New Style Hand vs. Old Style Hand for S&W 686-6

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • My Toy

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 31, 2008
    1,194
    Westminster
    I have a 686-6 that the cylinder does not carry up far enough to engage the bolt before the hammer drops. Have had this problem on some of the 686's I've collected over the years (embarrassed to say how many I own). Anyway there are 2 styles of hand for the 686. See attached pics. The older style hand part# 7522 which seems to have been used on revolvers up to revision 3 and the newer style hand part# 21062 which appears to be used after revision 3. I have tried both styles in the 686-6 and both seem to function OK. My question to Smith and Wesson revolver aficionados is -- are either style hand techniquely interchangeable in the newer revision revolvers and what is or was the reason for the design change. It appears to me the newer style hand has a hump on the front edge whereas the older style hand is a little wider (front to back) in the midsection. Again see attached pics.
    I asked this question yesterday on the Smith and Wesson Forum (seems like a logical place to inquire). The only reply I got was another forum member that he had been wondering the same thing.
     

    Attachments

    • DSC01142.jpg
      DSC01142.jpg
      27.7 KB · Views: 344
    • DSC01144.jpg
      DSC01144.jpg
      27 KB · Views: 338

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Honestly I think that the only people that could answer this are Smith and Wesson engineers. Keep in mind with revolvers what "appears" to function most of the time does not necessarily work. I inadvertently put the wrong mainspring guide and assembly in an old revolver because it was so similar to the correct one... and the revolver worked about 8 of 10 times, the remainder of the time the hammer did not drop correctly. I could not figure out what was wrong until I took it apart and put the correct one in, now its 100% reliable. You would have to have calipers to tell the difference they are so similar.

    If it were me, I'd stick to the original part. They are similar, sure, but who really knows what the impact is or the reason for the change. There are probably only a handful of people who know or who have tested the part. The new part might function 9 of 10 times, which to me is unacceptable for a revolver. A revolver should go bang 100% of the time. If I want something that stovepipes or jams, I'll buy a Glock-brand-Glock.

    The real question in my mind is why you are "embarrassed" to own so many revolvers. I am embarrassed I dont own enough, lol.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,154
    To see all the differences you would have to mic everything and put both parts on a shadow-graph or use a CMM. But from eyeballing your pictures, it could be the picture, the angles at the top of the hand could also be different.
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    Replaced a hand in an early model years ago, asked about the superceded part, was told the new design is shaped so it will be more reliable with heavy fouling under it(won't get pushed back reducing engagement and potentially short cycling), and run smoother
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,467
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom