Smith Brings back the Model 66!!!

[jtcarm]

Final note to the lock/MIM haters:

Bear in mind that S&W is a public company. Shareholder and consumer interests are seldom perfectly aligned, and, even though it sucks, shareholders usually come first.

Even though they may hate it, if revolvers aren't making money, they will quit making them. Think it can't happen? Where are the Colts?

If medium-large frame revolvers stay viable, we may see the lock disappear some day. I expect MIM parts are here to stay and frankly, welcome aboard. Without them, Smith revolvers would be on the Colt trajectory, were they still in production at all.

 

[TucsonMTB]

Final note to the lock/MIM haters:
. . .
I expect MIM parts are here to stay and frankly, welcome aboard. Without them, Smith revolvers would be on the Colt trajectory, were they still in production at all.

As I understand it, intricate jet engine components are also one of the areas where high quality MIM parts have helped meet manufacturing cost challenges, with a decades long history of success. To me, that suggests the process is more than sufficient for revolver parts. Kudos to S&W for embracing this proven technology.

I will refrain from pointing out one place where it would please me to see them increase profits by eliminating some unnecessary parts, machining, and assembly costs.

 

[SuperMan]

Well jt...I have to disagree with you. Since S&W has started again making selected models without the IL there is apparently no real "legal" liability reason for them. Never has been.

And if they will sell X number of guns with the locks how many are they NOT selling because of them. If you look at the post that I started that became a sticky "Can't get past the Hole" there are a lot of people out there who just won't buy a Smith with an IL. So even though there are lots of people who are buying them not one of them would pass on a Smith just because it DOESN'T have one... So no matter how you look at it Smith IS loosing customers they don't have to.

Speaking of liability, it is proven fact that there is an apparent design defect that will allow the IL to self-activate under recoil. Has been reported on these boards many times... So that means S&W must be aware of it yet has done nothing to correct it. So, some citizen gets into a shooting and the second round doesn't go off and it is shown that the IL self-activated...how much is that one going to be worth....

As to comparing them to Colt...Colt is always behind the curve. Being from Conn. I have had several good friends who worked there and the stories they tell aren't real pretty...

Bob

 

[Hillbilly77]

Looks like some guys missed this informative post:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...h-brings-back-model-66-a-3.html#post137642085

 

[ladder13]

Looks like some guys missed this informative post:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...h-brings-back-model-66-a-3.html#post137642085

Sure got quiet around here.

 

[WaMike]

In checking with my LGS, I was told by the proprietor that S&W has suspended revolver production in order to concentrate/fulfill the demand for "black" guns.

Any truth to this? I know almost every manufacturer of almost every product will have periodic production runs of various models. Hopefully, there are enough new revolvers on the market.....although my preliminary queries are kind of discouraging.

 

[ladder13]

Possibly, since they can't come close to filling orders for guns like the Shield.

 

[Thursday]

In checking with my LGS, I was told by the proprietor that S&W has suspended revolver production in order to concentrate/fulfill the demand for "black" guns.

Any truth to this? I know almost every manufacturer of almost every product will have periodic production runs of various models. Hopefully, there are enough new revolvers on the market.....although my preliminary queries are kind of discouraging.

If true then it could be a considerable amount of time before we see any of these new revolvers from S&W. Perhaps I do have time to get the 500 first and then start saving for the 66 and 69?

 

[jtcarm]

Well jt...I have to disagree with you. Since S&W has started again making selected models without the IL there is apparently no real "legal" liability reason for them. Never has been.

Please re-read my post. Does it mention liability? No. I have in the past , but since backed off of that opinion, though I still completely agree with Massad Ayoob on the liability of disabling/removing the lock from an SD revolver.

The point is that shareholders, stock prices, and a board of directors generally have more say in a public company that what customers want, even when their decisions fly in the face of logic. Could be the officers are fighting to kill the lock, but the BOD doesn't agree. Maybe they're afraid of negative publicity. I can see the NY Times headline: "Gun Manufacturer puts Profits Ahead of Safety!"

In addition, I'm guessing they're more focused on products other than revolvers, and pursuing military/LE contracts.

I think the lock will eventually go away, but MIM parts aren't, and I see no functional difference.

As to the post about revolver production being suspended: in my experience, dealers can be the worst offenders at spreading unsubstantiated rumors. That's not to say the dealer it came from is unreliable.

 

[Herknav]

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

Given the temps lately, I'd have gone with "Hell must've frozen over."

 

[ddixie884]

I for one am very glad to see a K-frame magnum from S&W. If that 4.2 inch barrel helps it sell some Xtra units in Canada it might top 1,000 units. That would probably get us some more models. All S&W revolver sales are good for S&W fanciers.

 

[kbm6893]

Lock or no lock, I can't deal with black parts on a stainless gun

 

[AveragEd]

Oh, they don't bother me. In fact, I prefer color-casehardened to flash-chromed on any gun. They just look "higher-grade" to me.

I have about a dozen stainless steel S&W revolvers with forged hammers and triggers and without actually counting, I guess close to half came with color-casehardened parts. If you go back to my photo of three Model 66s in my first post to this thread, you'll see that two out of the three have them.

Ed

 

[WaMike]

Oh, they don't bother me. In fact, I prefer color-casehardened to flash-chromed on any gun. They just look "higher-grade" to me.

I agree....but not only triggers and hammers. I have a 21-4, which came in blue, nickel and case-hardened frames. Now, I know the original 21s never came in case-hardened, but, my goodness, it looks good. At least to me!

 

[kbm6893]

How much of a success was the Model 10 and 36 "Classic"? Don't think they sold very well. Why spend $700 on a "Classic" 10 when you can get a used one in excellent shape for less?

 

[RonS]

If they make a 3" version I might have to consider it, I already have a new 4" .357 so I really don't need another.

As for the lock I will predict that S&W will produce revolvers without locks. And they will produce revolvers with exposed hammers. But I predict that they will never produce a revolver with an exposed hammer AND no lock unless it is for sale to an agency outside the US. Just a hunch.

 

[QuanticoTactical]

No truth. Zero.

I have been to their factory and they are different lines.

Obviously, they can (long term) reconfigure/reprogram, and they may have done that to some degree, but we are still receiving revolvers from S&W on a weekly basis.

We will begin taking pre-orders for the new S&W revolvers on the LE/Military program later this week.

In checking with my LGS, I was told by the proprietor that S&W has suspended revolver production in order to concentrate/fulfill the demand for "black" guns.

Any truth to this? I know almost every manufacturer of almost every product will have periodic production runs of various models. Hopefully, there are enough new revolvers on the market.....although my preliminary queries are kind of discouraging.

 

[markyboy57]

Lock schmok! Mim schmim! What's all the hullabaloo about? We all know the sky already fell when S&W stopped pinning the barrels and recessing the cylinders!

In all seriousness, I have guns with locks, I have guns without locks. I have guns with mim parts, I have guns without. They all work and shoot just fine.

The 66 is my favorite model, the more they make the better! I have never seen a bad 66.

 

[Kilibreaux]

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.

Look like they DIDN'T build 'em ALL better "back in the day!"

 

[kamloops67]

I wonder if it will actually be a true 4.25" or if like before you will get odd lengths. In S&W world a 2" = 1 7/8" on the snub J frame. I measured the 6" barrel on my 629-6 and it's only 5 3/4".

fwiw...my 629 is exacty 4 1/4"