New Model 66 Combat Magnum

[Markmontana]

One of the Local shops got in a new Model 66 Combat Magnum with the 2.75 inch barrel and rubber grips. It looked good and felt good. Lockup was tight and trigger was OK. Has the lock. Price was $869 plus tax.

Anybody have this pistol? I’m looking for some opinions and/or feedback.

 

[HughD1]

I have the four inch version. Never had any issues with it. Shoots better than I do. Trigger will get better the more you use it. I have a half dozen Smiths with the lock. It has not been an issue with any of them. My older 66 looks better to me but the new one would be my choice if I wanted to shoot magnums. Good luck on your decision!

Good luck!
Hugh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Paul105]

I have one (also have 3" 19-8 carry comp). Both are favorites. On my Labradar, Buffalo Bore 180gr Outdoorsman chrono 1,312 fps. Federal 130gr Hydra Shok personal defense 1,416 fps. Both at the muzzle from the 2.75" 66 - 60 deg F.

66 on far right.
.

.
Pic of Carry Comp with modified Hogue Tamers (round butt and finger groves remove with Barranti hoster.
.

.
FWIW,

Paul

 

[Piwo]

My brother bought that same model, same barrel length, a few years ago to save wear on vintage guns and as a woods gun. I must say, the gun was tight as a tick, b/c gap was good, forcing cone/barrel shank was fine. It shoots lead as well as jacketed without abnormal fouling as the bore appears very smooth. It shoots my handload of 13 grs. 2400/158 LSWC as well as I can hold. Doesn't have the panache of the older guns but I was thinking of getting one myself. My only complaint is that I wish the hammer and trigger were chromed or CCH rather than black. If you get a good specimen, you will be pleased, IMHO.

 

[smoothshooter]

Anybody know why S&W did no go ahead and make the barrel an even 3”?
That’s the length that has somewhat of a cult following.

 

[Hair Trigger]

Anybody know why S&W did no go ahead and make the barrel an even 3”?
That’s the length that has somewhat of a cult following.

You could also ask, "why didn't they shorten it to 2-1/2", like the older ones?" I wonder if it has anything to do with the two-piece barrel.

I'll stick with my quite-a-while-before-the-lock dash-1.

 

[EODCM1984]

I picked a 2.75 inch 66 back in January so far it’s been great. To date I’ve got 2,917 rds through it, mostly MBC 38 SWCs. No issues… I highly recommend one.

 

[HughD1]

I think they made it as short as they could and still have a full length ejector rod. I have been wrong before though.

Hugh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[.38SuperMan]

My 66-2 2.5” is one I’ll never part with. Even though inherited it from my dad I would sting never part with it. It fits my hand perfectly and the balance is just right. Also my dad had a trigger job done and it’s as slick as glass. IMO the 66 is pretty close to perfect.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

M66-8 snubbie

Anybody know why S&W did no go ahead and make the barrel an even 3”?

Because a 2-3/4" barrel is prettier & the number looks neat when you write it like this.

.

I like!
.


.

 

[Dave Lively]

I think they made it as short as they could and still have a full length ejector rod. I have been wrong before though.

Since the new 66s use a ball detent for lockup instead of a catch at the end of the ejector they can fit a full length ejector into a 2.75 inch barrel instead of a 3 inch. Of course I have been known to be wrong in rare cases too.

Another benefit of the ball detent is no more used revolvers with bent ejectors. This happens when the ejector backs out and prevents the cylinder from opening. Easy to fix by tightening the rod until the cylinder can be opened but some people will beat the cylinder open instead. It never occurred to me that someone would do that until I saw it happen on the MAC YouTube channel.

Old revolvers get all the love on this forum but in many ways newer is better. I have both a S&W 69 and a new 686 and and very happy with both of them.

 

[stansdds]

I think they made it as short as they could and still have a full length ejector rod. I have been wrong before though.

Hugh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also think this is the reason for the 2 3/4 inch barrel on the current production 19/66.

 

[Pointblank2U]

I have a 66-8, 2.75". When I first got it the lockup was so tight I almost couldn't open it sometimes. I sent it back to Smith, it's fine now.

 

[sandog]

I have the 4 inch 66-8 (and a M69).
Both have smoothed up nicely, and I lightened them somewhat with a lighter rebound spring and a slightly lighter hammer spring.

One thing that should be pointed out. The new ball and detent system has several advantages, stronger lock up, no longer reliant on the end of the ejector rod having to pivot on it's end to secure the front of the cylinder, and not having to mill the bottom of the barrel flat so the cylinder can close.
But one negative is the lack of a gas ring. I definitely can see faster build up of carbon around the ejector rod, and this will have to get cleaned more often than a style that still uses a gas ring.

The 66-8 got VZ grips and a Dawson Tritium white dot front sight.
The new 66, my 686, 69 and 63 all have the rear sight bottomed out, and could use a taller front sight.
So when I ordered the Dawson I got one slightly taller than the factory red ramp. The vertical post is much easier for me and my 65 year old (today!) eyes to deal with.
I'm gonna order that sight for the 69 as well.

I have a load that I worked up for my 16" Rossi .357 levergun, an MBC 180 grain coated WFN over a full charge of A#9 in Starline brass.
The Rossi's slow twist would not stabilize the 180 with anything less than a max load.
I happened to try the 180 load in the 66-8 over a pistol rest at 25 yards.
Walked up to the target and the 6 shots were clustered together in a group the size of a 50 cent piece. Best load I've shot thru it yet.
The 66 won't keep up with the 686 for groups, but it isn't half bad, and is a lot easier to pack around all day in the mountains and desert.
The DeSantis thumb break holster makes carrying it or the 69 a breeze.

 

[soonerbb]

Love mine, don't think you'll regret the purchase...

 

[wx7b]

The 4 inch is one of my favorites of all my Smiths. Do it!

 

[SWFan27]

One of the Local shops got in a new Model 66 Combat Magnum with the 2.75 inch barrel and rubber grips. It looked good and felt good. Lockup was tight and trigger was OK. Has the lock. Price was $869 plus tax.

Anybody have this pistol? I’m looking for some opinions and/or feedback.

I have a 4 inch version of the S&W 66-8 and absolutely LOVE it. I would never get rid of it. One of the improvements S&W made with the 66-8 was giving it a full size forcing cone so it no longer has the thin flat spot that some said could crack when using a steady diet of hot 357 Mag loads. The new K Frame no longer has that concern.

 

[John Patrick]

I have a 2 1/2”, 3” and 4.” Great guns!

I’m first in line for a 2 3/4” if my LGS ever gets one. I want it for a hunting club gun and for occasional carry.

 

[PALADIN85020]

You could also ask, "why didn't they shorten it to 2-1/2", like the older ones?" I wonder if it has anything to do with the two-piece barrel.

I'll stick with my quite-a-while-before-the-lock dash-1.

Yeah, me too. Can't find anything at all wrong with it. No reason to go for one of the new-fangled ones with (choke) the lock and the two-piece barrel.

John


(Click for larger image)

 

[SWFan27]

You could also ask, "why didn't they shorten it to 2-1/2", like the older ones?" I wonder if it has anything to do with the two-piece barrel.

I'll stick with my quite-a-while-before-the-lock dash-1.

So they could equip the new short barrel 66-8 with a full length ejector rod. The new ones also have other nice revisions such as a full size forcing cone so you can now shoot all 357 Mag loads you want. The old ones will always be very cool though for sure.