1066
- Thread starter martyj
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
cherrypointmarine
Member
The 1066 does not have a frame mounted decocker like the 1076 .
Chubbs103
US Veteran
I'm not savvy enough about 3rd gen guns to know if 1066 were still being made when slides were milled for the de-cock only option. I'm curious though.
There were six variants of the 10mm S&W 3rd Gens, three different control styles/systems.
The 1006 and 1066 were traditional double action with the typical slide mount decock lever.
The 1026 and 1076 had the Sig-style frame mount decock lever.
The 1046 and 1086 were DAO pistols with no manual decock lever.
The 1006, 1026 and 1046 were full size, 5-inch barreled pistols.
The 1066, 1076 and 1086 were mid-size, 4-1/4" barreled pistols.
The 1006 and 1066 were traditional double action with the typical slide mount decock lever.
The 1026 and 1076 had the Sig-style frame mount decock lever.
The 1046 and 1086 were DAO pistols with no manual decock lever.
The 1006, 1026 and 1046 were full size, 5-inch barreled pistols.
The 1066, 1076 and 1086 were mid-size, 4-1/4" barreled pistols.
This is where the confusion came from. This is on wikipedia
S&W 1026: Double Action / Single Action (DA/SA) gun with frame-mounted decocker only and 5″ barrel.
S&W 1046: Double Action Only (DAO) gun with 5″ barrel.
S&W 1066: Double Action / Single Action (DA/SA) gun with slide-mounted decocker / safety and 4.25″ barrel.
S&W 1076: Double Action / Single Action (DA/SA) gun with frame-mounted decocker only and 4.25″ barrel.
S&W 1086: Double Action Only (DAO) gun with 4.25″ barrel.
S&W 1026: Double Action / Single Action (DA/SA) gun with frame-mounted decocker only and 5″ barrel.
S&W 1046: Double Action Only (DAO) gun with 5″ barrel.
S&W 1066: Double Action / Single Action (DA/SA) gun with slide-mounted decocker / safety and 4.25″ barrel.
S&W 1076: Double Action / Single Action (DA/SA) gun with frame-mounted decocker only and 4.25″ barrel.
S&W 1086: Double Action Only (DAO) gun with 4.25″ barrel.
This looks correct to me, I don't see any confusion.
Frank Black
Member
So am I. I have a ex-4566 that was set-up like that from the factory.
I'd like to have my 1066 modded so it's "decock only." The resident 3rd Gen pistol-smith experts here probably would know.
The correct spring loaded safety body has been out of stock for a while. Midway is usually prompt in marking parts as discontinued so perhaps more will be available.
Access Denied
Imagine how much more interesting the model line (and model numbering) for the 10's would've been if S&W had put the smallest model into production they were working on, meaning a 1013. They were supposedly pleased with the R&D confirming their thought that the aluminum frame would withstand 10mm forces. Alas, from what I heard, the decision was made to discontinue the entire 10XX model line before they got around to introducing the 1013. More's the pity.
I don't recall hearing anything mentioned behind the scenes about an accompanying model with a short stainless frame (1016?), but it would've seemed to have been a natural consequence if the 10mm models had remained in production and strong demand.
I don't recall hearing anything mentioned behind the scenes about an accompanying model with a short stainless frame (1016?), but it would've seemed to have been a natural consequence if the 10mm models had remained in production and strong demand.
Last edited:
None of those folks are around anymore at S&W. Boy, I would love it if some of them (somewhere) would talk.
I have long held the opinion, or perhaps conspiracy theory that S&W had so much time, money, hope, dreams and LE contracts invested in their baby, the .40 S&W cartridge and the 4006 pistol, I believe they ended the 10mm semiautomatic pistols as they wanted nothing to overshadow the .40cal, or to make it seem or appear "under powered."
Every time I had shared this theory in years gone by, the old guard would always say "the 10mm guns did not sell, end of story, anything else is made up."
I don't believe that response. Remember that S&W continued to chamber the 10mm cartridge in the N-frame Model 610. Nobody can convince me that the 610 was a massive seller in 1993 and that the same pool of 10mm buyers did not want a 1006 or 1076 but they wanted the 610.
At exactly the same period in history, Glock was doing well selling the G20. And you can like Glock or hate 'em but Glock deserves all the credit in the world for keeping interest in the 10mm cartridge alive.
I have no plans whatsoever to forgive S&W for killing off the 10xx pistols.
I have long held the opinion, or perhaps conspiracy theory that S&W had so much time, money, hope, dreams and LE contracts invested in their baby, the .40 S&W cartridge and the 4006 pistol, I believe they ended the 10mm semiautomatic pistols as they wanted nothing to overshadow the .40cal, or to make it seem or appear "under powered."
Every time I had shared this theory in years gone by, the old guard would always say "the 10mm guns did not sell, end of story, anything else is made up."
I don't believe that response. Remember that S&W continued to chamber the 10mm cartridge in the N-frame Model 610. Nobody can convince me that the 610 was a massive seller in 1993 and that the same pool of 10mm buyers did not want a 1006 or 1076 but they wanted the 610.
At exactly the same period in history, Glock was doing well selling the G20. And you can like Glock or hate 'em but Glock deserves all the credit in the world for keeping interest in the 10mm cartridge alive.
I have no plans whatsoever to forgive S&W for killing off the 10xx pistols.
cherrypointmarine
Member
If the 1000 series guns weren't popular and/or didn't sell , where are they ? I sure wouldn't mind finding some of these that didn't sell and picking them up . Sort of like the barn finds on old muscle cars , find a warehouse with a pile of 1000 series S&W's that someone bought because nobody wanted them . Then one of us , hopefully me , could swoop in and buy them for a song .
I have never seen any 10xx model where the slide has been factory machined to accept a spring loaded decock body. Not sayin' there couldn't be any out there just that I've never seen any 'cept for those I machined myself. 
Cheers
Bill
Cheers
Bill
Frank Black
Member
Actually I heard just the opposite.
S&W engineers had been working to mod a 4516 (stainless steel frame) into a 1016, with a barrel/slide length and an 8-rd compact magazine like the non-TSW 4013, when the whole 10mm/10XX-series platform got shut down. This was circa 1991-ish, following the .40S&W's introduction in 1990. Supposedly also, there was at least one working prototype 1016 made, which would not been hard to do given an existing large-frame platform (4516).
But a compact 3rd Gen "Officers" model in 10mm would've been offered on a stainless frame, at least at first, not an aluminum one.
So in 10mm, you would've had the models 1006/1026/1046 in 5" guns; the models 1066/1076/1086 in 4.25" guns; and at least one traditional DA/SA 1016 in a 3.5" gun.
As we know, *1013* conversions can and have been done off of doner non-TSW 4013s. I have one. It shoots great - and exactly to POA with the original Novak sights.
And despite what you might read on the internet, there was never an official factory model *4016* … because those would've been the first guns converted over to 10mm, not the '13s.'
Obligatory pic below of my 10mm Trio: models 1006, 1066, and *1013.*
Attachments
Last edited:
JohnHL
Member
The subject of the compact 10mm (1016) was discussed on the Collector side of the Forum back almost exactly 14 years ago.
Both Roy Jinks and Tom Marx (Pistol Product Manager) at S&W stated that while there may have been some experimental testing done for the concept, neither had laid hands on one or heard of any plans for production.
Here is a link to that thread, but without membership in the SWCA, I don't think it can be viewed:
https://smith-wessonforum.com/swca-forum/129770-question-roy.html?129770=#post135493013
John
Both Roy Jinks and Tom Marx (Pistol Product Manager) at S&W stated that while there may have been some experimental testing done for the concept, neither had laid hands on one or heard of any plans for production.
Here is a link to that thread, but without membership in the SWCA, I don't think it can be viewed:
https://smith-wessonforum.com/swca-forum/129770-question-roy.html?129770=#post135493013
John
Frank Black
Member
Thanks for the link, but you're right - it's blocked for non-members.
Elkins45
Member
Only tangentially related, but I have a gun I call the 1071. It's a 1066 slide on a 1076 frame. I jokingly call it the safest handgun on the planet because there are all sorts of ways to make it not fire.
1016: 1013 upper & 4516 lower
In case anyone wants to jump on the idea of making their own 1016 I played with that thought in my initial workings on converting my 4013 to a 1013 & passed on it.
The 4013 & 4516, while both large frame compacts, are not identical, not surprisingly.
Naturally 4516 magazines have wider lip openings than 4013 mags but the magwells are, unfortunately, slightly different sizes in these two models. S&W fixed that oversight when they made the 3" barrelled CS40 & CS45 sub-compacts, some years later, which have magwells of the same dimensions & provides a basis for interchangeability.
The 4013 & 4516 frames have dust shields of different lengths. (The 4516 has a 3-3/4" bbl while the 4013 is 3-1/2" long)
Their ejectors are of different length.
The position at which their respective slides lock back on their frames have different relationships to each other, which is more of a problem in the .40 to 10mm conversion.
Of course none of this would have been a problem the factory couldn't have resolved in finalizing a functional M1016. It's just harder after the fact.
I documented the above findings, & conversion process to 1013, in my picture laden thread here on the forum:
Genesis: 4013 to 1013 to 1016
.
In case anyone wants to jump on the idea of making their own 1016 I played with that thought in my initial workings on converting my 4013 to a 1013 & passed on it.
The 4013 & 4516, while both large frame compacts, are not identical, not surprisingly.
Naturally 4516 magazines have wider lip openings than 4013 mags but the magwells are, unfortunately, slightly different sizes in these two models. S&W fixed that oversight when they made the 3" barrelled CS40 & CS45 sub-compacts, some years later, which have magwells of the same dimensions & provides a basis for interchangeability.
The 4013 & 4516 frames have dust shields of different lengths. (The 4516 has a 3-3/4" bbl while the 4013 is 3-1/2" long)
Their ejectors are of different length.
The position at which their respective slides lock back on their frames have different relationships to each other, which is more of a problem in the .40 to 10mm conversion.
Of course none of this would have been a problem the factory couldn't have resolved in finalizing a functional M1016. It's just harder after the fact.
I documented the above findings, & conversion process to 1013, in my picture laden thread here on the forum:
Genesis: 4013 to 1013 to 1016
.
Last edited:
Frank Black
Member
Bluedot: Excellemt brief on the details of the 4013 —> 1013 conversion.In case anyone wants to jump on the idea of making their own 1016 I played with that thought in my initial workings on converting my 4013 to a 1013 & passed on it.
The 4013 & 4516, while both large frame compacts, are not identical, not surprisingly.
Naturally 4516 magazines have wider lip openings than 4013 mags but the magwells are, unfortunately, slightly different sizes in these two models. S&W fixed that oversight when they made the 3" barrelled CS40 & CS45 sub-compacts, some years later, which have magwells of the same dimensions & provides a basis for interchangeability.
The 4013 & 4516 frames have dust shields of different lengths. (The 4516 has a 3-3/4" bbl while the 4013 is 3-1/2" long)
Their ejectors are of different length.
The position at which their respective slides lock back on their frames have different relationships to each other, which is more of a problem in the .40 to 10mm conversion.
Of course none of this would have been a problem the factory couldn't have resolved in a finalizing a functional M1016. It's just harder after the fact.
I documented the above findings, & conversion process to 1013, in my picture laden thread here on the forum:
Genesis: 4013 to 1013 to 1016.
With one exception, unless I missed it, my 'smith pretty much did what you did. The exception was, he was really concerned with stout 10mm ammo and handloads (not even 'max' loads but a regular diet of upper mid-range stuff) battering the alum frame to the point of deformation or cracking.
So he machined a recess in the back of the frame to hold a plastic buffer, the type S&W once marketed for use in its large-frame 3rd pistols only, but which with his machining work my 'smith was able to fit inside the 4013/1013 frame. The buffer, which can be replaced from time to time, helps to diminish frame-battering, felt-recoil is dampened a bit more, and the gun still runs 100%.
I've run only a very minimal amount of "Sonny Crockett Loads" through this little blaster, and that exercise was simply to satisfy my own masochistic curiosity as to how it would handle full-throttle 10mm ammo and equivalent handloads …. as well as the obligatory '****z-n-giggles' experience of what the resulting felt-recoil would be. That included Underwood's 200grn 10mm JHP @1250fps and a handload I developed - topped with Hornady 200grn FMJ-FPs over AA#9 - that clocks 1227fps from my 5" Sig P220 DA/SA Match Elite, as vetted by my buddy's chronograph.
The experience was about what you'd expect from a 3.5" 10mm Pocket Rocket. So for practical reasons (i.e., to keep it intact for EDC) I pretty much feed it only mid-range-to-upper mid-range ammo.
ETA: Attached is a pic of the buffer seated inside the machined frame.
Attachments
Last edited:
Buffers are one of the most polarizing subjects in gun forums… discussing them seems to bring out the absolute worst in some people.
I am a fan of them and I know full well what the opposition thinks of them.
I had no idea that S&W ever had or marketed anything like this for a 3rd Gen. Can you point to any source to learn more about this?
For sure… any item that is designed to be HIT and also to flex and absorb when hit needs to be tended to, but I believe that handguns need to be tended to, so I do that.
Where do you get more of these — or do you cut, shape and fit them yourself?
I am a fan of them and I know full well what the opposition thinks of them.
I had no idea that S&W ever had or marketed anything like this for a 3rd Gen. Can you point to any source to learn more about this?
For sure… any item that is designed to be HIT and also to flex and absorb when hit needs to be tended to, but I believe that handguns need to be tended to, so I do that.
Where do you get more of these — or do you cut, shape and fit them yourself?
I did not install a buffer but not a bad idea. I'm not against them in a range gun, which my 1013 is to me, but I wouldn't use one in a SD pistol.
I documented shooting (810) rounds thru the 1013 in my earlier testing. It had unknown rounds thru it before as a 40.
The current contact point, between the barrel & frame, looks pretty much like it did before I started (below).
I believe the hole in the frame, for the slide stop pin, has been a point of failure for some in the past (?), which gets the most stress from the slide's closing force on it.
That's why I ultimately backed off my recoil spring's strength a bit & upped the hammer spring strength.
The 1013's been residing in the safe mostly since the mod, because of other new toys & projects, only shooting it recently in a 10AUTO chrono test to compare velocities of different barrel length.
It'll never be a high use pistol, for me, but it'll get play time now & then.
.
.
Frank Black
Member
Hi Sevens:
Well, my rule of thumb on recoil buffers, based on a lot of experience with running them in both 5" Gov't and 4.25" Commander 1911s is this: if it's just a range toy or handload tester, it doesn't matter. But in any pistol that's in my concealed EDC rotation, it doesn't run a buffer.
The one exception is this 1013. Due to the way my gunsmith fitted it, I've had no issues and he deems it to be a necessary internal component to prevent degrading the alum frame over time.
Attached is a pic of the S&W buffer pack he gave me when I received the gun (shown with some 10XX-series white followers and black floorplates). These buffers differ in size and shape from 1911 buffers and were specially intended for use in the large-frame 3rd Gen pistols, not the compacts.
I don't know if you can still source these. Maybe on ebay?
Attachments
Frank Black
Member
Frank Black
Member
Yes, since mine's in the carry rotation, especially in the hot weather months, ... no buffer.I did not install a buffer but not a bad idea. I'm not against them in a range gun, which my 1013 is to me, but I wouldn't use one in a SD pistol.
I documented shooting (810) rounds thru the 1013 in my earlier testing. It had unknown rounds thru it before as a 40.
The current contact point, between the barrel & frame, looks pretty much like it did before I started (below).
I believe the hole in the frame, for the slide stop pin, has been a point of failure for some in the past (?), which gets the most stress from the slide's closing force on it.
That's why I ultimately backed off my recoil spring's strength a bit & upped the hammer spring strength.
The 1013's been residing in the safe mostly since the mod, because of other new toys & projects, only shooting it recently in a 10AUTO chrono test to compare velocities of different barrel length.
It'll never be a high use pistol, for me, but it'll get play time now & then.
Here's a pic of a 3" Shoot-n-See target shot (x8) from 7-yds with Underwood's 200grn FMJ ammo (box-flapped @ 1250fps from a 5" barrel, I believe). One flyer (high left @ 10 o'clock) but three shots thru one hole.
Most definitely a "Sonny Crockett Load."
Attachments
Last edited:
Frank Black
Member
At the opposite end of the 10mm's energy curve is Federal's old 10mm 'X' load from back in the day - circa 1990. This ammo featured a 190grn bonded JHP, the first bonded bullet fielded specifically for use in L.E. autoloaders. I still have about 400-rds of this ammo. So a bit heavier and a bit hotter than Federal's "FBI-Lite" 180grn ammo (@ 950fps).
In my buddy's 5" Delta Elite and my 5" 1006, we chrono-ed this ammo doing about 1040-1050fps. We both agreed it should've been loaded at least 100fps faster. But then, FBI agents aren't known to hang out in real 10mm Landia.
Attached is an 8-shot target pic from 7-yds out of the 1013.
In my buddy's 5" Delta Elite and my 5" 1006, we chrono-ed this ammo doing about 1040-1050fps. We both agreed it should've been loaded at least 100fps faster. But then, FBI agents aren't known to hang out in real 10mm Landia.
Attached is an 8-shot target pic from 7-yds out of the 1013.
Attachments
Last edited:
Yeah you'd think it would be a little faster too, if they were loaded for max velocity?
Maybe they were loaded down a little for the early Delta Elites that had unsupported chambers, so they wouldn't bulge the brass? Don't know what year Colt fixed that issue?
I don't shoot, & haven't tested much, using 180gr bullets, or heavier.
Using Power Pistol @ 8.4gr (HDY# 10 max) with a 180gr JHP I got ~1200mv/575me from my M1006.
I've found AA#7 to produce the best velocities in my 10mms & HDY# 10 max with a 180gr gets another 50fps more, without pushing it.
.
.
Last edited:
LOL, really?
I remembered this 2018 Handloader article & Brian Pearce down-loading the 10mm ammo for the Colt Elite & thought the unsupported chamber problem had been fixed. Shame on Colt!
.
.
I remembered this 2018 Handloader article & Brian Pearce down-loading the 10mm ammo for the Colt Elite & thought the unsupported chamber problem had been fixed. Shame on Colt!
.
.
Frank Black
Member
Yes. Years ago I loaded up almost 1K rounds using a now-discontinued Speer 190grn JFP bullet over AA9. It got just over 1200fps out of my 1006. (IIRC, my loads averaged right about 1208fps).
For me, the dividing line between using AA7 and AA9 is the ubiquitous 180grn bullet which can be used with both to good effect, i.e., to get *real* 10mm velocities. Bullet-weights below 180grns, I use AA7. Above 180grns, I stick with AA9.
Last edited:
