Taurus 66 vs Smith K frame

Hi, and welcome to The High Road. You can't go wrong with either choice. Owned several Smiths, never owned (or even shot) a Taurus. Not knocking Taurus at all, but the Model 10/64 is a fine handgun.

The Taurus 66 is probably along with the 85, their most refined and consistently quality revolvers.

Few things are the equal to a well made K frame in handling and shooting characteristics though. If you don't shoot magnums, and don't fret the loss of one round (a 15% reduction in capacity) you would be excellently served by a M64.

You're maybe saving a couple of ounces in weight going from the Taurus to a a Model 10 or 64. You said you really don't shoot that many magnums but you'd be losing that option with a 10 or 64. The 10 or 64 will do nicely for HD duties though.

My Taurus 669 (full lug under barrel) I bought in 1989 is still serving me well. It has proven more durable that the S&W M19 I bought in 1974 (and is long gone). I have several Taurus revolvers and semiautomatics. No problems with any of them. Some I carried as a duty gun as a LEO.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to talk you out of buying another gun. Your Taurus us quite capable of filling your need though.

"sleek" between the K and L. Just a smidge bigger. All Smiths "look right" to me. I shoot magnum loads rarely but prefer to have the option. I don't mean to be a Taurus basher but I'd take any flavor Smith over a taurus.

The full lug does protect the ejector rod and adds some weight to help with recoil.

A 3 or 4" makes more sense when you throw in the CCW requirement.

Ever take a look at the ruger sp101?

Colombo38

For all around use I found the 4" S&W Model 686 to be a great choice for target shooting, home defense, and even CCW. I like that the L frame is better suited for a steady diet of .357s and that the underlug barrel helps dampen recoil and muzzle rise a bit. If you would prefer just having something for shooting .38 Specials for the most part then I would say look for an older K frame like the Model 19/66 or the Model 18/67.

A 3" 686 or 66 would be my choice as well.

It's kind of a "Goldilock" barrel length. Enough barrel length that you're getting decent velocity and a ok sight picture. But it's short enough that it'll carry great on a belt holster.

Both give you the option of magnum loads and nice sights which I like. The 66 will be easier to carry with a smaller cylinder and lighter half lug barrel. The 686 will have less recoil due to more weight and has an extra (7th) round so you wouldn't be giving up any capacity.

On other topics I have talked about my primary edc is a Beretta 92FS and how I do not consider the 5 shot J-Frame snubby revolver is a good choice for conceal carry.

In between the two extremes I have a old S&W Model 10-6 4" heavy barrel that was a law enforcement agency trade-in. It's blue finish is well worn and I sent to back to S&W for factory repair. I don't consider it to be a particularly good choice for edc considering the advantages of the slightly larger Beretta 92. It also come up short as a hunting handgun.

In spite of the limitations of my old Model 10 it is one of the (and maybe the) last handguns I will part with. It just feels right in my hand and has near ideal size and weight for the 38 Special cartridge.

When looking the market over it seems a lot of other gun owners are discovering the advantages of the simple, no-frills Model 10.

I can't comment about getting rid of your Taurus but you will be in good company with the Model 10.

I may be a bit peculiar, but despite having owned or fired or examined a great variety of fancier handguns, the K-frame Smiths just suit me really well, feel right somehow. I'd make the switch you envision.

I am with the S&W Ks here. A 3" being my favorite. A 4" would be fine as well.

I would much rather have a S&W K-frame .38 at the bedside over any Taurus made gun. Sorry, but while the Taurus might work just fine, it is nowhere near the quality of a Smith & Wesson and the long term durability for practice (and you should practice OFTEN with your home defense handgun) strongly favors the S&W.

You can get a police trade in model 10 or model 64 for very good prices these days. They are usually in very good internal shape, with only some holster wear. "Carried often shot little" as they say. Stoke it with some Speer Gold Dot 125 grain .38 special +Ps and have a couple speedloaders at the ready. Use the Harry's Method to shoot with a light and you're all set for a good home defense setup to be sure.

A S&W M10 4" - get a used one - should be what you need. I've had much experience with them and found them to be just about perfect.

Hanshi said:

A S&W M10 4" - get a used one - should be what you need. I've had much experience with them and found them to be just about perfect.

Click to expand...

My vote is for the M64.

Rather than a 64, how about a 67 because it has adjustable sights.

Triggernosis said:

Rather than a 64, how about a 67 because it has adjustable sights.

Click to expand...

How about they aren't needed for home defense and they go for a premium over the 64s? Much easier to find police surplus 64s in my experience, and at a lower price. Adjustable sights on these kinds of revolvers are overrated and lack the same durability.

Fair enough, regarding them being cheaper. But I've been carrying adjustable sight revolvers, mostly S&W, for almost 40 yrs and I've never had an adjustable sight fail.

The Taurus 66 is sized between the S&W K and L frames. It was originally a K-frame clone, but there have been changes over the years. If you have one that has proven reliable, personally I like the idea of a 7-shot revolver that is a tad smaller than a comparable S&W L-frame. That said, since yours is a 6" and you are interested in CCW, you may want to add a new gun or trade the 66 if you don't want many guns. And, if you are going to trade for a more CCW appropriate gun, few guns are better all around revolvers than a medium frame (K or L frame) 3" revolver in .357mag.

With current production, I'd be looking towards the S&W 66 with a 2.75" barrel or a 686 Plus (7 shot version of the 686) with a 3" barrel. If you go used, well, I really love my S&W 65LS so I'd look for a Ladysmith 1st, and a regular 3" 13 or 65 (in that order) would be my next choice. Of course, that is assuming you can find a 3" K-frame .357mag at a reasonable price. I'd go .357mag since it would keep the .357mag an option should you ever want it while still shooting .38spl just fine, unless you find a .38 revolver that is substantially less expensive (or you really want a classic or police trade in model 10).

Colombo38 said:

I'm thinking of replacing it with a K frame 38 partly because I find them sleeker and they just look right to me. I don't really fire many magnums.

Click to expand...

The S&W 66 is a good choice. So is a stainless Ruger Security-Six. Both guns are about the same size and weight. The 66 has a better action and it's just come back into production (if you can find one). Used 66s are out there, but the older ones won't take sustained magnum rounds with light, 110-140gr JHPs. If you shoot 158gr JHPs, you'll be okay. The Ruger Security-Six can be found used, and you can fire anything in them. But I'd get the new Combat Masterpiece if price wasn't a consideration.

Ruger, S&W and Taurus are putting too much steel into their guns. They've turned them into boat anchors and they don't care what consumers think. I say this as a huge fan of the S&W 686, but the lack of choice irritates me. The .357 caliber is one of the greatest revolver rounds ever developed, but all the manufacturers are putting the damn underlugs on the barrel and adding steel everywhere they can stuff it until they can add no more. They ought to remove it until they can remove no more. I remember when the Security-Six (Heavy Barrel) was introduced. That was okay, but the GP-100 is ridiculous. Why don't they develop a barrel where one can add weights if they feel the need? Or do as Dan Wesson did and let people change barrels (which would be a good idea anyway)?

I'd just like to see .357s with less steel. We've got the technology, and no one really complained about the recoil of the Security-Six.

I know the manufacturers would never admit it, but I firmly believe, and did when they were introduced, that the full length lugs "everyone" started putting on guns like the 586/686 and the GP 100 were simply to make their guns look like Pythons.