S&W is Re-Introducing the Modle 66

[Jeff82]

I saw on S&W's website that they are re-introducing the Model 66 (stainless steel Model 19). How I've waited for a K-frame 357.

[Fire_Medic]

Lock or no lock?

[dragon813gt]

Lock or no lock?

See the current production 586 for the answer.

[Westwindmike]

It's sure to have a lock these days.

Just went to the site and watched the video. Looks like it has a lock. And a 4.25 inch barrel that is "two piece". What's with that?

[Fire_Medic]

See the current production 586 for the answer.

They still make some nowadays under the "classics" that do not have a lock, so I don't particularly think my question was off base.

Thanks

[Heavy lead]

My classic model 10 has a lock.

[Fire_Medic]

Ok so apparently some of you guys feel like arguing today. Happy Monday :lol:

[dragon813gt]

They still make some nowadays under the "classics" that do not have a lock, so I don't particularly think my question was off base.

Thanks

I didn't say it was off base. Every Classic line revolver I have seen has had a lock. I wasn't aware they were producing any w/out locks.

[Jeff82]

With or without a lock I'm pretty rev'ed up about it. I don't know what a two-piece barrel this though.

[RKJ]

I read some time ago (I believe it was American Handgunner, Alex Hamilton's column. But I don't recall which issue) that S&W went to a barrel/sleeve design similar to that of Dan Wesson but that the barrel was crimped in the frame. I believe the Classics still have the one piece (original) barrel.

[dubber123]

Origional 66's aren't that hard to find. I dislike the aesthetics of the lock and MIM parts enough to be willing to look for the older models. They made tons of 66's.

[MtGun44]

I have seen current production J frames without locks. No idea what the code
is for with or without the lock but the DEFINITELY do exist.

Bill

[Jeff82]

MtGun44,

That's interesting. I just bought a new current production classic M-36. It came with a lock. I actually don't mind the lock though. What are MIM parts?

[dubber123]

MtGun44,

That's interesting. I just bought a new current production classic M-36. It came with a lock. I actually don't mind the lock though. What are MIM parts?


Metal Injection Molding= MIM. It's a newer manufacturing technique that S&W is using to make hammers and triggers. It makes a very durable, accurate part requiring practically no hand fitting. Unfortunitely for me, it also leaves mold lines and little injection point circles that remind me for all the world of the underside of the Matchbox cars I played with as a kid.

[Jupiter7]

They still make some nowadays under the "classics" that do not have a lock, so I don't particularly think my question was off base.

Thanks

The old lemon squeezer is the only one I know of. Has a grip safety though. In normal production, 442/642 can still be found new with no lock.

[FergusonTO35]

My new 642 is no lock, as are all or at least most of their auto pistols. Why they think a revolver needs a lock but not an auto is beyond me. Glad to see the 66 back although for shooting .357's I would much rather have a GP-100. I wonder if the new 66 will have the forcing cone problems of the old one?

[ShootNSteel]

I'd rather have an old 66, that has an action smother than any new L frame, much higher quality construction, and is 10 to 20% cheaper! How can you go wrong?

[Ickisrulz]

Have you noticed that S&W only posts pictures of their revolvers from the side without the lock? I guess hey think it's ugly too.

[dragon813gt]

Have you noticed that S&W only posts pictures of their revolvers from the side without the lock? I guess hey think it's ugly too.

I did notice that. I think it's deceptive marketing on their part. I'm not sure if they list the locks under the descriptions either. Maybe I just overlooked it.

[MtGun44]

"old 66, that has an action smother than any new L frame, much higher quality construction" :-)

You haven't owned any from the Lear-Siegler era, then, have you? Unfortunately, "older" with S&W
does NOT always mean better, although they do benefit from lots of cycling - self-smoothing a significant
amount. When they were new, not all 66s were gems, for sure.

IMO - the best and most CONSISTENT quality S&W revolvers are being made right now. Some old ones
were spectacular and some older ones were not so good. It was common to have heavy, gritty triggers
and barrels screwed in crooked, etc in the "bad old days", although it is important to quantify this - the
great majority of the late 70s to late 80s guns were OK (medium crummy action) there WERE those
unfortunate examples that were pretty darned messed up. I have not seen a truly bad S&W revolver in
the last 10-12 years and the MIM guns have consistently very good double and single action pulls from the
factory. And the unfortunate parting lines . . . . . :-(. Given the choice, I'll take a nice action with
parting lines over a crummy action without them.

The standard procedure in the bad old days was to send the gun to a gunsmith to get the action slicked
up, not really necessary anymore unless you are going to compete in PPC and want a 8 lb double action and
a slab barrel.

Bill

[dubber123]

I agree with Bill on the quality of the old guns, not all were gems. The ratio here runs about 40/1, old to new. The newer 625 MIM/lock model I have has been an excellent gun from day one, even with hard use and abuse competing with it. I have seen some true junk from mostly the 70's-80's, but got an especially bad specimen in the early 90's that was part of the special run of 5" model 27's. It was so truly horrible I traded it for a Chinese SKS, and am confident I got the better part of that deal.

[MtGun44]

A friend bought a Model 27 in late 80s. 8 3/8" deluxe model. It was really pretty. Started testing with
a box of test loads, 5 each level, starting very light and working up a bit at each of 10 steps.

Initially it was shooting about 6" left at 10 yds. Started adjusting the rear sight, by the 3rd set of
loads, still FAR below max, the primers were VERY, VERY flat and the rear sight was WAY right and
the groups at 15 yds were still 3" left. We stopped shooting and retired to look closer at the
gun.

After a few minutes examination, I suddenly gasped and said "OMG, look at the barrel!" From the
extreme rear view it was suddenly very clear that the barrel was about 2 degrees off of screwed in
straight. REALLY bad. Needless to say, it went back to the gunshop (collocated with the range) and
they allowed him to choose which 8" Python he wanted to buy as they sent the junker S&W back to
Lear-Siegler to the scrap bin.

Not all S&Ws were gems, especially in the bad old days.

Bill

[gtgeorge]

I guess I may have gotten lucky with the used 66 I got in the 80's then. It was a gem then and has the highest round count for anything I own. It is shot quite often alongside a 686 that is another gem that I have been trying to talk a friend out of for years.

I would love to see a new version if they get it right just to give this one some rest.

[km101]

With or without a lock I'm pretty rev'ed up about it. I don't know what a two-piece barrel this though.

Found this on another forum:

Below's a snippet from an article on the development of the .500mag X-frame which uses the same two-piece barrel. I am guessing that this will be the same on the '66.

From: http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/03...onster-magnum/

Quote:
At the frame’s opposite end, the Model 500 also employs a new method of barrel attachment. On all other steel-frame/steel-barrel S&W revolvers, the barrel is threaded directly into the frame with a “crush-fit” interface that is forcefully tightened into proper index and requires substantial minimum barrel diameter and frame enclosure material. By contrast, the X-Frame design uses a two-part barrel assembly consisting of in internal rifled barrel tube, and a separate enclosing barrel shroud. In assembly, the shroud is first placed over the index tabs on the front of the frame, and then the barrel tube is inserted and threaded into the frame with an enlarged ring around its muzzle bringing the shroud tightly against the frame as it torques down.
The system is superficially similar to the well-known interchangeable-barrel Dan Wesson system, but unlike a Dan Wesson barrel it is a permanent installation with a hard-fitted, nonadjustable barrel-cylinder gap. Like the Dan Wesson system, however, the result is that the actual barrel with the rifled bore is supported at both ends, not just at the rear, which enhances accuracy. And, most important of all, the barrel portion that is threaded through the frame at the critical location of the forcing cone, which must absorb all the punishing impact of the bullet as it leaps from the face of the cylinder, is a nonstressed interface. This is a real benefit to the gun’s longevity, considering the intensely high impact energy of the .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum cartridge.

[Jeff82]

Sounds like this may be S&Ws answer to the forcing cone issues on K-frames. It might also explain the premium price.

[sniper]

Very interesting...I just hope that S&W doesn't pull a trick like they did with the "upgraded" J Frame 60:( ...that barrel shroud is just plain homley! I suppose we can't do without a lock nowadays, but imo, the real "classic" 19 and 66s , as well as the 27 and 28 (?) series were about as handsome wheelguns as you could/can get. I mean, Remington's new pistol...swoopy lines?...also....other manufacturers...PINK guns? WTH!...Marketing wonks and design artistes in full yap, no doubt! Is antitactical a real word?

Dreamer that I am, Blued STEEL and Walnut, or nice Stainless...Browning Hi-Power, Colt Combat Commander, Thompson Sub-machine gun, Ruger single-actions LOOK like guns should, and still cause shortness of breath and glazed eyes, according to She Who Must Be Obeyed!

But, of course, I AM a Dinosaur! 8-)

[Jeff82]

Sniper, +1 with that!

[ShootNSteel]

Point respectfully taken Bill, and +1 sniper. Just like test driving a car, short of shooting the gun before you buy it or maybe even so, we all carefully inspect any firearm we are about to purchase right? Even then yes some things get by.

Most new L and N frames that I pick up have a non fluent motion when I cock the hammer. Just before the cylinder locks in, the hammer catches on something that stops it until further pressure is applied. X frames are the most noticeable by far but I still own one and maybe it will smooth out. I was with a friend that was purchasing a 686 last year and the one in the showcase had the worst condition of this I've ever felt. It was very difficult to advance the cylinder in single action. We had them get another one from the back and it was better. The single action trigger pull and double action I do agree are very decent, and it is too much to expect a new gun to be as smooth as one with a few thousand rounds down the pipe.

I have not done extensive research or reading about Smith and Wesson a whole lot, and have only fallen in love with them in the past few years, so I'm new to the game compared to most here. I do know what I love and that's smooth old guns that shoot straight, and maybe even a new one here and there too. What really drives me away from the new ones are the prices, mechanical issues and deleted features such as recessed chambers, and overall principle of what's not broken doesn't need fixed.
I'm tired of replacing steel with plastic, wood with rubber, and whatever else anyone can do to charge more for less.

[MtGun44]

Recessed cylinders are totally pointless, never understood why people thing they are
desirable. IMO, being able to glance in and see whether the gun is loaded or not is
FAR more useful in the real world than useless recessing.

I think that the current production S&W revolvers are the most consistently smooth
and reliable of any that they have ever built. I have a number of them from the last
15 years and they are all between very good and superb. Some older guns are between
OK and pretty miserable, frankly. I have some old guns that are really nice, including
a really nice M65 which I picked up for $150 and which has been shot a lot, smoothing
up wonderfully. A 22/32 I-frame (faux Bekeart) target pistol is a superb gem from
the 20s. A 60s era M17 is beautiful to look at, but a 2.5" gun or worse at 25 yds.

Generalities are difficult to make, but I stand by new S&Ws being the most consistently
well put together of their history.

Bill

[cwheel]

I love my old S&W 66 with a 2 1/2" barrel and round butt. When fired with full house loads, you don't have to hit something, report and flash is enough to clear almost any area. The 10" fireball 2 foot long makes it look like you are discharging a lighting machine at night. Even if you missed the target close in, you would sure light it on fire !! Mine got me out of a tight spot with a bear one night, not necessary to fire a second shot.
Chris

[MtGun44]

Nice indoors without hearing protection, too!

The 'advantages' of the .357 Mag in snubbies.

Bill

[Jeff82]

+1 with MtGun44's comments about the current production S&Ws. They didn't do very well with the wood grips on my M-36 Classic, but otherwise the weapon is superb. S&W had some pretty bad years in the past, and the Model-66 was a problem child. But I've been impressed by what I've seen lately.

[dragon813gt]

+1 with MtGun44's comments about the current production S&Ws. They didn't do very well with the wood grips on my M-36 Classic, but otherwise the weapon is superb.

That's a shame about the grips. They did great w/ my 586
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa39/dragon813gt/Firearms/159E3089-22F2-4644-B4A7-AFF7DA10E159-13533-0000095D49A2881B.jpg

It's buttery smooth as well. No matter what I set out to shoot at the range. It always ends up getting shot more than the others.

[ShootNSteel]

GLL me too Lol.

93495

[MtGun44]

As I said, only a fraction, perhaps 10% or so were problematic. But in a production of
hundreds of thousands - that means there are a LOT of messed up guns irritating customers,
even when 90% are very happy.

I have several from that era and they are fine guns. The point is that they were not ALL
just wonderful. My bet is that by now almost all have been fixed or junked, altho there will
still be those "New in Box" guns leaking out of gun safes for the next 40 years.

The best news is no parting lines!

Bill

[mcshot]

I have a 66-1 2 1/2" and a gunsmith friend has a 4"" pinned barrel that I was thinking of having him install. Haven't talked to him yet and don't even know if a pinned barrel could be installed outside of factory. Also have 27-2 6" and 624 Lew Horton with 4" factory replacement and 3" in box. The nickle 27-2 has a short barrel in box that the previous owner, a sheriff, had either changed or purchased. In short, can pinned barrels be installed and be esthetically pleasing like factory?
mc:coffeecom

[cuzinbruce]

Sorry to disagree but I prefer the older Smith's. Specifically the long action K-frames from before WWII. 1905 Hand Ejectors in the later versions. Just a trigger pull I prefer. And I have both. Up to a stainless 640 (which is not a K-frame) .357. I did decide that I don't want any guns with built in locks. I just remember going out with a couple guys on opening day for deer season and one of my friends started to look sick. Turns out the key was back at the motel and first light was just approaching. If someone wants to lock the gun up there are plenty of locks available that are not built in, or he can have a safe or whatever, and that is fine. But no built in locks for me. There are plenty of old Smiths around to keep me busy without buying into their "improvements".

[PWS]

Anybody try one of these new 66's yet? Looks like they're starting to become available but I haven't seen any reviews yet.