Taurus 66

[Wallyl]

I am considering buying a new Taurus 66 SS 6" barrel pistol. Was wondering if anyone has tried one and had any issues with it. I have a 30 year old S & W Model 27 that I am having issues with. I don't want another S & W. Most of my shooting will be .357 Mag loads at 1,100 FPS with cast bullets.

[.44 Associate]

I had one decades ago. Shot it loose with a lot of hot ammo, Taurus fixed it at no charge. Shot it loose again, Taurus fixed it again, but sent along a note saying next time it couldn't be fixed and that if that time comes I should just buy a new one. Seemed fair enough to me, as I abused the daylights out of that gun.

So that particular revolver was perfectly adequate. Reasonably accurate, not-horrible trigger, fit and finish good enough for the job. It wasn't as good as a S&W from 30 years ago, however, and I can scarcely imagine the sort of problems on that S&W that couldn't be fixed for the cost of a new Taurus 66. I know which gun I'd rather have!

[Wallyl]

.44 Associate...Thank you.

I am told the newest ones are built better. My S & W has a broken yoke.. S & W woudl not cover it under their Lifetime Service Policy and wanted more than a new Taurus 66 costs. I have installed a replacement yoke that was "donated" to me. It fits just fine, although the double action pull is heavier than it used to be. I am told shooting it will smooth that out. Maybe I best go with a Ruger vs the Taurus?

[wild cat mccane]

Hi,

You were told wrong. The Taurus 66 has had no changes in the last two decades. There is no "built better." The model is the same, there are no new changes.

I have owned 6(?) Taurus 66s, have two 686s now, and have owned 3 GP100s.

Trigger wise, the Taurus 66 is almost 686 level. It is better than the GP100. Definitely. It is lighter and smoother without the stacking of the GP100. It is only slightly heavier than the 686.

My last 686 had to go to S&W before I shot it. Cylinder binding.

A few of my 66s went back to Taurus before I shot. Cylinder binding.

For fun, the Taurus 66 is fine I think. Good idea on the SS. The new black on the taurus is basically matte spray paint.

[wild cat mccane]

I should add, the Tracker frame (Model 627 without looking it up?) is smaller than the Taurus 66 medium frame. However, I've never heard of the Medium or Tracker frames being an issue. So don't worry about the frame size of the 66. You're good on that end.

The only issue I have had and heard about with the Taurus 66 is cylinder binding. Research this issue and see if it is acceptable.

Another idea? The Taurus 608 is an 8 round cylinder built on Taurus large frame. Again, frames down the small/medium Tracker series aren't an issue-so you aren't upgrading really with the large frame. However, it's only $50 more for the 608. With porting ont he 608 it does make the 4 inch barrel essentially a 3" barrel worth of velocity gain though. Trade off. I like the looks of the 608 because the under cutting of the lug looks nicer since it is larger.

The Taurus 66 frame is larger than the GP100 frame. The 66 has had a 7 shot cylinder for two decades. The GP100 1771 just came out 2 years ago with 7 shot cylinders and have issues with not enough room to fit all factory made ammo. It's because the 686 and 66 have larger frames.

[Wallyl]

Thank you wild cat mccane...the Ruger GP100 costs $300 more than the Taurus 66. Amazing that they cannot make a revolver and not get the cylinder binding issue resolved on a brand new pistol. I am leaning toward the Taurus 66 vs the Ruger GP100. I will be shooting active targets at typically 20 yards using cast bullets loaded to 1,100 FPS and also a lot of .38 Specials; so this would be a "fun" shooter for me. I don't care for the 608.

[.44 Associate]

I am told the newest ones are built better. My S & W has a broken yoke.. S & W woudl not cover it under their Lifetime Service Policy and wanted more than a new Taurus 66 costs. I have installed a replacement yoke that was "donated" to me. It fits just fine, although the double action pull is heavier than it used to be. I am told shooting it will smooth that out. Maybe I best go with a Ruger vs the Taurus?

I also have heard that Taurus has improved their quality. I have not bought one in the last twenty years so have no personal experience on that count.

I probably am annoying you WRT to the S&W, but I would much rather have a pre-lock Model 27 than either a Ruger or a Taurus. If I had yours I would send it to someone like Alan Tanaka (AT Custom) and happily pay the bill for a perfect gun.

On the topic of Ruger vs. Taurus, I generally am a Ruger fan, but their DA revolvers always strike me as clunky in appearance, and the triggers are not great. I think the Rugers are generally better quality than the Taurus, but that is based on a limited sample from a long time ago. If the price was the same I would go with Ruger, but I don't think it is $300 better than the Taurus.

[T. O'Heir]

"...GP100 costs $300 more..." Ruger's customer service is better(Taurus is known for bad CS) and it costs far less to make stuff in Brazil than it does Stateside.
"...1,100 FPS with cast bullets..." What weight are they? Cast loads at 1,100 are max or close to max loads.
"...shooting it will smooth that out..." Shooting to get a smooth trigger is just putting wear on the parts. It is not a proper trigger job.
What issues are you having with a 30 year old Smith?

[Wallyl]

I have had dealings with both...Taurus treated me as good as Ruger, but maybe I was lucky.

150~158 grain cast

Yes, shooting is not a trigger job...

The yoke broke on the Model 27...(I have a picture of it but I cannot add to this post)

[wild cat mccane]

Currently, the lowest Ruger GP100 4" ss 7 round sells on gun.deals for exactly the same as the lowest 686 Plus 4".

Between the Taurus 66 and GP100, if you can handle you own a gun that is 300 less than the other you were considering, the 66 would be my choice. If you can handle a revolver costing you 650 dollars, the 686 will bring you extreme pride of ownership. They are nice. The triggers are nice. The triggers are no different than previous generation 686s. They can't be, because the MIM parts and lock have zero play on the actions. You just heard that above. It's not a real thing.

Having bought 66s 10 years ago to last year, I assure you, there is no build difference in the 66. None. There is no generation differences, there is no metal differences, there are no part differences. People repeat that Taurus quality changes across years. In the 66, it has not. You might find difference in the 1980s 689, the predecessor of the 66, which S&W was making with Taurus in a cooperative plant in Brazil. But the 689 is still being produced, just not sold in America.


There is truth to Ruger losing some quality starting 2014 when they hired a bunch of people and recently let them (mostly all) go. The Ruger GP100 1771 still is being sold with issues of not all factory ammo fitting in the 7 round cylinder. This makes the 7 shot 1771 a 3 shot if you don't have the right ammo. This error is between individual 1771s and demonstrates the quality variation within the Ruger 1771s. An example in autos, the LCP Prescott AZ is perfectly fine. The NC LCP is having issues.

Also, Taurus just put out the 692 in 2.5", 3", and 6". It is built on the Tracker frame (smaller than the medium 66). It has a swapping 9mm cylinder with moon clips. A thought if you can tolerate the look of the tracker models. I can't.

[Wallyl]

Thank you (again) wild cat mccane I just don't like the looks of the Ruger GP100..

Have 4 S & W pre-lock N frame revolvers had to send 3 back for repairs. The yoke broke on my Model 27 and S & W would not honor their Lifetime Service Policy; I am done with S & W...no pride in ownership for me.

Ok I guess the new 66's are no better than the old; however I have read that the new management at Taurus has worked to improve their quality & customer service.

Ruger has had issues with their 1771 and I am not convinced they have been solved.

[wild cat mccane]

I for one don't like the GP100 looks either. The under lug blended with the barrel looks like the Taurus Tracker series. The fast cut on the back by the hammer doesn't look right.

Finally, there are almost zero grips available for the GP100. I mean there are options, but they come in two shapes and that's it. To get the classic "target grips that look best on revolvers costs 200 bucks on the GP100. It's 35 on ebay for a 686 or a Taurus 66.

[EIGHTYDUECE]

I like them. At the price point, there is always a risk. Be sure to check for a canted barrel. That is the main problem for revolvers these days it seems. I like the older ones because the finishes were nicer. Other than that, they are the same except the new ones are 7-shot instead of 6. Mine is a 2 1/2" snub model made in 1994. It shoots great and it is my bedside gun.

[Onward Allusion]

I had one and it's one of the few guns that I regret selling. It was the 6" blued model with the wood grips. One of the most accurate revolvers I'd ever shot. Smoothest trigger, too.

[CDR_Glock]

I have a Taurus Model 66 357 Magnum 7 shot. It is a blued version with a 4” barrel.

It has an adjustable rear sight.

I haven’t had trouble with mine though I acquired mine used.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[CajunBass]

I had both a 7 shot 66, and a 6 shot 65 (fixed sight version of the same gun). They were both really nice guns. Mine were blue and I'd have put them up against any Smith and Wesson I've ever owned, and I've owned a lot of Smith and Wesson's. If there was any difference in the way they shot, I couldn't tell it.

I sold them both in that never ending search for the next gun, but truthfully I wish I still had them.

[Wallyl]

Thank you, EightyDuece, Onward Allusion, CDR Glock, & CajunBass; seems that almost everyone things highly of it.

[chaim]

I have a mixed relationship with Taurus. I used to love them, but I've been burned on two, a 1st gen PT140 Millennium Pro and a Taurus made Rossi 461 (2"). Both also were subject to a safety recall (my 3" Rossi 461 made by Taurus was as well). If you look online, binding issues are relatively common on Taurus revolvers (that was the pre-recall issue I had on my 2" 461). I am back to where I am willing to try them (I bought a Taurus 856UL last Spring, not a lot of lightweight, J-frame sized 6-shot revolvers out there). I am willing to recommend them again, IF the buyer is aware of the potential issues and the fact that Taurus pistols are more likely than others to have issues and customer service does not have a good reputation (it will take a while to get your gun fixed). Basically, if you know what you are getting into, you do have a good chance of getting a good one, and if you get a bad one it does have a lifetime warranty again (only for the original owner now though, so watch the year it was made if you go used).

All that said, the 66 is probably one of their better guns, it is relatively interesting (there are only so many medium framed 7-shot revolvers out there), most are pretty accurate and reliable, and it is a bit of a sleeper that seems to fall under the radar of most gun owners. I have often considered one (or the Tracker). I haven't bought one yet, but if they still made it with a 3" barrel I probably would have it by now (and if the 3" Tracker framed convertible 9mm/.357 Taurus 692 wasn't ported it would already be in my safe).

As for Taurus vs. S&W vs. Ruger, I do think the Ruger and S&W are better (I understand that you feel burned by S&W and don't trust them anymore, that is understandable). The Taurus does have an increased chance of a problem gun, but they do have a lifetime warranty for the original owner, and they are substantially less expensive. I also understand not liking the looks of the Ruger (they make a good revolver, yet I've never owned a Ruger revolver for a reason). If it was me, I'd rather have the S&W 686+ (especially since they make it with a 3" barrel), but the 66 is substantially less money, and if I was shopping for a 4" or 6" medium framed revolver it would be in the top two or three on my shopping list.

[Wallyl]

chaim

Thank you for input. I have 3 choices: S & W (no good as they have proven to me that they are not reputable); Ruger (too ugly) ; Taurus (hit or miss Quality Control), I have had a few dealings w/ Taurus and I can work with them. I have been in contact with a no. of Taurus 66 owners and not one was unhappy with theirs...most shoot reloads w/cast bullets. Also, I have read many posts where gun owners having Rugers & S & Ws feel that both have slipped quite a bit in Quality Control. I haven't bought any of theirs in years, so I cannot say if that is true one way or another.

[Forte S+W]

Between my family and I there are a total of 5 Taurus brand firearms in my household and I have personal first-hand experience with all of them. So far, they've all been 100% reliable unless you count an ammo-related malfunction which occured with my brother's Taurus Judge.

I've never had to send any of them in for repair and all of them are of recent production, (2015-2017) so I can't really comment on their Customer Service, but based on what I've heard from other folks including die-hard fans of Taurus, their Customer Service is easily the worst of any mainstream firearm manufacturer at this time, and I think that's were the majority of distrust towards the brand comes from.
Generally speaking, it seems as though Taurus' quality control is no worse than that of Ruger, but Ruger is widely acknowledged for having the best customer service in the industry, so there's the rub. So if you test out a Taurus thoroughly at the gunshop prior to purchase and it functions reliably, (as you should for ANY brand, regardless of reputation because the world is an imperfect place and lemons can come from anywhere) then odds are that it will continue to function reliably indefinitely under any workload which wouldn't cause a part to break or wear out by any other brand.

So yeah, I don't think you can go wrong by going with a Taurus 66, just make sure you thoroughly test it out to confirm reliable function prior to purchase and you should be fine.

[DanLee]

I bought a Taurus 66 back in the late 1970s. It was the only handgun I had for a long time. I shot mostly .38 Specials through it. Very good trigger. The screw holding the rear sight broke and Taurus replaced it without charge. I have a dozen newer handguns now but the Taurus is the house gun.

[USNRet93]

Son had a 65 for a long time..worked great, no issues or problems ever. Traded it cuz he wanted a stainless revolver..got a S&W 686...BUT the Taurus worked just fine. I had a Model 82, same, worked just fine..

[shurshot]

"The Taurus 66 frame is larger than the GP100 frame."(Wildcat)

I have always been under the impression that my Taurus 66 frame was identical to the S&W K frame, which is slightly smaller than my Ruger GP-100 (which is more akin to the larger S&W L frame). Holding them side by side only reinforces that impression that the Ruger frame is slightly bigger, at least to me. But my 66 is an older model... perhaps Taurus has beefed them up in recent years.

Had my .357 66 Taurus since the mid 80's, never any issue. Same with the 9mm Taurus 99.

[osbornk]

I have 5 Taurus handguns and I finally had to send one in for repair when the trigger on my 5 year old TCP quit working a few months ago. They shipped it back to me repaired within two weeks of them receiving it and it works fine again. I have bought two new handguns since last summer (Spectrum and 856) and their fit and finish has improved and I found no flaws in either of them.

[wild cat mccane]

The cylinder on the Taurus 66 is larger and therefore the total frame is larger than the GP100. A Taurus cylinder would not fit in a GP100.

That wasn't clear. Fair point

Again, frame size is kinda less important. The action is what goofs up the L sized frames, not the actual frame itself.