Smith & Wesson reintroduces the Model 66

Would you buy the new Model 66?

  • Total voters
    121
  • Poll closed .
My Grandpa was a deputy in Washington state for 36 years, he carried a 66 for the entire time (even through the advent of semi-autos for cops) eventually retiring in the mid 90's. He still owns several and raves about the reliability. I will have one someday whether it be a used (preferred) or new since the lock really makes no difference to me. I have and use an LCR and have never used the lock so whats the big deal? I dont like the looks of the new one nearly as much.
 
The older guns, pinned and recessed are the nicest S&W ever made. I can almost guarantee the older gun is a better gun.
Click to expand...

Almost being the operative word here.

I have to agree that the P&R guns are some of the "nicest" ever made. There is no substitute for guns that were hand-fit, hand-polished for that deep bluing and were built by people who knew how to make one work properly.

In technical terms, today's guns are as good and may be even better than the old ones. Modern CNC machines churn out high quality, interchangeable parts, metallurgy is even better today, the 2-piece barrels are very accurate, re-engineered models are beefed up to prevent fatigue and failures, more features (e.g. red ramp sights) are standard than before.

But that may also be a "failing" too. The older guns had soul. Some had their quirks or small imperfections that made them unique instead of a consumer mass-produced cookie-cutter product. Too, the newer models lack many of the graceful lines of the older models (especially the tapered barrels like the M-10 & M-15 et al). Stainless is a fine finish for a working gun, but I do love the look of a finely blued gun much better.
 
I wouldn't buy one, but only because I pretty much don't buy a "new" anything, and I really don't care for stainless steel guns.

Locks, two piece barrels, MIN parts...they don't bother me a bit. I've owned a couple of "new" Smith & Wessons (that I bought used). They were all good guns, and shot just fine. Looked great too.
 
In Technical terms..........

In technical terms today's guns SHOULD be the best but they are not. In my experience the new guns ( not just from S&W) are very seldom as good as the older ones. Some don't even function when you take them out of the box.

JUST MY EXPERIENCE...................................
 
I agree entirely with BillCA's assessment.

The older ones sure are nice, but for guns that'll see a lot of serious and hard use, I go for the newer ones and haven't been let down yet.
 
Is there any speculation as to whether this new 66 can handle a steady diet of magnum ammo, specifically, 125 grain JHPs at around 1400 fps? If so, I would be very interested in the new model. Seems as though the 2-piece barrel might resolve the forcing cone issue the old k-frames had with blaster level ammo, but I'm not sure.

I have an S&W 65, one of the last models S&W produced (with the lock, MIM and 2-piece barrel). I learned about the forcing cone issue well after buying it, but considering the amount of magnum ammo I've put through it, I have noticed no problems yet.
 
Im glad they are making them again.. I don't mind the new look. The hole can be dealt with. I am just glad they are making revolvers.

Im sorry but Im a weirdo that loves all years even the new ones.

I wonder if they dealt with the weakness of the platform with regards to .357 magnum light weight high velocity loads.
 
Oh boo hooo. YOur all big boys so stop crying. Its not going to be made the way it was 50 years ago. get over it.


increasing the 'strength/quality" of the steel used to make the original k frame willnot get you past any structural flaws.



Ive heard of an independent study done in the early 2000s concerning two piece barrels from SW. various guns were put in a ransom rest and shot, used same case lots of ammo. IT was determined that there was no measurable difference in accuracy between the two types of barrel unless you started to handload for each particular barrel in each individual gun.
 
I just read another thread on this forum about the 66 and 686. http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151464 See post #7.

He said the old 66's were good with 38Spl practice ammo and 357 for duty use. but when most departments started shooting 357 for practice, the guns started to break, that is why S&W came out with the 686.

I voted neither. I have 2 S&W pistols, but I like my Ruger SP101 in 357 better. I mostly shoot 38+P so it is more than strong enough. For 357 I might have to have a Ruger GP100 Match Champion or Maybe a 686.
 
Last edited:
Tennessee Jed said:
Is there any speculation as to whether this new 66 can handle a steady diet of magnum ammo, specifically, 125 grain JHPs at around 1400 fps? If so, I would be very interested in the new model. Seems as though the 2-piece barrel might resolve the forcing cone issue the old k-frames had with blaster level ammo, but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

mordis said:
I wonder if they dealt with the weakness of the platform with regards to .357 magnum light weight high velocity loads.
Click to expand...

The short answer is Yes.

The problem with the K-Frame was the necessary "flat spot" at the bottom of the barrel. This flat cut allowed clearance for the cylinder yoke to clear the bottom of the forcing cone.

I couldn't get my camera working to take a photo so I glommed a comparison photo off the web that is "close enough" for our purposes.

In the photo below, the right frame shows the flat-cut on the bottom of the K-Frame barrel. This is the location of almost every forcing cone/frame failure on these guns. The left frame of the photo shows the improved "L" frame which has sufficient clearance and does not need a flat cut on the barrel. On my 2004 M66-7, S&W also angled the cut for the yoke itself as shown with the L-Frame. Notice that the L-Frame cut angles down from left-to-right while the K-Frame's yoke cut is just about flat and level.



The two-piece barrel uses a thinner barrel tube and a slightly beefed up frame area to provide the necessary clearance. The barrel is screwed into the frame and covered with a barrel shroud to give it the S&W profile. A torsion nut, installed with a special tool at the muzzle end, doubles as a cap at the end of the barrel.

Due to the installation of the frame-mounted firing pin there is also a bit more "meat" of frame between the recoil shield and the top of the hammer cut out. This can be observed as a different (lower) angle to the hammer cut-out on the frame. This should provide added strength to the frame as well.

If S&W has added a ball-detent lockup to the gun as I've heard, then it could be termed as a New Century Triple-Lock if it retains the locking mechanism at the front of the ejector rod too. That would make it a very strong locking system.

Regards,
 
BillCA said:
A torsion nut, installed with a special tool at the muzzle end, doubles as a cap at the end of the barrel.
Click to expand...

The S&W 2-piece barrel doesn't use a torsion nut. It's a bit different than the DW setup.

S&W's 2-piece barrel is truly 2 pieces: The outer shroud is put in place (indexed to the frame with indexing tabs), and the inner barrel then screwed into the frame. The muzzle end of the barrel isn't threaded and doesn't use a nut. Instead, the muzzle end of the barrel forms a "T", ring, or flange that covers the muzzle end of the shroud. When fully screwed in, the shroud & barrel are tensioned. The barrel is tightened by inserting a mandrel into the barrel that engages the rifling. The mandrel isn't available outside S&W, which is why removal of the barrel is a factory-only deal.
 
I plan on buying, and using, this gun for primary home defense as well as "tween the seat n' center console" in the car. My carry load will be the good old Federal 357B, 125 grain semi-jacketed hollow point full power .357 magnum. I will use Safariland Comp II speedloaders.

I think I will be just fine.

I currently have a Ruger GP100 with a 6" full-lug bbl. The things is just too big and heavy for what I need a .357 revolver to do. It's sheer bulk has kept me from using it in various defensive roles. A K-frame sized .357 with a shorter half-lugged barrel is just the ticket for my purposes. This new model 66 should be handy and portable, with plenty of power. Sure it might not be built like the old guns, but for a modern day fightin' revolver I think it definitely has merit.

I can understand buying the old guns to collect and swoon over, keeping them polished up and in a nice padded case in the safe, but for those of us who still choose a revolver for actual WORK I think the M66-8 will be one of the best revolvers out there.

YMMV

-M12Winny
 
I can understand buying the old guns to collect and swoon over, keeping them polished up and in a nice padded case in the safe, but for those of us who still choose a revolver for actual WORK I think the M66-8 will be one of the best revolvers out there.
Click to expand...
Well, if you could somehow shoehorn ^ a quick "and take them out to the range often and put hundreds of rounds through them" in to the very first part of your little quip there, I would have no trouble heartily agreeing with you.
 
While I would prefer an older 66, if the choice was between a new 686 or 66 I would take the 66, solely for the half lug barrel. Just makes for a much better looking and handling gun IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top