Smith and Wesson new model 66 vs 686, both with 4.2" barrels?

L

lyle1

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
227   0   0
Location
Alberta
I would like to get opinions and advice on the new model 66, 4.2" K frame, vs an equivalent 686, 4.2" L frame?
I currently own older 6" K frame S&W models, and 5" S&W L models, but would like to have a shorter barrel
"fun gun" to go plinking at the range with. Most likely, I will only be shooting .38 specials through it, so the recoil
reduction of the bigger L frame probably doesn't matter. My biggest concern is the 2 piece barrel and the overall
aesthetics of the gun. Can my fellow members help point me in the right direction?:)
 
I've got a 686"Canadian" 4.2" that I shoot 38's out of mainly for the economics . As far as appearance, its a matter of personal taste.
The "Two piece" barrel is really a non issue. Even Korth revolvers are built that way. FWIW I would
go with the 686 for the resale value should you ever decide to part with. You may also decide to fire off some hot 357's one
day and 686's can tame any of them. A full underlug revolver looks pretty good to most. Can't picture a Python without one.
 
The 66 will be lighter, and livelier in the hand. The extra weight of the 686 was only there to help them stand up to a steady diet of 357. I'd take the 66. FWIW, dan wesson uses a 2 part barrel system as well, and no one has ever complained about durability or accuracy with them.

If i was buying on of the two, it would be the 66.
 
If you already have a 5" L frame and just want a shorter barrelled plinker, i'd probably go with the 66 as well. I wouldn't worry too much about the 2 piece barrel. I think S&W probably have it mastered after years of producing their light weight scandium models.

The only thing i'm not clear on is when you say "aesthetics". Do you not like the looks of the new 66? I'm guilty of buying a few pistols based solely on looks so that would be a consideration for me too. You could always pick one up, see if you like it any better after holding and shooting it (hey, opinions change) and if it still doesn't do it for you, you'll be able to flip it for close to what you paid no problem.
 
gdawg said:
If you already have a 5" L frame and just want a shorter barrelled plinker, i'd probably go with the 66 as well. I wouldn't worry too much about the 2 piece barrel. I think S&W probably have it mastered after years of producing their light weight scandium models.

The only thing i'm not clear on is when you say "aesthetics". Do you not like the looks of the new 66? I'm guilty of buying a few pistols based solely on looks so that would be a consideration for me too. You could always pick one up, see if you like it any better after holding and shooting it (hey, opinions change) and if it still doesn't do it for you, you'll be able to flip it for close to what you paid no problem.
Click to expand...

The black cylinder release, the black hammer and trigger, the matte stainless, and the ball-detent system are on the new Model 66. The 686 comes with the conventional satin stainless, and all the conventional other "goodies".....are these features better, worse or just different??
 
The L frame guns 586/686 series were introduced due to model 19/66 showing wear after many rounds of full power .357 mag loads. The load that was really beating these guns up (cracked forcing cones) was the 125 gr hollow point over a full charge of powder. This load was used by many law enforcement agencies at the time. Now most agencies are using various semi auto service weapons.

For normal .357 & .38 spec loads the model 19/66 should digest more rounds than most of us will fire in a life time.
 
The Model 66 is my choice of the two. I prefer the appearance and balance of the half-lugged barrel and I don't see the fact that it is two pieces as being an issue. As a bonus, this new version of the 66 has the barrel the same thickness all round at the forcing cone end, which appears to eliminate the weak spot of the original K Frame .357s.
 
tjhaile said:
The Model 66 is my choice of the two. I prefer the appearance and balance of the half-lugged barrel and I don't see the fact that it is two pieces as being an issue. As a bonus, this new version of the 66 has the barrel the same thickness all round at the forcing cone end, which appears to eliminate the weak spot of the original K Frame .357s.
Click to expand...

Good information.
 
Hey Lyle. If I was you I would pick up an old model 19 and send it to MD Charlton. That's what I did and I couldn't be happier with the results. You could do the same with a model 14 or 15 or whatever you can get your hands on for cheap. The work is not that expensive but oh so worth it and you can set up your gun exactly the way you want it, with an action that can't be beat and it'll be more accurate then you.

m192.JPG
 
Lyle, you know the best one is the 66-2!

Frankly, I think the new 686 has a nicer action and more potential than the 66-8, though the 66-8 is smaller. Probably ideal for you would be a 66-2 round butt, with compact grips. My favorite 66 at the moment is this one

lut88.jpg


Though I'm waiting to fall in love with a nice 2 1/2" one that OSOK just sold me. The actions on the older guns don't need a trip to a gunsmith. Put on the grips you like and go and shoot nice tight groups. These are the revolvers that will make one hole, right in the middle of your target, and leave you grinning like an idiot.

The 686 and 66 take the same grips though, which tells you that the grip size is pretty much identical. S&W now does both in a round butt, which is easier on smaller hands, and can be squared simply by adding a conversion grip, for those among you with mitts the size of suitcases.

I personally still prefer the K frame over the L, especially if all you're doing is shooting .38 Special wadcutters. I was amazed at how quiet the midrange match wadcutters were out of the 6" barrel. I could take off my hearing protection indoors (don't tell anyone) and it wasn't at all unpleasant. Like a suppressed pistol. Well, a little louder, but not bad at all. The buck and roar of my 6" 648 in .22 magnum was quite striking in comparison. I learned on a square butt K frame, so I'm fine with one. Newcomers tend to prefer the round butt version.
 
I'm still looking at the 66/69 myself.

I've got a one-ragged-hole load for my 629, but even for me the N-Frame is a bit on the chunky side for a target pistol, I'm finding.

Much as I like the looks and heft of a longer barrel - I just got/shot my 586 for the first time - I'm not so sold on it yet that I want to sell my little GP-100.

I'd say go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom