New S&W model 66 vs old model 66

[Dave T]

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?

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

[Sevens]

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.

[highpower3006]

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.


And this is the no dash 66, this one will stay with me until I pass away and then my son gets it.

[ThomasT]

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.

[ThomasT]

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.

[45_auto]

I believe that the stainless sights were only on early production (first year?) no dash 66's.

[ThomasT]

That would explain it. I am sure the poster knows what he owns.

[texagun]

Deleted

[lee n. field]

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?

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.

[cf160]

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

[L-2]

Regarding Post#35, the S&W Model 66 began in 1970.

[DPris]

Jinks says May of 1970 first 66 produced, first shipments began in 1971.
Not possible to be a 50s or 60s 66.
Denis

[saleen322]

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.

[Stargater53]

Originally Posted by ratshooter

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.

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.

[DPris]

Where is the new 66 a two-tone & where would you find stainless parts to put in it?
Denis

[James K]

Hi, Stargazer,

FWIW, I spent a lot of time (which could probably have been better spent) trying to work over Ruger DA revolvers to have as good a DA trigger as the S&W's. I came pretty close, but never got there, nor do I think it is possible short of actually making a new hammer and trigger of a different design. The genius of the S&W mechanism makes it what it is, and the camming system simply has not, I believe, been duplicated in any other make. (Ruger has now almost matched the S&W system, but in the LCR, not in their service type revolvers.)

Jim

[Stargater53]

You are correct, James, but there's a point of diminishing marginal return and I seem to have hit mine with my Ruger. Having said that, the 66 is a gun I always wanted but never had a shot at. In fact, all things being equal -- if someone offered me a perfect, minty 66-no dash with a nice trigger job with a stamped sideplate and a Colt Python, I'd take a 66 any day, well, except Tuesdays and Thursdays.

[DPris]

Star,
If you're going to be here for a few minutes, can you please answer my two questions above, and I'll also ask what you mean by a stamped sideplate?
Denis

[straightshooterjake]

DPris, I am only speaking for myself here, but I will do my best to answer your questions about how the new model 66 is two tone.

On the new model 66 revolvers, the hammer, trigger and cylinder release (thumbpiece) are black. Some people have complained about this appearance. In particular, thumbpiece is very black and slightly shiny, and I don't love the appearance of it, though I would consider it acceptable on a working gun. I assume that the thumbpiece and the nut that retains it could be replaced with stainless steel parts.

The hammer and trigger have a black finish, but they have a more dark flat grey appearance. The look of these parts does not bother me since on most revolvers the hammer and trigger don't match the finish of the rest of the gun.

I have read on another forum that the hammers from a new model 66 are not interchangeable with any other revolver. Reportedly, the hammer stud in the new model 66 is thicker than in previous K-frames. I have not confirmed this fact myself, but I would not count on being able to swap the hammer in a new model 66 for one that had a different finish. If other people have more information about this issue, I would be happy to hear it.

[DPris]

If he's referring to those darker small parts, I guess you could call it "two-tone", although they're just darker than the older versions & they make up a small percentage of the overall gun.

I'm not aware of any stainless replacements for the hammer & trigger, a standard stainless thumbpiece could probably be substituted.

What's the stamped sideplate?
Denis

[Stargater53]

Back in the day, S&W used to stamp their brand in the side plate. It became too expensive. I got one of the first S&W 686s and it has a stamped side plate. If you ever buy a used S&W, try to get one like that.



This is a 686 with a side plate.

[DPris]

Ah.
They just moved the logo to the other side.

Same on my older 66, an older 686, the new 66, and several other Smiths I own.
Never mattered to me which side that logo's on.
Really couldn't care less & wouldn't bother to look for a Smith with a right-side logo.
Denis

[chuckfw]

I own 2 of the snub 2 1/2" barrel S&Ws, a 1981 66-1 and a 2002 66-6. Both have digested many, many rounds of .357 and both are still tight, no erosion and both are pretty darned accurate, especially since I use CT grips on them to help my older eyesight. My vote would go to buy an older one, but I am also not afraid of the new one with a lock. I have not ever talked with anyone that had a problem with the lock.

[DPris]

I have. Three different people I know.
Denis