The dreaded 66 vs 686 question

[ruger 22]

Either will serve you well. It may come down to what is readily available in your area. If both are available I would go with the 686,(no hole). It is a bit beefier for lots of shooting.

 

[mike from st pete]

686 without a doubt.

 

[flockdance]

66 4" vs 19 4"

I decided to go with the 66 in the 4" instead of the 686 4" cause it's lighter but then I have not been able to find a new one so I bought the 19 in the 4" and the store is holding it till my permit arrives, which it just did today. I hear the blue rusts more easily so should I wait for the 66 to come in or go with the 19? It is beautiful but I think I prefer the stainless steel. Anyway, hope I am making the right choice. The 686 was definitely too heavy and bulky for me.

 

[shocker]

I prefer SS for lower maintenance, and I would also go for a 66 over a 686 unless I needed the 7th shot.
All I do for blue guns is wipe with a rag wetted with a little bit of oil after handling. Never have had one show rust.

 

[CH4]

Of the 2 you mention, I'd go with the 686 because I prefer the aesthetics of the 1 piece barrel of the current production 66. To my eye Smith's 2 piece barrels just don't have a clean, well executed look - they look cheap. Also the 686 is a real tank.

 

[BB57]

I decided to go with the 66 in the 4" instead of the 686 4" cause it's lighter but then I have not been able to find a new one so I bought the 19 in the 4" and the store is holding it till my permit arrives, which it just did today. I hear the blue rusts more easily so should I wait for the 66 to come in or go with the 19? It is beautiful but I think I prefer the stainless steel. Anyway, hope I am making the right choice. The 686 was definitely too heavy and bulky for me.

It depends what you are going to do with it.

If you want to conceal carry then stainless steel is a much better option. I carried a Model 13 for years and in daily carry in an IWB holster preventing rust was literally a daily task in a hot, humid southern summer. Miss a day and I'd literally finds rust starting on the barrel on the body side of the revolver.

Stainless steel isn't totally rust proof, but wiping it down can be dropped back to every week or two.

Holster wear on the finish is also much more noticeable on a blued gun, especially around the sides of the barrel at the muzzle and on the front edge of the cylinder. It'll still happen with stainless, steel, it's just much harder to see.

If it's for range use, or home defense a blued finish is just fine.


----

In the 4" and 6" lengths, I greatly prefer the Model 19 or 66 to the Model 686. The full underlug barrel was mostly a style thing. It adds weight to the barrel which some folks think helps tame recoil, but a 4" or 6" K or L frame revolver doesn't need any more recoil taming in .357 Magnum. What is does is ruin the balance that you have with the Model 19 or Model 66.

 

[flockdance]

66 4" vs 19 4"

There is no conceal carry in NJ. One of the worst states to own/carry a handgun. Mostly for home defense and practice. You never know though ., maybe I would be able to carry it if I ever move out of state or the laws change (unlikely though). I just don't want to have to deal with rusting. Summers are hot and humid here but will mostly be indoors except for practice. Thks.

 

[flockdance]

686 vs 66 in the 4"

Of the 2 you mention, I'd go with the 686 because I prefer the aesthetics of the 1 piece barrel of the current production 66. To my eye Smith's 2 piece barrels just don't have a clean, well executed look - they look cheap. Also the 686 is a real tank.

I agree regarding aesthetic of the 686 vs the 66 in the 4". At first I had the 686 on hold because that is the one I really want. I love the way it looks but I after holding it for a few minutes on several occasions and then comparing it to the weight of the 66, in my hand, I feel it will make a real difference. I'm 128 pounds and do not have the strongest wrists so I think I should go with something the lighter less bulkier model.