New S&W model 66 vs old model 66

"...if S&W knows how to build a stronger K-frame why didn't they do it back then?"

$

Making new frame forging dies and machine tooling for a new size frame costs lots of those $'s. S&W did a very good job with the K-frame .357's and they worked fine with the ammo of that time; what threw egg in the fan was the advent of super hot, light bullet .357 ammo that caused cracking of the cone (not the frame). The initial idea was to provide a gun that was light to carry but capable of occasional firing of .357 loads, without having to do a major rework of the revolver line. But John Q. Public demanded light guns that could handle heavy loads. Sort of like wanting a sports car that can carry ten tons of coal, but then who said Mr. Public has ever been reasonable.

Jim
 
The older K frames in model 19's or 66's ....are not inferior or a problem at all in terms of their forcing cones....as long as you shoot 158 gr bullets..../ and i don't see a reason not to shoot the 158gr bullet, even for defense...its a good round in my view.

But if you want to shoot the light weight bullets at higher velocities...then look for an L frame model 686...or one of the older N frames in model 27 or 28 ../ ...28's are a lot less expensive than the 27's ...and every now and then i will see a model 28, with a lot of holster wear and some handling marks, but a gun that is mechanically sound for around the same price as a model 19 or 66...

I will occasionally carry an older model 27 in a 4" Nickel..../ ...or my 627 model ( 8 shot ) stainless 2 5/8" ...in an IWB rig, kramer leather, ...and while admittedly i am 6' 5" and 290 lbs ...carrying an N frame is really not a bg deal with a good belt..in a good holster...( and i'm in my late 60's now ..)..& an N frame is only a little heavier than my typical carry, a full size 1911 in 5" .....but whether the OP wants this older K frame for carry, home defense or as a range gun ...he has options if he wants to shoot those lighter bullets ....( but i still only shoot 158 gr bullets ..in all my K, L and N frames)... if I carry a .357, I carry the Magtech 158gr JSP...and for practice i reload a montana gold bullet in 158gr...

But its his money, he should buy what he likes ....
 
In you latest post you didn't tell me anything I haven't know for many years.
Click to expand...
That's funny. I said "The gun didn't hold up well enough,...". Yet you had said "I really question the idea that current m-66s are any stronger than pre-lock versions."

Are you suggesting that new models are not designed for regular use with Magnum loads?
 
The forcing cone is certainly stronger, but there's a domino effect in the new gun that may be resulting in undesirable secondary ejecta blowback.
Denis
 
My 4 inch 66-2 has over 20K rounds through it including a couple of cases of the dreaded 125 grain 357 Remingtons. For the 6 years I carried it at work it fired 4K rounds a year. Mostly 158 grain Speer Gold Dot, which was our duty round.

Its never broken anything. It shoots great, times right and locks up like a bank vault. It does exhibit a slight bit of endshake and the cylinder pin recess in the blast shield is slightly egg shaped. But the yoke barely moves with the cylinder closed.

I just finished running another 3k rounds through it last year as n instructor at the local range teaching new shooters revolvers. So, you will understand if I dont put any credence in the internet stories of "weak K frame magnums".

Having been around K-frame magnums for 49 years and having owned and been issued over 56 different examples, plus all the examples Ive handled and shot over the years, I have yet to see a model 66 with a cracked forcing cone in person. I did see pics of one on an internet gunboard last year.

So, buy what you like and shoot what you will. Oh, and all that stuff about the L frames being replacements for the "weak k frame magnums", please explain to me why the K frame magnums were still produced side by side with the L frames for 20 more years?

And that new revolver the current company posing as s&w is calling a 66? Barely resembles a 66, to me. And no I wont be buying one. Regards 18DAI
 
Quote:In you latest post you didn't tell me anything I haven't know for many years.Unquote

That's funny. I said "The gun didn't hold up well enough,...". Yet you had said "I really question the idea that current m-66s are any stronger than pre-lock versions."

Are you suggesting that new models are not designed for regular use with Magnum loads?
Click to expand...

OldMarksman,

I am in no way trying to give you a hard time so excuse me, but I don't understand the above at all.

Suspect my age is catching up with me. I don't seem to be as sharp as I once was...many years ago.

Dave
 
I sure don't understand why one group of true believers attempts to sway the other group.

If you like the new stuff, you should buy & enjoy. And by all means, AVOID the older guns. Afterall, you like that stuff they make now, go ahead.

You like the older stuff? (Shhh, me too...) Let these guys get their fun with the newer stuff. Don't need them shopping and buying great used ones from the market I enjoy.

Remember that there are piles and piles of folks that are deathly afraid of ever buying a used gun. They cannot imagine the possible pitfall of horrors associated with an older used gun that may have some kind of problem or issue. Only new new new for them.

It's all good... we are all shooters, I'm sure we can all get along.
 
Never could understand the mindset that only wants to buy new guns.

I personally avoid new Smith and Wessons, but then I avoid all new guns regardless of who made them. I like the older stuff and so every gun I buy is, by definition, used. I have a couple of Model 66's, one is a well used 66-2 that is still as tight as the day it was made and the other is a 66 no dash that is pretty nice.

I have always been in love with the .38 Special round and have put many, many thousands of them down range. I prefer to shoot it in my 586 also for target practice, so not shooting barn burner 125 grain loads through my K frames doesn't bother me one little bit. I think that the concern about shooting magnums through a K frame is a bit over stated all you have to do is stick with the 158 grain loads and you will probably have no problems

I think that overall S&W makes a decent enough revolver these days, but I am just old fashioned enough to like the pre lock/MIM guns better.

This is my 66-2, I wouldn't trade it for a new 66 regardless of how good they are. I replaced the grips as the originals that came on the gun were beat to death.
IMG_3477-L.jpg


And this is the no dash 66, this one will stay with me until I pass away and then my son gets it.
IMG_1737-L.jpg
 
I have a 6" barreled model 19 that was my first center fire handgun and my first gun to reload for. I loaded every top end load in the Speer #10 manual I had powder for with every bullet weight from 110-158 and never had a single bit of trouble with it. And shot the snot out of that that gun. 300-400 rounds per week. Some lead but most jacketed Speer bullets. They used to $10 a box all weights at my local store. I sold it long ago and for the life of me can't remember why. This was from about 1983 to 1992.

I would like to have another model 19/66 but I refuse to 700-900 bucks for one. I have a 4" blued Ruger security six that pretty much fills the vacancy left by the S&W 19s and 66s I have owned. Two of them actually. And it is supposed to be stronger even though I never knew the model 19/66 was supposed to be weak.

As for the new "66" the reason I wouldn't buy one is the use the new EDC method (or what ever they call it) to rifle the barrels. Its works fine for jacketed bullets but not as well as the old style rifling for lead bullets. And I shoot a lot of lead. I had a model 29 with that rifling and was not impressed with its lead bullet accuracy. Plus the throats were cut a very tight .429. Great for jackets but not so much for lead. But they were a very consistant .429 from cylinder to cylinder.
 
Highpower I was looking at your 4" 66 no dash and noticed it has blued rear sights. I thought the model 66 no dash has stainless rear sights. And I thought a 66-2 still had a pinned barrel?

Maybe I need to read up on S&W revolvers a little more.:confused:
 
I've done my research on it and it turns out that the old models are prone to forcing cone cracks. The new ones are designed to prevent this. I would prefer getting the new one but those damn key locks disgust me. Do you think the forcing cone problem is over exaggerated and would it be worth getting the older models?
Click to expand...

I don't know that folks would say they are "prone" to it. They're lots of reports of shooting many rounds without problems.

That said, I would probably go with the new 66, vs the old, if I were going to shoot .357 out of it.

If the lock's a problem, take it our.
 
Forcing cone weakness in Mod. 66

What constitutes an "early Mo. 66" I have a beautifully tuned trigger/sear in my M.66 and it shoots better than any revolver I own, but it was made in the late '50's or early 60's, but I don't strain it with hot loads, mainly 38 Sp.
Dave
 
Jinks says May of 1970 first 66 produced, first shipments began in 1971.
Not possible to be a 50s or 60s 66.
Denis
 
If I was buying a K-frame to shoot, it will be a new one. Very strong and great barrels Smith is using now. However if I got a good deal on an older one, you can buy that revolver shoot it and if you take reasonable care of it and you will never lose money. If the older ones have an advantage, IMHO most feel smoother to me in double action that many new ones.
 
ratshooter said:
I would like to have another model 19/66 but I refuse to 700-900 bucks for one. I have a 4" blued Ruger security six that pretty much fills the vacancy left by the S&W 19s and 66s I have owned.
Click to expand...
The old S&W 66s are some of the most desirable revolvers ever made in my view. And YES, I believe the problem with magnum loads was greatly overstated. Walking in some of the national forests with a 66 would be an ideal setup.light enough to carry but heavy enough to shoot comfortably, it was a great gun in every respect, and its stainless construction made it's use in rain and snow a great choice.

But the Ruger Security-Six also might be worth considering. Roughly the same size and weight, the Ruger can be made to have a smooth trigger just by dry firing it. I've done it with mine, plus I've polished it to the point where it's almost like a nickel finish.

It is about the same size and weight as the 66, but without the inherent weaknesses. And though the prices on these guns are steadily increasing, they're still great deals.

The thing I don't like about the new 66s is that they just lack the class of the earlier guns. First, they're two-tone, and I despise that, but they can be fixed by putting in stainless parts. I've always wanted to find a good minty S&W 66 no-dash model with a stamped sideplate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top