As promised in the review of the Crosman 3576W, I am going to compare that revolver with the Umarex Smith and Wesson 686. Both of these are similar in the high level specs - both are CO2 revolvers, both use 10 pellet clips, and both have a 6" barrel. There is an obvious difference in the materials used, but what else does one get for the significant price difference? To answer this question, I will use the same format that I used for airgun reviews, except now, each section will address the differences between these two airguns.
Operation
Both revolvers use CO2. The 686 requires removing a single grip side and the piercing is performed by the lever that masks as the grip bottom. The 3576W requires removing both grips and the piercing is performed by turning a screw that is revealed when opening the grips. In general, I prefer the approach taken by the S&W, but in this particular instance, I found it a bit more finicky than on the Beretta 92FS, which uses the same mechanism.
The clip loading is done using a swing out cylinder mechanism, while the Crosman uses a top break approach. The swing out approach is simpler and more robust.
Overall, there is no significant difference in operation. Users may prefer one approach over the other, but both revolvers are nice and easy to use.
Package and build
The S&W 686 impresses here, as it comes with a nice custom case and is built to look like the firearm it replicates. The 3576W is built very well, but this is an area where the price difference has an obvious justification.
Adjustable settings
Both revolvers have a nice adjustable rear sight. The S&W offers two additional options for customizing the front sight and those give it an edge.
Performance
Both revolvers do a great job of regulating the CO2 consumption. By this, I mean that the airguns maintain high enough power for longer, with the result that they also consume the CO2 powerlet after fewer shots. This is a good thing though, because fewer stronger shots are better than a lot of weak ones when it comes to target shooting. The S&W 686 seems to do a superb job here, as it cuts clean holes through paper for 50 shots, then loses power very quickly after that. The 3576W seems to lose power a bit faster, but after 60 shots, it still produces enough power for punching holes in paper targets and can go 20 more shots if you don't care about scoring - the sudden drop in power that I noticed with the 686 is not present here. The 686 seems to have a stricter consumption regulation, but the difference is pretty small anyway - both revolvers are great CO2 airguns.
Both revolvers also have great triggers. The 686 has a lighter trigger and the double action is exceptionally smooth. The 3576W double action is very good, but the 686 is just special here. Both triggers work great in single action - the 686 is still smoother here, but I actually prefer the resistance of the Crosman single action, so I'd call it a draw.
In terms of handling, the plastic build of the Crosman works in its favor, as it makes it easier to use for longer sessions. I also find the handle-trigger ergonomics to be slightly more comfortable than on the 686. The S&W 686 is a large and heavy revolver and its weight and size take their toll after a while - this is a plus if you want it for training to use a similar firearm, but a minus if you only care about target shooting.
The accuracy of both these revolvers is excellent and I cannot pick one over the other. Neither is designed for target shooting, but they can work in that role pretty well.
Conclusion
Both the Crosman 3576W and the Umarex S&W 686 are excellent CO2 revolvers. The 686 is a showpiece and in this aspect, it has no competition from the 3576W. But when it comes to actual use and results, the differences are smaller than one might expect. The 686 offers an adjustable front sight and an exceptional double action trigger, as well as an excellent use of the CO2 powerlet, but these differences aside, there is very little to separate these two airguns when it comes to accuracy - in fact, here, the plastic build of the Crosman make it a bit easier to use over longer periods of time.
If you are split between these options, I hope this comparison will help. And if you are still split, consider doing what I did - get both! They are worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment