Which S&W 19/66 model versions were the best?

I doubt there is any measurable difference amongst the lot. It was a well documented fact that the k frame magnums would not hold up to a steady diet of the 125 gr. magnums. I had a 66 and after about 350 rounds it went back to S & W for a new bbl, cylinder and other parts. Of course the ammo back in the 70's and 80's was quite a bit hotter than today's fodder.

I always liked the pinned an recessed ones the most.

"I always liked the pinned and recessed ones the most."

me too, but then I don't think I have ever seen a 19/66 that wasn't
(come to think of it, don't think I ever saw a k-17 that wasn't, either)
honestly curious, dumb question Saturday for me, I guess, but did they make 19/66s otherwise, before they dropped Ks in 357 altogether ?

PS
the 125 gr SuperVel stuff in k-frames is mostly, I think, due to the forcing cone being a tad flattened at 6 o'clock, a frame size limitation, not a "dash" version thing
they all handle slower/heavier just fine though
which is mostly why they went to L/N frame for 357

which is mostly why they went to L/N frame for 357

Click to expand...

N frame for .357mag came first. Then, partly thanks to Bill Jordan, the .357mag was introduced into the K frame guns.

yep, I shoulda' just said it was mostly why they dropped K 357s, went with L/N only
model 27 and/or pre-27 "what's not to love"

How many people shoot 125gr JHPs all the time, anyway? The blast is violent, the cost is excessive and despite its efficiency, it's unpleasant. (I always shoot softpoints because they're easier to get.)

Wal*Mart tends not to carry hollowpoints at all, and when JHPs are mentioned on the Investigative Discovery Channel, they refer to them as "exploding bullets" or other nonsense. (One juror asked why a woman couldn't have shot her abusive husband in the leg or somewhere less lethal.)

I have a Ruger Security-Six and I put mostly .38s through it, even though it can take the hot stuff.

Many, myself included, believe that the pre 1980 S&W’s were given a greater attention to detail in assembly, and some believe that the older the better, especially with the finish. So my choice with the M-19’s is a dash 3 or lower model. As for the M-66’s my no dash is just fine for me.

The entire K frame line of .357’s had a flat spot milled at the 6 o’clock position to allow for frame clearance. This created the potential for an inherent weak spot. Some of these guns that had a large number of HOT 110 and 125 Gr. Magnum rounds through them had barrel failures.

Even though today's factory ammo is, in most cases, downloaded from 25 years ago, I still feel no need to shoot .357 Magnum ammo through my K frames any longer, that’s what my L and N frames are for. I do though load some hot .357 Magnum rounds for S/D.

Really- you have to ask?

The pinned & recessed models, of course, & the earlier the better. A no-dash would be the best.

As far as model 19s and all K frame magnums are concern, I have a 13-2 4 inch, 19-2 4 inch and a 19-4 6 inch model. They are pinned and recessed and the quality to me is the best. I also have a model 66-4 4 inch. This revolver has the crushed fit barrel. I have had no problems with the revolver but I still like the pinned and recessed models better.
I have some advice about shooting the 125 gr magnum "frame throwers", don't use them in a K frame magnum. Stay with the heavier grain magnum rounds and you should have no issues.

Regards,
Howard

I like the 19-3s. I believe they were the last of the pinned & recessed, which also has the trigger stop.

As far as forcing cone issues go, all 19/66 have the same weak link regardless of dash #. The flat spot at 6 o'clock on the forcing cone. It's there for crane clearance.

The issues began when people (inevitably) started seeing just how much H110 or 2400 powder they could cram behind a 110gr bullet. The bullet clears the CB gap while the powder is still making pressure. This subjects the forcing cone & top strap area to hot gases at high pressure.

The frame itself is also lighter, so why abuse it? If I want to shoot Big Dogs all day long I have a 28-2 & a 686. Even in those, I use faster powder for my 125gr bullet loads. But I hardly ever shoot those. The .357 Magnum was designed for a 158gr pill. Run with the Big Dogs!

Bill Jordan said it re the M19. ".38s for practice, .357s for business."

This help? http://www.handloads.com/misc/Smith.Model.Changes.asp

Sunray - thanks for the chart link

Sunray, thanks for the chart, I've always wanted one, thanks again!

I have always been fond of the 19-3 or -4 versions, but in reality I like all of the pre-MIM versions. IIRC -8 started the MIM.

Forgive my ignorance. What advantages do a pinned barrel and recessed cylinder bring to the table? I've read that recessed cylinders had historical benefit due to the use of balloon-head cases back then. But isn't that kind of a non-issue with modern brass?

Click to expand...

There is no advantage of a pinned & recessed over one which is not. Collectors and aficionados generally desire products, which where closer to handcrafted or the "original" way. These handguns were produced before MIM, were presumed to be of higher quality control by some. Yet due to cost and competition, firearms manufactures will always look for ways to produce a model with less steps, less labor, and less material cost. That's business. To not do so, means a model is doomed to go the way of the do-do, Sig 210, HK P7, etc.

The truth is that today's S&W will shoot just as well or better than those made in the era of the pinned and recessed 19's. I have handled several LNIB 19-3s which had timing problems. With that being said, I admit to being human and that I too have a special place in my heart for 19-3s and German made HKs.

The truth is that today's S&W will shoot just as well or better than those made in the era of the pinned and recessed 19's.

Click to expand...

I don't know about "better" but they're not bad. My only non P&R Smith ('80's vintage 686 no dash) shoots absolutely wonderful. And it is the loosest of all of 'em. It makes me wonder of "tight lockup" is overated as far as accuracy goes.

There have been issues with overtorqued (new guy on the line?) non pinned barrels breaking or getting a bulge right from the factory.

Perhaps, and I also have a 63-0, which when first bought new, would rub the front of the cylinder and the forcing cone on three of the chambers. The model 66-0's were so tightly built that the Louisiana State Police often had problems with their service revolvers locking up once their M-66s heated up from range fire.

The early 66's, 60's were prone to locking up due to heat. As I recall it was due to the then new stainless steels s & w was using. Stainless holds heat longer than carbon. Also a tight b/c gap will do it a lot.

When the Customs Service decided to arm their inspectors in the 80's they gave S & W their own specs for the new L frame dubbed the CS-1. They were so tight that they all had to made a trip back for S & W to make them work. The CS-1's were probably the finest revolvers that S & W had made in some time.

The truth is that today's S&W will shoot just as well or better than those made in the era of the pinned and recessed 19's.

Click to expand...

My 66-5 is quite the shooter. Between it and my pinned/recessed 66-1 I would go with the later -5 , in regards to accuracy.

The stainless of the -5 is more evenly finished. The 66-1 , had a few areas (like the trigger guard) that was not "blended" well.

The frame of the 66-1 where the barrel inserts looks as thought it was beat with a hammer. The same area of the 66-5 looks sharply machined.

The trigger action I give the edge to the older 66-1. Although the 66-5 is not bad by any means.

I have no plans to get rid of either , I enjoy both the earlier and later 66.

Dobe,

FHP had similar lock-up problems and attributed it to a different rate of expansion of the hammer nose bushing. It seemed the bushing would heat up at a faster rate and actually push itself out of the frame. This would force the bushing to lock up against the base of the cartridge, effectively locking the cylinder.

I prefer the 19-3's and 19-4's. In the model 66 I have no use for any of them after the 66-4.

Out of my 66's I seem to prefer the 66-2 the most, currently having seven of them in various barrel lengths. Great revolvers. TJ

FHP had similar lock-up problems and attributed it to a different rate of expansion of the hammer nose bushing. It seemed the bushing would heat up at a faster rate and actually push itself out of the frame. This would force the bushing to lock up against the base of the cartridge, effectively locking the cylinder.

Click to expand...

Interesting for sure. BTW, what department is FHP?

The early 66's

Click to expand...

I had one of the first and had that problem. As a duty gun it was not suitable and I replaced it.