This relative newb has learned a lot from Lucky Gunner over the past 14 months. Not much in this review that hasn't been posted here already, except I hadn't heard about the short rear sight before. Sadly, both of the guns he received from Smith had QC issues. Chris Baker does outline $111 worth of suggested mods, and I did chuckle at his lock diss, "where the revolver's soul leaks out". Watch and read here: https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/review-sw-model-66/

I can't disagree with most of what Lucky Gunner says, and made every single one of the changes he recommends as I personalized my 2.75" 66-8. Altamont boot grips, HiViz FO front sight, taller rear sight, and Wilson Combat spring kit using the 13# trigger return spring. I'm really happy with the end results, but I thought the gun was quite shootable and accurate right out of the gate, and I didn't run into any quality control issues with fit and finish.

[IMG][/IMG]

Accurate indeed. I did have to send mine back in for some forcing cone issues. And I do plan on the taller rear blade and getting a FO sight from Dawson, hopefully this week. But it does shoot well. 6 shots, 15 yards at qualification shoot speed. I’m pretty happy with it.

The article didn't mention any specifics on the new front blade height or the new rear blade height. Neither did you.

Details please.

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Hopper, that's a nice looking revolver. People can say what they want about current S&W QA but in my mind they are light years ahead of the Bangor-Punta era guns.

I think Chris at Lucky Gunner makes well reasoned points in most of his articles. I enjoy reading them.

AFAIK, the front sight is a standard height. The stock rear sight blade is .106, which I replaced with a white outline .146 blade. I understand the low profile rear sight for carry purposes, so it doesn't snag, but swapping for a taller rear blade gives me a much better picture with the HiViz front sight. Hope this helps.

Thanks. I agree, the notch is too small too. I had considered changing mine but the math didn't seem to add up. (It's even worse on the new snubby M69 which has the same short rear but an even taller front sight.)

Like you said, the factory rear sight is ~.108" & my front sight is ~.235". My 66-8 snubby is about in the center of the rear sight's elevation adjustment.

If I'd go up .040" on the rear to a .146" (which has a .080" deep notch vs a .058" notch on the factory's) the front would need to be taller .040" to maintain the balance, front to rear, which would be ~.275" tall.

Most of the red fiber front sights I've bought are either .250" or .300" tall. Going to a .160" rear sight (which also has a .080" deep notch) would only be .014" more & require less rear sight elevation adjustment to match a .300" front sight.

Since you don't know what size your new front sight is I guess I'll just have to look a little closer at mine to verify which front/rear size sight combination will work best for me.

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

I'm a fan of Wolfe springs, but the review's stated 15 pound and erratic pull indicates there was more issues than just springs. When I received my 617, it had similar issues. When I popped off the side plate, I found a large burr on one of the frame machined cut out areas. A few passes with a file took care of it, but it was something that should have been caught during the assemble process.

In the past, I've been a staunch defender of S&W. Typically, we only hear from people with complaints, while those who receive problem free revolvers seldom say anything, but over the past year, the number of people reporting problems seems to have escalated, and given the writer of this article stating S&W supplied the guns for testing and he not only had to send the first one back but it's replacement also had issues, I'm afraid S&W quality control has become indefensible. That's a shame and in manufacturing is most often the result of high level management's quest for profits over quality.

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

A lot of discussion revolves around the sights.

While the adjustable sights are a nice feature,
they are hardly pertinent to the day to day uses
of a gun designed for self defense.

At least, that's the reason I bought one: Self
defense.

And the sights on my gun are perfectly fine
and I'm no spring chicken. I need reading
glasses to get a clear definition of the sights.

But using only safety glasses, the sights
are but a blur. I concentrate on the target.

Now, if the main concern is "bullseye" shooting,
well then have at with a long discussion of
what sights you need.

But I don't see it, pun intended, for a short
barreled handgun. Yes, if the gun were fixed
sighted I'd be just as happy.

Good balanced review that corresponds to my own experience.

I prefer shooting my 3" GP100 with reduced spring weight over shooting my 66-8. I do have the Wolff spring for the 66 but haven't installed it yet.

I believe Lucky Gunner to be one of the more objective reviewers on the web. His reviews offer insightful, tactful & unbiased useful information. He is not just some Yahoo shooting up a hill at soda bottles mind you & thanking the folks who provided him with free ammo. No sir. He calls it like it is & I have enjoyed the reviews and advisories

__________________
"Non sibi, sed patriae"