Have an opportunity to trade for one or the other but not sure what the difference is other than barrel length 686 is 6" and 19 is 4" and the 7 rounds of the plus. Just curious what the pros thought of either.
Depending on condition and other features as well as what you plan on using it for, both have advantages. If it’s an older 19 that is pinned and recessed in good condition, it has some collector interest. The 686 is a solid gun and the 7 round versions are climbing in value at a decent rate.
The L framed 686 was born from the k framed 19 and other models. The k frame had an issue of cracking the forcing cone with a steady diet of 125 grain 357’s. If it were me, I’d work a deal for both!
The L framed 686 was born from the k framed 19 and other models. The k frame had an issue of cracking the forcing cone with a steady diet of 125 grain 357’s. If it were me, I’d work a deal for both!
The 686 is a bigger, heavier L frame and will be stainless steel, and as mentioned the plus is 7 rounds.
The 19 is the slightly smaller K frame and will be blued steel. Based on what I could find on current production, there's only a few ounces difference but I'm not sure my info is apples-apples
If you plan to shoot it a lot, especially with .357 magnum loads, the 686 will probably hold up better over time. Stainless Steel will also be a little more forgiving of the elements, and the extra round may or may not be a factor to you.
Does one of them give you a little more tingle when you handle it? It really comes down to which you like better, or maybe which is the better deal.
Or, as they say about your preference of Ginger vs. Mary Anne.... why not both??
P.S. I'm not a pro, so there's that....
The 19 is the slightly smaller K frame and will be blued steel. Based on what I could find on current production, there's only a few ounces difference but I'm not sure my info is apples-apples
If you plan to shoot it a lot, especially with .357 magnum loads, the 686 will probably hold up better over time. Stainless Steel will also be a little more forgiving of the elements, and the extra round may or may not be a factor to you.
Does one of them give you a little more tingle when you handle it? It really comes down to which you like better, or maybe which is the better deal.
Or, as they say about your preference of Ginger vs. Mary Anne.... why not both??
P.S. I'm not a pro, so there's that....
I've had both, and I think that the 686 wins out. It's a little bit more weight but it balances well in the hand. I prefer the stainless as well, for ease of cleanup and durability. I procured a 3-inch version of the 686 Plus last year and this is one of the sweetest shooting revolvers I've ever owned.
As far as barrel length goes that is just personal preference. I prefer a 4" gun over the 6" because it is better balanced in my hand.
If I was going to shoot a lot of.357, like mentioned above I would most likely go with the 686.
If the 19 is a P&R version I would definitely choose it over the 686 if I was more interested in value. That is assuming that they are both in similar condition and neither have the internal lock.
We need pictures though before we can decide what is best for you.
If I was going to shoot a lot of.357, like mentioned above I would most likely go with the 686.
If the 19 is a P&R version I would definitely choose it over the 686 if I was more interested in value. That is assuming that they are both in similar condition and neither have the internal lock.
We need pictures though before we can decide what is best for you.
I have a 686 talo edition with a 3 inch barrel that is very nice.I had an older model 19 that i was a little more accurate with but it was a 4 inch barrel.I had heard about the forcing cone problem so i seldom shot 357s through it.
The 19 has sex appeal over that 686...otherwise, the 686 would win.
Yep, toss up for me but I’d be fine with either/both.
Similar threads
- Sub Category: Handguns
- Sale Price: 780$
- Caliber: .357
