Is the s&w 66 a bad gun?

G

glock17luver

New member
I have one of these guns on layaway but i have an issue. I don't know if I should get this gun the reasons being: I have heard these guns have had serious problems in the past such as fractured forcing cones,stretched frames,over heated cylinders which prevent ejection of shells and timing trouble.

I need to know when/if this occurs? is this after 1000's of rounds and years of heavy use? Or is this just a problem model? I also heard that the k frame is the reason for this if this is all true I need to know because I plan to use this gun for self defense.

The last thing I want is a gun thats goning to be a problem for me but s&w seem to be good guns. I also don't plan on shooting full house rounds excesivley and I don't shoot often about once a month or so.

If there are specific reasons why these guns have these problems and if theres a way to prevent it i.e. not using full house loads,practicing with .38 special +p or +p+ loads? Thanks for any help you guys.

BTW FWIW theres a ruger sp101 2 1/2 there should i go with this gun instead? I am die hard s&w fan but my brother says the ruger is a better gun.
 
The short answer would be...NO. I'm relatively new to S&W revolvers myself, but I've not heard anything like that. I've got a 66 and it is simply awsome. They are lighter, and perhaps not as solidly built as some larger frame .357's, but they can handle tons of 38 & 38+p. There are several members here who have put thousands of full power .357 rounds through theirs without a problem either. The M19/M66 is one of the most proven revolvers available. Are there lemons out there? Absolutely....and every maker has a few.
 
I also have both a 66 and 686 and I think they are great. I do think the 66 is not well suited to surviving a long steady diet of full-power magnum rounds for a number of reasons, the forcing cone being one of them. Somebody else said the 66 is a really sturdy .38 that can handle some magnums, and the 686 is a full-bore magnum that can shoot .38's. Probably true.

I still think SW makes the best wheelguns and the 66 is a good choice for defense. I think the .357 is a bad choice for a defensive cartridge because of over penetration of target, severe recoil, and flash/noise which will startle the shooter and break concentration. I personally have .38 +p in my defense gun which the 66 will handle very well.
 
Is the s&w 66 a bad gun?
Click to expand...

I think you mistyped your question...

You probably meant to say, Is the S&W 66 a bad ass gun? And the answer to this would be hell yes. If the Ruger SP101, the S&W J frames, and the Taurus equivalents can handle magnums, then the 66 should have no problem. I have a 66 2 1/2" that has seen decent use and still looks and feels and shoots like new...only smoother. Is the 686 tougher? Probably so. Is the 66 tough enough? Most definitely. Buy it and don't look back. You won't be sorry. If it is good enough for Bill Jordan (blued version Model 19) it is good enough for me.
 
K Frame .357

I got my first K frame S&W Mag in 1969. That was a 4" M19. That gun had a huge number of rounds through it over the years. No problems at all between then and about 1997. The timing started going at that point...and a $50 tune up job done by S&W service dept made it like new.

Over the years I have added a number of additional M19s and M66s, in K frame as well as quite a number of N frame .357s. I now also have a few J frame .357s (and those don't get a lot of .357 shot in them.) The point here is the M19 and M66s seem to shoot just as well and just as reliably as my N frame versions.

In any case most of us don't shoot a steady diet of full load .357 anyway...

My advice is get the M66, they are superb.. I often carry a 2.5" M66 for a sidearm and am fully satisfied with it.

V/r

Chuck
 
I feel that the M19 or M66 is the best frame/gun size for the .357 Magnum. I like the Ruger Redhawk and the Smith N frames, but only in calibers of .40 or above. The Redhawk .357 was enormous for the round, IMO. The M19 or M66 has excellent balance, enough weight for control, but not too much for carrying. They have good single action trigger pulls and double action triggers that smooth up with shooting.
I would like to find a good deal on an M66.
 
When the M66 was introduced the first buyers were law enforcement agencies. Thousands were issued to LEOs. The first production run had a problem and the guns were "locking up." S&W recalled them and made some sort of fix. I think it may have had something to do with the stainless steel construction. The engineers discovered that when two moving parts made of the same stainless steel come in contact they "gall," which is when small amounts of metal are transferred from one part to the other. This phenomenon caused all sorts of trouble with early stainless guns. The fix was to make the parts of a slightly different composition and the galling stopped. If this particular gun has been used and works now I imagine it is OK.

On the durability issue, I have heard no end of talk about K frame .357s not holding up but I think it is mostly rumor. My favorite .357 load is a 125 grain JHP at 1,725 FPS and so far no problems in my K frame guns.
 
saxon you said the early production guns had "galling" my gun was made in 1980 but appears to be almost brand new. It has no ring around the cylinder and the front of the cylinder is still bright stianless. i.e. it has no blackening on it. I assume this means that my gun has been firerd very little?

Is my gun one of these early production guns you mentioned being it was made in 1980?
 
M66 Wear

The common visable wear on a M19/66 is some gas cutting on the frame above the forcing cone and the ring around the cyl.

Both of these are normal, and the gas cutting normally stops at a very shallow level.

On the issue of forcing cones, I have heard of them cracking (most commonly at the top) but it is not usual.

I had a friend who fed his M19/6.5 a steady diet of VERY heavy hand loads... so heavy I hesitate to quote them... but they must have been at the very edge of what the gun would take... and even then the gun held up very well.

Bottom line I think is this; almost any product can have a defective example..but in the case of the M19/66 that is by far the exception.

I think the stories about early problems are exaggerated... keep in mind S&W had a lot of experience with SS revolvers they accumulated on the M60... about six years of experience...the only thing I ever was able to confirm is the fact that the polishing process for the barrel (after the lands were cut) did not produce as nice a finish as on the carbon steel version, as a result the early m66 tended to lead more than a 19 with similar loads.

In 1971 I got a VERY early M66/4" which was used for a carry weapon. It was an excellent gun, but did tend to lead with lead bullets (which were very common ammo for the .357 back then.) At about the same time I was issued a 3" M66 and it had the same problem.

FWIW

Chuck
 
66 vs 686

I would purchase a S &W 686 in 357 mag if I were planning to shoot mucho rounds. If you plan to use the 66 for protection no problem. I own several 686 S&W and J frames for carry.
Herb
 
Too damn much data--not enough information!

No offense intended--but 40 years ago when I got started in this stuff there weren't fifteen different gun magazines, hundreds of websites on guns, and millions of people with 'opinions' and ways to post them instantly. There also weren't a thousand different guns on the market--most of which don't really have much of a purpose other than to be sold to the unwary. There were a FEW books and most shooters had some hands-on experience with particular guns. In other words, what passed for wisdom wasn't sheer speculation.

The M66 S&W used to be THE police gun before everyone got infected with spray-and-pray. Anything mechanical can occasionally act up (sorry , Gaston, but 'Perfection' isn't attainable down here); but the M19 and M66 are about as good as it gets.

Maybe the gun rags can run a cover story on that.
 
I think the M66 came out around 1970. The problem was long fixed by 1980 so I would buy the gun if I liked it and not worry one bit about it.

Jack- As with any manufactured item there will be the occasional problem. Even a Mercedes can have a wheel fall off once in a while. On the whole, the K frames have stood the test of time.

It was not every early M66 that froze. It was like 10% which was too much for LEOs to stake their lives on.
 
I have a special area set aside for all my worn out M-19's (don't like silver). I has a nice pad and soft music where they will be able to spend their final years in quiet serenity. Since it's going to waste so far, I will be happy to lease space for all them worned out K-framed 357's. ;)
 
I think that a lot of the "hoopla" surrounding the Smith
& Wesson model 66's durability is over reaction to some
bad press. Having owned several model 66's in the past,
I never experienced a problem with any of them. If one
is going to shoot a steady diet of hot .357 magnum ammo,
I would suggest stepping up to the L-frame model 686.
With it's full under lugged barrel, one can handle the
effect's of recoil a little better; with also aids in accuracy.
Both are great firearm's; and I would not be ashamed to
recommend either of them to perspective buyer's.:D :cool:

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.
 
Yes, the M66 is a bad gun: it is a very BAD thing to find yourself looking at one from the wrong end!

Seriously, what caused most of the early problems was that the gas ring was swelling up under pressure/heat from firing Magnum rounds, and sometimes gummed up operation. Massad Ayoob has mentioned this several times, and he blew the whistle on it in the gun magazines at the time. S&W relocated the gas ring in a few years, and that seemed to solve the problem. The reason why the blued M19 hadn't given similar trouble is that "carbon" steel didn't heat up as rapidly and then retain heat (from firing) as much as stainless.

I've owned six Combat Magnums, and when I had trouble, it was something that could have happened with ANY S&W, due to quality control problems. In one gun, .38 S&W (not Special) cases fired in a S&W .38/200 revolver dropped right into the chambers of my M19. They should have been too tight a fit. The "loose" chamber dimensions let the .357 brass swell up enough that I had to pound the extractor rod at times to eject the empties. Some brands of ammo were worse than others, but the same would have probably happened had I had an M27 with oversize chambers. Another problem was cured by stoning off a tiny burr around the firing pin hole in the frame. On firing, Magnum primers flowed back into this burr and tied up the gun.

My present M66 is one I've owned since 1990, and I rely on it as my primary defensive sidearm when I don't need something smaller for concealment reasons. I wouldn't do that if I didn't trust it. I use .38 Plus P's when I'll be working indoors (I'm a security officer to augment my writing income) and rely on that in closely populated circumstances outdoors, too. In more open areas, I use .357 Hydra-Shoks. I trust this gun.

Lone Star
 
I was advised to not use the lighter grain bullets due to the increased velocity of the bullet hitting the forcing cone. For this reason I use the 158grain .357 ammunition in my K-frame. I have
not had any problems--might not have had any with the lighter, higher velocity bullets either...who knows??:cool:
 
I am thankful to all you guys you've been very helpful and it's because of your positive feeback on this gun why I've decided to get this gun out tommorow. I am a huge fan of s&w's guns I think thair guns are the best production revolvers there is IMHO.

I now feel that I've made the perfect gun in chosing a 357 magnum revolver. I used to have a rossi 357 years ago but back then I coulnden't afford a s&w., but then came the 640 in .38 :) And my love for the s&w revolver was born but I always knew they were great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top