S&W Model 66 Combat Magnum

[jtcarm]

As to the spending an extra $100 on a new gun, I don’t own a gun that I haven’t spent at least that much on getting it the way I like it.

One often overlooked advantage of the current M-66 is the ease of switching front sights. I own 3 M66s. The -3 gets the least work because I hate that 1/8” ramp. The other two have FO fronts I installed myself.

Grips: when shooting a 2 3/4” medium frame magnum, I want a fair sized chunk of rubber to grab on to. I put the original Spegel-designed UM rubber grips back on my EDC M-64. Much easier on the web of the hand, more to grab with the weak hand, and conceals just as well. Another pair lives on my 66-7 to handle magnums.

[medmo]

As to the spending an extra $100 on a new gun, I don’t own a gun that I haven’t spent at least that much on getting it the way I like it.

One often overlooked advantage of the current M-66 is the ease of switching front sights. I own 3 M66s. The -3 gets the least work because I hate that 1/8” ramp. The other two have FO fronts I installed myself.

Grips: when shooting a 2 3/4” medium frame magnum, I want a fair sized chunk of rubber to grab on to. I put the original Spegel-designed UM rubber grips back on my EDC M-64. Much easier on the web of the hand, more to grab with the weak hand, and conceals just as well. Another pair lives on my 66-7 to handle magnums.

+1 on the ability to have options on a front sight. Very true.

[FrankinCA]

I have my eye on that revolver . I just picked up a Kimber K6. The 66 looks better in person. I prefer Vz or ahrends grips.

Love all those 19 and 66 pictures.

[1986s4]

One of my favorite range guns is the 2 ¾” M66-8. I ran some limited accuracy tests when I first got it and settled on 13.0gr of A2400 under a 165gr CSWCGC. I’m sure other loads could be developed but I have a bunch of the 165s.

No problems to date thru 900 rnds (have a 4 ¼” M66 with 2,800 rnds – no problems either). Never had a “light hit” with either the M66 or M69 (have about 12,000 rnds thru 4 M69s) even though I have had to tighten loose strain screws several times during periodic maint.

I shoot both (66 & 69s) double action but have never messed with any springs. I want my guns to fire no matter what primer or ammo is in the gun. I don’t shoot competition, so I’m probably missing something.

The 2 ¾” S&W K & L frames that I have are a lot of fun, are plenty accurate and reliable. Of course, individual guns can/will vary.
I’m mostly a recreational shooter, so I can’t really comment on potential tactical service.

Took the 2 ¾” M66 with the 165/12 2400 to the range this afternoon. Plate rack with various geometric forms at 27 to full size popper at 75 yds with various sized poppers in between. Ran out of ammo before I ran out of fun.




Here’s a light load that I tested with good results – bottom group.


For the purposes that the OP stated, I say go for it.

Paul

I've looked at the new M66 at my LGS and like it a lot but, based on my experience [of one] I am reluctant to buy a new Smith revo because my last and only new Smith had a canted barrel. Was yours G2G right out of the box?

[paul105]

I have 6 of the new K & L frame S&Ws with the two piece barrels -- all were good to go from the get go -- no canted barrels. Of course that doesn't mean it can't happen (heavy handed install, poor QA/QC -- our old buddy Murphy is always with us), although with the two piece barrel (shroud "key/lock to frame") I don't see how it could happen very often (but then again, I'm not an engineer or machinist)


FWIW,

Paul

[OlongJohnson]

I've read up on M67s a bit, and found some reports (or possibly just one or two repeated) that some users have found the two-piece barrels to be more accurate than the earlier ones, in spite of the soul leak. Benos, most likely.

If you don't need to shoot magnums, the 67 is interesting due to the shorter cylinder. It should be infinitesimally easier to get rolling and make a smaller impact when it stops suddenly, so it may be easier to pull the trigger fast and it may last longer before going out of time with lots of DA shooting and dry fire.

If I was going to shoot IDPA with a revolver, I'd think of it as sporting equipment and just look for a 67-6 in a readily-correctable state of defectivity. Find an FFL with a stack of them and pick the best one. If I wanted something to be nice, I'd probably look for a clean -4 in a readily-correctable state of defectivity and wear.

I haven't noticed that clean 3-inch, pre-lock M64s seem to go for much less than clean 3-inch, pre-lock M65s.

My second (of two) premium-spec Airlite S&W is currently back at the factory, hoping to get factory defects corrected (necessitating replacing parts) without new problems being created, for whatever that's worth.

[entropy]

Life often takes me away from this board. It’s nice to know that whenever I have a couple extra bucks in my pocket, visiting here with my morning coffee instantly removes that conumdrum.

[rsa-otc]

I've read up on M67s a bit, and found some reports (or possibly just one or two repeated) that some users have found the two-piece barrels to be more accurate than the earlier ones, in spite of the soul leak. Benos, most likely.

If you don't need to shoot magnums, the 67 is interesting due to the shorter cylinder. It should be infinitesimally easier to get rolling and make a smaller impact when it stops suddenly, so it may be easier to pull the trigger fast and it may last longer before going out of time with lots of DA shooting and dry fire.

If I was going to shoot IDPA with a revolver, I'd think of it as sporting equipment and just look for a 67-6 in a readily-correctable state of defectivity. Find an FFL with a stack of them and pick the best one. If I wanted something to be nice, I'd probably look for a clean -4 in a readily-correctable state of defectivity and wear.

I haven't noticed that clean 3-inch, pre-lock M64s seem to go for much less than clean 3-inch, pre-lock M65s.

My second (of two) premium-spec Airlite S&W is currently back at the factory, hoping to get factory defects corrected (necessitating replacing parts) without new problems being created, for whatever that's worth.

I shoot a 686 in IDPA and when I carry a revolver at work it's a K Frame. While I don't notice the difference in mass between a Model 10/64 or 13/65 cylinder, I can tell the difference in the trigger pull between a K frame & L Frame cylinders. I do know is that my splits are measurably faster using a K Frame and I always attributed this to the difference in the cylinder mass. Also my trigger finger tires more quickly during long training seasons when I use a L frame.

I can't say there an increased wear factor between the two. My 686 has so many rounds through it the bolt and center pin were worn where they are in contact to the point that the bolt was interfering with the back of the hammer and the center pin wasn't pushing the front cylinder lock totally out. But the timing on the gun is still true after all those rounds.

[Port]

Well, I finally got to hold a 66 yesterday! Unfortunately it was the 4”, but still, what a beautiful, beautiful handgun.



It just floated in my hand. I will be getting th 2.75”. There’s no question.

[Crusader8207]

Took mine to the range on Saturday. Love the gun, very accurate out of the box. I had issues with the Wilson Combat mainspring and went back to stock (stock rebound spring, just polished). Issues went away, so the gun will remain stock. The issue I was having is I was getting a misfire every other trigger pull. I had experienced it during dry fire but thought it was due to short stroking the trigger. After reinstalling the stock mainspring, the issue is gone.