doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Beretta 686 and 682

One other difference, which again isn't in the action but the barrels. A 682 barrel has venting between the barrels for quicker cooling, whereas the 686 and 687 are solid.

I'm currently in a project with Rich Cole and Ken Hurst. Rick provided the polished and in the white 686 action and forend iron and Ken is going to engrave it for me.

I'll send pictures as the project progresses.

At the end of the day, if i thought there was a true benefit to the 682 action, I would have used that, but Rich Cole convinced me otherwise.

Howdy gents. I'm new to the forum but thought I would add this quote taken from Rich Cole a few years ago:

"686 and 682 actions are made from the same forgings, off the same machines, and undergo the same heat treatment. They are identical with the exception of cosmetics. The heavy frame which measured 1.585" across the shoulders was discontinued in 1993, hence the subsequent 682 actions have all been exactly the same as the field size 1.525" 686. There are differences in the wood quality, 682 barrels have vented side ribs and replaceable recoil shoulders (which we never change), and an adjustable trigger. The idea that the 682 is a "better" action is absolutely false."

I went back thru the thread and couldn't find where anyone, including me, implied the 682 was somehow better. It may or may not be. I dunno. I do know that my 682 has the dimensions that make it a "heavy frame" and I bought it as a new gun about 2 yrs ago. It is a 682 Gold E Sporting with 32" bbls. I bought a 682 because I had shot one or two with 32" bbls and liked the handling of it for clays at 7 3/4 lbs. It has lighter barrels than most 32" guns, feeling more like a 30" gun. I paid $2400 for the gun. I'm very satisfied for the money as compared to a Browning which I've had many of. I consider the quality of the gun on par with earlier Citori's.

I also see that "heavy frame" guns have matching width barrel water tables.

Curiosity got me. I just measured the frame again. It is 1.530 in the narrow part just forward of the "shoulders" and 1.585 across the area just aft of shoulders. Now I'm not sure if that makes it a "light" or "heavy" frame.

This may be correct or not, but I believe there is/was a difference between the 682 and 682x series regarding frame thickness. I have owned quite a few 686 and 687 guns, but only one 682, which was a 682x trap I bought used several years ago. I purchased a separate single trap barrel for it (I believe from Coles) and fitted it myself, which was a pretty trivial job. It fit perfectly, with the exception of the breech flats being very slightly thicker than the sides of the reciever. I was told when I purchased the barrel that this would be true, as the 682x was built thinner of a slightly higher grade of steel.

I don't know if this is the difference being referred to as the "thick" and "thin" frames, or if that discussion is regarding the regular 682 and not the x series.

Thick, thin, it doesn't matter. The barrels and the wood fits back and forth. And I don't believe a word about that "slightly higher grade of steel" business. Why would Rich Cole lie or not know? I don't know about that "bushing the locking holes" in the barrels. My 682X Trap has five sets of barrels. I replaced the locking pin assembly. It just seemed to make more sense. If I bought another one, which I probably never will, it would be a used 686 Sporting for around a grand, not a 682 for twice that much.

I had a 686 Sport. The triggers were lousy. It was the Onyx model, for which I paid $1050 in 1995. I broomed it after a few years. It's replacement is a Cynergy Sport, which is a keeper.

My 682X trap gun is a whole different story. Good triggers, going strong after 20 years and who knows how many shells.

Generally I like Beretta products. The 686 Sport was marginal though...

I have a heavy-frame 682 acquired in 1989 and shot regularly since new. When I acquired this gun, all 682s were heavy frames. I think Beretta must have thought that the extra mass in the frame was important for their "competition" guns, but subequently decided that the standard frames are more than strong enough no matter how much they are shot. Now, as others have said, there is no difference in the outside frame dimensions between 682s and the others. My gun has had countless (well, I haven't counted) thousands of rounds through it and nothing has ever been replaced or repaired. About every five years, I pull the stock off and put fresh, dry lubricant on the internals. It's never dirty in there. No way for anything to get into the interior of the action except around the firing pins and it'd take about a century for that to matter. I am sure that I could say exactly the same thing if this were a standard-frame gun whether called a 682, 686, or 687. So I wouldn't worry about whether I was buying a 682 or a 686. Get the gun with the features you want in terms of barrel length, barrel venting, weight, and rib. If you end up with an auto safety, it can be converted either by you or a gunsmith to non-auto in about 15 minutes, most of which time is devoted to removing and replacing the recoil pad and stock.