Smith Brings back the Model 66!!!

[bronco45]

My first Smith&Wesson was a Model 19 4" in 1970, a Bangor Punta abortion. Tried to carry it as a duty weapon but 5 rounds of W-W 357s and the gun would bind as one side of the cylinder was .005 wider than the other. Forcing cone was undersized and the hot lead and powder particles and lock up was soon to occur.

Gun was screwed up like Hogan's goat. Took a professional gunsmith and a lot of machine work to get it tuned and operating reliably, also a years time. That year included a trip to the Mothership who advised that I was shooting too hot of ammo in it. That was their fix.

When I started looking for alternative Smiths to carry, it was basically a sellers market. You could buy 6" Model 10s all day from Smith but the idea of a Model 66 wasn't reality then.

I've been shooting Smiths predominately for 48 years, it's nice to see them bring back the 66 such a nice carrying weapon in a very adequate caliber. Thanks S&W for jumping back into K frames, magnum style.

 

[DFrame]

Good news for the folks who like their guns in the white. NOW if they brought back the Model 19 they'd have my attention.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Does this mean I will have to start screwing the ejector rod back in every 3-4 cylinders that I shoot it or it will lock up

My first Model 19, a Bangor Punta model purchased in 1980, did that all the time. The threads were reversed, I think, from the cylinder spin, and recoil caused them to "unwind" and jam up. At least I THINK that's why. But, regardless, Loctite cured that! The gun was great otherwise, until I blew it up with unknown ammunition (discussed elsewhere on this Forum).

***GRJ***

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Good news for the folks who like their guns in the white. NOW if they brought back the Model 19 they'd have my attention.

I prefer blue myself but even with the MIM parts and IL I'd own one and be happy with it. Those locks do not bother me - I'm old fashioned but not THAT old fashioned and hung up on the issue. I don't actually need one of these but it would fit into my collection and a K-frame .357 is nice to have. So we'll see.

And it does have the lock, as the picture shows it very clearly.

***GRJ***

 

[ISCS Yoda]

It IS on the S&W website:

Search Results - Smith & Wesson

MSRP is $849.00

***GRJ***

 

[steamloco76]

Folks, if you truly don't like new guns-don't buy them! Yes it would be grand indeed to see a forged frame, forged internals recessed cylinder, pinned barrel, squared butt M 66 with hammer mounted firing pin coming out of Springfield or Houlton.
Would ANYBODY be able to afford the cost of a production gun requiring that much hands on work?? Look at the cost of the current production Colt New Frontier $2000 and up.

Hopefully S&W will make enough of the newly introduced revolvers to actually get some in dealer display cases. Then the "I gotta have the newest" crowd will then trade-in their classic 'OLD' guns on the new ones! My LGS took in a pair of 686's on an R-8 and a shield a couple weeks back, proof some people just don't want an older gun.

 

[wildenout]

So...it's a 686 without the full underlug then? I don't see the fuss

 

[ladder13]

My first Smith&Wesson was a Model 19 4" in 1970, a Bangor Punta abortion. Tried to carry it as a duty weapon but 5 rounds of W-W 357s and the gun would bind as one side of the cylinder was .005 wider than the other. Forcing cone was undersized and the hot lead and powder particles and lock up was soon to occur.

Gun was screwed up like Hogan's goat. Took a professional gunsmith and a lot of machine work to get it tuned and operating reliably, also a years time. That year included a trip to the Mothership who advised that I was shooting too hot of ammo in it. That was their fix.

When I started looking for alternative Smiths to carry, it was basically a sellers market. You could buy 6" Model 10s all day from Smith but the idea of a Model 66 wasn't reality then.

I've been shooting Smiths predominately for 48 years, it's nice to see them bring back the 66 such a nice carrying weapon in a very adequate caliber. Thanks S&W for jumping back into K frames, magnum style.

That can't possibly be, I heard on the internet that every pre lock gun was perfect.

 

[Rick_A]

It IS on the S&W website:

Search Results - Smith & Wesson

MSRP is $849.00

***GRJ***

The website has it listed under N frames

 

[shawn mccarver]

Here is a link from the inter-www-net-web-thingy :

Return of the Smith & Wesson Model 66 Combat Magnum

And after the factory stated they would never make a K frame .357 again - anyone with the flying pig graphic to post?

In the words of Tobias Fornell, "Well tie me up and call me Loretta."

I have been on a rant lately about the ridiculous announcements out of the Performance Center for 2014. I still think those new PC guns are "just not right," but at least someone at S&W is thinking that us old timers might still be interested.

I am willing to remove the lock, if necessary, and I am willing to give them a break about the tiny percentage of canted barrels (most don't show pictures and when they do, I can not ever really make out that it is clearly canted), and so I will give S&W the benefit of the doubt.

I will remind everyone that the most coveted revolvers in the 60s and 70s for defense work were the ONI Model 19s with 4 inch barrels and round butts that were given over to the FBI. The only way that gun could have been better was if it had been in stainless steel. This, quite frankly, for this cranky old *** is the best news I have heard all day. A newly available 4 inch round butt Model 66 Combat Magnum.

Good show and congrats to S&W for getting it right, if not yet in the execution, at least in the idea/thought to bring back this desirable revolver. Those grips, however, will have to go.

As to the pigs flying thing, I think S&W has considered that the majority will be shot mostly with 38 Special or the newer, kinder gentler .357 factory loads, and I think the two-piece barrel takes away some of the issues with the 6 o'clock position on the barrel shank which was a problem "back in the day" with the one-piece barrel. The two-piece barrel will also eliminate any canted barrel issues. The pictures look like a two-piece barrel, but this is speculation.

It looks like that the sideplate screws and the thumb piece are to be in contrasting blue. It gives it a nice look without being too gaudy. Good show!

Brilliant!



PS - did anyone notice the Model 69, the new L frame 5 shot 44 Magnum, 4 inch stainless, round butt?

EDIT: After reading Lee's post 117 in this thread, I went back and looked. The video, at about 0:29, does show the lengthwise flat on the top of the barrel and on the sloped forward part of the frame between the front of the rear sight assembly and the frame-end of the barrel. It does not appear to be serrated when I do a "pause" at that point in the video, but it does appear that something has been done to make it non-reflective. Whether that is an optical illusion, bad video or what, I cannot say. For what it is worth, I cannot discern the lengthwise serrations in the rear sight leaf either, but that may also be just poor stop video quality. Lee also pointed out that the new 2014 4.25 inch Model 66 may have a one-piece barrel. I don't know what will end up in final production, but here are comparison pictures of a Model 67 two-piece barrel with a similar picture of the 2014 Model 66. Please note also the lack of the cross pin and its corresponding hole for the front locking bolt, indicating that those parts are missing on at least the 2014 Model 66 appearing in the video. That would seem to point to a ball detent lock-up, assuming the revolver in the video accurately depicts the final product.

 

[AveragEd]

I think it's wrong to assign the model number of 66 to a gun that differs in so many ways from the original. I would like it better if they gave it its own number - 68 or maybe 666?

THESE will always be Model 66s in the eyes of anyone old enough to remember them.

And not just for the forged parts, no lock and reshaped frame reasons. Target triggers, target hammers, trigger stops, square butts on the longer ones and attractive stocks on all of them are features no longer offered that anyone with an admiration for firearm beauty can appreciate.

Ed

 

[shawn mccarver]

I think it's wrong to assign the model number of 66 to a gun that differs in so many ways from the original. I would like it better if they gave it its own number - 68 or maybe 666?

Model 68 already used. Model 666, really?

 

[jtcarm]

Folks, if you truly don't like new guns-don't buy them!

bingo!

And guess what? Keep boycotting, and they'll just not make any.

I don't keep up with latest & greatest, but I haven't seen any new "classics " in a while. On the other hand, S&W seems to keep pumping out guns for USPSA, ICORE and IDPA.

IMO, the difference is competitive shooters don't turn up their noses because the guns aren't forged/P&R and actually BUY them knowing they perform as well or better.

Personally, I hate recessed chambers and functionally, I see no difference between forged and MIM parts.
Yes, the MIM parts are butt-ugly. So is my colon, but so long as it's out of sight and functions properly, I don't care (the MIM parts are far more reliable than the other thing)

 

[lhump1961]

Looked at the SW website. 66 was there yesterday, not today. Hmmm.

Didn't realize that gun weighs 36 oz. Makes me think about my 25 oz. Glock 29, more firepower in a small package that is still accurate and reasonably comfortable to shoot. Technology advances, like it or not.

Why would a revolver make you think about a Glock? One isn't meant to be the other...don't overlap in any way except "BANG"!

 

[RonS]

Not sure, but I think the weight is too little for it to be an L frame, even with a half underlug. My guess is that some guy with ME behind his name figured out how to put 125 grain HPs through a K frame without cracking it. If so I hope he gets a nice bonus for his trouble.

Do have to wonder if this barrel would fit an old school 19 or 66 in need of a transplant. Bet there are a few of those in sock drawers across the country.

 

[03Fatboy]

Based on the current 686's and 629's I see in my dealers case, I hope S&W at least gets the barrel crown on these correctly machined and cleanly cut without burrs. I doubt I'm interested.

 

[WaMike]

OK, I hate to sound ignorant, but why would anyone want a new Mdl 66? Isn't the 686 also a medium frame and designed to be stronger?

Or, as Wildenout says, is it a 6-shot 686 with a shorter underlug? Can someone explain?

 

[Macinaw]

OK, I hate to sound ignorant, but why would anyone want a new Mdl 66? Isn't the 686 also a medium frame and designed to be stronger?

Or, as Wildenout says, is it a 6-shot 686 with a shorter underlug? Can someone explain?

686 L frame (larger than 66 K frame.)

 

[steamloco76]

OK, I hate to sound ignorant, but why would anyone want a new Mdl 66? Isn't the 686 also a medium frame and designed to be stronger?

Or, as Wildenout says, is it a 6-shot 686 with a shorter underlug? Can someone explain?

Let's use this analogy: The K Frame is the 1500 series truck, capable of hauling 3/4's of a ton, but not all day every day. Suits many as we don't use the heavy loads often. The L frame is the 2500 series. Built to handle that 3/4 ton all day every day, and just a bit heavier. The 3500 series would be the N and X frame guns-big, heavy and can handle any sane load.

 

[357-RevolverGuy]

OK, I hate to sound ignorant, but why would anyone want a new Mdl 66? Isn't the 686 also a medium frame and designed to be stronger?

Or, as Wildenout says, is it a 6-shot 686 with a shorter underlug? Can someone explain?

They are two different frames. The 686 is actually a larger frame (L frame). The 66 is a K frame. It's lighter, has a more level point of aim, and with proper care can handle any steady diet of magnum rounds (though probably 90% of people who own either will practice with .38 Spl. Some will even carry with .38+P). The problems in the past with forcing cone issues I'm sure would be fixed by now with these new model 66's. As mentioned, they've got J frame's in .357 mag these days and those guns have very thin forcing cones.

Since S&W has dropped from production most of their best known K frames (10, 15, 19, 66, 67), there are a lot of shooters today who don't know the joy of how one handles. The original K frame 357's from pre 1980s had a lot of details that never made it to the L frame (686) like pinned barrels, recessed cylinders, ribbed triggers, ribbed backstraps, half lug barrels, checkered magna grips, butter actions ... all reasons why a lot of shooters prefer finding them and paying less for what a new Smith without these features cost.

I like the 686, own one myself. But I think it represents a different era in S&W revolvers when cost cutting measures started to take place. By today's standards the L frame is considered one of the best. But compared to an old 19/66 and the K frame is in a league of it's own.