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

[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/firearm...-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.