As modern S&W guns go, it was better than average.
Compared to guns overall, not that impressive.

1) Action was horrible. Tight and clunky. Even the dealer called it a "lawyer's action"

2) Rounded grip with rubber as opposed to wooden target square

3) The gun all in all was really more of a S&W Colt Trooper MK III. Slightly larger frame from the original M19/66 with an exposed capped ejector rod with cap hidden inside underlug shroud. No pin holding ejector rod tip. That pin is apparently attached to the crane now.

4) I'm not allowed to mention the fourth problem here according to forum rules. But it resides right above the cylinder opening switch. Plus it's common on all modern S&W guns so it's not unique to the new M-66.

Whoever owns S&W now....just does not get it. (I was even told their "classic" lines are more expensive, which is why the store doesn't carry them, and the bluing isn't very strong on them anymore)

It's odd. The "new" M66s and M69s actions/triggers are not consistent. Some are terrible while others are just fine. The two 66s that I have fired were polar opposites. I guess the moral of the story is, check 'em before you buy 'em.

One benefit of that frame mounted firing pin is that it can be replaced with a longer one, allowing an additional tuning element. In about 15 minutes one of the newer S&W's can be tuned to have a trigger as good or better than any of the older versions.

Then there is that 2 piece Tensioned Barrel. If you mount a handgun scope to that model 66 I would fully expect to find it's a sub 2 MOA handgun. Because after 6 weeks of practice I was able to get my model 620 down to 1 3/4 MOA with a 2 power scope. I fully expect that a better shooter with a bit more powerful handgun scope might get one of these revolvers down to 1 MOA with the correct hand load.

That Round Butt grip frame allows a wider selection of grip choices. Because you can not only mount a Boot grip you can also select one of a very wide variety of Round to Square conversion grips. If you want wood you'll find that Hogue offers a wide selection of woods and styles.

Concerning that detented crane lock, blame the Triple Lock for that. Folks have been having gunsmiths add a forward detent to the Yokes on S&W's for many years now and S&W has decided they must be right. Personally, I have a Dan Wesson with a Yoke lock but in the case of the Dan Wesson it's a latching lock. On the S&W I'm not really impressed with that detent and suspect that it time it will prove to be a detriment for Action Pistol competition. So, this feature I don't count as an improvement, the old system seemed to work just fine for a very long time.

As for that unmentionable device, it's never caused a problem with my 610, 620, or 625. On a heavier steel revolver it's a non issue in my opinion and can be a slight benefit for some owners.

Finally in regards to Bluing. The process of Bluing Steel produces an oxide layer that is only microns thick. It always has and always will. Because you can only convert a steel surface to bluing to a thickness that is permitted to the Physics involved. So, calling the current finish "thin" while accurate is descriptive of this process going back to when it was orignally implemented. If you want a thicker protective surface your options are Plating or Paint.

You missed the whole idea...it's stronger than the original; effectively removing the weak point of the k magnums.

The frame isn't any larger, the contour of the frame surrounding the hammer is just different.

I like the Classics line myself. Modern guns in classic styles you can shoot without worry. Why not? They are better finished than anything else available currently, but with current restrictions on the bluing process itself it's as good as it'll get.

The triggers do vary. Some are better than others. It's pretty rare to find a tight one. That's the exception rather than the norm.

I was really tempted to get the new 66 but have decided on a 67 instead. I just don't need another magnum and prefer the traditional construction. The gun has some merit. With the stupid prices of k magnums these days and the engineering improvements it's a viable alternative. Though traditionalists will certainly scoff at it, the new gun is technically superior. As is often the case, on the interwebs folks always manage to find a lemon.

My LGS got a new 66 in yesterday. Although I didn't cycle the action, the gun seemed pretty nice to me. It was finished well and seemed to balance pretty well. I found it to be kind of unique with the barrel sleeve and crane lock. It might be a good choice for anyone looking for a modern .357. However, since I have several older model Smiths, I am not likely to be a buyer.

I've been impressed with the ones I've handled.

The grip would be changed out right away when I buy one.


IMHO the ball detent does not give the same solid lock at the front as the old style.

First thing I did was push on the cylinder and the whole thing flexes out of position. In normal use I'm sure it's fine, but I would not call that feature an improvement.

__________________
Co-Owner NoDak Spud LLC

It's called quality control. It doesn't exist any more with most of the products we see on the market. It reminds me of razors. You can buy a box of them and shave forever with each one. The next box you buy will contain razors that won't even last two shaves. With razors I guess we can all afford a bad box from time to time. With guns, I sure can't afford to buy a bad one. That's why I only buy pre-1990. We had a good quality control back then. Quality control guarantees consistency of product.

__________________
Dr. B

The mid 70's to mid 90's were known to have seen some dark times for S&W, intermittently.

The only difference is that the bad ones have been culled out or repaired.

If it's unsatisfactory #1 don't buy it and if you skipped #1, then #2 is to get it fixed.

The crane ball lock offers maximum holding force under recoil, and the concept has been proven in practice for some time.

To be clear, the 66-8 ball lock allows for a forcing cone without the flat, a known failure point in guns with long term lightweight bullet magnum use.

I have one and the more I shoot it the more I like it. My factory trigger was rough and heavy. A good clean up and springs fixed that now the trigger is very nice . I like the old blued, pinned barreled Smiths better but I bought this one to shoot and shoot often I don't worry about hurting it. As for the grips they get the job done.

Attached Images

image.jpg (95.5 KB, 64 views)

I've got the NM 66, and love it. As someone else posted, 15 minutes and a $20 Wilson Combat spring swap of the mainspring and trigger return spring makes a HUGE difference. I recently found a second NM 66 without a mark on it, and traded my Match Champion for it. I tried, but I couldn't get the Ruger trigger to make me smile the way the NM 66 does. Though I don't disagree... out of the gate, the 66 trigger wasn't very good.

[IMG][/IMG]

Right on, Rick.

All the features people carp about, crane lockup, two-piece barrel, frame-mounted pin, MIM parts I regard as improvements. Yes the forged parts look prettier, but that's the only advantage.

The action is easy enough to smooth up. Except for the tricker reassembly, I prefer working on the MIM parts. Since the firing pin is no longer on the hammer, you can bob and skeletonize the snot out of it (up to a point) for a snappier hammer fall. You can also cock a bobbed hammer since there's no firing pin.

Now I'm going to have to go get a 66-8. And my gun budget is spent for the year.

Wish they'd make em in 3" & 5".

Ditto on the 3". I'll go so far as to say I'd order one immediately if that happened!

__________________
S&W Rover

I think if the OP doesn't like the new M66 he shouldn't buy one.

__________________
~ S&W aficionado in training ~

Having bought several NIB S&W revolvers (M60, 686+, & 360PD) I can say all had what I considered terrible triggers when operated in DA. In SA they had great feel with consistent 2.75-3.0 lb pulls. To make the DA pulls acceptably smooth (for me) I did the following:

With the gun unloaded I literally poured lots of Hoppes #9 through the action through any opening in the frame I could find. Let it sit for a few minutes then dry fired it about 100 times. Blew it out completely with compressed air and repeated. Then lightly lubed as normal with Weapon Shield. The result was a much improved double action pull. The pull was not noticeably lighter, (even though it felt that way) but it was much, much smoother and that is what I care about most in DA trigger pull. No complaints at all after a few hundred rounds through each.

__________________
M60 442 642 637 686 686+ 629

"Then there is that 2 piece Tensioned Barrel."

What exactly is this? Judging by the photos I don't see how it can be 2 pieces? Are all the new revolvers going to this? I have a Performance Center 625 .45ACP two new Model 22s(.45 ACP 1917 reissues), and a 29 (.44) in nickel and while they have the lock they don't appear to have a two piece barrel.

I will say that the trigger on the 29 (as well as the nickel finish) is superb! I was really surprised. The 22s are about on par with an original
M1917 that I have. But the production 29 rivals the Performance Center 625 as far triggers go.

Mine have been bone dry and gritty from the factory as well. A cleaning and lube has them feeling quite good. One should clean and properly lube any new gun, anyway.

This is what the barrel looks like:

Here's picture

Attached Images

image.jpg (48.2 KB, 61 views)

Oh he won't. Trust me. I just happen to be a close friend of him. 😉

Anyway, just thought I'd give the new combat magnum a look. Like I said wasn't all that impressed. If it was all that I had to choose from between modern SW, ruger, Taurus etc. it take it. But when there is much better pre1990s craftsmanship out there, as Uncle Si would say: Nnnaaah