I have never seen a Smith lock up this tight. Ever.
Hammer cocked, zero cylinder movement anywhere, neither fore & aft nor rotational.
Like the old V-Spring Colts used to do when the trigger was pulled fully to the rear.

Just FYI.
Denis

I am no gunsmith, but I always was under the impression that the cylinder should have some play when locked up since the gun is not line bored, and frames, barrels and cylinders are mass produced with some degree of imperfection. The play of the cylinder would allow for this.

A gun like a Freedom Arms locks up like a bank vault, no play, and this is possible because the line boring ensures barrel and cylinder are in perfect alignment at lockup.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Agreed with the OP... the new design with the ball detent not only cosmetically looks better than on my 4.25" 66 (you wouldn't know it's there until you swing the cylinder out), but yeah, it locks up TIGHT, that cylinder isn't going anywhere once it's in place.

Just picked mine up last evening, and I'm absolutely LOVING it. Fit, finish, and attention to detail makes this the nicest Smith I've picked up in the last few years. Barrel alignment is in perfect harmony with the top strap. Not a single mark on it to be found. I'm really impressed, can't wait to get this to the range for a workout!

[IMG][/IMG]

I think that with lesser guns, the forcing cone is responsible for compensating for less than perfection in the barrel to chamber alignment.
Unfortunately, my new 66 snub has only the merest hint of a forcing cone. The new revolver shoots my hand loads well, but I was experiencing some kind of blowback when I fired my factory loaded Speer 135 gr GDSB MGN rounds that I was planning on using for EDC. I don't know if it was brass, lead or powder, but something was hitting my left cheek consistently with these cartridges. The gun is nice and tight, and the BC gap is what I consider an ideal .004 inch. BB non plus pee FBI load worked well. I have to shoot these clandestinely, since the range doesn't allow exposed lead bullets. The gas check does a good job of reducing smoke. When I shot the BB 150 gr hard cast WC's another time, the smoke gave me away and I got a warning. The lead police caught me on their TV system!
I plan to return to the range with some more loads on Thursday. With my Ahrends finger grove boot grips, the revolver feels just right for a "large" carry gun. My "small" EDC is a M640Pro, with the J frame version of the Ahrends boot grips.

Best,
Rick

With CNC manufacturing tolerances are much closer than even when guns were hand finished. Both my newer N frames lock up very tight. Though they are not Colt Python tight.

Congratulations! I'm jealous! There is a new 66 in my future though!

All of my really old ones lock up tight and shoot great. I'm glad you like you new one.

There's tight & there's tight.

I've never seen any Smith lock up with absolutely NO movement whatever.

This one's just a loaner, it'll be used in a shootout comp between an older 66 & the new one.
Denis

I just got mine and noticed the cylinder release is really tight. Does yours have that issue too ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The cylinder release on mine is typical of other S&W revolvers that i have used.

Best,
Rick

This one's slightly tighter.
Denis

This is the 2nd recent post re the new snub 66 indicating blowback directly to the rear, striking the face of the shooter. This should not happen with any load. I would send it back to S&W for correction. Also interesting is the lack of a forcing cone reported by one poster. Also back to S&W.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Have not fired it yet, but in looking things over carefully I think I see what's going on.

It APPEARS that what S&W's done is change things around to address the older guns' tendency to crack barrels at the forcing cone.

Moved the front end lockup back to allow a much tighter lockup, eliminated the relief cut at the bottom of the older cones, and largely eliminated the cone itself.

Goal appears to be a thicker/stronger cone wall all the way around.
The rifling in this sample extends all the way to the rear end of the barrel, and that necessitates the very tight cylinder lockup to make sure a bullet enters the barrel as close to fully centered already as possible.

In theory, maybe a workable idea, but I can easily understand some shaving & blowback resulting.
Forcing cones are there for a reason, and even the tightly-locked Pythons had one.

It'll be interesting to see what this sample does when I can get it to the range.
Not trying to talk anybody out of one, just noting what I found after seeing the issue mentioned here.
Denis

Can you guys post pictures of the locking system?

thanks

I can't, but it's sorta an improved version of the old Triple-Lock idea, moving the front rear-facing plunger from the ejector shroud & its engagement with the end of the ejector rod, back to a position in the frame where it faces forward & engages with a corresponding cutout in the crane.

Quite different from the simple ball-detent you've seen at the top of the crane in the past, and much stronger.
Denis

My new model 66 2.75 inch barrel appears to have a forcing cone.

Attached Images

DSC_0065.jpg (32.8 KB, 2104 views)

See post #7 in this thread:

Issue with New 66-8 2.75"...Spitting Lead

They eliminated the need to mill a flat on the bottom of the barrel by cutting away some of the gas ring on the cylinder.
The barrel is much thicker then my M640 barrel, which is also rated for full magnum. Tight lockup only works to reduce the dependency on the forcing cone if the barrel to chamber alignment is near perfect, which I don't believe mine is. I don't have a range rod, so I used a length of 5/16 inch steel rod to try and "feel" the alignment at different orientations in the barrel, and found a slight mis-alignment from "top" to "bottom" of the chamber. I have no way of knowing if this small amount is within tolerance. I don't think they needed to resort to slighting the forcing cone, given the impressive thickness of the barrel. Another poster said that he had a revolver smith "redo" the barrel throat to eliminate shaving lead with some ammo. Sounds like he was referring to recutting the forcing cone.

Best,
Rick

Attached Images

DSC_0066.jpg (65.4 KB, 2092 views)

A truly useful forcing cone has no signs of any rifling whatever in it.
If any rifling in it at all, it's a VERY shallow & short cone.
Denis

I was the user who's throat was out of spec on my 66 2.75"". This was checked by gunsmith Frank Glenn with a go/no go gauge. S&w did not ream the throat on my gun correctly at the factory. Mr. Glenn used a throat reamer to put the throat into spec, took all of 2 minutes. Now there is no more lead blowback or copper shaving deposits on my top strap. There should not be rifling all the way to the rear, there is supposed to be a proper throat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the tool that was used to measure the barrel throat

BROWNELLS BARREL CHAMFERING PLUG GAUGES | Brownells


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was my observation as well. Locked up very tight.

I experienced the same thing. Left my face bloody. I posted about it a couple weeks ago. This was only with one particular brand of .357. Everything else ran through just fine.

Here is my forcing cone. It's thick but not much of a "cone." Rather, it's very sharp.

I'm curious, does anyone know if this new ball detent system is now being used on the 4.25" 66-8's or just the 2.75"?

Another observation about my 66: it does not like being dirty. After 200-300 rounds of mostly S&B magnums the fowling deposits on the crane and cylinder assembly gummed up the cylinder pretty bad to where it created extra force required when pulling the trigger. Fixed it right up with a clean and a lube. Happened twice so far. Not a knock against the gun, just sharing my experience. My other smiths run much dirtier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good observation. My 4.25" NM 66 doesn't like to run dirty for very long either, with the same sort of "binding" feeling you described. This begs a question... is there a gas ring on the cylinder with the 2.75" model? The 4.25" doesn't have a gas ring that I know of (my 686 does have one, and can run dirty almost all day long), but I swear I read someone else's post on here about the 2.75" models possibly having one. I searched for a schematic of the new 2.75", and haven't found one yet.

On my 2.75 there is not a gas ring on the cylinder it is on the yoke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As it is in my 686 as well. I had it backwards before when I said it was on the cylinder of my 686. Thank you!

So far I love mine. Best fit and finish for a newer Smith in a long time. Timing is perfect, excellent trigger, smooth and light. Very good machining and side plate fit. Forcing come is no different than my 640 or 28. Nothing like the big wide mouths of my older 66s 10s pre 10 etc. Handled 110 grain magnum comfortably. Would like a narrower front site and bigger read blade. Cylinder lockup is no tighter or looser than other newer guns. Fits fobus paddle perfectly and my holster for concealed carry for my other snub 66s. Accurray is good. Not P&R good but can keep them in the 10 ring. It will be my new drag anywhere and not worry about it gun.

Attached Images

	20170504_181842.jpg (67.1 KB, 165 views)
	20170504_181619.jpg (117.1 KB, 160 views)
	20170504_181703.jpg (119.7 KB, 197 views)

Glad to hear about your results, let is knowif and when you run some 158 magnums through it, curious to see if you get perfect function. I agree with you on the sights, accuracy and drag anywhere status of it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The gas ring is on the yoke, and it has been cut away to clear the barrel, instead of the other way around.
I went to the range yesterday and fired 158gr plated HP over 6.0gr HP-38 in MGN cases. No problems, but the gun does seem to get dirtier in the vicinity of the yoke. I also fired some 140gr XTP over 12.0gr A#9, also in MGN cases, and no problems. I had 3 of the 135gr GDSB MGN that I got blowback from last time. This time, no problems. I even held a piece go computer paper behind the revolver and nothing.

Best,
Rick

These were a few double action 5 yard 3 shot groups with various 125 grain +Ps.

Attached Images

20170505_204857.jpg (103.8 KB, 139 views)

My 66 snubs.
Top. 66 no dash P&R with Altamont round to square grips, custom green insert.
Middle. 66-4 Lady Smith. Wife's (used to be mine, she claimed it at first range session, lol)
Bottom. 66-8.
I would like to find the correct grips for the no dash which is my most accurate revolver with the possible exception of my 4 inch 1964 Model 10.
Bottom picture is 18 rounds of UMC 125 grain +Ps double action at 5 yards. Interestingly this is the most accurate round out of all of my snubs and currently $32 for the 100 round bonus pack at Wally World. Go figure.

Attached Images

	20170506_075438.jpg (129.6 KB, 187 views)
	20161213_175909.jpg (42.7 KB, 94 views)

Nice pieces and nice shooting!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, I have a few semis, but I can shoot various snubs better and faster inside of 10 yards than anything else. I out shot everyone in a group of over 20 at CCW qualification with a 640-1 including recent Iraq vets with Berettas and various other "better" self defense guns even the instructor who was kuwait Afghanistan Iraq vet was a suprisingly weak shooter. It is fun to show up at a local shoot with a $300 pre model 10 snub or 1905 4th change with half moon sights and keep up with the 45 guys wearing their tactical gear and 4K customs. I like to do the old slow drawl talk with them. "Whooeee, dem dar sum fancy shootin` iruns, makin` a man dizzy whit so mut stuff dancin` round and such, I ain't quick naff ta thinking ma way tru all dat" lol

Sent from my SM-T520 using Tapatalk

Love the story. I too was the only one to show up in a class of about 30 with a revolver for qualifications. After putting the required 21 hits inside the 10 circle with my 4" model 64 the instructor just gave me a thumbs up and handed me my certificate .
I consider myself just an average shot but it was kind of an eye opener when I saw how hard it was for some to just hit the silhouette on that B27 target, which is all that is required to qualify.

I also just consider myself average at best. The guys and gals on video and TV make me feel like a blind putz. I guess it is all relative. Nice shooting and revolver representing. I think I just coined a new catch phrase " revolver representin`" lol

Sent from my SM-T520 using Tapatalk

I was wondering if someone on this thread can help me out. My calipers are at my office so i cant pull the height measurement on the factory front sight of my 66-8 2.75". Am considering buying some replacement sights. Can someone tell me the height of the factory sight please? Thanks in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hauled up my minty 66-4 snub that'll be used in the shootout with the new 66-8.
The older cone's still comparatively shallow, but the rifling ends roughly 1/8-inch ahead of the back end of the barrel.

On the new one, rifling visible all the way to the end.

Obvious gas ring differences.
New one locks up much tighter.

Old one has a white outline rear sight & a brighter front insert.
New one has a black rear & a darker front insert.
Older one's sights are much better.

The full-length rod on the newer gun is a nice feature, its barrel is a quarter-inch longer.

Glossy black trigger & hammer on the new one look a little "odd", for me.
DA pull on the older is lighter to my un-calibrated finger, both are beyond my 8-pound scale.

Hope to do the side-by-side shootout in a couple weeks.
Denis

[QUOTE=southpaw187;139581065]I was wondering if someone on this thread can help me out. My calipers are at my office so i cant pull the height measurement on the factory front sight of my 66-8 2.75". Am considering buying some replacement sights. Can someone tell me the height of the factory sight please? Thanks in advance. /QUOTE]

Mine has a height of .230 inch above barrel. I want to replace it with one minus the red insert.

Best,
Rick

[quote=riverrat38;139581177]

Thank you Rick. Let me know what you go with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Glossy black trigger & hammer on the new one look a little "odd", for me.
DA pull on the older is lighter to my un-calibrated finger, both are beyond my 8-pound scale."

I am wondering if they are related. The black finish, whatever it is, might have more friction. Maybe it will get worn off. The pull on my M640Pro seems lighter to my un-calibrated finger. The 640 has been fired quite a bit, both live and dry.

Best,
Rick

Between the two years of manufacture, S&W moved the mainspring seat to create a stiffer pull in compensating for the shorter firing pins.

I'd attribute the difference more to that than the glossy finish on trigger & hammer.

As you've probably deduced, when they change a design aspect in one area, it's a domino effect that results in performance changes elsewhere, leading to other design changes to make up for those.
Denis

I got lucky, one of the lightest pulls of any of my none worked triggers.

Sent from my SM-T520 using Tapatalk

Frame & cylinder are also longer on the new 66.
Denis

What a difference the new stocks make!

Attached Images

DSC_0074.jpg (160.9 KB, 1744 views)

Really nice and I'm digging the grips!

__________________
SWCA#2208
KK4EMO

Does anyone know why S&W went with a 2.75 inch barrel rather than a 3 inch barrel?

It certainly made sense to give the gun a barrel long enough to take a full length ejection rod, but why not go all the way with what many believe is the perfect barrel length?

Not that I am complaining. I will buy the first one I can get my hands on!

I gots to have one of these...

__________________
Jack C