3” 65 vs newer 66 combat magnum

[camsdaddy]

I have always thought the 3” 65 to be one of the best k frames. I think they are great for someone looking to carry a revolver on their belt.
A few years ago Smith released the 66 combat magnum. I think it does everything the 65 does. Of course it has the updates in material and of course the lock which bothers some.
I’ve looked at the two recently and find the newer 66 generally are listed used for more than the 65. I see 3” 65 around $600 and the 66 for around $700. Are the 66’s worth more? For those who have shot both how do they compare?

[swampyank33]

I don't own a 65, but if I saw one for that price I'd probably snag it as long as it was in good shape. Prices on older K Frames will not be going down.
I will say my new 66 has been totally solid, I was pretty worried after hearing lots of negative things about newer Smith revolvers but I have yet to have any issues with mine shooting both magnums and specials. It is a robust carry revolver that I don't feel bad about taking to the range and blasting through a few hundred rounds of weird handloads and cheap hot ammo, or toting around all day. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191228/76443547788529b733302853c6753094.jpg

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Rosco Benson]

I won't own a S&W with the "Hillary hole" lock. Not only is the lock insulting and ugly, its inclusion ruins the shape of the frame (the arc from the rear sight to the recoil shoulder is shallower).

I don't like them and I wouldn't keep one if it were given to me.

Rosco

[jlw]

I have a 3" 65, and I like it a lot; however, the fixed sights are getting harder and harder for me to see. In the revolver block in the recent Rangemaster Master Instructor class, I shot my 586 with Mepro night sights because I could see them in the indoor lighting, but I couldn't see the sights on my 65.

[Zeke38]

I have a Model 69 44 Mag 4" a brother to your new 66, it's been one of the most trouble free, accurate Smiths I have ever owned. I have been shooting Smiths since 1965 and have owned over a hundred.

They are a mass produced machine that we give an emotional attachment to. Look long enough and you will find guns that snuck out of the factory that shouldnt. Three come to mind in my experience: a Model 19 that I purchased in 1970. A Model 27 5" I purchased in 1983 and a Model 27 3.5" I purchased in 1989.

All three went back to the mothership for squaring cylinder face to forcing cone, the 5" arrived special order from Smith and the sideplate wouldn't fit flush. Innards was filled with metal filings.

The new 66-69 series use the two piece barrel system that assist in proper barrel/cylinder gap and no clocked barrels.

I have a Model 19-4 2.5" and it is a sweetie, but I'm currently considering a 2 3/4" 44Mag in a 69.

I don't like the lock but have never had a problem with mine. I have heard of problems with the 460 XVR and 340 with the lock and severe recoil.

The old days are gone, and I will mutter along with my mix of old and new.

[Alpha Sierra]

I won't own a S&W with the "Hillary hole" lock. Not only is the lock insulting and ugly, its inclusion ruins the shape of the frame (the arc from the rear sight to the recoil shoulder is shallower).

I don't like them and I wouldn't keep one if it were given to me.

Rosco

Just keep me in mind if you do get one gifted. I'll pay shipping and any FFL fees on your side.

[Alpha Sierra]

I have a Model 69 44 Mag 4" a brother to your new 66, it's been one of the most trouble free, accurate Smiths I have ever owned. I have been shooting Smiths since 1965 and have owned over a hundred.

They are a mass produced machine that we give an emotional attachment to. Look long enough and you will find guns that snuck out of the factory that shouldnt. Three come to mind in my experience: a Model 19 that I purchased in 1970. A Model 27 5" I purchased in 1983 and a Model 27 3.5" I purchased in 1989.

All three went back to the mothership for squaring cylinder face to forcing cone, the 5" arrived special order from Smith and the sideplate wouldn't fit flush. Innards was filled with metal filings.

The new 66-69 series use the two piece barrel system that assist in proper barrel/cylinder gap and no clocked barrels.

I have a Model 19-4 2.5" and it is a sweetie, but I'm currently considering a 2 3/4" 44Mag in a 69.

I don't like the lock but have never had a problem with mine. I have heard of problems with the 460 XVR and 340 with the lock and severe recoil.

The old days are gone, and I will mutter along with my mix of old and new.

So much truth to all this. I just dismiss out of hand emotional reactions to the lock (which I don't like either) and nonsense about new S&W products being so inferior to those of the past. Of particular amusement are the MIM detractors who have no fucking idea about what the process is and how the material can be and is heat treated just like the wrought form of the same alloy.

[Alpha Sierra]

I have always thought the 3” 65 to be one of the best k frames. I think they are great for someone looking to carry a revolver on their belt.
A few years ago Smith released the 66 combat magnum. I think it does everything the 65 does. Of course it has the updates in material and of course the lock which bothers some.
I’ve looked at the two recently and find the newer 66 generally are listed used for more than the 65. I see 3” 65 around $600 and the 66 for around $700. Are the 66’s worth more? For those who have shot both how do they compare?

Ten years ago, the crude K frame fixed sights didn't bother me. Now they do. Having a proper rear sight blade and being able to change front sights to one with a fiber optic rod are invaluable to me now.

So while my Model 65 isn't going anywhere, I'm beginning to think of who can I send it and my 64 to be machined for replacement fixed sights that I can see well enough to call my shots with.

Every time I shoot my 627 with FO front sight and fully blacked out rear I'm reminded of how much the S&W fixed sights suck for me.

[03RN]

I put a fixed rear on my m66 and a meprolight front. Couldn't do that with older guns.

I thought my m19-3 had a great trigger untill i got my m66. Now its ok but the m66 is great.

The ejector rod can still unscrew but it wont tie up the gun.

There's no little voice in my head warning against hot 125gr loads which is nice after the walmart purge and i bought a bunch of the remington 125 sjhp.

The new barrels aren't as elegant but when im knee deep in mud digging clams or 200rds into a uspsa using magnums im not thinking about that.
46442

https://youtu.be/UE8lOJbI-Dg

[Colt191145lover]

I have two 66-8s and after installing the plug in the" Hillary hole " I think of them as a Glockish wheel gun. They lack the soul of the older ones and make the perfect" tool" revolver for my use. As always YMMV.

[OlongJohnson]

Look long enough and you will find guns that snuck out of the factory that shouldnt. Three come to mind in my experience: a Model 19 that I purchased in 1970. A Model 27 5" I purchased in 1983 and a Model 27 3.5" I purchased in 1989.

All three went back to the mothership for squaring cylinder face to forcing cone, the 5" arrived special order from Smith and the sideplate wouldn't fit flush. Innards was filled with metal filings.

I don't like the lock but have never had a problem with mine. I have heard of problems with the 460 XVR and 340 with the lock and severe recoil.

My problem is I struggle to find a new S&W that should have been allowed out of the factory.

I've seen the unsquare forcing cone problem to the measure of 0.011 in. on a gun of relatively recent manufacture. But annoyingly enough, not recent enough for S&W to have barrels left over to fix it with...

There's a video on YT of a 6-inch, full-lug 686 locking up while firing. It's not just an Airweight thing.