New S&W model 66 vs old model 66

[Mattj4867]

Ive got my mind on a k frame smith and wesson. And have decided on the model 66. 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?

[Recoil spring]

I have owned multiple .357 magnum revolvers and use .38 specials the vast majority of the time over .357 loads.

What happened years ago is that some people shot .357 magnum loads all the time in their Model 19/66 and it caused issues with the gun not being able to hold up over the long haul, Smith came out with the L frame to compensate for this. If you stick with .38 special standard loads and the gun is tight to begin with, I would lean toward an older one without the nasty hole in the frame.

I wonder when is Smith and Wesson going to wake up and get rid of that so-called trigger safety? I won't buy their revolvers until they do.

[mk70ss]

Unless you are shooting a steady diet of magnum loads with light bullets (110, 125 grains), you will be fine with a pre lock model.

[Dave T]

If the currently produced M-66s will stand up to a steady diet of Magnum ammunition, why did S&W bring out the L-frame? I really question the idea that current m-66s are any stronger than pre-lock versions.

Were it me making this decision I wouldn't consider anything but an older, pre-lock, pre-MIM, pre-floating firing pin M-66...or any other model for that matter.

YMMV,
Dave

[Model12Win]

I would prefer getting the new one but those damn key locks disgust me.

Get over it.

Seriously, the key locks are not going anywhere yet they also are a total non issue.

The new K-frames are superb, and much more durable than the old models. Every review has praised the accuracy as excellent with the new sleeved barrel system as well. They are great guns, every bit as good and in some ways better than any K-frame from the past.

[18DAI]

Pre lock 66 no dash through the 66-4. Better craftsmanship and more gun for your money.

They hold their value too. Unlike the current production s&w's. Good luck with your decision! Regards 18DAI

[BigJimP]

My older model 66's ( all dash 1's I think )....in a 2 1/2" and a pair of 4" ...have thousands of rounds thru them in .357 mag --- but all with 158gr bullets ( the traditional .357 mag round )... and none of them...or my model 19's, where I have a pair of 4" guns in Nickel finish ...have any forcing cone issues....( all K frames )...

The only internal lock guns i have are a pair of the new 8 shot, 627's ....perf center guns ...one in 2 5/8" and one in 5" ...( N frames, so they're much heavier )/ ..but my point is, yes they are chock full of MIM parts....but they both shoot very well - have very smooth actions with good triggers....so buy what you want ....just feed them a steady diet of 158gr ammo...

I will never give up my older K frames....or N frames..../ ...but I do enjoy shooting the 627's once in awhile....and i even carried the 2 5/8" a little, a few months ago...for the heck of it...

[reddog81]

I prefer the older ones and would suggest going that route if you can find a nice one for a decent price. The problem is everyone else has realized how good the old ones are and the prices have been creeping up to the point where an older one will easily cost as much or more than a new one.

[DPris]

The new 66 has several changes, including the 2.75 two-piece barrel, a different front cylinder lockup (new ball detent that replaces the older spring plunger), an altered gas ring, a slightly longer cylinder, and a slightly longer frame.
The sights are harder to see (darker orange front insert & no white-line rear), and there are reports of shrapnel blowback from the almost non-existent forcing cone.

The one here has the tightest cylinder lockup of any Smith revolver I've ever handled.
Denis

[joed]

I've owned the older 66s and 19. The problem is real and caused by 125 gr .357 magnum loads. Don't shoot a lot of those and you'll be fine. To be honest I don't shoot that many magnum loads in my K frames.

I'm also not afraid of the newer S&W revolvers as I've owned 2. But I don't think I could warm up to the new model 66 as they've changed the frame.

[BubbaBlades]

I carried a 4" Model 66 on duty from the time that they first came out in the early 70s. I didn't like the s/s rear sight and wanted a 6" barrel like I had my previous carry a 6" Colt Python. In 1978 I obtained a 6" Model 66 and it became my new carry gun.

More recently, I bought a S&W Model 66-7. It is not quite as smooth as the older 66s (yes same ones from the 70s) but those guns each have had thousands of rounds through them. I bought two other NIB 6" Model 66s over the years because I never wanted to be without one. I sold both of those guns to friends because it looks like my original Model 66s will outlast me.

The 66-7 is just as accurate as my older guns.

One final note concerning MIM and two-piece barrels: I have a Model 460 Magnum with a 2.75" barrel. 460 Magnum and full-power 454 Casull loads have not resulted in any problems with either of those two features.

Mark

[lamarw]

I own a Model 66-2 (K Frame), 686-1 (L Frame), and a 27-2 (N Frame). All three are great revolvers. The one with the finest workmanship and quality of the three is hands down the Model 27.

I too concur with above comments about shooting .38 Special a majority of the time and keeping it loaded with .357 Magnum for serious business. The comment about steering away from high velocity light loads in .357 Magnums is what the experts advice. I have also read forcing cone cracks is not as common as it is discussed.

It is still relatively easy to acquired any of the above revolvers in the pre-lock vintage and usually for less money than a new revolvers of the Classic line-up. I am speaking of solid used handguns in very good condition. If you do your due vigilance, the used one will be worth more than the brand new one in short order.

P.S. - Let me clarify my last sentence. It is intended to say if you bought one of both, in one year the older one would be worth more than the newer one in my opinion.

[mete]

Key locks are solutions to non-existing problems !

K -frame 357s were introduced when typical police use was to fire 90% 38 specials and 10% magnum loads . They were ok with that . When studies of shootouts showed the fallacy of training with 38s but using 357s they tried training and using all 357s the guns couldn't deal with it !! That's when they introduced the L frame !!
Use only what you have trained with !

[OldMarksman]

If the currently produced M-66s will stand up to a steady diet of Magnum ammunition, why did S&W bring out the L-frame?

The L-Frame was introduced before the current Model 66 came out.

The older model was subject to frame cracking with a diet of heavy loads, but it was not intended for use with the magnum loads at the time except on an occasional basis. The L-Frame was. And, of course, the L-Frame is much more comparable when fired wit heavy loads

I really question the idea that current m-66s are any stronger than pre-lock versions.

Do you have a basis for your skepticism?

What does the lock have to do with it?

[BarryLee]

I’ve got an older M66 and it is one of my favorite guns. If I found a good deal on an older model and it appeared to be in good shape I would have no problem buying another. However, I also really like the looks of the new model and other than nostalgia I can’t see a reason not to buy one.

[Dave T]

OldMarksman,

Yes, I know the L-frame came out before the new K-frames. My point was, if S&W knows how to build a stronger K-frame why didn't they do it back then?

The basis for my "skepticism" is many conversations I've had with a local gunsmith, partially retired, who is constantly being asked by ICOR competitors to "fix" their late model Smith revolvers. He has described numerous problems with the ball-detent lock up system causing yoke mis-alignment that allows the cylinder to hit the barrel stub every time it is closed. Straight from the factory end shake and excessive barrel cylinder gap. And of course endless problems getting a light trigger pull that will allow the floating firing pins to ignite any primer other than Federals. And this isn't always solved by installing an after market, extended firing pin.

And the problem with the floating firing pin is also a personal experience. I have two of these "late model" Smiths that were intended to be carry guns, not competition pieces. Months after getting them I am still trying to get reliable ignition with any ammo/primer (something I require from a defensive weapon) while not having a 16-18# DA pull. The quest goes on.

I've become something of a friendly ear for my friend to vent on so I have heard this chapter and verse, more than once. Hence my "skepticism".

Dave

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by Dave T

The basis for my "skepticism" is many conversations I've had with a local gunsmith, partially retired, who is constantly being asked by ICOR competitors to "fix" their late model Smith revolvers.

I wouldn't read too much into this (at least as new vs old), since 1) most serious competitive revolver shooters opt for a new-style S&W and 2) competition (and the practice for) is downright hard on revolvers. Much harder than normal range use.

IOW, your comparison is artificially biased against new revolvers, since old-style S&Ws aren't as represented in competition, and so aren't here not there to break in the first place.

[OldMarksman]

My point was, if S&W knows how to build a stronger K-frame why didn't they do it back then?

Their objective "then" was to sell a .357 Magnum version of the .38 Combat Masterpiece, intended as a service revolver that was light and easy to carry and that would be fired occasionally with Magnum loads.

They did that.

It really wasn't a great revolver for shooting with a lot ofMagnum loads. The gun didn't hold up well enough, and most shooters did not like it much for that.

So, they discontinued it. They came out with the L-Frame, which is comparable to the Colt ".41 frame" revolvers.

New demand has resulted in the reincarnation of the old gun, modified slightly to eliminate problems of flame cutting and frame cracking.

[Dave T]

MrBorland,

The problems my friend is talking about are not on well used competition guns but rather on new from the factory guns. The owners frequently send them to S&W first and frequently get them back with little or no improvement, often being told it is in "factory speck" and nothing is done. That's when they bring them to my friend in the hopes that he can make them shootable.

OldMarksman,

In you latest post you didn't tell me anything I haven't know for many years.

If you guys (and others) want to like the current production revolvers from S&W, more power to you. Just don't tell me I have to like them.

Dave

[tallball]

FWIW, the two smoothest DA triggers I have ever shot are both on older S&W revolvers. One is my K22 Masterpiece from 1951 (enough said). The other is my friend's Model 66. I don't know how old it is, but his dad had it for quite some time before he gave it to him, and my friend is about 50. He mostly shoots 38's through it. It still locks up very tight. I have never shot a newer Smith with as good a trigger as those two older ones.

[James K]

"...if S&W knows how to build a stronger K-frame why didn't they do it back then?"

$

Making new frame forging dies and machine tooling for a new size frame costs lots of those $'s. S&W did a very good job with the K-frame .357's and they worked fine with the ammo of that time; what threw egg in the fan was the advent of super hot, light bullet .357 ammo that caused cracking of the cone (not the frame). The initial idea was to provide a gun that was light to carry but capable of occasional firing of .357 loads, without having to do a major rework of the revolver line. But John Q. Public demanded light guns that could handle heavy loads. Sort of like wanting a sports car that can carry ten tons of coal, but then who said Mr. Public has ever been reasonable.

Jim

[BigJimP]

The older K frames in model 19's or 66's ....are not inferior or a problem at all in terms of their forcing cones....as long as you shoot 158 gr bullets..../ and i don't see a reason not to shoot the 158gr bullet, even for defense...its a good round in my view.

But if you want to shoot the light weight bullets at higher velocities...then look for an L frame model 686...or one of the older N frames in model 27 or 28 ../ ...28's are a lot less expensive than the 27's ...and every now and then i will see a model 28, with a lot of holster wear and some handling marks, but a gun that is mechanically sound for around the same price as a model 19 or 66...

I will occasionally carry an older model 27 in a 4" Nickel..../ ...or my 627 model ( 8 shot ) stainless 2 5/8" ...in an IWB rig, kramer leather, ...and while admittedly i am 6' 5" and 290 lbs ...carrying an N frame is really not a bg deal with a good belt..in a good holster...( and i'm in my late 60's now ..)..& an N frame is only a little heavier than my typical carry, a full size 1911 in 5" .....but whether the OP wants this older K frame for carry, home defense or as a range gun ...he has options if he wants to shoot those lighter bullets ....( but i still only shoot 158 gr bullets ..in all my K, L and N frames)... if I carry a .357, I carry the Magtech 158gr JSP...and for practice i reload a montana gold bullet in 158gr...

But its his money, he should buy what he likes ....

[OldMarksman]

In you latest post you didn't tell me anything I haven't know for many years.

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?

[DPris]

The forcing cone is certainly stronger, but there's a domino effect in the new gun that may be resulting in undesirable secondary ejecta blowback.
Denis

[18DAI]

My 4 inch 66-2 has over 20K rounds through it including a couple of cases of the dreaded 125 grain 357 Remingtons. For the 6 years I carried it at work it fired 4K rounds a year. Mostly 158 grain Speer Gold Dot, which was our duty round.

Its never broken anything. It shoots great, times right and locks up like a bank vault. It does exhibit a slight bit of endshake and the cylinder pin recess in the blast shield is slightly egg shaped. But the yoke barely moves with the cylinder closed.

I just finished running another 3k rounds through it last year as n instructor at the local range teaching new shooters revolvers. So, you will understand if I dont put any credence in the internet stories of "weak K frame magnums".

Having been around K-frame magnums for 49 years and having owned and been issued over 56 different examples, plus all the examples Ive handled and shot over the years, I have yet to see a model 66 with a cracked forcing cone in person. I did see pics of one on an internet gunboard last year.

So, buy what you like and shoot what you will. Oh, and all that stuff about the L frames being replacements for the "weak k frame magnums", please explain to me why the K frame magnums were still produced side by side with the L frames for 20 more years?

And that new revolver the current company posing as s&w is calling a 66? Barely resembles a 66, to me. And no I wont be buying one. Regards 18DAI