Bill_in_fl
Member
A good friend and shooting buddy of mine, brought this model 66-4 to me that he was having problems with. He had just bought it for $300.00 and thought he was getting a good deal at the time. But it had several problems he wanted me to look at. The hammer would only sometimes stay back in the single action mode, and if you shook or jarred the revolver in any way, the hammer would fall. Also the hammer spur did not look right since it looked mis-shapened and at first I couldn't account for that mis-shape because it looked too weird to just be a bend from dropping the hammer. Later I figured out it had been bent, broken and then welded back on.
So first, I took the sideplate off to view its lockwork to see what was up with the hammer not wanting to stay back in single action mode. It looked as if the sear surfaces were just barely engaging, and then only sometimes and not always. Very puzzling. I could not tell if anyone had done any filing on the engagement surfaces or not. I have read that some model 66's have been modified to operate in double action mode only, and was wondering if maybe that mod had been done to this one.
Upon careful single action cocking (with the sideplate off so I could watch the internal engagement), when I could get the hammer to barely lock to the rear, and then functioned the trigger in single action mode, I noticed that the hammer did not fall "clean", but fell part way and then either wanted to (or did most of the time) catch on the double action sear which would either make the hammer in single action fall too lightly, or it would most of the time catch halfway down its fall onto the double action sear so that it never fell all the way and it also caused the trigger to go into double action mode. (Hope you all understand what I am talking about)....
....in other words the hammer started to fall normally as in single action mode fall, then would either try to catch (or did) the double action sear, so that the hammer either was impeded badly in its fall and fell lightly with a noticeable "catch" as it fell completely , or else (most frequently) caught halfway during its single action fall and the trigger popped out against my trigger finger as the hammer caught halfway in its fall so that it was now in the double action mode but halfway through the double action mode so that I had to continue functioning the trigger for the hammer to come back further in the double action mode for it to fall. However, it works perfectly if you double action it only and don't attempt to single action it.
Thinking it might be a bad hammer, my friend had bought another model 66 hammer and asked me to install it for him. I tried to do so. However, even though the hammer fit internally into the action with the hammer held back, the top section of the hammer was too tall for the top of the hammer and its firing pin to work in the frame channel. The top of the hammer and the firing pin would hit against the top of the frame by a large amount and it was obvious the hammer was perhaps a model 66 hammer, but not one for the model 66-4. So he had bought the wrong hammer and possibly gotten one for a model 66, but not correct for his dash four, or else whoever sold him the hammer did not list it correctly for the correct model and even though it fit internally (but much too tall at its top section to fit in the hammer/firing pin channel) it could have also been for another model S&W. Here's the model number on my friend's revolver under the crane area....
Seeing that, my friend asked me if I would just cut off his hammer spur (that was weirdly mis-shapen) so that he could just use the revolver in double action only mode. In inspecting the hammer spur, I noticed it looked like it had been bent but was more mis-shapen than just being bent. So I carefully looked UNDER the hammer spur, and sure enough I saw welding spall. You can see that in the below photo of the hammer spur's underside showing it after I cut it off with a dremel cutting wheel.
Top of hammer spur. See how it is mis-shapened?
I deduced what most likely happened was, that someone had dropped the revolver and the hammer spur had badly bent and deformed as it had broken off. That would account for the strange looking deformation of the hammer spur. Then someone had welded it back onto the hammer and hadn't done it very well since the spur was badly mis-shapened as well as had welding spall all over the back of it.
The model 66 was in a matte stainless finish when my friend brought it to me, and knowing how I have polished some of my guns on my buffer, he asked me if I would polish his up too, since it had a lot of scratches on it. He wanted to keep the top of the barrel matte finished though. So after I cut off the hammer spur and polished it and the entire revolver out, here's what that looked like. I don't have any "before" pics.
Hammer after I removed the spur and polished it.
Top of revolver showing matte finish I carefully avoided buffing out on top of barrel, while buffing out rest of revolver.
Hammer would just barely stay to the rear for these two below pics. Any slight jarring would cause it to fall as I previously described (but it works perfectly in double action mode only). I think my cutting the spur off and polishing it out came out pretty good. What do you think?
My friend is okay with it only operating correctly in double action mode and that's why he asked me to de-spur the hammer for him. But myself, (just academically), I'm wondering if this revolver had been modded to be double action only at some time, or if there was something broken or bent that was causing the hammer to not operate correctly in single action mode. But when I took off the sideplate and inspected everything inside as I worked the action, I could not see anything bent, broken, galled nor filed down. So it is a mystery. Anyone here have any suggestions (other than my own already stated ones) for any other possible explanations for it not working correctly in single action mode?
So now my friend has a perfectly good matte stainless hammer for what the seller told him was a model 66, but it won't fit his model 66-4. He said he has $26.00 in it including shipping. So if anyone wants it, he will take $26.00 and you pay the shipping. Shoot me an I.M. if interested and I'll put you in touch with him to deal with him directly. Just trying to help him out, not interested in making any money on it myself, (Only mentioning this here instead of the BST forum, because it was such an integral part of the project and since I had already explained why it didn't fit his dash 4.) It is in the same matte stainless finish as his revolver was originally in before I buffed the revolver out to remove all those bad scratches. Here's some pics of the hammer he doesn't need and would like to sell....
Okay, the next problem he had with the gun was the rear sight leaf was badly bent and a little chewed on one side. Obviously someone had badly dropped this revolver, both badly bending and breaking off the hammer spur, as well as scratching the gun up (I was able to buff all those scratches out) and also bending and boogering up the rear sight leaf.
I have not changed out a rear sight leaf on a model 66-4 before. I have been unable to figure out how to remove the screw on the rear sight that holds on the rear sight leaf. I could be wrong, but it appears that MAYBE the end of the screw that adjusts the rear sight leaf, is peened on its end so that it isn't able to be removed from the rear sight frame. But I can't tell for sure and am unfamiliar with how to disassemble it. The screw head turns and turns, but nothing happens to the rear sight leaf and the screw won't come out for me to change out the leaf. Here's a few pics of it....
This is the side that I can't figure out why the screw won't come out. There seems to be no way to capture a nut and it looks like the end of the screw shaft is slightly hollowed out and maybe peened so it can't be removed. But I'm not sure about that. Need help with this one.
And this is the side with the screw slotted.
I am wondering how I can get that screw to come out so I can remove the rear sight leaf and replace it with another leaf. Any help in explaining how that screw comes out would be greatly appreciated, as this is the final thing I am trying to fix on this revolver for my friend.
He's a good friend and I enjoy helping my friends out with their guns. Helps me to learn a lot too.
.
So first, I took the sideplate off to view its lockwork to see what was up with the hammer not wanting to stay back in single action mode. It looked as if the sear surfaces were just barely engaging, and then only sometimes and not always. Very puzzling. I could not tell if anyone had done any filing on the engagement surfaces or not. I have read that some model 66's have been modified to operate in double action mode only, and was wondering if maybe that mod had been done to this one.
Upon careful single action cocking (with the sideplate off so I could watch the internal engagement), when I could get the hammer to barely lock to the rear, and then functioned the trigger in single action mode, I noticed that the hammer did not fall "clean", but fell part way and then either wanted to (or did most of the time) catch on the double action sear which would either make the hammer in single action fall too lightly, or it would most of the time catch halfway down its fall onto the double action sear so that it never fell all the way and it also caused the trigger to go into double action mode. (Hope you all understand what I am talking about)....
....in other words the hammer started to fall normally as in single action mode fall, then would either try to catch (or did) the double action sear, so that the hammer either was impeded badly in its fall and fell lightly with a noticeable "catch" as it fell completely , or else (most frequently) caught halfway during its single action fall and the trigger popped out against my trigger finger as the hammer caught halfway in its fall so that it was now in the double action mode but halfway through the double action mode so that I had to continue functioning the trigger for the hammer to come back further in the double action mode for it to fall. However, it works perfectly if you double action it only and don't attempt to single action it.
Thinking it might be a bad hammer, my friend had bought another model 66 hammer and asked me to install it for him. I tried to do so. However, even though the hammer fit internally into the action with the hammer held back, the top section of the hammer was too tall for the top of the hammer and its firing pin to work in the frame channel. The top of the hammer and the firing pin would hit against the top of the frame by a large amount and it was obvious the hammer was perhaps a model 66 hammer, but not one for the model 66-4. So he had bought the wrong hammer and possibly gotten one for a model 66, but not correct for his dash four, or else whoever sold him the hammer did not list it correctly for the correct model and even though it fit internally (but much too tall at its top section to fit in the hammer/firing pin channel) it could have also been for another model S&W. Here's the model number on my friend's revolver under the crane area....
Seeing that, my friend asked me if I would just cut off his hammer spur (that was weirdly mis-shapen) so that he could just use the revolver in double action only mode. In inspecting the hammer spur, I noticed it looked like it had been bent but was more mis-shapen than just being bent. So I carefully looked UNDER the hammer spur, and sure enough I saw welding spall. You can see that in the below photo of the hammer spur's underside showing it after I cut it off with a dremel cutting wheel.
Top of hammer spur. See how it is mis-shapened?
I deduced what most likely happened was, that someone had dropped the revolver and the hammer spur had badly bent and deformed as it had broken off. That would account for the strange looking deformation of the hammer spur. Then someone had welded it back onto the hammer and hadn't done it very well since the spur was badly mis-shapened as well as had welding spall all over the back of it.
The model 66 was in a matte stainless finish when my friend brought it to me, and knowing how I have polished some of my guns on my buffer, he asked me if I would polish his up too, since it had a lot of scratches on it. He wanted to keep the top of the barrel matte finished though. So after I cut off the hammer spur and polished it and the entire revolver out, here's what that looked like. I don't have any "before" pics.
Hammer after I removed the spur and polished it.
Top of revolver showing matte finish I carefully avoided buffing out on top of barrel, while buffing out rest of revolver.
Hammer would just barely stay to the rear for these two below pics. Any slight jarring would cause it to fall as I previously described (but it works perfectly in double action mode only). I think my cutting the spur off and polishing it out came out pretty good. What do you think?
My friend is okay with it only operating correctly in double action mode and that's why he asked me to de-spur the hammer for him. But myself, (just academically), I'm wondering if this revolver had been modded to be double action only at some time, or if there was something broken or bent that was causing the hammer to not operate correctly in single action mode. But when I took off the sideplate and inspected everything inside as I worked the action, I could not see anything bent, broken, galled nor filed down. So it is a mystery. Anyone here have any suggestions (other than my own already stated ones) for any other possible explanations for it not working correctly in single action mode?
So now my friend has a perfectly good matte stainless hammer for what the seller told him was a model 66, but it won't fit his model 66-4. He said he has $26.00 in it including shipping. So if anyone wants it, he will take $26.00 and you pay the shipping. Shoot me an I.M. if interested and I'll put you in touch with him to deal with him directly. Just trying to help him out, not interested in making any money on it myself, (Only mentioning this here instead of the BST forum, because it was such an integral part of the project and since I had already explained why it didn't fit his dash 4.) It is in the same matte stainless finish as his revolver was originally in before I buffed the revolver out to remove all those bad scratches. Here's some pics of the hammer he doesn't need and would like to sell....
Okay, the next problem he had with the gun was the rear sight leaf was badly bent and a little chewed on one side. Obviously someone had badly dropped this revolver, both badly bending and breaking off the hammer spur, as well as scratching the gun up (I was able to buff all those scratches out) and also bending and boogering up the rear sight leaf.
I have not changed out a rear sight leaf on a model 66-4 before. I have been unable to figure out how to remove the screw on the rear sight that holds on the rear sight leaf. I could be wrong, but it appears that MAYBE the end of the screw that adjusts the rear sight leaf, is peened on its end so that it isn't able to be removed from the rear sight frame. But I can't tell for sure and am unfamiliar with how to disassemble it. The screw head turns and turns, but nothing happens to the rear sight leaf and the screw won't come out for me to change out the leaf. Here's a few pics of it....
This is the side that I can't figure out why the screw won't come out. There seems to be no way to capture a nut and it looks like the end of the screw shaft is slightly hollowed out and maybe peened so it can't be removed. But I'm not sure about that. Need help with this one.
And this is the side with the screw slotted.
I am wondering how I can get that screw to come out so I can remove the rear sight leaf and replace it with another leaf. Any help in explaining how that screw comes out would be greatly appreciated, as this is the final thing I am trying to fix on this revolver for my friend.
He's a good friend and I enjoy helping my friends out with their guns. Helps me to learn a lot too.
.
Last edited:
