Jeromejr
Member
I have a 686 2" 7 shot. A little big for carry. I prefer my 19 2".
60, 66, or 686
- Thread starter Mongo1958
- Start date
OP
Mongo1958
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 200
I usually carry a G27 and a S&W M&P Shield 2.0 9MM.
I want to add a 357 revolver into the rotation.
Recently, I spent some time investigating the new 66 and I'm still not sold on the end of the extractor not locking into place under the barrel. In addition, the barrel is 2 piece. This is pushing me to the 686 unless I can find a pre lock 66 or that I can be convinced of the reliability of the new 66.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,785
- Reaction score
- 7,203
OK, instead of the itty bitty groove and tab and the location pins, the later versions use a substantial flat on the extractor shaft. In addition, the ends of 4 of the 6 legs of the extractor have opposing bevels that mate with bevels on the cylinder to lock the extractor to the cylinder.
jtcarm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,422
- Reaction score
- 4,317
OP
Mongo1958
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 200
I'm not sure yet. My S&W 9MM Shield pretty much covers inside the waistband so I may get a good quality leather holster for OWB use.
OP
Mongo1958
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 200
"That would mean a healthy diet of magnums, which leads to the forcing cone issues with the K frame 357s (13, 19, 65, & 66). Therefore, I opted for the 686+, viewing it as a bigger version of my 36-6."
I'm beginning to think this way as well. Still, I would like a pre lock 66 if I can find one.
I'm beginning to think this way as well. Still, I would like a pre lock 66 if I can find one.
I have and carry all three. Of the 3 you mention, I find the 66 a good compromise for size and capacity. The 7 shot 686 plus helps justify the difference in its weight and size; however, it's hard to beat a 5 shot J Frame for ease of carry. For me it comes down to what I am wearing, mood and where I am going to be hanging out.
Attachments
Last edited:
Invictus357
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 567
- Reaction score
- 515
I recently acquired (actually re-acquired) a Taurus 905 after it was returned to the factory when it would not close with a Taurus moon clip in it. The Taurus moon clips are not very springy, and are thicker, mild steel. QA inspection with Taurus revolver is spotty and buying one is a bit of a coin toss. In this revolver, I lost the toss as the cylinder would not fit back in the frame with a loaded moon clip. I returned it to the shop for a full refund the same day I bought it and it went back to the factory. It returned to the shop 3-4 months later, shortly before I left for what amounted to an 8 month TDY to MN, and it was still in the shop about 3 months after I got back. By that time I was contemplating having my 3" SP101 cut for 9mm and moon clips, but I never got real excited about the idea. Then it disappeared
from the shop in early December, before showing up under the Christmas tree.
Part of the appeal when I bought it was that this one was new old stock that had been in the shop a couple years and still had the now discontinued lifetime warranty. I figured since it was a dealer return to the factory it probably received an actual QA inspection before being sent back to the dealer.
I found it shot fine and gave an average velocity of 1103 fps with 115 gr XTPs. This is 101 fps less than the 1204 fps average I get in a full size 4.6" CZ SP-01 Tactical semi-auto, but it's on par with the velocity you'll get with a 3.5" semi-auto like the M&P 9c. The 115 gr XTP will also still expand reliably at 1100 fps but the low end of the performance envelope is down around 1075 fps so there isn't much margin.
I did find the Taurus moon clips to be very finicky and easily bent. I had to design and turn a moon clip holder for the clips when carried in a pocket to ensure they did not get bent.
Ultimately I went with much better quality moon clips from TK Custom. These are much thinner but made from much springier stainless steel. They don't get bent in pocket carry and they hold the cartridges very well, but loose enough that they drop into the chamber easily. They are also thin enough that they would have worked in the 905 before it went back to the factory.
The Taurus 905 is J Magnum frame sized and weighs 25 oz loaded, again 5 oz lighter than a 3" SP 101.
One thing to consider with a 9mm revolver is that they don't tend to like brass fired in a semi-auto. The slight bulge in the case that forms over the feed ramp is not completely removed in the sizing process and cases with a history in a semi auto don't feed well. I load into new brass for my 905, and then keep the 905 cases separate for reloads to be used in the 905. The good news is that with moon clips it's easy to keep the brass separate on the range.
*IF* Ruger made a 3" SP 101, I'd be all over it, and I'm still slightly tempted to get my 3" SP 101 in .357 Magnum cut for 9mm and moon clips since ballistically a 9mm revolver can benefit from another inch of barrel length.
But the 905 works great for a light, J-Magnum frame sized easy to conceal revolver and in 9mm Luger gives much better performance than .38 Special and slightly better performance than .38 + loads. However, it's almost 200 fps slower than the 1300 fps I get with 125 gr XTPs in a 3" .357 Magnum revolver.
I've posted on it in depth before, but there's more to it than just the bullet weight. It's the 125 gr bullets that get the bad press for forcing cone cracks, while 110 grain bullets are never implicated, and heavier bullets are also not associated with forcing cone cracks.
The big internet myth, a carryover from the older gun rag myth, is that the short 125 gr bullet allows gas to by pass it in the cylinder and pre-heat the forcing cone before the bullet gets there. Thermodynamically speaking that theory doesn't wash as there is not enough plasma or time involved to heat the forcing cone significantly before the bullet gets there. And if that were true, 110 grain and 90 grain loads would have that problem in spades.
The critical difference is the powder used and the amount of powder used in 90 and 110 grain loads, versus 125 gr loads and 158 gr loads.
The light 90 and 110 grain loads do not use slow burning colloidal ball powders, instead they use medium burning powders. Those powder charges are lighter by weight and are generally not large grain abrasive colloidal ball powders.
Slow burning colloidal ball powders are the norm for 125 grain and 158 grain loads, the difference is that the lighter 125 gr load will use 21-22 grains of powder, compared to 15-16 grains for a 158 grain load. That equates to about 40% more plasma and partially burned powder flowing through the forcing cone with each shot.
That extra 40% greater powder charge is also additional heat working on the forcing cone behind the bullet, and it's 40% more mass and 40% more abrasive partially burnt powder flowing over the forcing cone. Over a large number of rounds, it makes a big difference. Even without the loads running hotter and accelerating the forcing cone erosion, it's still 40% more powder and plasma mass flowing over the forcing cone with 40% more erosion per shot. It's harder to calculate how much acceleration the extra heat adds, but the 125 gr loads using slow burning colloidal ball powders probably produce twice the erosion per shot as a 158 gr load using the same powder.
Given the very high round counts usually needed to get enough erosion to initiate a forcing cone crack in a K frame .357 Magnum with 125 grain (which still occurs in an exceedingly small percentage of K frame .357s), you'd need twice the round count to get the same effect with 158 gr bullets. By that time the revolver will have almost inevitably been fired with at least some 125 gr rounds and a if a crack occurs they'll get the blame. When it's really the colloidal ball powder doing the damage.
The 125 gr bullets however took the rap as they came along about the same time that colloidal ball powders started to be popular in the .357 Magnum (and of course they use more of it). And, that occured at the same time police departments started getting sued for under training officers and switched from practicing with .38 Special and reserving .357 Magnum for duty use, to using .357 Magnum for practice as well.
So you now had 125 gr bullets powered by large charges of colloidal ball powders being used all of the time in Model 19s that were designed to primarily shoot .38 Special with occasional firing of .357 Magnum loads - which when designed used medium burn rate flake powders.
Take a look at this video. Concerns the new 19 Classic, but that has the same design features as the new 66.
YouTube
OP
Mongo1958
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 200
Shocker, it's a bit ironic that I just ordered the 66 from grabagun and then found your video. All of my concerns have been answered. I kept swinging back and forth from a 686 to a Ruger and then back to the 66. Even though it's after the fact, it only enforced what I've learned. I know the 66 will be a fun and a reliable weapon to ad to my arsenal of freedom. I shall up load some picks soon.
Last edited:
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
kinda makes ya want to throw away all those ore lock, pre mim, P&R, one piece barrel, hammer mounted firing pin revolvers don't it???
It's not a firing pin, it's a hammer nose. You would know that if you watched the video.kinda makes ya want to throw away all those ore lock, pre mim, P&R, one piece barrel, hammer mounted firing pin revolvers don't it???
OP
Mongo1958
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 200
I saw that video as well. I ordered the 66 on Monday from GAG.
OP
Mongo1958
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 200
ha ha ha...noIt's not a firing pin, it's a hammer nose. You would know that if you watched the video.
