Trade a Gen4 G19 for a S&W New Model 66 Combat Magnum

[azerious]

So I have a chance to locally trade my G!9 for a NEW MODEL S&W Model 66 Combat Magnum .357. I would have to throw in two extra mags and 200 rounds of 9mm. I currently only have a G34 and my 19 is my EDC. However I've alwasy thought these were were pretty cool and figure i can just carry the S&w AIWB until i get something else. Is this too good of a deal to pass up? Or should i just stick with the GLock due to logistics and cost of ammo etc.

Pic of the new model 66 for reference

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa275/Gr8fuljack/Smith-Wesson-M-66-8-Combat-in-357-Magnum.jpg~original

[Beat Trash]

If it were an older Model 66, as in pre lock and pre MIM, then I'd do the trade in a second. And then I'd go out and buy a new Glock 19 to use as my EDC gun...

If you had extra Glocks laying around and wanted this revolver, then I'd say go for it.

But to go from a Glock 19 as your every day carry gun to a 4" newly manufactured model 66 revolver, No I wouldn't do it personally.

I carried revolvers in the 1980's. Bigger, heavier, a lot slower to reload, harder to conceal reloads, and going from 16 shots to 6? No I wouldn't do it for a gun to be carried every day.

But that's just me...

[azerious]

Very good points I appreciate your response

[hrt4me]

same answer as in the AR15.com forum... without question

[psalms144.1]

I was all ready to say "Yes, OF COURSE!" until I read that this would become your primary carry pistol for some period of time. As BT so aptly pointed out, I can't advise that you swap from a modern(ish) light weight, high capacity semiauto to a heavy, large, low capacity wheel gun. Others might, but I can't.

If you could make this swap and still have the scratch to pick up a replacement G19, (or you already had a second on hand you could put into service), then I'd make the swap, just because I love roundguns...

[CSW]

Why not?
You can always get another G19.
If the Smith is something you desire, get it.
If you find that it doesn't fit the bill, you can always sell it in the upcoming buy-before-election glut.

[Chuck Whitlock]

You could also carry your 34 until you get another 19.

[Robinson]

I have a recent manufacture Model 66 and it's a very nicely made revolver. The trigger was a bit heavy out of the box, but smooth with no grittiness. These guns will be readily available for some time, so if you pass this one up it's not like you won't have another opportunity -- maybe just not the same trade deal.

[BN]

MSRP on the model 66 is $850. You can buy Glock 19's all day long for $500. Why is the guy so anxious to trade??? Might be something wrong with the S&W??

How much is it going to cost you to kit up for the revolver? Holster, speed loaders and pouches?

I wouldn't make the trade.

[jh9]

MSRP on the model 66 is $850. You can buy Glock 19's all day long for $500. Why is the guy so anxious to trade??? Might be something wrong with the S&W??

How much is it going to cost you to kit up for the revolver? Holster, speed loaders and pouches?

I wouldn't make the trade.

I think it's that time of year for Bill^H^H^HBarry^H^H^H Hillary to come take our guns.

But for reals. It's in the midst of another (minor) WTFOLOZBBQBAN thing. If you're trading hicap autos for revolvers right now, you're doing so at a bit of an advantage. I'd jump on this, but only because the difference between his issue 17 or 26 and the 19 is minimal and he won't be out a regular carry gun. (Assuming his issue guns are ok for off duty. I'm not all up on the various LE requirements there. I would assume it's ok?)

edit: Ok, I'm going crazy. I coulda sworn I skimmed this earlier and OP had a 17/26 too? 34 might be a bit much for carry...

[LSP972]

If it were an older Model 66, as in pre lock and pre MIM, then I'd do the trade in a second. And then I'd go out and buy a new Glock 19 to use as my EDC gun...



Ditto.

But its not.

It is a current-production soulless wheel gun with a two-piece barrel, MIM parts, and a lock. Will it work? No doubt. But if all you want is a serviceable revolver, you can still find old pre-lock K frames at reasonable prices. Or some with the lock, etc., if that doesn't bother you. This guy wants your G19 plus two extra magazines plus 200 rounds? Sure, why not your back fillings, too?

S&W is quite proud, price-wise, of their "specialty" revolvers, the ones with the titanium cylinders and/or scandium frames… and they have a right to be. But a basic plain vanilla magnum revolver in stainless and MIM? I'd buy a Ruger GP-100 today; less money, more durable. IOW, the guy is out of the box on his trade terms.

I too am biased, and freely admit same, but you asked for opinions.

.

[rsa-otc]

I will freely admit that I am an S&W revolver fanboy. But I wouldn't do this trade for a current production gun for all the reasons our LSP friend states.

Also unless you are extremely capable with revolvers I would steer you clear of jumping into a revolver for EDC. Today the only reason I would EDC a revolver is that my on demand performance with a wheelgun is consistently better than that with my auto's especially if I am having a off day.

[TheRoland]

Ditto.

But its not.

It is a current-production soulless wheel gun with a two-piece barrel, MIM parts, and a lock. Will it work? No doubt. But if all you want is a serviceable revolver, you can still find old pre-lock K frames at reasonable prices. Or some with the lock, etc., if that doesn't bother you. This guy wants your G19 plus two extra magazines plus 200 rounds? Sure, why not your back fillings, too?

S&W is quite proud, price-wise, of their "specialty" revolvers, the ones with the titanium cylinders and/or scandium frames… and they have a right to be. But a basic plain vanilla magnum revolver in stainless and MIM? I'd buy a Ruger GP-100 today; less money, more durable. IOW, the guy is out of the box on his trade terms.

I too am biased, and freely admit same, but you asked for opinions.

.

On the other hand, the souless new model has a full forcing cone, which they say should make a steady diet of .357 totally OK.

[LSP972]

On the other hand, the souless new model has a full forcing cone, which they say should make a steady diet of .357 totally OK.

Sure… right up until the point that full .357 recoil batters the gun into unserviceability.

While you are correct that the cracked forcing cones were an issue, many more more K frame magnums were dead-lined for trashed timing and lock-up, from shooting a lot of .357s (caused by excessive wear/battering on the hands, ratchets, and cylinder stops), than were from cracked barrels.

K frames were never intended to be shot with a lot of "magnums". This should be evident from the fact that when S&W decided to make a .38 police revolver for the new "hot" .38s of the 30s, they chose the N frame; which became the .38/.44 Heavy Duty. Ditto the heralded ".357 Magnum" when it appeared in 1935.

The K frame "magnum" was the great Bill Jordan's brain child. He and Carl Hellstrom, president of S&W in the 50s, were good buddies, and Jordan convinced him that cops needed something with the power of the magnum in a lighter, handier package that wouldn't wear a fellow down when carried all day. Back then, you see, the accepted police practice was that training- such as it was, i.e., not much- was done using light to medium .38 Special ammunition, with the "magnums" reserved for carry. Lots of cops, even into the 70s, never shot their full-patch carry .357 ammunition unless in anger.

Hellstrom knew that a K frame .357 would not hold up to a lot of shooting with .357 pressure ammunition. He was banking on the fact that most, if not all, of these guns, would never be so abused. He was right, and the Combat Magnum (later the Model 19, when S&W started numbering its guns in late 1957) turned out to be one of the biggest sellers the firm ever produced.

But in the 70s, for various reasons, police in general began shooting more .357s, and the K frames began failing. S&W developed the L frame as a fix, but it was more like a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. Had the semi-auto revolution not swept through U.S. police a few years later, I suspect we would have seen a resurgence in N frame guns in police holsters.

All ancient history, you say? Yes. Take it for what it is worth to you. Who knows, S&W may have fixed things so a K frame DOESN'T get beaten loose by a steady diet of "magnum" ammunition.

.

[Robinson]

I own one of the new 66s (as well as older Smiths and a GP100) and IMO it is very well made. S&W has introduced improvements to make the gun stronger - and not just the forcing cone. However, I have always felt that the K Frame is an ideal platform for launching .38Spl+P ammunition. A Ruger or a S&W N Frame would be a better choice for lots of magnums.

[TheRoland]

I own one of the new 66s (as well as older Smiths and a GP100) and IMO it is very well made. S&W has introduced improvements to make the gun stronger - and not just the forcing cone. However, I have always felt that the K Frame is an ideal platform for launching .38Spl+P ammunition. A Ruger or a S&W N Frame would be a better choice for lots of magnums.

Specifically, the lockup works differently, and the frame around the cylinder is slightly different. It's pretty much the same setup as the L-frame Model 69 in .44 Magnum, which makes me think they're probably good now.


Who knows, S&W may have fixed things so a K frame DOESN'T get beaten loose by a steady diet of "magnum" ammunition.

Yeah; it'll probably be a long time until anyone runs enough .357 to know for sure.

Personally... I also kinda like soulless guns. I don't feel badly when I abuse them.

[LSP972]

Specifically, the lockup works differently...



Specifically, how? If you could describe it, please. I have seen a few of these, handled them briefly, didn't notice anything much different (aside from the MIM parts). What did I miss?

.

[TheRoland]

Specifically, how? If you could describe it, please. I have seen a few of these, handled them briefly, didn't notice anything much different (aside from the MIM parts). What did I miss?

.

I'm not really a wheelgun guy, but they added the ball-detent on the front of the cylinder that some of their Performance Center models have had for a while.

The other visible change is that the top strap is slightly thicker; I think the cylinder might actually be a millimeter or two lower.

[LSP972]

I'm not really a wheelgun guy, but they added the ball-detent on the front of the cylinder that some of their Performance Center models have had for a while.



You mean on the yoke (the part that holds the cyinder, swings out, etc.)? Another resurrected idea, but a quite useful one; and one that must have been recently added. At least, the two I looked at didn't have that, IIRC. However, that still doesn't address the tremendous beating the hand, ratchet, and cylinder stop take. The thicker top strap is good too.

Hey, not trying to bust your chops or start an argument. Thanks for the response. And I hear you regarding a soulless gun; I get that warm & fuzzy every time I handle one of my Glocks…;)

.

[TheRoland]

You mean on the yoke (the part that holds the cyinder, swings out, etc.)? Another resurrected idea, but a quite useful one; and one that must have been recently added. At least, the two I looked at didn't have that, IIRC. However, that still doesn't address the tremendous beating the hand, ratchet, and cylinder stop take. The thicker top strap is good too.

Hey, not trying to bust your chops or start an argument. Thanks for the response. And I hear you regarding a soulless gun; I get that warm & fuzzy every time I handle one of my Glocks…;)

.

Yeah; the detent is slightly off-center on the yoke, rather than the end of the ejector rod. It looks a bit funny but supposedly locks up tighter and is more durable. I don't know enough to comment on the rest of the action or timing parts; you're likely right that they're not better.

I like that "I could replace that with a current production firearm that's exactly like it" feeling, which is also so strong with Glocks. If I break a 66-7 that'll never be made again, I'm upset. If I break a 66-8 and the store down the street can just order another, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

In any case, OP probably shouldn't trade his carry gun for a 4.25" wheelgun. Just doing my part to try to encourage Smith to make more barrel lengths :).

No balls busted.

[LSP972]

Yeah; the detent is slightly off-center on the yoke, rather than the end of the ejector rod.

Ah, so; its still a two point lock-up, instead of a three-point. I should have known better than to think they were actually going back to the old triple-lock arrangement.

What you're talking about is yet another production shortcut, designed to improve the bottom line. That ball/socket detent arrangement is easier and quicker to manufacture than the aligned center pin end point at the ejector rod end, as seen on the older guns. That system needed fitting/adjusting by an experienced fitter.

Good to know that the factory is pressing forward with production shortcuts galore; I was wondering there for a minute.:D

.

[TheRoland]

Indeed still not a triple-lock.

[john c]

I've considered getting a new model 66 or 67 to save wear and tear on my older guns (which I shoot exclusively with .38 spl). As mentioned, shoot the crap out of it, and when it needs service, send it back to Smith. I tremble with the thought of busting my straight 66's and 66-1's.

LSP972 is absolutely right about the lack of fitting on these guns. I don't think it's a bad thing. I'd much rather have a Camry as a daily driver than a '68 Shelby Cobra. It's hell when some idiot backs into one in a parking lot!

With respect to the original question, BBI's data suggests that a 6 shot .357 is usually enough for CCW. More is obviously better, but I wouldn't feel undergunned with one. I usually carry a J frame off duty; stepping it up to a K frame would be an upgrade.

The comments about not changing to a revolver without proficiency are extremely valid, though. Make the trade, carry the G34 until he's up to speed on the new gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

Ah, so; its still a two point lock-up, instead of a three-point. I should have known better than to think they were actually going back to the old triple-lock arrangement.

What you're talking about is yet another production shortcut, designed to improve the bottom line. That ball/socket detent arrangement is easier and quicker to manufacture than the aligned center pin end point at the ejector rod end, as seen on the older guns. That system needed fitting/adjusting by an experienced fitter.

Good to know that the factory is pressing forward with production shortcuts galore; I was wondering there for a minute.:D

.

I mean no offense with what follows... But:

The old K Frame 357's weren't an attempt to do the same?

[LSP972]

I mean no offense with what follows... But:

The old K Frame 357's weren't an attempt to do the same?

Do the same what? Take shortcuts to reduce production costs? Hardly.

Re-read post #14. The follow-on K frame magnums, after the Combat Magnum/M-19, were either in the then-new stainless steel, or made at the request of an important customer… to wit the M-13 and the FBI. The "sixty-series" revolvers, excepting the M-60, M-61, and M-63, were all-stainless re-boots of successful K frame service revolvers. The M-62 and M-69 were experimental revolvers that never went beyond prototype status.

.

[Sigfan26]

Do the same what? Take shortcuts to reduce production costs? Hardly.

Re-read post #14. The follow-on K frame magnums, after the Combat Magnum/M-19, were either in the then-new stainless steel, or made at the request of an important customer… to wit the M-13 and the FBI. The "sixty-series" revolvers, excepting the M-60, M-61, and M-63, were all-stainless re-boots of successful K frame service revolvers. The M-62 and M-69 were experimental revolvers that never went beyond prototype status.

.

So... The 13/19/65/66 were not an attempt to provide a less expensive 357 revolver that suffered a lower service life (which was known to the company )? If not, what was the purpose of the L frame?

[Tamara]

Why not?
You can always get another G19.

You can always get another MIM-'n'-Lock L-frame "66", too.

[Tamara]

Good to know that the factory is pressing forward with production shortcuts galore; I was wondering there for a minute.:D

Like with the latest hooraw about S&W getting shitty with Brownell's/Apex, this is interesting.

S&W was born by Horace & Daniel getting shitty with Rollin White, and the very first production changes to the tip-up No.1s were to cheapen and simplify manufacture. It's all been in the corporate DNA since Day One... :D

[john c]

You can always get another MIM-'n'-Lock L-frame "66", too.

The MIM'n'Lock model 66 was previously discontinued and reintroduced, and likely remains a niche product today. My guess is that it's much more likely to be discontinued permanently than the G19.

[KPD]

I love revolvers. I carried a WCGP100 daily on duty for over the last year. Sometimes I would carry my stainless 4.2" GP100 at the same time.

Due to an incident at my house the other night and some issues I have devoloped on working a revolver I sold them both and got another HK.

If you can only have one right now, get the Glock.

[HCM]

Another vote for a GP 100 as a modern daily shooter. I'm a S&W revolver fan boy but every single modern MIM & lock Smith I've had has had some sort of issue including:

340 M&P
29 6"
686 plus PRO 5"
29 Mountain Gun

[azerious]

Passed on the deal, I appreciate it guys. If i was to look into .357 again it will bet the Wiley Clapp .357

[LSP972]

So... The 13/19/65/66 were not an attempt to provide a less expensive 357 revolver that suffered a lower service life (which was known to the company )? If not, what was the purpose of the L frame?

Let me try this again. The 19 was an attempt to fill a perceived (and real) need for a smaller, lighter, but equally powerful police sidearm. Yes, the company knew the service life with full power magnum ammunition would be lessened. Moot point, because wide-spread use of full power magnum ammunition simply wasn't happening. That came later- and was the reason for the L frame.

The 13 was another product made to fulfill a customer request. I can only assume the Bureau bureaucrats who specified that it be a .357 wanted the capability to shoot "magnums" in it, even though their issue cartridge was a .38 +P.

The 64, 65, 66, 67, and 68 were stainless steel versions of their original blued and/or nickled carbon steel revolvers, intended to lower maintenance requirements.

It really is that simple. Really.

.

[Beat Trash]

Passed on the deal, I appreciate it guys. If i was to look into .357 again it will bet the Wiley Clapp .357

I grew up with S&W revolvers, but if I were in the market for a newly manufactured 357, it would be the GP100 Wiley Clapp or the Match Champion.

[wsr]

MSRP on the model 66 is $850. You can buy Glock 19's all day long for $500. Why is the guy so anxious to trade??? Might be something wrong with the S&W??

How much is it going to cost you to kit up for the revolver? Holster, speed loaders and pouches?

I wouldn't make the trade.

Provably the "gotta get a hi cap before it's banned" syndrome
I go on a revolver and lever action buying spree every time the scare comes around...people dump old guns so they can get ar/ak/glocks
After Sandy Hook I bought a marlin guide gun for $275 two 30-30 Marlins $150 and $175 and a 686-4 with box and paper work for $250

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I got a pretty decent SW Model 19 for $350 a while back. Way too much gun for EDC modern carry for what it gives you. Not that it is a bad gun if that's all that we are allowed by our Robot Overlords.

[serialsolver]

Ah, so; its still a two point lock-up, instead of a three-point. I should have known better than to think they were actually going back to the old triple-lock arrangement.

What you're talking about is yet another production shortcut, designed to improve the bottom line. That ball/socket detent arrangement is easier and quicker to manufacture than the aligned center pin end point at the ejector rod end, as seen on the older guns. That system needed fitting/adjusting by an experienced fitter.

Good to know that the factory is pressing forward with production shortcuts galore; I was wondering there for a minute.:D

.

And the removal of the front lock opens the door for center pin float.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LSP972]

And the removal of the front lock opens the door for center pin float.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yup.

.

[TC215]

I know you said that you passed on the deal, but something no one else mentioned-

The new 66's don't have a true 4" barrel. I think they're 4.2" or 4.25". I believe it has something to do with Canadian import laws. If you were to carry one, you might have issues with holsters.

[HCM]

I know you said that you passed on the deal, but something no one else mentioned-

The new 66's don't have a true 4" barrel. I think they're 4.2" or 4.25". I believe it has something to do with Canadian import laws. If you were to carry one, you might have issues with holsters.

Interesting. I knew. Ruger was doing this but I didn't realize S&W was doing it as well.

[TC215]

Yep, I just double checked, and it's 4.25". The new model 66 and 69 are the only 2 that I found with that barrel length.

[Tamara]

I grew up with S&W revolvers, but if I were in the market for a newly manufactured 357, it would be the GP100 Wiley Clapp or the Match Champion.

As much as it's like chewing on a cat turd to have to say this: "Me, too."

[serialsolver]

Sure… right up until the point that full .357 recoil batters the gun into unserviceability.

While you are correct that the cracked forcing cones were an issue, many more more K frame magnums were dead-lined for trashed timing and lock-up, from shooting a lot of .357s (caused by excessive wear/battering on the hands, ratchets, and cylinder stops), than were from cracked.

.

LSP972, just out of curiosity at what ballpark round count do the k frames batter themselves to unserviceable?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LSP972]

LSP972, just out of curiosity at what ballpark round count do the k frames batter themselves to unserviceable?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hard to say with any degree of certainty. Lots of variables there; mainly, the pressure level of the ammunition used, and the condition of the individual revolver once a steady diet of "magnums" is begun.

In my experience, I was faced with a bunch of M-19s and M-66s that had been fed wadcutters most of their lives, with no more than 50 "magnums" a year (usually just 20, if the trooper passed the additional "LSP course" on the first try). When we upped the amount of full-patch .357s to around 100 a year, it didn't take long for some problems to start showing up. These were mostly timing and excessive end-shake issues, but more than a few broken hammer noses. Interestingly, it seemed that the non-sprung hammer noses in the later iterations (i.e., yet another production short-cut) were the ones breaking. The earlier hammer noses which had that tiny spring holding the hammer nose/firing pin in place held up.

Sorry to seem vague, but with so many factors in play, you simply cannot come up with a viable number. For instance, S&W went through a huge number of different alloys in the stainless guns, trying to find that happy medium between metal strength and corrosion resistance vs "machinability". It is said that the early M-60s, which were the first stainless guns, were practically indestructible due to the incredibly tough stainless alloys used in their fabrication. The downside was that the tooling- the cutters/end mills/etc. that actually formed the pieces/parts- were worn out in very short order. That sent production costs through the roof.

So S&W went to a softer, less nickle/higher iron content alloy... and the guns rusted in the boxes. Then the juggling act began, because two identical grades of stainless steel rubbing against each other will "gall". This is why the hammers, triggers, and some other key moving parts of a typical 70s-80s stainless S&W revolver are actually NOT stainless, but hard-chromed molybdenum steel. But the main parts- frames, yokes and yoke barrels, sideplates, barrels- on those early K frame stainless guns are made of quite a variety of different grades of stainless alloy. To my knowledge, they finally found the right combination in the late 70s. I know the two M-66s I have, both produced in 1978, have never displayed the first hint of corrosion. The four inch example, in particular, has been ridden hard and put up wet any number of times. I've shot a lot of .357s in it- several thousand, at least. And I've had to stretch the yoke and replace the hand, once each.

Again, not trying to be obtuse here, but I'm afraid your question is an unquantifiable one, when asked in a general context. And then you have S&W's guarantee that the the AirLite J frames in .357 are good for 5K rounds of full-patch .357 ammunition. That's what they told me, after replacing a M-360PD that 50 or so .357 rounds dislodged the yoke from the yoke stud... something I'd never seen, or even heard of, before. In fact, the customer service guy didn't even believe me until I sent him pictures. They sent a prepaid shipping label and had a new one in my hands in a week's time.

So... sorry for the rambling here, but lots of things to take into consideration with this.

.

.

[serialsolver]

I understand. Maybe I should have asked, what to look for?

It's not a big concern of mine just a point of interest. I rarely shoot full 357 mags in my smiths anymore. Mostly 38-44 loads.

End shake and carry up is what I watch out for in my revolvers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LSP972]

End shake and carry up is what I watch out for in my revolvers.




That, and gas-cutting of the top strap. You know to check for both types of endshake, yes?

.

[BehindBlueI's]

Passed on the deal, I appreciate it guys. If i was to look into .357 again it will bet the Wiley Clapp .357

I've been very happy with mine and with my Match Champion.

[Beat Trash]

As much as it's like chewing on a cat turd to have to say this: "Me, too."

You have no idea how hard it was for me to say this...

[serialsolver]

That, and gas-cutting of the top strap. You know to check for both types of endshake, yes?

.

The cylinder end shake and yoke end shake. Correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LSP972]

The cylinder end shake and yoke end shake. Correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct. Endshake yoke should be checked with the cylinder/yoke assembly fully swung out, then halfway closed. Although, I dunno how well that will show up issues with the new yoke screws that rely on a spring-loaded plunger, instead of a precision fit stud (the end of the screw), to retain the yoke.

Sigh...

.

[Tamara]

LSP972,

I'd heard that the hot 125gr magnum loads were notorious K-frame killers because they hit the forcing cone doing over a thousand FPS. Have you noticed a propensity for cracked forcing cones with this sort of load more than others?

[LSP972]

LSP972,

I'd heard that the hot 125gr magnum loads were notorious K-frame killers because they hit the forcing cone doing over a thousand FPS. Have you noticed a propensity for cracked forcing cones with this sort of load more than others?

Oddly enough, I cannot recall seeing more than a couple of cracked barrels/forcing cones on any of those thousand+ revolvers. But I have been told of enough to know it was definitely a problem. The R-P 125gr load being the villain has long been the "story"... but I have never seen any empirical evidence of that. I am NOT discounting it. I AM saying that there are plenty of other equally-vicious .357 loadings that should have had the same effect, but that R-P loading always gets the blame.

I will say this; no doubt that it produces the worst muzzle flash I've ever seen, so perhaps there is something to it.

Short answer... no clue.;)

.

[john c]

My last three revolver purchases have been GP100s of one sort or another. But the GP100 is an L-frame gun. The S&W model 66 is the only true K-frame still in production. The size difference is real, especially for carry.

[serialsolver]

Correct. Endshake yoke should be checked with the cylinder/yoke assembly fully swung out, then halfway closed. Although, I dunno how well that will show up issues with the new yoke screws that rely on a spring-loaded plunger, instead of a precision fit stud (the end of the screw), to retain the yoke.

Sigh...

.

I'm glad I passed the pop quiz. I'm gonna go tighten up the yoke on my snubby 66 now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

LSP972,

I'd heard that the hot 125gr magnum loads were notorious K-frame killers because they hit the forcing cone doing over a thousand FPS. Have you noticed a propensity for cracked forcing cones with this sort of load more than others?

Remington 125gr rounds were unpleasant to shoot for me. Grabbed the rental GP100 one day and decided to shoot some (found a box laying around). Fired 5 out of 6 and decided that was enough. The blast and concussion were worse than my 4" .44 mags. I didn't even consider putting them through my model 13

[rsa-otc]

Tam;

I understood that to be true as well. Light bullets seem to be hard on guns.

[CSW]

As much as it's like chewing on a cat turd to have to say this: "Me, too."

Here's one [GP100] from when they were first intro'd. Trigger job, and a set of millet "airplane wing" sights. 4 inch damn near F'ing 357 perfection....
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1600/682422/22920671/407480263.jpg

It has no "clapp" but shoots like lightning....

In regards to the 125's;

My father was a cop in northern NJ from '64 to '88...retired on a S&W 686-1. Thru many 357's he swore by the 125 for it's stopping power and "1 shot gunfights". while he was involved in only one OIS, he swore by the .357, 4", and 125 grain SJHP.
When he retired, they gave him his beloved 686, and more ammo than he'll ever shoot.....the Department he was with went to the wuundernine in 1984-5??? [S&W 59].
He refused to carry it, and spent his last years on mids, riding the watch desk, wearing a Det. Special in 38.

[Tamara]

I will say this; no doubt that it produces the worst muzzle flash I've ever seen, so perhaps there is something to it.

No shit, there we were...

Back in '01, the shop I was working in at the time got a deal on a skid of 125gr white-box R-P 125gr SJHP. We were blowing it out at dick-oh-nine a box, and my roommate at the time, Marko, bought, like, most of a case.

So we took it to the local indoor range, to fire some through his 2.5" 686. We also brought his shiny new 4" Colt Anaconda in .44 Magnum. The range ammo for the latter was, IIRC, PMC 240gr JSP.

The Anaconda was quiet and pleasant to shoot, compared to the snubby 686 with those R-P loads. They had a godawful bright muzzle flash, an actinic white flare that cast shadows on the range wall three lanes to our left. And the noise! There was a huge BOOM! accompanying every shot. Who needs flash bangs when you can just cap off a couple rounds of Remington out of a snubby Magnum?