durability of S&W 66?

Pictures, huh? OK.

mod_66_800.jpg


This one's from 1988, the same year Perestroika took root, Gary Hart ran for President, and Sonny Bono became mayor of Palm Springs.

I've run well over 2500 rounds of 125gr loadings through it without issue or appreciable wear. Olympus hit on a key point: modern .357 loadings are milder than what was out there in the 1970's and 80's. Most of the loads I've run through it average 1350ft/s or so.

110gr bullets at 1600? Yeah, that'll wreak havoc on just about anything.

I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, but with contemporary loadings, I think it's a bit overstated.
 
Most anyone shooting S&W K and N frames alot since the 1970s will confirm the K frames don't stand up to full power .357 Remington Magnums for very long. You can look for the proof that a black bear will destroy your new convertible rag top going after a left over emtpy MickyDees French Frys bag while you sleep soundly in a rented cabin, but why? This is a gunrag magazine fight that lasted for decades. The Jury came in, listened, posted a verdit, and left the building.

A K Frame shooting 158s at 900 fps will break your bank before the gun is worn-out. Enjoy the fast handling of a K frame w/ 38+ps; if you need more... look to a L or N frame or a Ruger.
 
Most anyone shooting S&W K and N frames a lot since the 1970s will confirm the K frames don't stand up to full power .357 Remington Magnums for very long. You can look for the proof that a black bear will destroy your new convertible rag top going after a left over empty MickyDees French Fries bag while you sleep soundly in a rented cabin, but why? This is a gunrag magazine fight that lasted for decades. The Jury came in, listened, posted a verdict, and left the building.
Click to expand...

You're right, a K-Frame won't stand up to a steady diet of .357 Remington Magnums, but neither will any other revolver since no such cartridge exists (the .357 Magnum was a joint venture between S&W and Winchester, Remington played no part in its development). However, it has been my experience and the experience of several others here that a K-Frame holds up quite nicely to a diet of .357 S&W Magnums so long as the bullet weight is kept over 140gr.
 
Sure. You bet. No problem. Magnums...K frame...all the time...go for it...you have my approval.

I know it is Winchester and not Remington. I just wanted to know if you knew it was a .357 Winchester Magnum and not Remington Magnum. Shame on me. ;)
 
Last edited:
I think its really the .357 S&W MAGNUM

Warningshot, there were tests done by S&W if you research the subject. They fired thousands without problems because they properly maintained them.
 
Here are my three 4" M66(no dash)revolvers. Two have the all stainless sights and one came a little later with the black rear sight. I have the boxes and papers for all of these:
P1040077.jpg

P1040076.jpg
 
Ok youse guys,,,

Now yer all just braggin'. ;)

The full ejector pin shroud makes the Model 19/66,,,
The prettiest of all the K-Frame revolvers.

I'm not really a fan of the .357 Magnum cartridge,,,
But I still need to get me one someday,,,
Just to keep my other K's company.

Aarond

.
 
Some K frames....

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=82015&d=1339792625

A pair of model 19's / 4" - Nickel at bottom right ---- and a pair of model 66's in 4" ...at upper right.
------------------------------
View attachment 82949 - a couple of model 27's a 6" and a 4" Nickel .

------------------
I shoot the K frames and N frames a lot in .357 mag.... then there is this new Freedom Arms single action, I had made in .357 mag as well, 4 3/4" Octagon barrel, 5 shot, large frame...and the Henry Big Boy rifle, also in .357 mag...

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=82121&d=1340222605
.357 mag is my favorite caliber....
 
Last edited:
You bought in my opinion one of the finest all around double action revolvers ever made. I have a 66, 19 and a 13. They handle, point and their double action trigger is the best.
Most people shoot 38 specials through them. After all, they are cheaper. But I shoot mainly 357 magnums through my three K frames. I use the CCI Blazer 158 gr hollow point. The velocity is about 1100. Not at all hard on a K frame 357 magnum.
Bottom line: Use common sense and your model 66 will out live you.
Good luck,
Howard
 
I don't need to read it in a report. I don't need to get the information 2nd hand. For me this is not history, rather it is 1st hand range experience. I was there. I know how S&W K Frame revolvers stood up to .357 Winchester Magnum loads then. I know how S&W K Frame revolvers stand up to .357 Winchester Magnum loads now.
 
I don't need to read it in a report. I don't need to get the information 2nd hand. For me this is not history, rather it is 1st hand range experience. I was there. I know how S&W K Frame revolvers stood up to .357 Winchester Magnum loads then. I know how S&W K Frame revolvers stand up to .357 Winchester Magnum loads now.
Click to expand...

Perhaps then, since you apparently have extensive experience and knowledge in the matter, you could educate the rest of us as to exactly how and why K-Frame Magnums are unable to withstand regular use of any .357 Magnum ammunition.
 
Did someone say they were looking for a strawman whom goes by the name, Any?


If you like shooting magnums thru your K frame have at it; you don't need my permission. Have fun.
 
The 66/19 is one of my favorites. It's really a shame they don't make them anymore, but really Smith and Wesson quit making revolvers about a decade ago. When Saf-T-Hammer Corporation acquired Smith & Wesson Corp in 2001 the company was never the same. They integrated their design into the revolvers or vice versa the revolvers into their design. The price sky rocketed and for what?.... a better revolver? I had an opportunity to buy a 66-6, but the lock and new shape kept my wallet at bay. It really didn't look and feel like a 66 anymore.
 
Did someone say they were looking for a strawman whom goes by the name, Any?
Click to expand...

No, sorry, I'm not letting you get out of your comments that easily. You originally posted this:

Most anyone shooting S&W K and N frames alot since the 1970s will confirm the K frames don't stand up to full power .357 Remington Magnums for very long.
Click to expand...

That's a particularly vauge comment that gives the impression that anything more than .38 Special or very lightly loaded .357 Magnum ammunition, regardless of the bullet weight, will wear a K-Frame excessively. I have already acknowledged that full power ammunition with light bullets will cause excessive wear and given detailed explanations as to why, but I also maintain that there's no evidence that full power ammunition with bullets over 140gr cause this degree of wear.

You, my friend, made the claim that a K-Frame will not stand up to a steady diet of full power .357 Magnum ammunition (and made said claim in a rather snarky manner) but did not specify exactly what full power ammunition you were referring to. Therefore, you should be able to either give us evidence that K-Frames can't stand up to a steady diet of any full power .357 Magnum ammunition (a vauge assertation of "I was there and I saw it" isn't very convincing when posting anonymously on the internet) or qulaify your statements by telling us exactly which loadings a K-Frame can't stand up to.
 
Maybe Warningshot is the ghost of Jordan or Keith...
Click to expand...

Actually, I've often heard that Bill Jordan said that the Combat Magnum should be loaded with .357's and practiced with .38's, but it's always been a secondhand quote. I've never been able to find a direct quote from either Bill Jordan or anyone at S&W actually saying that.
 
I'll do my best to describe the big secret.

I like Bill Jordan & Keith just fine; but I am Warningshot. And for those that don't listen to the likes these two men probably won't listen to me either. I must me doing something right if strangers are connecting my name with these two.

For 20 plus years there was nothing vague about the hundreds of magazine articles and hundeds of K frames sent back to S&W addressing the strength of K frames standing up to a regular diet of .357 pressures.

S&W never dropped their line of N frames in .35 caliber and Ruger got their foot in the door with the Sixs due in large part to the durability magnum factor as compared to the popular K frame. Would you like a L frame to go along with your Starbucks?

Ghost? Heck! Reality Ghost maybe. Have fun. Again, you have my permission to shoot all the magnums you like thru your K frame(s). Peace.
 
I have owned a small pile of model 19's (3 currently) and one 66. I've never worried one bit about shooting magnum loads in them and never had a single problem with any of the pistols. I do however, believe in using heavy bullets and the problems seem to be reported when using light bullets.

As I type this, I have a Dillon RL550 set up to load .357 magnum for those pistols. I'm running 2/10 grain below max loads using 158 grain semi wad cutters and/or JSP/HP bullets.

A gun is a tool and sometimes a tool needs maintenance or repairs. I don't have a problem with that. I'll shoot it the way I want to and if it messes up, I'll repair it. It's like putting brakes on your car. If you don't drive the car, you won't need to replace the brakes. I prefer to drive the car.

Flash
 
The K frame magnum will stand up well with full power 357 as long as there in the neighborhood of 140 and above grain and between 1200 to 1300 fps. The problem with erosion of the forcing cone and possible splitting of a forcing cone is putting a lot of 125 gr or lighter high velocity ammo using slow burning powders such as H110. These rounds will pound a forcing cone on any 357 revolver and cause erosion of the forcing cone and flame cutting. The heavier grain rounds and slower velocities won't cause the flame cutting like light grains do. Also the heavier rounds won't cause the erosion of the forcing cone.
The K frame is still in my opinion the best all around revolver that I have ever used. Common sinse and cleaning your K frame after each session should result in years of enjoyment.
Howard
 
For 20 plus years there was nothing vague about the hundreds of magazine articles and hundeds of K frames sent back to S&W addressing the strength of K frames standing up to a regular diet of .357 pressures.
Click to expand...

And here we go around the same tree again. In the same 20 year timespan that you're talking about, something also happened to .357 Magnum ammunition: lightweight 110 and 125gr bullets became popular. The issues with K-Frame Magnums only came to the forefront beginning in the 1970's. If the K-Frame was never strong enough to stand up to full-power .357 Magnum ammo, regardless of bullet weight, I'd think someone would've realized it well before the 1970's. It was only when the lightweight variants of the .357 Magnum cartridge became popular, variants that the K-Frame was never designed for, that problems began to occur.

S&W never dropped their line of N frames in .35 caliber and Ruger got their foot in the door with the Sixs due in large part to the durability magnum factor as compared to the popular K frame. Would you like a L frame to go along with your Starbucks?
Click to expand...

And what's the key difference between S&W K-Frames and all of those revolvers, as well as a few others you didn't mention? The answer is of course the forcing cone. The weak point of the S&W K-Frame is and has always been the flat spot on the forcing cone in the 6 o'clock position and, as was explained in the link I provided, it's only a weakness with lightweight bullets. All of the revolvers you mentioned have full-thickness forcing cones all the way around and thus don't suffer the same issues with lightweight bullets. If the K-Frame simply were not big and burly enough to handle .357 Magnum pressure regardless of bullet weight, then several other revolvers that have proven capable of doing just that wouldn't be either. The Ruger Six Series is remarkably similar in size and weight to a K-Frame to the point that many holsters designed for one will fit the other very well. Likewise, the Ruger SP101 and S&W J-Frame Magnums, which were both introduced well after the K-Frame's issues were known and publicized, are substantially smaller and lighter yet they still hold up to .357 Magnum pressures just fine. The only possible explanation for the K-Frames issues is the forcing cone geometry, and it's been thoroughly explained why even that is only an issue with lightweight bullets.

Finally, if the K-Frame were not robust enough for any flavor of full-power .357 Magnum ammunition, then why did S&W continue to make it for 50 years in just that caliber? Given that the N-Frames had been available since 1935 and the L-Frames since 1980, I'd think S&W would get tired to doing warranty work on revolvers which weren't strong enough for the caliber stamped on the barrel. Likewise, if it was known since the 1970's that the K-Frame was too slight for .357 Magnum pressures, why then did S&W begin making even smaller J-Frames which would be likely to exacerbate the issues of the K-Frame in 1999? The answer, of course, is that .357 Magnum pressures in general are not and never were issues for the K-Frame but rather the effects of very particular variants of the cartridge.

So, now it's your turn. Please explain to all of us what it is, specifically, about the K-Frame that makes it so much less capable of handling .357 Magnum pressures than other guns of similar or smaller size and weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top