Vintage S&W 66 2.5” Snub vs New 66-8 2.75” Snub?

[powell556]

I’ve been narrowing in on what I want my second revolver to be. My first I picked up recently is a vintage 4” M66. Now I want a snubbie and while I actually want a 3”, I have no desire to pay triple the price of a 4” that people on gunbroker are asking and I have no desire to have a 4” gun chopped at least at this time.

I’ve narrowed my choices to buying nothing, buying a pre-lock (possibly P&R) M66 2.5”, or buying a new production M66-8 2.75”.

My understanding is:

The sight radius and muzzle velocity will be marginally better on the new 2.75” gun
The front sight in the new gun is changeable without gunsmithing a dovetail in
The new gun has spare parts available if it breaks
The new gun has full length ejector rod
The new gun has stronger forcing cone to better handle magnum rounds

But...

The old gun has no lock, which ideologically makes me feel better (even if that makes me stupid, it’s how I feel). The old gun has better internal parts. I have no desire to reload a revolver quickly so the shorter ejector rod doesn’t matter to me. I don’t plan to shoot many 357mag through it so the forcing cone doesn’t matter to me. The trigger on the older gun is probably better. The older gun has some “numismatic” value being older and more collectible.

What makes this a tough decision is that surprisingly to me, both options are about the same price. I’m looking at about $650 to $700 for the newer gun slightly used and $700 to $800 for the vintage gun.

Given they are the same price, it makes it a harder decision for me because I’m leaning toward the vintage but a lot of the benefits of the newer gun makes sense to me. Although the main two benefits — forcing Cone and ejector rod are not something that matters much to me because my use case doesn’t call for fast reloads nor shooting much 357 mag. It will mostly be a 38sp gun with occasional mags. And I’ll never carry a reload with it.

I may occasionally carry this AIWB.

Thoughts on deciding between the two of them?

[Wyoming Shooter]

Go hands on with both then decide.

[powell556]

Go hands on with both then decide.

Haven’t been able to go hands on with either yet, my LGSes don’t have many new revolvers. I’m quoting prices from armslist. I’d hate to bother people into meeting with their used guns if I wasn’t 98% sure I was going to buy it.

[rathos]

If you are really worried about a lock it is a $50 fix. The newer ones will allow you to shoot all the .357 you want. All of my older K frames have amazing triggers. I am not sure if someone worked them over at some point, or if they had one of the old smith trigger jobs. I will say that the wilson kit has made my modern revolvers feel nearly as good as my older k frames. After the lock delete and the trigger kit it will really be a wash, but the newer one will also be able to swap out the front sight and you can shoot all the .357 you want out of it. Unless I was a collector I would be buying the new one.

[Willard]

The vintage model should do everything you need it to and hold its value (even with use but not abuse)than the newer model. Won't claim to be an impartial person due to my deep seated disdain for the newer S&W revolvers. I would personally never own one at any price. While that isn't important to you, consider that no one feels that way about the older models in favor of newer. This can affect your resale / investment potential. Maybe a factor and maybe not, but when the older guns give up basically nothing that is important to you to the newer ones, worth considering.

[Duelist]

Why on earth would you not carry a reload? Speed strips weigh next to nothing and fit literally anywhere. Carry two, they’re small.

At least, that is what I do whenever I carry a revolver. Unless it’s a .22. Then I pack a pocket full of reloads so I can plink with it, or shoot squirrels.

All but one of my S&W revolvers was made before 2003. That one has a lock. I think about doing the lock delete, and probably will one day. I don’t know what I would do if I felt like i needed another one and was trying to decide between the two you are looking at.

Of course, I already have a 3” 13-3.

[Alpha Sierra]

The old gun has better internal parts
I think that's internet legend based on the MIM = bad opinion of people who've never worked with steel.

[03RN]

I think we all know my vote.

My 19-3 became unoperable last year after just a few boxes of factory 158gr Magnum loads. Smith and Wesson couldn't fix it after misdiagnosing it. I then had to send it out to a real gunsmith.

It's up and shooting great now but that was a bit of a hassle.

I'm not sure how much more rugged the new guns are but I'm going to find out.

Once I lubed the internals the trigger is much better than it was out of the box. I might get some Wilson springs. I also might just shoot more. I dryfire a lot which will help too. It's not a fair comparison to guns with 50 years of shooting.

Sure the old guns have more soul but I'm not going to hesitate to go on a trail run, or dig clams, etc with the -8.

[03RN]

I think that's internet legend based on the MIM = bad opinion of people who've never worked with steel.

If people saw all the mim parts in their car engine they would freek.

[Alpha Sierra]

If people saw all the mim parts in their car engine they would freek.

Or in many other critical applications all over: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a521729.pdf

But hey, some gunsmith or some cranky old guy on the S&W forum said MIM sucks so it must be true.

I haven't had as many S&W revolvers as most here but of the 12 - 14 I've had over the years the absolute best ever trigger job I've had done was on a 65-8 MIM/ILS gun.

The guy I take my wheelguns to (retired Montgomery County deputy and S&W armorer) said he was surprised at how little he had to do to the lockwork to slick it up. I put about 8K rounds through it (IDPA, training, practice, plinking) before I sold it and it was running like a champ.

[powell556]

I think that's internet legend based on the MIM = bad opinion of people who've never worked with steel.

I’m not saying MIM is bad. I’m suggesting S&W switched from forged to MIM because it’s cheaper and brings the price down. I don’t think they switched to MIM because it’s functionally better.

At best I think MIM is equal to forged, and most likely MIM is marginally worse than forged. But since as the final consumer I can have forged for about the same price as MIM (because a used vintage gun is about the same price as a lightly used new MIM gun), then this one piece of the calculus shifts in favor of the older gun, at least slightly.

[TiroFijo]

For defensive use, IMO just get a glock... ;)

A revolver is semiobsolete for this use, but no doubt is a thing of beauty, and the older M19 wins hand down in this regard...

[camsdaddy]

I don't know your location but I would think a 3" 65 could be had in the price range mentioned.

[Alpha Sierra]

I’m not saying MIM is bad. I’m suggesting S&W switched from forged to MIM because it’s cheaper and brings the price down. I don’t think they switched to MIM because it’s functionally better.

I'm speculating, but doing so from significant experience, when I say that S&W made the change to keep revolvers producible for a reasonable cost to the consumer. If you want to see what a revolver made completely from forged and billet raw materials costs, look at a Korth. Or maybe Dan Wesson. Either way, you ain't getting a revolver made the "old fashioned" way new for what you can buy a new S&W. Nope. No way.

At the end of the day MIM parts may not be functionally better than those machined from a forging or barstock. But they are functionally every bit their equal and cost less which means we don't pay $1500+ for a new revolver. And that makes them better.

You're right in that it's your money and your choice. I only want to give you a perspective from someone who is familiar (from a professional angle) with the technical and business sides of this issue.

[Poconnor]

I buy and love the old S&Ws but if I planned to shoot it a lot I would buy a new Ruger GP100 over a new S&W. I don’t carry my full size revolvers for defense much. I’m more comfortable carrying my Glock 19

[mmc45414]

the newer one will also be able to swap out the front sight
At my age this is a really big deal, YMMV.
I dont love the lock, but probably one of the next things I plan to get is probably a new 66 2.75".



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[Crow Hunter]

I have been thinking about trying to snag one of these:

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-686-plus-deluxe-0

At least according to the published specs, it is very similar in size/weight/form factor to the 66 with an extra round.

It is 3.3 oz heavier and .4" longer.

Not sure if it is on your radar or not.

I haven't had my hands on either so the 686 might be noticeably bigger than the 66.

[03RN]

Not a bad option
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/808828019

[oregon45]

For me, the most significant advantage of the new 2.75” 66 is the crane locking system that no longer requires a threaded ejector rod, and, thus, eliminates a common malfunction point. On a defensive gun, that would be enough to make me choose a new 66 over an old one—and I own both a 66 no-dash 2.5” and a 66-2 3”.

[Borderland]

That's a no brainer for me. S&W stopped building good revolvers in the 80's. I have a few pre 90 guns (3) and when compared to a newer one the difference in quality is glaring. After buying a new 625-8 I won't buy another new Smith.

That's one reason an older gun in excellent condition will bring the same price as a new one. The used market is a good indicator of what people think of the new guns. Older guns appreciate, newer ones don't and never will. If you don't care about that I suppose a new one is just as good. ;)

[Wayne Dobbs]

Buy the 2.5" gun and don't look back. The new ones have no souls...