Frame question

bluedoggunner · September 13, 2010, 01:25 AM

I posted this question on the Taurus Armed Forum, thought I'd post it here (I'm new here) as well.

I own a Taurus M66 seven shot revolver. I know that there are some Taurus haters here, but it's really a nice gun. Anyway, the old Taurus 66 was based on the old Smith 66 which was a K frame. However, the new Taurus M66 seven shots are quite different, similar to a Smith 686-P (which is an L frame).

So do people consider the new Taurus M66 a K, an L, or something in between?

I know that there are some K frame lovers out there who curse the day S&W discontinued the K frame in 357, but there are also some K frame critics who maintain that the K frame cannot stand up to a steady diet of 357.

My research suggests that the K frame's bad rep came from some cracked forcing cones on the old S&W M19's, and that the problem was specific to the M19 and the use of light (under 130G) magnum loads.

So, what do people think about K frames, and about the Taurus M66?

warningshot · September 13, 2010, 05:27 AM

xn

James K · September 13, 2010, 12:07 PM

Those frame sizes really apply only to S&W. I assume Taurus has some similar method of designating their frame sizes, but it would not be the same as S&W, nor would the frames be exactly the same as S&W frames.

In my experience, my Combat Magnums have held up quite well to a fair number of factory .357 loads, but I don't use them with heavy loads, more because of the recoil than because of concern for the frame or barrel throat.

As for Taurus, I don't think most folks "hate" them; they are concerned with the relatively large number of defects due, I believe, to spotty quality control in manufacture and inspection. The Taurus designs (where they differ from S&W) are quite good, and so are most of the guns. If you have a good Taurus, you have a good quality gun.

While every maker turns out a lemon once in a while, there seem to be a lot more lemon trees in Brazil than in Massachusetts.

Jim

bluedoggunner · September 13, 2010, 06:49 PM

Thanks Jim,

A lot of this is being hashed out in BarryLee's thread, so I won't beat the horse, but yes, I think the line about K frames not holding up to a steady diet of .357 has been repeated so often it is taken as fact, when in truth, those forcing cone failures were probably pretty rare.

Whether my Taurus M66 is closer to a K or an L, I still don't know, but I plan to feed it as many magnum loads as I can afford.

Eagle0711 · September 13, 2010, 10:28 PM

If you like your Taurus 66, the balance, trigger and so forth, why not shoot and enjoy it. I have an early Taurus model 85 and it's a really good shooter. The more you shoot 'em the smoother they get. They also have a lifetime warranty. I wouldn't worry about it. Have fun. If it shoots fine, why not carry or use for home or car defense. Don't believe all of the negative stuff on the net. A friend has a 4" 66 that is as smooth as any that I've shot. Best, Lyle

bluedoggunner · September 14, 2010, 02:09 PM

Well said Eagle.

Daryl · September 14, 2010, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Whether my Taurus M66 is closer to a K or an L, I still don't know, but I plan to feed it as many magnum loads as I can afford.

I had an early Taurus 66, and fed it a mix of .38's and .357 mags. Probably more mags than .38's, but...

I shot it VERY loose in less than 500 rounds. It spit lead from the cylinder gap (badly), would turn the cylinder without engaging the hammer when shooting DA, and the cylinder play/slop was horrible.

I understand they've improved their firearms since then, and I wish you the best with your's. Keep an eye on things, and if you start having problems then you might want to stay mostly with .38's.

Let us know how it goes.

Daryl

bluedoggunner · September 14, 2010, 04:46 PM

Thanks Daryl.

I have heard enough stories like yours to be cautious.
A Taurus is certainly not a Smith & Wesson, but the gun points well and is accurate and smooth.

I'm hoping for the best.

Daryl · September 14, 2010, 06:46 PM

Quote:

A Taurus is certainly not a Smith & Wesson, but the gun points well and is accurate and smooth.

I'm hoping for the best.

I hear ya. I just ended up with a Taurus revolver in .32 H&R mag in a trade deal a friend offered. Money wise, I'm likely ahead a bit. In quality and longevity, I'm short changed in the deal, no doubt.

The reason I'm ahead money wise is that the deal included a set of CT lazergrips.

The little Tauus I have is as smooth as any Smith & Wesson I've shot, and seems pretty accurate from the little I've shot it.

I did have a problem with misfires (see my other thread in this forum), but I got it fixed. Seems to work flawlessly now, so maybe I'll keep it a while.

It's a fun, fast little gun to shoot, no doubt.

Daryl

Newton24b · September 17, 2010, 10:50 PM

in regards to frame size, when the 7 shot revovlers were introduced, the company literature said they used a medium framed 5 or 6 shot 44 MAGNUM revolver and simply changed the bore dimensions and the chambers.

so when you get down to it, when a revolver is kitbashed from 44 mag and converted to use 357, its not a toy.

bluedoggunner · September 18, 2010, 12:03 AM

Thank you, Newton24b, that's good to know. I searched the Taurus website, but didn't come across that information. Makes me feel better as far as frame strength is concerned.

41 Magnum · September 18, 2010, 12:42 AM

I don't personally own any Taurus handguns right now. However, I do reload both .357, & .38 Spl. for my Son-in-law's Model 66, & I load them the same for his "66" as I do for my GP100. He has had the "66" for quite a few years now. So far, his has not shown any signs of any kind problem in digesting them all, by the hundreds. I actually like the feel of the 66, which is considerably lighter than my GP, & I enjoy shooting it whenever I can get out to the range with Him. His is the 4", & has an excellent trigger, & still has the original wood target grips. I like the 4" Bbl. on most of my D.A. revolvers.

September 13, 2010, 01:25 AM	#1
bluedoggunner Member Join Date: September 12, 2010 Location: Savannah GA Posts: 20	Frame question I posted this question on the Taurus Armed Forum, thought I'd post it here (I'm new here) as well. I own a Taurus M66 seven shot revolver. I know that there are some Taurus haters here, but it's really a nice gun. Anyway, the old Taurus 66 was based on the old Smith 66 which was a K frame. However, the new Taurus M66 seven shots are quite different, similar to a Smith 686-P (which is an L frame). So do people consider the new Taurus M66 a K, an L, or something in between? I know that there are some K frame lovers out there who curse the day S&W discontinued the K frame in 357, but there are also some K frame critics who maintain that the K frame cannot stand up to a steady diet of 357. My research suggests that the K frame's bad rep came from some cracked forcing cones on the old S&W M19's, and that the problem was specific to the M19 and the use of light (under 130G) magnum loads. So, what do people think about K frames, and about the Taurus M66? __________________ Dem for gun ownership Last edited by bluedoggunner; September 13, 2010 at 07:40 AM.

September 13, 2010, 05:27 AM	#2
warningshot Senior Member Join Date: October 7, 2009 Posts: 995	why don't you ask Tauars? xn

September 13, 2010, 06:49 PM	#4
bluedoggunner Member Join Date: September 12, 2010 Location: Savannah GA Posts: 20	Thanks Jim, A lot of this is being hashed out in BarryLee's thread, so I won't beat the horse, but yes, I think the line about K frames not holding up to a steady diet of .357 has been repeated so often it is taken as fact, when in truth, those forcing cone failures were probably pretty rare. Whether my Taurus M66 is closer to a K or an L, I still don't know, but I plan to feed it as many magnum loads as I can afford. __________________ Dem for gun ownership Last edited by bluedoggunner; September 13, 2010 at 10:00 PM.

September 14, 2010, 02:09 PM	#6
bluedoggunner Member Join Date: September 12, 2010 Location: Savannah GA Posts: 20	Well said Eagle. __________________ Dem for gun ownership

September 14, 2010, 04:46 PM	#8
bluedoggunner Member Join Date: September 12, 2010 Location: Savannah GA Posts: 20	Thanks Daryl. I have heard enough stories like yours to be cautious. A Taurus is certainly not a Smith & Wesson, but the gun points well and is accurate and smooth. I'm hoping for the best. __________________ Dem for gun ownership

September 13, 2010, 12:07 PM	#3
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Those frame sizes really apply only to S&W. I assume Taurus has some similar method of designating their frame sizes, but it would not be the same as S&W, nor would the frames be exactly the same as S&W frames. In my experience, my Combat Magnums have held up quite well to a fair number of factory .357 loads, but I don't use them with heavy loads, more because of the recoil than because of concern for the frame or barrel throat. As for Taurus, I don't think most folks "hate" them; they are concerned with the relatively large number of defects due, I believe, to spotty quality control in manufacture and inspection. The Taurus designs (where they differ from S&W) are quite good, and so are most of the guns. If you have a good Taurus, you have a good quality gun. While every maker turns out a lemon once in a while, there seem to be a lot more lemon trees in Brazil than in Massachusetts. Jim

September 13, 2010, 10:28 PM	#5
Eagle0711 Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2010 Posts: 782	If you like your Taurus 66, the balance, trigger and so forth, why not shoot and enjoy it. I have an early Taurus model 85 and it's a really good shooter. The more you shoot 'em the smoother they get. They also have a lifetime warranty. I wouldn't worry about it. Have fun. If it shoots fine, why not carry or use for home or car defense. Don't believe all of the negative stuff on the net. A friend has a 4" 66 that is as smooth as any that I've shot. Best, Lyle

September 17, 2010, 10:50 PM	#10
Newton24b Junior member Join Date: February 10, 2009 Posts: 974	in regards to frame size, when the 7 shot revovlers were introduced, the company literature said they used a medium framed 5 or 6 shot 44 MAGNUM revolver and simply changed the bore dimensions and the chambers. so when you get down to it, when a revolver is kitbashed from 44 mag and converted to use 357, its not a toy.

September 18, 2010, 12:03 AM	#11
bluedoggunner Member Join Date: September 12, 2010 Location: Savannah GA Posts: 20	Thank you, Newton24b, that's good to know. I searched the Taurus website, but didn't come across that information. Makes me feel better as far as frame strength is concerned. __________________ Dem for gun ownership

September 18, 2010, 12:42 AM	#12
41 Magnum Member Join Date: August 31, 2010 Location: Central Pa. Posts: 66	I don't personally own any Taurus handguns right now. However, I do reload both .357, & .38 Spl. for my Son-in-law's Model 66, & I load them the same for his "66" as I do for my GP100. He has had the "66" for quite a few years now. So far, his has not shown any signs of any kind problem in digesting them all, by the hundreds. I actually like the feel of the 66, which is considerably lighter than my GP, & I enjoy shooting it whenever I can get out to the range with Him. His is the 4", & has an excellent trigger, & still has the original wood target grips. I like the 4" Bbl. on most of my D.A. revolvers. __________________ I have gotten smarter as I've aged, . . . . . . . . No, Really !!!