S&W 66 vs. 686

[ColtBRH]

I've been reading a lot of good things about the S&W 686, but I don't see that much about the 66. Other than the option of getting a 7-shot, are there advantages that the 686 has over the 66? Thanks.

 

[JohnK]

The 686 is slightly larger and was designed after complaints of the 66 wearing out to quickly shooting full power magnum loads. The 686 is no more accurate, doesn't have a better or worse trigger, it's main advantage is it's strength, followed up by the heavy full underlug to reduce felt recoil.

 

[flip180]

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85566

Here is a thread that I started a while back that addressed issues with the K-frames (M66). I really don't think that I'll shoot one apart being that I really have reloaded .38 SPCL thus far. When I do step up to .357, I don't think that they'll be the barn burners that will mess up the gun too bad if at all. And if I do, I'll send it in to have it fixed. That being said, I love the M66 2-1/2 but wouldn't mind a 2-1/2 686 also but can't justify forking over the cash for one.

Flip.

 

[ChristopherG]

Depends on what you want to do with it. They're both great guns. Whatcha lookin for it to do?

 

[ColtBRH]

I was mostly going to use it at the range, but I don't want it to wear out from shooting .357 rounds one day.

 

[roo_ster]

Don't expect to wear out a M686 by taking it to the range every month or so & shooting .357mags. Expect your grandkids to still be shooting it, if they are allowed to own firearms by that time.

 

[Penman]

I knew a guy who had been the armorer for a large police department that has used M66's. He noted that they tended to wear quickly, even with +P .38 loads. If you plan to carry a .357 concealed, the 66 is the way to go. For the longest service life, the 686 is a better choice. One of these days I'm going to get a 4" 66 or 19 and have the grip frame round butted for carry.

 

[Wanderer]

I find the balance to be better with the 66, but in the end, the 686 will last a tad longer, and your hand might not hurt so much.

 

[bountyhunter]

The bore axis on the 66 is lower so it balances better and there is less PERCEIVED recoil for the same loads. I recommend the pachmayr decelerator grips if you are going to shoot magnums. The 686 will last longer shooting hot rounds.

 

[jc2]

Gross oversimplifiction:

66 = better for carrying
686 = better for shooting

Given max loads in both.

 

[stans]

jc2 has grossly over simplified the choice, but he is right. The K-frames are great for carry, the L-frames withstand more use with magnum loads, especially the 110 and 125 grain loads.

 

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's To All-

After living in the shadows of 2X - 6" Smith model 19's,
I decided to try a 6" 686. You must understand that
I carried the 6" model 19 (66's blued cousin) early on
in my LEO career. Today, I shoot mainly .38 Special
mild, target type handloads; and for that either one
will serve you well. I have no problems with the bit
of extra weight in the 686; but persons with weak
wrists might find it a bit too much?

Neither is more accurate than the other. It just boils
down to which you prefer! The K-frame (19/66) has
been around for a long time; and the L-frame (586/
686) since about 1980-81. I had a NIB 4" 686 right
after they first came out; but at the time, I thought
it to be too heavy for duty use! That was among one
of the last revolver's I carried as a duty weapon.

If I walked into a gunshop today, and both guns
were NIB and priced say at $439.95, I most likely
would choose the 6" 686; and install a WOLFF spring
kit, with the 13 lb trigger return spring. I've had mine
since April of 2001, and it is an awesome handgun;
being far more accurate than I am!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member