Smith and Wesson Model 66 Combat Magnum Review
Way back in a previous century, when I started a career as a cop, my off-duty gun was a blued, .357 Magnum Smith & Wesson Model 19 snubbie. The K-Frame was a most ideal size for such utilize, falling between the too-big-to-bear North-Frame in bulk and weight, and the likewise-small-to-shoot-well (for me) five-shot .38 Special J-Frame. In the days before the autopistol expansion, in areas where it was allowed, the .357 Magnum was a well-respected powerhouse in compatible, and the Model 19 was highly regarded.
Conventional policy was to practice and qualify with .38 Special ammo while conveying the full-bore magnum rounds of the day on duty. This worked just fine for many years after Bill Hashemite kingdom of jordan collaborated with S&W to develop the K-Frame magnum in 1955. In the late 1970s, though, a new philosophy emerged, and the thought of shooting the same magnum loads for preparation and qualification at the range as nosotros carried in the cruisers began to spread across the state.
This was proficient, encouraging officers to train more realistically, simply it was also not good, bringing out a flaw Jordan had mentioned all along. The .357 K-Frame, despite its advanced construction over the older .38 K-Frames, was not built for a steady nutrition of magnum shooting. Frames stretched on occasion with high-mileage guns, end shake developed hither and there, and, well-nigh notably, the forcing cones on One thousand-Frame magnums were not bad at the bottom, in the flat section required by the yoke design, where the cone wall was thinnest.
None of this shades the K-Frame magnums—it's just a matter of physics and intended utilise at the time the gun was introduced. Firing .38s, the tried-and-truthful K-Frame was a stellar performer that typically ran fine for generations. This was fully in tune with the way most owners thought and shot in the 1950s and 1960s. Using magnums occasionally was fine in an era where very few people shot the hot stuff every weekend, and fifty-fifty with the common conventional magnum 158-grainers the K-Frame could agree up reasonably well with semi-regular use.
Simply magnum pressures were yet difficult on the design parameters, and the cracked forcing cone issue was farther aggravated by the increasing popularity of the higher-stepping 125-grain JHPs that showed such a high degree of effectiveness in one-shot stops from police enforcement holsters. The 125-grainers were very efficient on the street but very hard on forcing cones at the range. Information technology took a while for the correlation between forcing cone wearable and bullet weight to exist made, and the introduction of the larger L-Frame magnum in 1981 came nearly to address the issues inherent to the K-Frame magnums.
The L-Frame was so successful in creating a more than durable .357 Magnum platform that it's been in continuous production ever since, whereas S&W dropped the K-Frame magnums in 1999 (the blue Model 19) and 2005 (the stainless Model 66). The Model 19 is nonetheless only a used-gun proffer, simply the Model 66 was reintroduced with a 4.25-inch barrel in 2014, and now in a 2.75-inch barrel in 2017.
When I left my first police department, I sold my snub-nose Model 19 during a moment of massive cranial discombobulation, and I've regretted it ever since. I acquired information technology used in 1976 and accept no idea when it was built, just information technology was in first-class shape and a fine example of S&W at its best. I did stumble across a mint Model 66 snubbie years subsequently and snatched information technology up every bit a more corrosion-resistant substitute if I ever decided to render to a .357 Magnum for concealed carry. The late-1980s production S&Westward has sat unfired since then.
All of that said, when Smith & Wesson was getting closer to shipping the new version earlier this year, I thought a caput-to-head might be interesting. The company duly sent a test sample and we were off and running. The idea was to compare and note the concrete differences between both guns, sometime and new, shoot several representative loads through each and tally upwardly the results.
Old Meets New
My older Model 66 looked new when I acquired it and came with a set of discontinued blackness rubber Butler Creek grips installed. Familiar to one-time S&W fans, it came with a ii.five-inch butt, a front ramp sight with a red insert, a white-outlined micrometer rear sight, a casehardened trigger and hammer, a vi-shot cylinder, and traditional front lockup achieved past the long-standing leap-loaded plunger in the ejector rod housing engaging the finish of the extractor rod.
This Model 66-4 generation has an un-pinned butt, an un-pinned extractor star, a topstrap drilled for attaching optics, a rounded rear sight base of operations front advisable to its time of manufacture, and yes—it too has the flat forcing cone department at the bottom. The trigger is smooth-faced, the hammer spur is the middle-of-the-route semi-target width, the firing pin is located in the hammer, and the outside metal surfaces accept the brushed end used on Smith & Wesson stainless revolvers for decades.
The new Model 66 shows obvious kinship. But differences crop up bated from the slightly longer barrel. The new butt is a two-piece design—an assembly of a straight inner rifled tube and an outer shroud with a pinned crimson-insert ramp front sight. The grips are fabricated of a black, lightly textured, synthetic material very close to the other revolver's Butler Creek dimensions only made by Southward&W.
The fully adjustable rear sight is S&W all the way, with a rounded forepart tang over the drilled and tapped topstrap, just no white outline on its bract. The trigger and hammer are both MIM parts, and they share a nighttime black oxide finish with the thumbpiece and the visible screws. Likewise the butt length and construction, there is another significant change in front-cease lockup on the new 66. The ejector rod shroud's plunger is missing, and the longer barrel allows a longer ejector rod for better case extraction. Lockup functions have been moved from the ejector rod to a relocated plunger in the frame just ahead of the cylinder, and that plunger now engages a recess in the crane.
The gas ring in front of the cylinder has also been modified, which adds to a much tighter cylinder lockup than whatsoever S&W revolver that's e'er passed through my hands. There is plenty room to eliminate the apartment lower cone section of the older blueprint, leaving full-thickness cone walls all the way round. The firing pin is situated in the frame, the hammer also uses the same semi-target width, and, interestingly, the new cylinder is fractionally longer than the older one.
The topstrap is likewise slightly longer, with the rear sight blade riding about 0.06 inches further back in the frame than on the earlier 66. This is a function of a decreased arc under the hammer common to the newer-lock-equipped frames. The more subdued grayness stop is a dewdrop-blasted bargain, non a chemic treatment, and of grade the gun has S&W's internal fundamental lock.
Range Shootout
Basically, the test setup was very simple; I decided to shoot v commercial jacketed loads off the bench through both guns at 25 yards in a status- controlled indoor range with proficient lighting. Accuracy was the goal, so I didn't incorporate any speed contests or gainsay drills. An old MTM pistol rest was used to support each revolver.
Short-barreled .357 Magnums can produce a lot of noise and flash, and these guns were no exception. Notable cage flash occurred with most of the test loads, and the enclosed indoor shooting station walls bounced the concussion back into my headset and plugged ears on every shot.
The recoil of the .357 Magnum has never been an issue for me with proficient grips. The grips on these two guns were very comfortable with all of the examination loads, even the stiffer 140-grain CorBon rounds. I'd phone call it a launder between the ii grips; both are well contoured and slip resistant without being abrasive.
In a static, slow-fire paper shoot, the lack of a white outline on the new 66 wasn't an effect, merely I'd miss it in existent-life utilise. Between the all-black rear sight and the not-quite-as-brilliant-orange front insert, the new sight picture doesn't spring to the middle as quickly equally the older one does. I'd like to come across Southward&West correct this, especially in a gun more probable to see use for concealed behave than Sat afternoon paper punching.
The 5-pound SA pull on the new 66 was heavier than it needs to be, but information technology's tolerable. It broke make clean when it did let become, and the 5-pound pull on the older snub likewise offered a clean suspension, so no advantage either way in SA triggers. The DA pulls were off my calibration on both revolvers, but noticeably heavier in the new gun every bit measured past my meticulously calibrated trigger finger. Firing in DA mode, the nod clearly goes to the old model.
Any snubbie with a 2- or 2.5-inch barrel by any maker will normally endure from a shorter ejector rod as compared to a total-length version in the same frame size. It'due south a built-in drawback we trade for improve concealability in short wheelguns that we merely accept to work around. An actress quarter-inch on the new snubbie's barrel doesn't sound similar all that big of a bargain, simply when combined with the forepart locking plunger existence moved out of the way, the two modifications permit a full-length ejector rod without detracting from the overall concealability of this model in any practical way. It's definitely a plus on the side of the new model here.
The Forcing Cone
Cyberspace reports accept detailed cases of jacket shaving and blowback with new snub-nose 66s. I started testing with the older 66 and encountered a single instance where one CorBon 140-grain JHP shaved so badly that information technology deposited chunks of jacket textile between the top of the forcing cone and the topstrap large enough to stick out and bind upward the cylinder'south rotation. I had to carefully chisel them out with a small screwdriver and hammer. That never happened again with that gun, simply I did get blowback from a Hornady 140-grain FTX circular that stung my cheek and drew blood from my trigger finger.
With the new S&W, the same CorBon 140-grain JHP caused four cylinder jams, once more depositing jacket textile between the forcing cone and topstrap that bound up rotation and had to be pried out. One CorBon round as well stung my other cheek with particulate blowback. What's up?
In discussing the results of his ammunition with Peter Pi at CorBon, he said he's noted shaving in several .357 Magnum revolvers over the years with 140-grain JHPs, and it appears to exist a known event in some guns. He uses quality Sierra bullets in his 140-grain loads.
When I laid out the results of the testing for my longtime gunsmith, he confirmed the 140-grain jacketed bullet consequence (once again in some guns) going as far back equally his own metallic silhouette days in the 1970s. I apparently had not fired plenty 140-grainers over the years to encounter it myself, but I'll have their word for information technology. (Knowing how these things sometimes become themselves misconstrued, note that I am not condemning all 140-grain jacketed bullets in all guns, merely suggesting that y'all effort a couple boxes of them for performance before adopting one as a behave load in your item revolver.) It appears to be a combined event of bullet ogive, bullet velocity and forcing cone bending, so I can't entirely arraign the new gun.
But in closely examining both S&Ws, a range rod shows both accept perfect alignment with the diameter in all chambers, eliminating timing questions equally a possible crusade of the shaving equally far as the guns themselves become. A K-Frame go/no-go gauge passed the older 66 with an ideal cone, merely showed the new cone as a definite "no become." On this sample information technology'south way as well shallow, which likely contributed to the more than aggressive shaving. Under a jeweler's magnifying visor and with bright light, the cone was also visibly cut off heart, with a deeper angle on 1 side and a markedly shallower angle across from it. The rear cease was too not faced squarely, and all of this combined undoubtedly created the unusual shaving and spitting issues on this sample.
S&West apologized for the manufacturing error and offered another exam gun, but time didn't allow for a re-shoot on this 1. The visitor did say that the new 66'south cone should not be this shallow. Product going forward should gauge to normal specs, and with a wider bending and a properly centered internal cutting, I'd expect to see shaving profoundly reduced across the board, if non eliminated entirely from most jacketed loads.
In Perspective
The longer barrel on the new Model 66 shorty allows better ejection, the relocated front end plunger facilitates a tighter cylinder lockup, the grips are a very good design, and the SA trigger is quite passable, though the DA pull is overly heavy. The not-reflective bead-blasted finish won't glare upwards your position like the older semi-shiny ane could. And the gun should concord up much better to prolonged magnum ammunition use with the new forcing cone.
The new model also outshot the one-time one in 25-grand accurateness testing even with that bad forcing cone. And only to show the 140-grainers aren't totally out of the running, despite the cheek-stinging blowback with that ane Hornady shot, the FTX rounds pulled off excellent "combat accuracy" in both snubs.
I'd still like to see the company do better on the 66's sights, but with an in-spec barrel and the right load, this one can do a credible chore as a corrosion-resistant concealed-bear proposition around town, a trim trail gun in the high country, a low-cal backpack blaster and a compact glovebox gun. The K-Frame magnum has ever been a powerful and near-ideal carry revolver in compact snubbie form, and the tradition continues with this reintroduction.
For more information, visit smith-wesson.com.
Due south&W Model 66 Combat Magnum Specs
| Caliber: .357 Magnum/.38 Special |
| Barrel: 2.75 inches |
| OA Length:7.8 inches |
| Weight: 33.5 ounces (empty) |
| Grip: Synthetic |
| Sights: Ramp front, adaptable rear |
| Action: DA/SA |
| End: Stainless |
| Capacity: 6 |
| MSRP: $849 |
S&W Model 66 Gainsay Magnum Functioning
| Load | Accurateness (Vintage Model) | Accuracy (New Model) |
|---|---|---|
| Blackness Hills 125 JHP | 2.31 | 1.62 |
| CorBon 140 JHP | 3.00 | 3.25 |
| Hornady 140 FTX | 1.62 | 1.88 |
| Winchester 110 JHP | iii.xviii | 2.43 |
| Winchester 125 PDX1 | 2.62 | ane.56 |
*Bullet weight measured in grains. Accuracy measured in inches for best v-shot groups at 25 yards.
This commodity was originally published in "Gun Buyer's Annual" 2018. To order a re-create, visit outdoorgroupstore.com.
Source: https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2018/01/sw-model-66-combat-magnum-revolver/
0 Response to "Smith and Wesson Model 66 Combat Magnum Review"
Post a Comment