So here's the deal.

I'm planning on buying a brand new 357 mag with a 4ish inch barrel. I like the looks of the 66 better with the 3/4 underlug.

95% of my shooting is likely to be 38 special as I'm new to handguns. Plus, the new 66 is beefed up for magnum loads, so I'm not concerned about the durability difference. I also don't care about 6 shots vs 7, as I'd probably get a 6 shot either way.

The real concern to me is about feel. I've handled a 686, but can't find a 66 to hold to compare.

My question is, will the weight difference make a noticeable impact on recoil? Is my reference to the looks of the 66 a non factor if it's going to break my wrist and I end up not shooting it anyway? How much of a difference do those couple of ounces make?

I forgot to mention- this will be a home/range/critter gun that will occasionally ride in a chest holster, not looking for CCW.

I've got both in 4" models.(6 shots) Both shoot/recoil the same.(with same loads,same grips) Both feel/balance the same. However,I prefer the 686 because...um..it would make a little better club when empty..I guess.. (I like the full underlug look on that length bbl.)

While the difference in weight and balance from the larger frame and full underlug of the L-Frame will reduce recoil and muzzle rise to a degree, for someone who is rarely, if ever going to shoot legitimate magnum ammo outta it, that difference is moot. Grip size on both is the same.

Haha, good point. I'm surprised they recoil/balance the same. If more agree, I'll probably lean toward the 66.

Carried both as duty guns years ago. I liked the 586 (same basic gun as the 686). I did notice a slightly more muzzle heavy balance with it, and I like that for fast double action work.

Either gun will work well for you. If you don't need the durability of the L frame, and weight is a concern, go with the K frame. If weight is not a big factor, the L frame. Its increased weight does help tone down magnum loads.

Best bet is to handle each, and get a feel for the difference in balance and weight.

Larry

Oh that I could!

Has anyone seen a 66 on the shelf in the Philly metro area?

Bought this 66-2 4" bbl. recently from the shop that handles my FFL transfers.It was a trade in from a local sheriff..and other than being "well worn" externally,(it almost looks like nickel finish) it's tight and has an excellent trigger. $500 and I didn't need it till I saw it..

Attached Images

CIMG5405.jpg (131.5 KB, 1480 views)

I have a 686 and a 66 both in 2 1/2", To me with the 4" barrels it would really be a toss up. For the use you described,It would be a toss up. I say,Falcons win go 66, Patriots go 686

Some time back I was looking for a 357 four inch that I was going to carry a lot. I looked for an older 66 but all I found were out of my price range or had been kitchen table gunsmithed. I ended up with a 686SSR, It had more of the weight and balance feel of the older 66's. Some dislike the slab barrel. I don't as it eliminated some weight. I do not dislike either the 586 or the regular 686 as I have several.

I have a 4" 686-1 that is just great. I carried it as my duty weapon for nearly 7 years. I also have a 2.5" 66-2 I carried as a Private Investigator and Security Supervisor. Both handle magnum loads very well. The 66 lets you know you fired something powerful. Will a 4" 66 break your wrists? Not unless your wrists are pencil thin. It may take a bit to get used to the 357 Magnum out of the 66 but in the 686 it is no problem at all. The added weight of the 686 does help dampen the recoil nicely. The 4" 686 is very well balanced for an all around handgun. If you are carrying it in a shoulder holster it may eventually tell in your neck muscles where the straps go but since you won't be carrying it all the time it should not be to difficult. Since you say you will be firing .38 Special most of the time either one will do nicely. You are almost at the point of flipping a coin they are so good. You should be very pleased with either one.

So 66 it is! (Fingers crossed)

If it's really that much of a toss up, I suppose aesthetics win out.

For what you are using it for, the K frame will work just fine. I don't much think you'll have to club too many critters & if you need more than 6 to put a BG away, get fast with reloading. Lol
I have a 66 & it's one of the older models that you hear so much ado about heavy .357 loads & forcing cone problems. Truth is, the forcing cone will outlive me & I shoot Gold Dot 158gr jhp with no problems. I actually heard that the lighter loads do more damage. Either one, you'll be happy with I'm sure. Get some Hogue stocks like these & your grip will be more comfortable.


Sent from my SM-T377P using Tapatalk

Actually the L frame was brought out to solve problems with the K frame shooting light bullets at full 357 magnum velocities.

I have both the 66-8 and the 69. The 66 is slightly slimmer in frame but the grips are the same as an L frame. The two triggers are quite different. While the 69 is smooth and easy, the 66 feels like it has a stronger spring strength. Both are unchanged from the factory. I have no problem shooting .357 magnums from it and I believe the heavy barrel helps with recoil. Great gun. The 69 on the other hand, because of .44 magnum cartridges is a bear. But then, that's what I bought it for.

Attached Images

	66-8.jpg (90.0 KB, 473 views)
	66-82.jpg (117.6 KB, 467 views)

When faced with this decision, I.......buy........both.....!

They did for me, too. I spend more time looking at my 66-1 than shooting it, and I never get tired of that great combination of 4" barrel, K frame, and target grips that is so pleasing to the eye.

__________________
Ukraine -- now more than ever

I wouldn't think twice about buying the 686 vs. 66, but that's me. Preference being the L frame was made a bit beefier to allow a steady diet of magnum loads. Also remember reading the K frame bore axis sits a little lower too, which means more recoil to the web of the palm. Then there's the option of getting a 686+1 too. That's an option I suspect is physically improbable with a K frame. I have a 5" talo, and recently picked up a 3". 5" is a good all around compromise. 3" w/ hogue bantam grips is just enamoring for CCW option.

I have both Model 66 and a 686+ with 2 1/2" barrels.

As you can see the differences in the frames is minimal.



Weight wise, my Model 686 weighs 36.9 oz while my model 66 weighs 34.2 oz. The 2.7 oz weight difference is not significant when shooting them with full power .357 Magnum loads.

Used to have a 66;sold it and I must admit that it's the gun I keep regretting selling the most...and I sold a few dozens.
I still got my 586(no dash,no M)and nope!won't sell it.
Since you're going to shoot 95% .38SPL,I'd go with the 66.To me,it balances so well(the 586 is more nose heavy)and in the looks dept,to my eye,this is one of the sexiest looking gun you can find.Just my 2 cents worth!
Qc

The 686 is a Python (.41cal) size gun. My failing memory is that the L frame came about to answer the demand for those wanting to do a Smolt/Smyton Colt-Smith hybrid. Not to correct any failing of the K frame. As Bill Jordan said, one will get brittle elbow before he gets brittle forcing cone issues, shooting full .357 mag loads. (even 125gr)

If you want to shoot critters as well as targets, I think 6" vs 4" would be more valid as more velocity and power on target is more important than how the thing sits on a night stand.

And by the way , I have never owned an L frame but have a M-66-2 in 6" BBL

__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle

That dreaded "felt recoil" is such a subjective thing, it's hard to answer that part of your question. I must be numb to it because recoil very rarely bothers me on these medium sized revolvers. On the other hand, some of my friends seem very sensitive to the (at least THEIR) perceived differences.

The 66 vs. 686 comparison is a lot like the Ruger Security Six vs. GP100 thing. For me, the K-Frame sized guns are the best fit and recoil isn't an issue. I find the GP100 and my 686 a tad nose-heavy and seem to take them to the range less. And, the full lugs aren't as appealing looks-wise either.

There. That's clear as mud, I'm sure.

I have both, and plan on keeping them both. As everyone else pointed out, with your original goal of 95% 38 spl, and 5% 357 mag., you will never wear out the 66. The 686 is just enough stouter in build that it can digest a continuous diet of magnums. Most of us don't shoot all magnums.

I think the 66 would be fine for your intended purpose.

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

The recoil difference between a 686 and a 66 is not noteworthy when shooting .38 special loads but .357 Magnum is another story.
Basically the heavier and longer the barrel the more it dampens the Magnum recoil.

That being said the L frame is a stronger design but has a larger cylinder diameter making it wider in the holster, If you want light weight and durability the 7 shot 686 Mountain gun is actually lighter than the 6 shot Model 66.

Pictured below top to bottom are Model 629-2 Mountain gun (44 Magnum), Model 686-5+ Mountain gun and Model 19-4.

I have had my 686-NoDash for over 30yr, and just love it to death. BUT, a couple of years ago I purchased a 627PC 2.62" and just couldn't believe my eyes/hands about how well it felt and shot (once tuned).

Geez, loaded it weighs just 0.4oz more than my 4in. 686, however, it has 8 (eight) .357 rounds vs the 6 (six) rounds in my beloved 686. And to beat that it also has a ~1-1/2in. shorter barrel! AND they both fit into my X-15 shoulder holster without modification.

Never thought my trusty 686 4in. could be bested... but now?... Hmm...

If you're going to carry it I suggest the 66
O ly reason being the narrower diameter cylinder will offer a lower profile when holstered

__________________
the rules? there are no rules

The N frame has a much larger cylinder diameter than the K frame cylinder,
The result is the N frame spins up slower as it has to rotate further to lock up giving it a very nice feel.

1935 S&W N frame.357 Magnum (Reg Mag) introduced with long action .
1950 New short action hammer
1954 N frame Highway Patrolman (Pre Model 28) introduced as a cheaper alternative to the Pre Model 27.
1955 K frame Combat Magnum introduced (majority began to ship in 1956).
1980 L frame Distinguished Combat Magnum Model 686/586 introduced
1996 J Magnum Model 60-9 introduced

You clearly like the 66 better. That's simply the right answer for you. Done.

If you need more reason, I have a hard time believing anyone would notice much difference in recoil between a 66 and a 686 regardless of which round they're shooting.

Heck, after the gun goes bangi don't notice the difference between a 4" and a 6" 686.

I think you're right. I was pretty set on a 686 because I believe it to be a great all-around wildcard of a gun. I slept on it and I think I'm really just looking to see if someone would talk me out of the 66. Seeing that everyone views them as such similar guns kinda makes me lean towards the one I find prettier.

That is undeniably true.

But it's also not much of a difference.

My Model 66 has a cylinder diameter of 1.45" and my seven shot Model 686+ has a cylinder diameter of 1.56".

That's a .11" difference, just slightly more than 3/32". Both of them fit the same holsters.

As per comment #9 above, the Patriots won, buy the 686.

I don't look at it as the Patriots winning. More like the Falcons lost.

Anyway, I'm swaying with the wind on this one. Thankfully (?) I'm still waiting for my pistol permit to buy one. I like the idea of the ball detent (yay!) but am not a big fan of the black cylinder release (boo!) and I don't know where to stand on the two piece barrels. I imagine the triggers are case-by-case.

So here's the deal.

1) "I'm planning on buying a brand new 357 mag with a 4ish inch barrel." (??? 4ish).
2) "I like the looks of the 66 better with the 3/4 underlug." (Okay it is not for everyone)
3) "95% of my shooting is likely to be 38 special as I'm new to handguns." (Don't limit your self.)
4) "I also don't care about 6 shots vs 7, as I'd probably get a 6 shot either way." (You say that now)
5) "Is my reference to the looks of the 66 a non factor if it's going to break my wrist and I end up not shooting it anyway?" (It wont break your wrist)
6) "I forgot to mention- this will be a home/range/critter gun that will occasionally ride in a chest holster, not looking for CCW. " (for now)

Look, don't box yourself in to one thing and want more later. The S&W 66 is a fine gun, so is the S&W 686 with 6 or 7 shots, with full the underlug.
Both will out shoot your skills, both look cool, neither will break your wrist, and if you want to carry concealed the '4ish' inch barrel is very good.
Stainless or blue, 4 door or two, with a tie or not, man that is up to you.

This is cool too... but that is just me.

mod 65 3 or 4 inch with 38 spl +P ammo.

If we were talking about early models, I'd say 686 all the way (and an early 4" 686 has been one of my grail guns, for decades).
But, given that we seem to be talking about newer production models, and given the OP's criteria, I'd go with the cheaper, somehwat more nimble 66.
I actually had one of these new 66's for a little while. Though I traded it to a buddy (in a 2-for-1 deal I couldn't resist), the new model 66 was a very nice,solid pistol.

Great pic! Having both, is probably the only real solution - to the OP's dilemma...

BTW, are those "out of production" Uncle Mike's grips? They just look right. Covered backstrap - for big hand ergonomics, w/ out being unduly bulky.

__________________
Regards - GCF

The 686 is actually cheaper, by a little. Not enough to sway me one way or another.

They are the Uncle Mikes Grips, and I'm keeping them with the revolvers - but I prefer the Pachmayr Compact grips. They are just a little shorter and more concealable, still cover the back strap, and they fit my hand a little better. I have them on my 686, my Speed Six, and my 66.

I like the Pachmayr Compacs too. Got a set on my M65-3. For grins though, wouldn't mind checking out a set of the Uncle Mike's.

To the OP: Another thought, w/ regards to your dilemma. W/ the right grips, neither 66, or 686 will be overly tough to shoot w/ magnum loads. .38's will be a total non-issue.

I've got two 686's (2.5 & 4.0"), & a 3" M65-3 (shown attached). They are all very nice, & offer their own strong selling points.

Of the three, the 4" 686 qualifies as the best "all day" range gun, & the best choice for a steady diet of magnum loads. If I could ONLY keep one though, it would be the M65. Reason being, as a current city dweller, the 3" K frame is the most practical - it qualifies as both a range gun, & if desired, an everyday, easily concealed carry piece.

If I spent a lot of time on a ranch, or a wilderness type setting, my choice MIGHT be different...

Attached Images

65-3.02.jpg (246.4 KB, 223 views)

__________________
Regards - GCF

[QUOTE=but am not a big fan of the black cylinder release (boo!) and I don't know where to stand on the two piece barrels. I imagine the triggers are case-by-case.[/QUOTE]

Try locating a a SS, early '70s model 66. They have SS sites, cylinder release & hammer. Not sure if the trigger is stainless or brushed steel but not the black. I don't like the black on the re-released 66's. Some say they're safe queens but if you're not a collector, just shoot it!

Wayne

Sent from my SM-T377P using Tapatalk

Thanks, I'd really rather buy new though. This will be my first hand gun, so I don't trust my own inspection ability. Plus, the warranty is appealing.

To further make my head explode, I'm now diving into the glass bead / satin stainless debate. This is the problem with giving me too many options.

Unless the discount is large, and it's usually not, I buy new, too. The savings just isn't big enough to justify the risk.

There is no debate on the finish. It's whichever you like best is all.

So the Great American Outdoor Show is going on this week. Am I really going to drive 2 hours each way and pay a $14 entry fee just to get my mitts on both of these revolvers side by side?

Looks that way.

I take the opposite position.

The discount on a used S&W revolver in excellent condition isn't great compared to a new one, mostly because the old ones are in greater demand.

I prefer the old Model 66-4 compared to the current Model 66 in part due to the non MIM parts, the color case hardened hammer and trigger, arguably better fit, the shiny stainless versus the satin stainless finish, and the pre-lock configuration. IMHO the 66-4 was the last of the good Model 66 revolvers.

Similarly I prefer my older 686-5. As a 686-5 is has an MIM hammer and trigger, but they are still nicer looking than the current parts, and the 686-5 is still a pre-lock S&W.

Good choice! Four inch model 66s are iconic... even though either model would serve you well. If you're going to be shooting mostly 38 spl, don't forget to clean the cylinder well after each session and preferably shoot up your magnum loads first before the 38s. The shorter overall length of 38 caliber bullets will cause the front end of the cylinder to get really dirty and make it much more difficult to extract the longer magnum bullets. If you get an older model 66 with the flat spot on the forcing cone, just stick with 158 grain loads or heavier when shooting 357 magnum (bullet weight isn't an issue with 38 special), keep the forcing cone clean, check your timing periodically, and don't worry about cracking the forcing cone.

I would say definitely hold both to see how each balances and feels in your hand. I haven't held either of these guns and I would be curious if either feels more muzzle heavy than the other. To me a gun that feels well balanced is much more pleasant to shoot. They both might feel the same or negligible difference. In some guns a mere 2 ounces can feel a lot different also.

Yeah, I'm trying to see if I can make it to the GAOS.

Hopefully the have a 686, 66, and maybe a 686 SSR to get my mitts on.

I've had both, bought NIB. I kept the 66-8 and sold the 686. The difference for me was not so much the recoil. I felt recoil and muzzle flip were close to the same, (possibly a little less with the 686.) For me, it was all about two things which enable me to shoot better.

1) How the gun fit my hand. The 66 fit me perfect and distance to the trigger when gripping to get a comfortable double action pull was ideal for my hands. The 686 always felt about a 1/2 size too large.

2) Action. My 66-8 has a super smooth relatively light pull for a DA revolver. Single action likewise is very smooth and breaks cleanly at 4.25 lbs. The 686 DA pull felt heavier and not quite as smooth as the 66. Not bad at all but just not as sweet, to me.

[IMG][/IMG]

__________________
M60 442 642 637 686 686+ 629

Well, I tracked down a shop within an hour from me with both guns in stock, and my permits just came in today.

It's looking like tomorrow will bring a big decision!

You'll be thrilled with either. Of course if you really want to loose sleep, there is the 686 SSR Pro which is somewhat like a hybrid of the two with a factory action job. I find the quick change front sight to be a great feature as well.

__________________
Dave