, 2009, 02:21 PM

I have a 6" 66, 5" 686+ half lug, and 4" 627 Pro. They all weigh within an ounce of each other - and point/balance nearly the same. I keep a few HKS #10 6-shot speedloaders loaded for the 66 (and 10 and 64); a few #587 7-shot speedloaders loaded for the 686+; and sixty 8-shot moonclips loaded for the 627. Guess which one I'll grab when the Zombies attack?

All three have similar HiViz sights and Ahrends wood grips - and are nearly the same, trigger-wise, in DA. In all seriousness, I like shooting the 8-banger more than the 7-banger - and the 7-banger more than the 6-banger, I guess it's really a personal decision - but, as similar as mine are, I find myself going for the added capacity. The 5" 686+ I have was bought because it did not have the usual full lug of the 686. It was a limited production several years ago, but, if you like that look like I do, you can still get a partially lugged 7-shooter - the 620. It is a 4" built on the 7-shot cylinder/L-frame - with a partially lugged 4" barrel - and at a few $ below the 4" 686's price.

It boils down to personal choice. As long as it's a S&W, you can't go wrong.

Stainz

June 21, 2009, 11:03 AM	#2
The Terminator Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2002 Location: Georgia, 35 miles Northwest of the armpit Posts: 946	I would think that the 7 shot models are taking advantage of more modern metallurgy. I have the 7 shot 386. I'll be the first to admit that a thicker 6 shot cylinder is inherently stronger, but the 7 shot is certainly strong enough. I have not seen a load that was recommended for 6 shot models only. Speedloaders are also available for 7 shot models. I also think that the 7 shot cylinders are taking advantage of the larger L frame vs the K frame. Best - __________________ The Terminator John 3:16 (I hope to see You over there.) Last edited by The Terminator; June 21, 2009 at 11:32 AM. Reason: add photo :)

June 21, 2009, 06:06 PM	#14
postal1911 Senior Member Join Date: August 22, 2004 Location: washington Posts: 263	Love my S&W 327 8 shot, great carry little recoil with +p oh and fots my alaskan holster __________________ front site press

June 21, 2009, 08:40 PM	#16
bigghoss Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2006 Location: Pueblo, Colorado Posts: 2,664	the old k-frame .357's like the 19 wore out far to quickly when shot exclusively with full power duty loads for practice and training so they went back to the L-frame. eventually they managed to stuff an extra round in the cylinder but the 6-shot version was very popular with competition shooters since most revolver matches are limited to 6-rounds. it made more sense to compeditors to have a gun that only held six rather than put 6 in a 7 and try to line up the empty chamber. at least that's what I read in a magazine article written by Massad Ayoob __________________ I don't collect guns, I accumulate them.

June 23, 2009, 11:35 AM	#19
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	While I have no personal objections to either a 7-shot L-frame or a .357 J-frame, it somehow strikes me as odd and just a little counter-productive. In the case of the L-frame, it was introduced as stronger than a K-frame, to allow a longer life with magnum ammunition. Then, because there was all that metal in the L-frame, at least in the cylinder, someone decided there was room for one more chamber. Admittedly, the real difference in the two frame sizes may be the frames and not the cylinders, which are different, of course. Funny, Colt Official Police models and variations were already "L-frame" sized. Then there are those handfulls of dynamite, the .357 J-frames. Anyone looking for lighter loads in .357 to shoot in them? Don't you wonder how we managed to skip over the .38 S&W +P (regular, not special)? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

June 23, 2009, 11:47 AM	#20
Russ5924 Senior Member Join Date: February 18, 2005 Posts: 1,874	The way I look at it if you can't hit what you are aiming at with 6 what good is 7. What ever gun I carry if to be 5 or 15 that is it I carry no extras rounds __________________ Russ5924

June 21, 2009, 10:29 AM	#1
gak Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2005 Location: Aridzona Posts: 2,767	S&W L Frame 6 vs 7 shot? Is there any downside to the 7 shot 686 vs the 6 shot? Is the former less strong - "weaker" in the cylinder for instance--due to less metal? Otherwise--lighter gun, I assume...I assume that +1 round capability is one of the plusses of the step up to the L from the former K design, so why would one not opt for the extra capacity --other than perhaps obviously not being able to use a standard 6 speedloader?

June 21, 2009, 11:25 AM	#3
223 shooter Senior Member Join Date: October 26, 2008 Posts: 557	All the 686s are L-Frames regardless of 6 or 7 shot. The 7 shot has thinner walls but the cylinder notches are offset , or not directly over each chamber. Like mentioned , there are not specific 6 or 7 shot loads listed in any of my manuals. Both versions have plenty of strength.

June 21, 2009, 11:49 AM	#4
That'll Do Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 546	If I recall correctly, there was a thread not long ago that discussed the 6 vs. 7 shot L-frame. Someone spoke directly to a S&W Representative in regards to the cylinder strength. They said that while the 7 shot had thinner cylinder walls, it was in no way weaker than the 6 shot version.

June 21, 2009, 02:00 PM	#7
gak Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2005 Location: Aridzona Posts: 2,767	Thanks for the great answers! Another L frame question while I'm at it; overall weight (6 vs 6) and dimensional differences between the K's (say, 65 or 66) vs the L's? I would think a 7 shot L would be about the same ozs as a 6 shot K? Just being lazy; I know this has been covered, especially with the intro of the L era.

June 21, 2009, 02:45 PM	#8
stevieboy Senior Member Join Date: March 14, 2008 Posts: 1,695	I think that the 6 shot and 7 shot L's weigh about the same, 40 ounces plus, depending on the barrel length. The L's are definitely larger than the K's and the difference becomes apparent when they are placed next to each other. Much of the difference in size appears to be in the frame window and in the cylinder. The cylinder is more robust on the L as is the forcing cone. As for weight, my K-frame 66 (4 inches) weighs about 36 ounces. An L-frame 686 4 inch gun weighs 42 - 43 ounces. That's about a .4 of a pound difference in weight, pretty significant. Much of that comes from the fully underlugged barrel on the L, but also from the bulkier frame and cylinder. The K and L grip frames, however, are the same size and you can interchange grips between the two series. There's also a difference in perception when you fire a K vs. an L of equivalent barrel length. Recoil from my 66 is a lot snappier than it is from my 686.

June 21, 2009, 05:27 PM	#10
The Terminator Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2002 Location: Georgia, 35 miles Northwest of the armpit Posts: 946	Kreyzhorse is right, this is the first time that I have really come around to the idea of a 7 shot. I did have a Taurus 617 in stainless a few years ago, really liked it, but, 7 and 8 shooters did take some adjusting to for us old folks, who came up on revolvers, before the auto craze took over. Many are the people who do not feel undergunned with 6, or even 5 shooters. Many, as myself, feel no need to keep 30 rounds of ammo on their person. A reload is nice, but really is more comfort than necessity for the average Citizen who is carrying. __________________ The Terminator John 3:16 (I hope to see You over there.)

June 21, 2009, 06:02 PM	#12
ActivShootr Senior Member Join Date: August 15, 2007 Posts: 1,040	What in the world will you be shooting through it to even worry about the cylinder failing?

June 21, 2009, 06:04 PM	#13
CraigC Junior member Join Date: November 28, 2001 Location: West Tennessee Posts: 4,300	Personally, anything more or less than six flutes in a cylinder just doesn't look right. The big eight shot N-frames and ten shot K-22's with all those flutes just look funny to me. Six shots is what I'm used to and for the most part, it's what I'd prefer. With the notable exception of my 12-shot USFA 12/22 (six flutes!), I'm just not clammering for more capacity out of my sixguns.

June 21, 2009, 06:15 PM	#15
ceadermtnboy Member Join Date: June 14, 2009 Posts: 16	The biggest difference is the trigger pull. They are different and noticeable to me. The six shot has a longer trigger pull that is more consistant than the 7 shot and feels uncomfortable if you are used to a six shot S&W. However I have learned to really like the seven shot pull with a lot of dry firing and practice. As the 7 shooter breaks in the pull gets more consistant with less stacking , but it is still different. I still like the 7 shot better and have a 686 with a 5" barrel, and a 386 Scandium with 2-1/2 inch barrel and they make a neet combo for home defence and CC.

June 21, 2009, 09:53 PM	#17
kmrcstintn Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Posts: 151	any L-frame is a step up from the K-framed .357 mag, but added bulk and weight is the trade-off; as far as 6-shot vs 7-shot goes I'll share this...among the various buy-sell-trade acquisitions that I had was a S&W 686 + and 2 different Taurus 66's w/ 7-shot cylinders and all I own are 6-shots; what deterred me? (besides the Taurus mainsprings weakening after @1000 rounds thru each) it is very difficult to get a 7-shot speedloader to line up and allow cartridges to fall into the cylinder without perfect placement and a bunch of jiggling (my reload times were significantly higher with a 7-shot gun)

June 23, 2009, 04:01 AM	#18
Elvishead Junior member Join Date: August 8, 2007 Location: Las vegas, NV Posts: 3,397	1-shot more 7 is better than 6, and 8 is better than 6,7 or even 5.

June 23, 2009, 05:18 PM	#21
Fred1978 Member Join Date: September 24, 2008 Posts: 54	What about the ratchet. The teeth that the hand engages on the 7-shot guns are alot smaller. Any reduction in timing durability?

June 23, 2009, 05:20 PM	#22
jaydubya Senior Member Join Date: April 1, 2006 Location: Sandy Eggo Posts: 430	For those who consider revolvers with more/less than six rounds to be problematic, I have three "six shooters", a JC Higgins .22 that holds nine rounds, an S&W 637 that holds five rounds, and a 686+ that holds seven. Oh yeah, and a 9mm Browning High Power that holds fourteen when topped off. I can handle this wild disparity. Cordially, Jack

June 26, 2009, 12:15 PM	#24
Horseless Trooper Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 2008 Location: Northern N.Y. Posts: 186	The downside for me is the fact that Safariland does not make 7 shot speedloaders. I have switched almost entirely to Safariland loaders for all my revolvers I can get them for. I find them much more positive than HKS.

June 26, 2009, 02:21 PM	#25
Stainz Senior Member Join Date: May 13, 2007 Location: Alabama Posts: 749	I have a 6" 66, 5" 686+ half lug, and 4" 627 Pro. They all weigh within an ounce of each other - and point/balance nearly the same. I keep a few HKS #10 6-shot speedloaders loaded for the 66 (and 10 and 64); a few #587 7-shot speedloaders loaded for the 686+; and sixty 8-shot moonclips loaded for the 627. Guess which one I'll grab when the Zombies attack? All three have similar HiViz sights and Ahrends wood grips - and are nearly the same, trigger-wise, in DA. In all seriousness, I like shooting the 8-banger more than the 7-banger - and the 7-banger more than the 6-banger, I guess it's really a personal decision - but, as similar as mine are, I find myself going for the added capacity. The 5" 686+ I have was bought because it did not have the usual full lug of the 686. It was a limited production several years ago, but, if you like that look like I do, you can still get a partially lugged 7-shooter - the 620. It is a 4" built on the 7-shot cylinder/L-frame - with a partially lugged 4" barrel - and at a few $ below the 4" 686's price. It boils down to personal choice. As long as it's a S&W, you can't go wrong. Stainz