I just picked up my new Smith 686 PLUS today.

[AlongCameJones]

I picked it up at my local FFL. It came in a blue plastic case to my surprise. The new Smith 642-2 I got last fall just came in a cardboard box. My new 686 has 3" barrel and 7 shots. Where it shines over the new-model Colt King Cobra is that the frame is bigger and heavier and made of steel so it should kick less. It has a lock and key in the frame which I don't care to use. The Smith trigger is far superior to Colt. The dull satin stainless helps camouflage minor scratches. The chrome-bumper finishes on Colts are so impractical.

The only place the Colt shines over the Smith is the neat engraved or machined lettering and smoother-machined metal surfaces. Smith & Wesson lettering appears stamped though it appears neater than typical Smith & Wesson lettering of real old. The nicest Smith & Wesson lettering and machining on revolvers I've ever seen was on a Model 619 .357 7-shot back in 2005 as well as large-frame .41 mag. back in the same year. This new Smith set me back $985 with tax, shipping, FLL transfer and credit card fee. I was paying for a quality trigger, a beefier frame, scratch-hiding satin stainless finish and a better cylinder release design with a Smith & Wesson and not precision crisp lettering and smooth surface machining on the metal a la Colt.


It just fits in my large DTOM fanny pack though I have to fold back the top of the retention webbing to clear the tall rear sight. Normally I would not carry this mini-hog-leg in a fanny pack. I normally carry my Smith Airweight 642-2 there as a light city gun. My new 686 is a spare handgun in case something happens to my 642 or it is out of service for some reason.

My 686 is a:

-spare handgun for city concealed carry in large fanny pack
-handgun for outdoors for protection against wild animals (lion, wolf, coyote, black bear) except brown bear
-camping security gun
-sidearm for hunting in areas with no big bear
-bathroom security firearm in medicine cabinet

If you own or carry a handgun for security, it's always prudent to have at least one spare pistol in case the primary one needs work done or something bad happens to it, perish the thought.

[HighValleyRanch]

Look into the Hill People gear for a fantastic way of concealed carry in the woods.
I have the Snubby chest rig for my 2 3/4" Security six and it is comfortable all day working and hiking rig.

[Doyle]

Originally Posted by HighValleyRanch

Look into the Hill People gear for a fantastic way of concealed carry in the woods.
I have the Snubby chest rig for my 2 3/4" Security six and it is comfortable all day working and hiking rig.

HighValleyRanch, now you've got me curious. Why the need to conceal when walking around in the woods?

[HighValleyRanch]

Here in sunny CA, if the woods are public then one needs to conceal carry because there is no open carry here.
If you are on private land, you legally can open carry (f you are on the private property with the owner's permission), but since most people here are not gun nuts, it's just better to conceal.

[Doyle]

Ah, the old "California" problem. Thanks for clarifying.

[AlongCameJones]

I may get one of those Don Hume open-top holsters for this .357 for whenever I might open carry in the while hunting. In CA, may somebody open carry while HUNTING?

Good boonies ammo for my 686 should be from Buffalo Bore, 180 gr. hard-
cast. For city concealed, carry, ordinary .38 Special.

Here are a couple pics of the lettering on a Model 619. It seems like the Smith & Wesson factory machinists circa 2005 paid a lot of attention to cosmetic detail then. See how crisp and clean the lettering looks. I don't know if that's stamping or machine engraving. It could be that Smith may have machined the barrel exterior following letter stamping.

[HighValleyRanch]

Yes, you can open carry while hunting, but you have to follow all the hunting/firearms regulations.
You cannot carry a firearm during bow & black powder season but I believe you can conceal carry if you have a CCW permit, so that would have be clarified by Fish and wildlife.

[Scorch]

It seems like the Smith & Wesson factory machinists circa 2005 paid a lot of attention to cosmetic detail then. See how crisp and clean the lettering looks. I don't know if that's stamping or machine engraving. It could be that Smith may have machined the barrel exterior following letter stampi

The markings on factory guns is typically roll marking (as in the examples shown), although we are seeing a lot of laser marking now that laser technoology has become refined enough to do so reliably and aesthetically.

[wild cat mccane]

Avid hiker, sometimes with my younger kids.

Say what you want, but open carry on trails isn''t always by the most upstanding people by looks.

[1goodshot]

I have both the Smith 686 and the new King Cobra and the Colt trigger is just as good as the 686. The size of the Cobra is much easier to carry.

[AlongCameJones]

It might be that Colt uses the neater laser marking method. The markings on those early 2000's stainless Smith wheel guns looked nicer. I don't think Smith used laser marking then. A gun maker shouldn't get modern marking equipment then revert back to more primitive ways. My hunch is that 15-20 years ago, Smith roll stamped then and followed up with machining work to the metal surfaces afterward to smooth everything out. They also once put a nicer, more-even brushed finish to the metal as in that Model 619 barrel I posted pics of. My new 686 has a somewhat patchy finish on the barrel. Some parts are shinier than others. Smith lately doesn't want the costs associated with more refined Colt-like finishes. That Smith was damm near $1K and I'm a bit disappointed by the lower-grade finish I've discovered for that price. The finishes and markings on guns pictured on guns at Smith's corporate sight seem to indicate that Smith finishes are really sharp. The pictures are rather deceiving. I get a very nice trigger and a sturdy, heavy steel frame in place of sharp-looking barrel markings and finish. It's a compromise. Many old blue Smith revolvers had rough-looking barrel markings too. Smith & Wesson has had their finely-finished years of production as well as rough-hewed years. I guess it depends on who manages Smith's metal finishing department at the time. I've seen Colts with rough lettering too during certain eras of production, like the 1990's. Some models in the same company may be finished better than others too.

If you buy a shiny new Colt Python or Cobra, I highly recommend that the gun find a home in a safe as a safe queen only. That chrome-bumper finish will scratch super easy. I know. I bought a new one last year and ended up dumping it on Armslist a couple months later.

I bought this new Smith 642-2 last year. Half the price of my new 686 but look how nice the markings look on the barrel!

[603Country]

I’ve had a 686+ for a couple of years now. I bought it to take the sometimes high volume shooting load off of the Python (old Python). The finish on the 686 isn’t what I’d call pretty, like the Nickel Python, but that’s Ok. The Python trigger was better till I had the 686 smoothed up. I like the 686 grip better than the Python. I like the Python hammer spur better than the 686 hammer. Both are great revolvers.

Here at the ranch, when we have family or guests that want to shoot, after a good bit of shooting with any and all handguns (semi or revolver) they want to try, we close up the day with the ‘One shot challenge’. You get one shot, with whatever gun you prefer, be it yours or one of mine, at a clean target at 15 yards. I always used to use the Python, but lately I’ve gone to the 686. Guests typically reach for the Python.

The One Shot Challenge is a lot of fun. A little stress and tension, nerves and trash talking. And then it’s your turn, with everyone watching. Pretty fun…

[AlongCameJones]

I did email Smith & Wesson about the sub-standard finish on such an expensive gun. I told them I expected much better from them for that amount of money. I attached a picture of their 686 as advertised at their website and told them that's what I had expected. I'm mildly suggesting to them false advertising. I'll keep you posted as to how they respond. They might offer to make good on the finish at no extra charge to me.

[dgludwig]

My new 686 has 3" barrel and 7 shots. Where it shines over the new-model Colt King Cobra is that the frame is bigger and heavier and made of steel so it should kick less. It has a lock and key in the frame which I don't care to use. The Smith trigger is far superior to Colt. The dull satin stainless helps camouflage minor scratches. The chrome-bumper finishes on Colts are so impractical.

Congratulations on acquiring one of the best production revolvers available today. I've had a 4" barreled Model 686-5 Plus since 2001 and it's one of my favorite revolvers. But just because it's "bigger and heavier and made of steel" and will "kick less" than the Colt King Cobra revolver (also constructed of steel) doesn't mean that it's a better choice in every circumstance. The very fact that the Colt is smaller and lighter arguably makes it a revolver more suitable for carry and concealment than the Smith.

Last year, after much comparison between several revolvers, my wife opted for the King Cobra as her bedside piece. The biggest reason the Colt was selected is due to its superb da trigger pull; superior, even, in our opinion to the fine L-frame Smith da trigger pull.

Too, the s/s finish on our Colt differs little from the s/s finish on the Model 686.

Though not a "deal-breaker" for me, per se; no Colt revolvers come with the "lock and key" system that all new Smith & Wesson revolvers are cursed with.

Finally, however, if I had to choose between the two revolvers, I'd pick the Smith for its more flexible chassis in terms of what things a bigger frame might do better (hunting, target shooting, owb carry, etc.) and I like having that extra round for self-defense purposes. My wife would pick the Colt for its smaller size and weight and, mostly, for that fantastic da trigger pull.
I'm glad we have both.

[AlongCameJones]

The Smith 686 PLUS is a better functional revolver than the Colt .357 for its high King Cobra-like price and cosmetic roughness on the barrel exterior. I have to use a magnifying glass to read SMITH & WESSON on the barrel clearly. Smith failed to follow up roll stamping with surface machining to smooth the exterior metal ripple out. The stamping compresses steel causing excess materiel to bulge around the letter outlines causing a rough ripple look like ocean waves. Engraving the markings cuts away material on the surface. Smith could have also put a more even brushed finish on the steel like they did in the mid 2000's. They are probably just in a hurry these days to keep production up with the demand so corners are being cut. Cosmetic quality control in the Springfield, Mass wheel gun works is suffering. I know for a fact that Smith & Wesson has turned out revolvers in the past with superior cosmetics. They can do it but just don't want to. I'll be dammed if I will pay a custom gunsmith hundreds extra to spruce up my 686's exterior on this already horribly-expensive name-brand revolver. If I had known my new Smith would look this rugged I would have just saved a lot of money and bought a Taurus. They are rough looking and relatively cheap, but that's OK.

But hold your horses, I just checked the Taurus site The trouble is, Taurus doesn't seem to offer a large-frame .357 with a 3" or shorter barrel for my fanny pack carry. They only make J-frame-size .357's with shorter barrels, OUCH in the hands!

The 686 feels like its built like a tank. My much-cheap 642-2 oddly does have nicer-quality barrel markings. The new Colt is only safe queen.

The Smith is tough as a blacksmith's anvil: the Colt is pretty as a prancing pony (until you easily scratch it!!)

[JohnKSa]

I attached a picture of their 686 as advertised at their website and told them that's what I had expected.

The pictures on the S&W website are much lower resolution than yours, but even so, there are clearly bulges around some of the letters pushed up by the roll marking process visible in the closeup of the barrel.

I kind of thought you were being hyperbolic on the other thread when you said "examine it with a flashlight and magnifier".

Seems like it would be appropriate, at this point, to contact the firearms dealer who told you what to expect from a new S&W revolver (including the additional fact that it would come in a blue plastic case) and thank him for the accurate information he provided.

[Shane Tuttle]

It's a production firearm. You think $1000 is some expensive firearm that has "flaws" in the roll stamp??? Yet, you're going to use it as a carry firearm in the wilderness??? Gentle or careless, you'll be putting wear marks on that gun faster than Bugs Bunny can read an eye chart. The "problems" you're calling out on S&W's manufacturing process will be a thing of the past after your first venture.

Don't you think you're being just little bit too critical on S&W for the grade of firearm you're realistically getting? I mean, you already demanded unreasonable expectations of the seller in your other thread, given the current climate of the market. That pattern appears to spill over to the examination of this firearm, IMO.

[AlongCameJones]

I have seen the neat cosmetics Smith & Wesson could do on a Model 619 back in 2005 on a new gun that retailed for under $500 then. I think that model was a K-frame. I have seen how neat the barrel markings are on my el-cheapo Smith 642-2 Airweight J-frame that retailed for under $450 last year. Why they skimped on their $900 gun, I can't tell. Was I paying an arm and leg for an L-frame? I did noticed that Smith offers bead blasting for $170 at their custom shop. I would like to see some pictures of a bead-blasted stainless gun to see how beautiful it makes metal. Actually here is one here below at the link and she looks like a honey! This is what I was expecting on my new 686 PLUS. With the cheesy finish I received, I hardly see the "PLUS" in it. I think gun makers are gouging customers these days.

https://www.invaluable.com/auction-l...2-c-bd2093f87c

[jetinteriorguy]

Originally Posted by AlongCameJones

I have seen the neat cosmetics Smith & Wesson could do on a Model 619 back in 2005 on a new gun that retailed for under $500 then. I think that model was a K-frame. I have seen how neat the barrel markings are on my el-cheapo Smith 642-2 Airweight J-frame that retailed for under $450 last year. Why they skimped on their $900 gun, I can't tell. Was I paying an arm and leg for an L-frame? I did noticed that Smith offers bead blasting for $170 at their custom shop. I would like to see some pictures of a bead-blasted stainless gun to see how beautiful it makes metal. Actually here is one here below at the link and she looks like a honey! This is what I was expecting on my new 686 PLUS. With the cheesy finish I received, I hardly see the "PLUS" in it. I think gun makers are gouging customers these days.

https://www.invaluable.com/auction-l...2-c-bd2093f87c

I believe the ‘plus’ refers to holding 6+1 rounds, nothing to do with fit or finish. The standard 686 only holds 6 rounds, no plus involved. But I get what your saying about the finish, I’ve looked at a couple and walked away because they just looked crappy. I’d rather spend a bit more and just get a Kimber 3” K6s.

[Captains1911]

I just picked up a 3” 686 plus, brand new, last week. Mine has the non-fluted cylinder. I ordered a Crossbreed MaxSlide holster to try out. I’m really looking forward to carrying it around the woods. Also FYI, Buffalo Bore has a few different .357 loads in stock, about the only place I’ve been able to find any 357 ammo.

[AlongCameJones]

I'm thinking about adding a bead-blast job. Smith wants $170. I probably also have to pay shipping both ways. I've seen one independent gunsmith online that does it starting at $89. If Smith wasn't so cheap they could throw a nice bead blast in on factory guns.

[JohnKSa]

I believe the ‘plus’ refers to holding 6+1 rounds, nothing to do with fit or finish.

Correct.

Actually here is one here below at the link and she looks like a honey! This is what I was expecting on my new 686 PLUS.

The gun in the link will sell used for maybe 50% more than a 686 PLUS will sell for new.

[wild cat mccane]

You are referring to the scratches and possibly voids in your 686 finish?

That's totally normal and is on almost all 686s to a good degree.

If someone comes in and says that wasn't normal years ago, ask them if their memory is referring to the factory S&W polished 686. That looks exactly like a Python finish.

Those scratches, swirls, and small voids are so minor that a rag and hand polish will TOTALLY eliminate them...if you want a bright stainless steel look. It's 100% the course of the 686.

[AlongCameJones]

I want an EVEN satin look and sharp, crisp letters on the barrel without any bulges around the impressions. It might take an aftermarket bead-blasting or vapor honing job to achieve this. Smith & Wesson has had my desirable letter quality and finish quality on certain models and in certain years over the past. My cheap Model 642-2 in 2020 even has a much nicer finish and impressions quality than this overpriced new-model 686 of mine. The Model 642-2 is a mouse revolver in .38 SPL+P that retails about half of a new 686.

My Colt King Cobra that I bought new in 2020 and dumped on Armslist two months later had perfect letter impressions for barrel markings but a clear chrome-bumper finish that easily scratched and hazed like hell. it was my fault. I should have stayed away from any bright chrome-like finish. A King Cobra is a safe queen, not a carry psitol. The satin finishes are designed to camouflage minor scratches and haze and look much nicer than "chrome" guns with highly visible scratches.


I emailed the following message to Smith & Wesson:

June 5, 2021


Dear Smith:


I picked up a new Model 686-6 revolver yesterday at my local FFL gun shop and purchased online thru Gunbroker.com. It didn't appear to be obviously damaged but when I started examining the gun at home closer under my bright home office lights and with a magnifier, I am disappointed by the lack of quality in the finish as I had expected from Smith & Wesson. Back in 2005, I examined two new Smith stainless revolvers (including a Model 619 and a large-frame model in .41 Magnum) and they had very neat finish and crisp, neat lettering on the barrels.

My new 686 has lettering that looks rough around the edges and a finish on the barrel that looks uneven in shine. The 686 PLUS shown in pictures at Smith's corporate site gives the impression that Smith stainless revolvers have a high level of finish quality and the barrel markings look very clean and neat according to advertised pictures.

For the retail price of this new model gun I expected a much nicer finish on the barrel for my money. I have just registered this new Smith handgun online.


Model 686 PLUS 3" barrel
Serial Number: DNWW9558


Are your new production revolvers roll marked on the barrels? Why did barrel markings look so much neater on production stainless Smith guns circa 2005?

I have attached a copy of my bill of sale and a few photos of my new gun and a photos of this model from your corporate website for comparison.



Sincerely,
Along C. Jones
Smith & Wesson Customer


Here is Smith's comeback to me:

Hello Along,



We would like to thank you for your e-mail and contacting Smith & Wesson / Thompson Center. I have reviewed your photos, and these are in fact roll stamps and they can and do vary slightly. The markings that I saw in the photos are complete with not broken letters, so they are considered to be acceptable. Thank You for choosing Smith & Wesson / Thompson Center products. Have a great day.

Regards, Steve




Roll stamps with rough edges are 'acceptable' to Steve at Smith & Wesson as long as the markings can be read. Yes, the letters are unbroken and I can read them with a magnifier but the appearance is sloppy still. Neatness no longer counts. I can't understand why Smith bothered to make their "econo" revolver, the 642-2, look so nice but fudged in that looks department with a expensive flagship model.

[AlongCameJones]

PS - I called Smith & Wesson about a $170 bead-blast job they have listed at their PERFORMANCE CENTER® PRECISION GUNSMITHING website and spoke with a gent named Mathew there. It took about ten minutes to get a human on the phone. Matthew said their equipment for that sort of work was down and try calling back in about 3-4 weeks. Is Smith & Wesson lame these days or what? They seem about as bad as Big Three car dealerships which is why I only drive Toyota products. I asked Matt if Smith could give me a courtesy call in 4 weeks but he said "their system is not designed to do that". They seem to be very efficient at gouging customers on high-priced guns with substandard finishes.