Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns K or L Frame

Hopefully this doesn't sound like too dumb a question but I just bought a Smith & Wesson 686 and was wondering if this model is a K frame or L Frame. From what I understand it is the same gun as a 19/66 with a full underlug or is that the 586? Thanks

The M686 is an L-frame, and the stainless version of the M586. A "6" at the beginning of a S&W model number denotes stainless steel (M29 = blue, M629 = stainless).



The L-frame is bigger and heavier than a K-frame, and has a larger diameter cylinder. The grips and a number of parts are interchangeable, but the two frames are decidely different.



The M19/66 is a K-frame.

Thanks for the answer. I wasn't sure as I am unfamiliar with this particular model but am quite happy with it.

The M686 is likely the best all-around revolver available today. Some revolvers are bigger or smaller and fill certain tastes and niches, but none of them are better.

Ditto what JOG said. I'm a huge fan of K-frames(and J-frames, for that matter) but I think the 686, especially the 6-inch version with a good trigger job, really is the best revolver available. I have three or four and they are all capable of astounding accuracy. RS

I like K-frames better myself. There's just something elegant about them, and I think the durability rap against them is overrated and outdated.

That said, the L-frames are better revolvers.

I love both the K and L frames, but the K is best suited for .38 Special and under, while the L is ideal for .357 Magnum. The K frame .357 magnums will shoot loose relatively quickly using full power loads. They only made them because the idea was that practice would be done with .38 Special, and carried with .357 Magnum, only occasionally firing them with the mag rounds.

Hawk,



"Relatively quickly" is key - relative to what? An L-frame will outlast a K-frame for sure, but I'm not sure I'll live long enough to wear out either.



At one time this was more true than it is now. The K-frames have changed quite a bit, metals and heat treating are better, and factory .357 Mag is generally less potent.



I have P&R K-frames (including a 5-screw) that I'm careful of but still shoot a lot of .357 Mag, and I have more modern K's that I literally shoot the livin' crap outta. I've never had a problem. I recall "Gun Test" looking over a M66 that was a range rental with over 70,000 .357 Mag rounds through it - the revolver functioned fine.



I think this is one of those generalities that has been repeated so often it has become lore. I wouldn't feed a modern K-frame handloaded 180-grain "bear stoppers" on a regular basis, but I wouldn't shy away from standard magnum loads one bit.

Jog, you might be right there. I have never worn a K frame out with magnums. The reason I have never done it, I thought, was because I followed the advice of the "experts" and didn't shoot much magnum through them. Nowadays they are making J frame .357 Magnums, and I don't think they come with a warning not to shoot a whole lot of magnum through them.

Swapped my N-frame Highway Patrolman on a 4" 686 when they hit the market back in the 80's. Still very fond of that pistol after all these years, especially after I replaced the S&W wooden grips with Grippers. If the Hogues had been available then, would've gone with them instead. Have shot some pretty fierce loads in it, but nowadays it stays stuffed with 125gr SJHP loads.

One of my huntin' buds had a 6" M19 that he bought new about 1972. Never had a problem with that thing and it ingested untold 1000's of our 158gr SWC/GC loads.

Actually, if I recall correctly, it's the lighter loads that are said to wear them out quickly, e.g., the 115 and 125 grainers. Or, maybe I'm thinking of the .357 Maximum. Remember that one? Those suffered from premature forcing cone erosion because people where shooting the light stuff when it was designed to push the heavies fast for long range steel target shooting.

If I recall my early M19 lore correctly, the beef was that they came apart at a few places, if fed a steady diet of thumb-numbing whoop-ass loads. Bud's M19 never had anything but factory 357 mag. and 357 mag. handloads run through it, without any glitches.

TRH,

Just for fun I compared a 1966 Speer reloading manual with one from 1994 (No. 12). The '66 bullet weights are a little odd by todays standards, but a general comparison can still be made. The '66 test gun was a 6-1/2" M27 and the '94 was a 6" M19.

I'm only showing the max loads with matching powders:

Unique
1966 - 160-gr. SWC - 1,152-fps
1994 - 158-gr. SWC - 1,034-fps

Unique
1966 - 146-gr. JHP - 1,346-fps
1994 - 140-gr. JHP - 1,185-fps

2400
1966 - 146-gr. JHP - 1,319-fps
1994 - 140-gr. JHP - 1,179-fps

Unique
1966 - 160-gr. JSP - 1,274-fps
1994 - 158-gr. JSP - 1,040-fps
*More powder in '94 but less velocity?

2400
1966 - 160-gr. JSP - 1,342-fps
1994 - 158-gr. JSP - 1,089-fps

The .357 Mag zipped along very nicely in 1966. The orginal 1935 version used a 158-gr. bullet at 1,500-1,600 fps and used large rifle primers <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />. I wouldn't wanna touch one of those off in a J-frame <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />.

I knew a hardcore revolver guy who dearly loved his M66s, but I saw him shoot three of them apart in less than 2 years, shooting IPSC with factory 125s. He was one helluva shot, though, and surely could shoot them well. This was way before fat frames and dot sights, and compensators, for that matter, when men were men. Double action work, especially with some of the 66s, was pretty tough on them. They sure were nice for carrying, though.