S&W model 66-4 project. Pics.

B

Bill Akins

New member
A good friend and shooting buddy of mine, brought this model 66-4 to me that he was having problems with. He had just bought it for $300.00 and thought he was getting a good deal at the time. But it had several problems he wanted me to look at. The hammer would only sometimes stay back in the single action mode, and if you shook or jarred the revolver in any way, the hammer would fall. Also the hammer spur did not look right since it looked mis-shapened and at first I couldn't account for that mis-shape because it looked too weird to just be a bend from dropping the hammer. Later I figured out it had been bent, broken and then welded back on.

So first, I took the sideplate off to view its lockwork to see what was up with the hammer not wanting to stay back in single action mode. It looked as if the sear surfaces were just barely engaging, and then only sometimes and not always. Very puzzling. I could not tell if anyone had done any filing on the engagement surfaces or not. I have read that some model 66's have been modified to operate in double action mode only, and was wondering if maybe that mod had been done to this one.

Upon careful single action cocking (with the sideplate off so I could watch the internal engagement), when I could get the hammer to barely lock to the rear, and then functioned the trigger in single action mode, I noticed that the hammer did not fall "clean", but fell part way and then either wanted to (or did most of the time) catch on the double action sear which would either make the hammer in single action fall too lightly, or it would most of the time catch halfway down its fall onto the double action sear so that it never fell all the way and it also caused the trigger to go into double action mode. (Hope you all understand what I am talking about)....

....in other words the hammer started to fall normally as in single action mode fall, then would either try to catch (or did) the double action sear, so that the hammer either was impeded badly in its fall and fell lightly with a noticeable "catch" as it fell completely , or else (most frequently) caught halfway during its single action fall and the trigger popped out against my trigger finger as the hammer caught halfway in its fall so that it was now in the double action mode but halfway through the double action mode so that I had to continue functioning the trigger for the hammer to come back further in the double action mode for it to fall. However, it works perfectly if you double action it only and don't attempt to single action it.

Thinking it might be a bad hammer, my friend had bought another model 66 hammer and asked me to install it for him. I tried to do so. However, even though the hammer fit internally into the action with the hammer held back, the top section of the hammer was too tall for the top of the hammer and its firing pin to work in the frame channel. The top of the hammer and the firing pin would hit against the top of the frame by a large amount and it was obvious the hammer was perhaps a model 66 hammer, but not one for the model 66-4. So he had bought the wrong hammer and possibly gotten one for a model 66, but not correct for his dash four, or else whoever sold him the hammer did not list it correctly for the correct model and even though it fit internally (but much too tall at its top section to fit in the hammer/firing pin channel) it could have also been for another model S&W. Here's the model number on my friend's revolver under the crane area....
20131102_064458.jpg


Seeing that, my friend asked me if I would just cut off his hammer spur (that was weirdly mis-shapen) so that he could just use the revolver in double action only mode. In inspecting the hammer spur, I noticed it looked like it had been bent but was more mis-shapen than just being bent. So I carefully looked UNDER the hammer spur, and sure enough I saw welding spall. You can see that in the below photo of the hammer spur's underside showing it after I cut it off with a dremel cutting wheel.
20131102_072557.jpg


Top of hammer spur. See how it is mis-shapened?
20131102_072222.jpg


I deduced what most likely happened was, that someone had dropped the revolver and the hammer spur had badly bent and deformed as it had broken off. That would account for the strange looking deformation of the hammer spur. Then someone had welded it back onto the hammer and hadn't done it very well since the spur was badly mis-shapened as well as had welding spall all over the back of it.

The model 66 was in a matte stainless finish when my friend brought it to me, and knowing how I have polished some of my guns on my buffer, he asked me if I would polish his up too, since it had a lot of scratches on it. He wanted to keep the top of the barrel matte finished though. So after I cut off the hammer spur and polished it and the entire revolver out, here's what that looked like. I don't have any "before" pics.

Hammer after I removed the spur and polished it.
20131102_064311.jpg


Top of revolver showing matte finish I carefully avoided buffing out on top of barrel, while buffing out rest of revolver.
20131102_065057.jpg


20131102_065038.jpg


Continued next post due to limit of six pics per post.....


.
 
Continued from last post....

20131102_064428.jpg


Hammer would just barely stay to the rear for these two below pics. Any slight jarring would cause it to fall as I previously described (but it works perfectly in double action mode only). I think my cutting the spur off and polishing it out came out pretty good. What do you think?
20131102_064217.jpg


20131102_064159.jpg


My friend is okay with it only operating correctly in double action mode and that's why he asked me to de-spur the hammer for him. But myself, (just academically), I'm wondering if this revolver had been modded to be double action only at some time, or if there was something broken or bent that was causing the hammer to not operate correctly in single action mode. But when I took off the sideplate and inspected everything inside as I worked the action, I could not see anything bent, broken, galled nor filed down. So it is a mystery. Anyone here have any suggestions (other than my own already stated ones) for any other possible explanations for it not working correctly in single action mode?

So now my friend has a perfectly good matte stainless hammer for what the seller told him was a model 66, but it won't fit his model 66-4. He said he has $26.00 in it including shipping. So if anyone wants it, he will take $26.00 and you pay the shipping. Shoot me an I.M. if interested and I'll put you in touch with him to deal with him directly. Just trying to help him out, not interested in making any money on it myself, (Only mentioning this here instead of the BST forum, because it was such an integral part of the project and since I had already explained why it didn't fit his dash 4.) It is in the same matte stainless finish as his revolver was originally in before I buffed the revolver out to remove all those bad scratches. Here's some pics of the hammer he doesn't need and would like to sell....
20131102_065434.jpg


20131102_065407.jpg


20131102_064230.jpg


Continued next post due to limit of six pics per post.


.
 
Continued from last post.....


Okay, the next problem he had with the gun was the rear sight leaf was badly bent and a little chewed on one side. Obviously someone had badly dropped this revolver, both badly bending and breaking off the hammer spur, as well as scratching the gun up (I was able to buff all those scratches out) and also bending and boogering up the rear sight leaf.

I have not changed out a rear sight leaf on a model 66-4 before. I have been unable to figure out how to remove the screw on the rear sight that holds on the rear sight leaf. I could be wrong, but it appears that MAYBE the end of the screw that adjusts the rear sight leaf, is peened on its end so that it isn't able to be removed from the rear sight frame. But I can't tell for sure and am unfamiliar with how to disassemble it. The screw head turns and turns, but nothing happens to the rear sight leaf and the screw won't come out for me to change out the leaf. Here's a few pics of it....

This is the side that I can't figure out why the screw won't come out. There seems to be no way to capture a nut and it looks like the end of the screw shaft is slightly hollowed out and maybe peened so it can't be removed. But I'm not sure about that. Need help with this one.
20131102_052348.jpg


And this is the side with the screw slotted.
20131102_052403.jpg


I am wondering how I can get that screw to come out so I can remove the rear sight leaf and replace it with another leaf. Any help in explaining how that screw comes out would be greatly appreciated, as this is the final thing I am trying to fix on this revolver for my friend.

He's a good friend and I enjoy helping my friends out with their guns. Helps me to learn a lot too.



.
 
Any help in explaining how that screw comes out would be greatly appreciated, as this is the final thing I am trying to fix on this revolver for my friend.
Click to expand...

I didn't have time to read your entire post, but as far as the windage screw removal, it has to be broken to be removed, AFAIK. You'll need a windage adjustment screw kit to install a new blade.
 
While I like the idea of taking on a project and you seem to know your way around these fairly well, I would rather have sent the whole thing to Smith & Wesson and get an estimate on an overhaul. It's obvious that it's been mistreated which is strike one... but then it seems like the home repair was done poorly, and that's a BIG strike two.

Also, I can't tell because the pics are extremely bright, but is the trigger chromed or otherwise bright and reflective, or is that something you did? They didn't come that way.

I know a lot of people refer to revolvers as "simple" and "basic" because there is very little user input with controls and such, and everything is quickly visible with regards to chambers and such. But the very idea that revolvers are ANY MANNER of simple just makes me chuckle. These things are MILES from that, they aren't quite as complicated as a watch inside, but everything inside has to work about as well as the guts of a timepiece, or that revolver is NOT going to work, likely, AT ALL.
 
Bill Akins said:
Upon careful single action cocking (with the sideplate off so I could watch the internal engagement), when I could get the hammer to barely lock to the rear, and then functioned the trigger in single action mode, I noticed that the hammer did not fall "clean", but fell part way and then either wanted to (or did most of the time) catch on the double action sear which would either make the hammer in single action fall too lightly, or it would most of the time catch halfway down its fall onto the double action sear so that it never fell all the way and it also caused the trigger to go into double action mode. (Hope you all understand what I am talking about)....
Click to expand...

Sounds like the DA sear is too long. Now that the gun's not going to be shot in single action, it may not be an issue with the SA hammer falling, but a long DA sear can yield an uneven, long and relatively hard DA trigger pull, as a proper-length sear allows a smooth transition to the trigger cam, from which the hammer actually falls.

Bill Akins said:
So now my friend has a perfectly good matte stainless hammer for what the seller told him was a model 66, but it won't fit his model 66-4. He said he has $26.00 in it including shipping. So if anyone wants it, he will take $26.00 and you pay the shipping.
Click to expand...

I suggest you either determine what gun the hammer really fits before selling or return the hammer to the vendor. Sounds like it's not a k-frame hammer, so you and/or your friend would be doing yourselves and the buyer a disservice by selling a "k-frame" hammer that clearly doesn't fit, even though it was originally advertised as such.
 
Thanks MrBorland for that explanation about the screw needing to be broken to remove it.

And thanks jglsprings for confirming that and also for providing me that midway link on youtube that completely explains how to remove and replace the rear sight leaf. That was exactly what I needed to know.

To answer your question jglsprings, I carefully looked inside the action and I didn't see any internal studs or anything bent. Everything seemed to line up right for the recesses in the side plate too and the timing is right on too. It bugs me that I can't figure out what is causing that single action failure. I'd like to know just for my own knowledge, but at this point, the revolver is going to be double action only so it's just academic for me to find out what caused that.

Sevens, It isn't my gun and I was just trying to help my friend out. He could have sent it off to S&W, but he asked me to see what I could do with it. To answer your question, the trigger is carbon steel since it was pitted pretty badly and had a little rust on it before I buffed it out to a high shine (just like I did the hammer). Even buffing the trigger heavily I couldn't get all those pits out even though I got all the rust out. The trigger, rear sight mount and hammer are carbon steel. The rest of the revolver is stainless.

I might be able to clean up and buff up the rear sight mount and reblue it, but it would be hard to get into the bottom of the longitudinal grooves on the top of the sight mount to get to any rust there. I asked my friend if he could find another one on fleabay or GB, and he said he had looked and the ones he could find were like $60.00 so he was hoping I could fix his. Just have to see how well I can work with it. Now that I see how to remove and replace the rear leaf sight, that won't be a problem (thanks again MrBorland and Jglsprings), but cleaning up the rest of the mount to make it look as good as a new leaf might be problematic. Just have to see as I go along. The trigger, hammer and rear sight mount all need to be reblued too.

Sevens, you are certainly correct about revolvers being anything but simple. They are intricate, somewhat complicated, mechanical machines inside, especially the double action ones. They take a lot of patience and time to work on and you can't get impatient or force parts or it will cost you.

MrBorland, the double action sear isn't too long. It has a nice smooth double action pull. No problem at all in the double action mode. The more I think about it, the more I think someone at some time stoned down the single action sear and modified this revolver to work double action only, and it just BARELY will hold the hammer back some of the time and just the slightest jar will drop the hammer, and whoever did that stoning of the single action sear, did such a good job cleaning it up that I can't detect where they did the stoning. But what's puzzling is if they wanted it double action only, then why would they weld the broken off hammer spur back on?

The spur being welded back on, made me think about another possibility that they did a good job of cleaning up their stoning to where I can't detect it, but they may have stoned the sear down too much and never intended to make it double action only, but were just trying to get more of a hair trigger in single action and went too far with the stoning. At any rate, now that I've removed the hammer spur, it's definitely going to be double action only from now on. At least as long as my friend owns it.

MrBorland, you are certainly correct that it would be optimum to find out exactly what model or dash the hammer fits. It isn't worth the shipping to ship the hammer back to whom sold it to my friend, (if he would even take it back now that it's been a few months since my friend purchased it). That's why I was careful to honestly state how the hammer fits his 66-4, internally, but it is too tall for the frame and firing pin channel. It might fit a regular 66. But we don't know if it will even fit a 66,....the only thing we have to go on is the seller advertised it as for a model 66. It could very well be an L frame hammer, I simply don't know and don't want to take my old k frame S&W 1905's apart to check and see if it will fit them. The hammer fits internally just fine (as long as the hammer is to the rear). I fit it myself and know. But it's just too tall for the hammer's firing pin channel in the frame by about 1/4 inch or so, and it can't be trimmed down because of the firing pin's retainer pin location.

The only way to know for sure, would be for my friend to take it to a gunsmith who has K frame and L frame hammers and compare it to them to find a match. It is a very nice matte stainless hammer though, looks like it was hardly used. For someone who has various S&W's both L and K frames, it should fit one or the other. At any rate for $26.00 it would be a nice spare to have. My friend wasn't even trying to sell it. I asked him yesterday if by my posting trying to find out about how to disassemble the rear sight, if I could find a buyer for it if he wanted to sell it and he said "sure". If no one wants it, it will just sit on the shelf in his gunsafe. As we all have extra parts around like that, that we don't need, but are too nice to throw away, Lol.




.
 
Last edited:
I know how your friend feels I have a hammer I ordered for a k frame that doesn't fit as well. I was so excited to get it I foolishly bobbed it before I checked fit. Live and learn
 
I also posted this same thread at the Smith and Wesson forum asking for advice on how to disassemble the rear sight and told of the hammer not fitting problem, and MrBorland, several of the fellas there told me that my friend's hammer is an L frame hammer. So now we know.

One of the fellas there even posted a picture showing K frame, L frame and N frame hammers side by side. No doubt now that the hammer that was sold to my friend for his S&W model 66-4, was not a K frame hammer, but was an L frame hammer. One of the fellas at the S&W forum is buying it from him. So mystery solved about exactly what model that hammer is that my friend bought. Here's the pic showing left to right, a K frame hammer, L frame hammer and N frame hammer. The L frame hammer in the middle of the pic is exactly like the one my friend bought from the seller who advertised it as being correct for the model 66-4. It isn't.

5368399033_7299912974_z.jpg



.
 
camsdaddy wrote:
I know how your friend feels I have a hammer I ordered for a k frame that doesn't fit as well. I was so excited to get it I foolishly bobbed it before I checked fit. Live and learn
Click to expand...

Ouch camsdaddy. I know that disgusted you when you found that out. But don't feel too bad, I've done things like that before, we all have. I try to remind myself to "measure twice, cut once".


.
 
Bill,the original problem with the hammer falling is usually found with a safety check by a gunsmith. It's called the "push-off", and you simply bring the hammer to full cock and apply pressure against the spur without touching the trigger.

The actual problem was caused by someone attempting to "lighten" the pull on the revolver--by "polishing" the engagement surfaces. On a Smith and Wesson revolver, you change pull weight by changing springs. You smooth the action by polishing ONLY the following parts:

1. Polish the trigger and hammer pins and bosses;
2. Polish the underside and frame side of the rebound slide;
3. Polish the INSIDE of the rebound slide spring tunnel (can be done with a Q-Tip and compound chucked into a slow moving drill and a lot of care).
4. Ream the inside of the cylinder crane.
5. Check and true the end of the crane, clean and install end-shake bearings if needed.\
6. Apply hammer boss shims/bearings to the hammer pin, both under and on top of the hammer pin.
7. Check timing, and correct it needed.
8. Check barrel/cylinder cap for clearance and smooth rotation.
9. Polish the cylinder crane bearing surface.

Note what is missing? Any mention of the sear/hammer mating surfaces, sear notch, trigger nose, trigger shelf or DA fly. Do NOT touch those surfaces.

When who-ever-it-was tried to "lighten" the pull by polishing, they broke through the heat treated surface--which is VERY thin--which in time caused the malfunction.
 
jglsprings wrote:
so Bill how did it turn out? are there any after pictures?
Click to expand...

Just the hammer spur bob job I did, and the buff out of the matte stainless finish, that I already posted the pics of. I haven't had the time to locate a replacement rear sight screw kit and blade yet to finish up the fix on the rear sight yet. Will post pics of that when I get that done.

Asked my friend if he wanted me to blue his hammer and trigger too, to match the blue finish his rear sight base and leaf were originally in when I re-blue that, and he said he kind of liked the bobbed hammer and trigger being buffed out "in the white" because they matched the look of the buffed out stainless on the rest of the revolver, but to use my own discretion on whether to leave them "in the white" or to blue them.

When I get the replacement rear sight screw kit and leaf, I will re-blue the rear sight base, (and any new leaf will also come blued anyway), and I thought it might look good and be a nice contrast to the polished stainless to also blue the trigger and hammer too. Haven't made my mind up about that yet though. What do you think? Blue the hammer and trigger for a contrast against the highly polished buffed out stainless of the rest of the revolver? Or leave the bobbed hammer and trigger highly polished out "in the white"? Which would you choose?



.
 
Last edited:
Since your friend says he's OK with a DAO revolver and it has a severe case of push-off, were it me, I'd completely remove the SA sear so that the hammer couldn't be cocked. Even without a hammer spur, the fact that the revolver can be manually cocked with such a bad case of push-off makes it, IMHO, unsafe. By completely removing the SA sear, you will ensure that the one and only way for the gun to fire will be by pulling the trigger.
 
Good idea Webleymkv, I'll recommend to my friend that I do that to his revolver, and I'm sure he'll concur. No need for the single action sear anyway now that the hammer is bobbed, and you make a good point safety wise.


.
 
Going forward (no help for the current "job") Never, ever cycle the action of a Smith without the side plate in place. Fastest way to bend the pins that I know of (short of a claw hammer) I would suggest you buy a manual before working on another one.
 
I purchased a used Nicklel finished, Model 36 (no dash) all because it had a "Bobbed" hammer (by a former owner).
The little revolver caught my eye sitting in a dealers showcase and I wasted no time clearing the purchase with my banker (The Wife of course) to see if we had the dough. Luckilly I just squeeked by and got it!
Tis little beauty has a sorta tough trigger pull, but it is not beyond overcoming it, I fitted it with a set of S&W factory (Uncle Mikes) rubber grips which help holding the small revolver and in giving a solid purchase to the grip and trigger pull.
Bobbing the hammer made the Chief into an ideal pocket gun!
All my life I have been a S/A shooter and am now (at 64) learning the art of the D/A pull! It's a learning experience aand I am catching on pretty quick!
I fwwl that the Hammer Bob added versitility to an already versitile revolver!
BPDave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top