S&W 66 VS. a 686 Want Opinions

[mcooper]

I'm considering purchasing a used Smith and Wesson revolver in .357magnum. I want one with adjustable sights, a 4" barrel, no interenal lock, and a 6 shot capacity (7 is a plus, but not by much), weight is alo a factor in that I don't want to tote un-needed steel around. I've shot J, K, and L (681/686's) before and been comforatable with all of them.

My main question is on durability/reliability. Will a 66 hold up to .357magnum loads as well as 686? I will be shooting this revovler a bit, maybe 100rounds of .357 a month. Also is one of the two more accurate than the other?


Thanks.

 

[bdjansen]

I've shot both. They are as accurate as the other. The 66 wont take 357s as well as the slightly larger frame 686. But at 100 a month it probably wont be a problem. I think when people are talking about problems with the k frame and 357s they are talking about 100+ a week at least. The 686 probably is a few more ounces.

Both mighty fine guns. You can't go wrong. Flip a coin.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Never had a K frame, but I've had a few L frames.

My rationale was the increased durability with magnums and the extra weight for comfort.

Both are excellent pistols, so I'd advise you to shoot both until a favorite surfaces.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

As long as you don't fire 125 gr .357 Magnum rounds through a K frame you won't do any damage. If you fire 158 gr bullets you can shoot them as much as you want. I was a little worried about this myself so I bought a 2 3/4" Ruger Service-Six instead which is just about the same size and weight as a K frame.

 

[christcorp]

Buy the 66. You'll like it better. I almost switched out some "K" frames for a 686 today. Glad I didn't. After I wrote an observation here, I went and shot a friend's 686. Might fine gun, but not as nice as the 13 or 19. IMO.

As far as the "Doesn't shoot 357 mag as well". That is a matter of perception. Throughout all the reports and studies, here seems to be the deal. Realize that the model 13, 19, 65, and 66 were originally built in the early 1970's with the model 19 going back to 1955. At that time, the 357 was mostly the 158 grain bullet. As such, these guns can fire that weight bullet with no problems until the cows come home or until the second coming of Christ. Your choice. As far as shooting other 357 mag rounds such as the 125g, 130'sg, and 140'sg, that is a little different. You can still shoot more rounds of that in the gun than you can outlive without any issues. If you are the type that literally punches out thousands of rounds a year, then there is a slight issue. With a grain bullet less than 158g, there is a slight gap between cylinder and barrel throat. As such, as the bullet if getting to the barrel, gases from behind will sometimes travel around the bullet and hit the barrel which is obviously full of oxygen and can heat the throat. And because the 6 o'clock position has been shaved a little to allow the cylinder to close, this can cause a weakness.

Now, a 125g is obviously the smallest in factory loads. So, the higher you go to 158g, which is what this gun was built for, the less problems. BUT, if you only shot a few hundred rounds here and there, it still wouldn't be problem. Or, anything above the 158g wouldn't be a problem. But you can shoot 158g, any type of factory load or equal hand load, for ever and a day. You can even throw in some 125g for actual home defense and still not have a problem. There are a lot more people who have shot the hell out of the "K" frame with 357 mag who haven't had a problem than those who did have a problem. And those who DID have a problem usually had two things in common. A LOT of shooting with 125g bullets and they didn't clean their weapon as well as they should.

But, all that aside. I personally like the feel and especially the trigger pull of the older double digit "K" frame in 357. That would be the model 13,19,65, and 66. As the cliche says, "They just don't make them like that any more". Later... Mike....

 

[L-Frame]

Whether you like a certain gun is clearly a matter of opinion. For me the 686 is as good as it gets. They are both equally reliable (totally and completely), and while the 66 is not the delicate flower some make it out to be, the 686 is clearly the stronger handgun. As said earlier, they are both top guns.

 

[pinkymingeo]

IMHO the 19/66 4-inch is the best looking handgun ever made (but, then, I also believe my 15-3 2" is the sharpest snubbie ever). I know the Python has it's fans, but the proportions of the Smith are about perfect. Since you're not going to wear out a 66 or 686, may as well go with the pretty one. For most people full-house .357s aren't very pleasant to shoot in either. Recoil is sharp, and they're loud. If you're gonna shoot it a lot, get a full lug N-frame. With the right holster they're really not hard to carry.

 

[bakert]

The model 66 may not be as robust as a 686 but it's not the weak sister many would have you believe. This one has had many thousands of full power loads including more than a few of the 125 JHP loads, plus countless .38 Sps through it. Still tight and accurate. The 125 gr loads are hard on any gun, especially in the forcing cone area but a modest amount wont hurt. JMHO

 

[Kevinch]

I'm partial to the 686, but it's personal - mine was the first firearm I ever owned. I still have that gun, & it is a great shooter.

Recently, I've found a fondness for K-frames. Bought a used M-10 a while back for my wife & daughter to use on the range, & I really like the way it handles.

Between a used 686 & 66; I'd just keep my eyes open & pick up the better bargain.

 

[Golddog]

I've owned dozens of each type and still have two 66's and four 686's. For me, the K and L frames are the best combination of sweet shooting and comfortable handling of any revolvers out there.

If you're going to carry it for long periods of time, get the 66. The weight and girth differences will matter if you wear it for hours on end.

But if it's primarily a range gun, get the 686. They're a lot more pleasant to put magnums through, and that will help your accuracy and fun quotient.

 

[SJshooter]

They are both beautiful guns, but they have a very different feel and balance. If you can hold them both, side-by-side, you will quickly find one that feels more part of your hand than the other. Also, the trigger on my 66 is crisper and smoother than any other Smith I've ever had - see if the seller will let you do a single dry fire on each one, and if not, give the trigger a pull but block the hammer from falling and compare the action on both. There could be a real difference. As far as magnums, everyone else has given you the correct advice so far - stick to 158 grain and even if you don't you aren't shooting nearly enough to make a difference.

Good luck on your decision, but be warned: You'll own both eventually!

 

[chaim]

Good luck on your decision, but be warned: You'll own both eventually!

Or, if you are like me you'll own both eventually but then come to your senses and sell the L-frame because you like the K-frames so much better that you never shoot your 586 or 686

 

[GRIZ22]

I don't want to tote un-needed steel around.

That means you want the M66.

If you want something more durable in the same size get a Ruger Security Six.

If you decide to stay with the 66 don't neglect cleaning the barrel and forcing cone especially if you use lead bullets. Cracked forcing cones in the K frame magnums are usually the result of poor cleaning and then "blowing the lead out" by firing a few magnums. This is a fallacy.The higher pressure round attempts to compress the build up in the forcing cone resulting in it cracking requiring a barrel replacement.

I own and use both the M66 and Speed Six they are both fine guns so I'm not prejudiced one way or the other.

 

[comeandtakeit]

They don't call the 686 a "Combat Magnum," for nothing. The are in my opinon the best .357 mag for defense and long term durablity. I love the full underlug too.

 

[spwenger]

Whoa!

"Now, a 125g is obviously the smallest in factory loads. So, the higher you go to 158g, which is what this gun was built for, the less problems."

While they are not as readily available as they used to be. .357 Magnum cartridges are offered with 110 gr. SJHP bullets.

The issue with the K-frame revolvers was not one of bullet weight but the fact that the Big Three loaded the 125 gr. the hottest. In fact, nominal velocities for the 110 gr. loads were generally lower than for the 125 gr. loads, which were originally rated at 1,450 fps from a four-inch barrel.

Those hot 125 gr. loads, in departments that issued and "qualified" with them, were associated with flame-cutting of the top strap (which is a self-limiting condition) as well as erosion and, occasionally, cracking of the forcing cones.

Things like perception of recoil are subjective. I find that lower bore axis of the K frame makes a more pleasant gun for me to shoot than the higher bore axis of the L frame. I really enjoy my three-inch M-66's, which were never a catalog time but were released to specific distributors in small lots on a nearly annual basis for a time.

 

[Ala Dan]

To sum up. I like the weight (34 ozs unloaded) of a 4" S&W model 66; but
I like the sight radius of 6" barrel guns. And, I believe (like other's) that the
686 L-frame will with stand many more magnum rounds. Now days, I don't
often shoot any .357 magnums; but the 6" S&W 686 sure is accurate with
my favorite .38 Special target loads. I just keep a spent (fired) .357 case
on hand too clean out the crud left from the shorter .38 Special rounds.

 

[Seven High]

If Smith & Wesson can manufacture J frames rated for 357 magnums, then they could re release the K frame 357 magnums with updated metalurgy. I would definitely buy a 357 Model 66 that is rated for 357. In the mean time, I carry a 686.

 

[christcorp]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't the 386 and 619/620 both "K" frames that shoot 357 mag? Matter of fact, I thought the 619/620 was designed specifically from the 65/66 models.

If I HAD to buy a new revolver which is unlikely considering I don't really like ANY new gun. (The cost is NOT worth what you get). Then I would consider a 686. But, being used guns aren't like used cars and most times they are in excellent shape with very few rounds through them, I'll keep getting used "K" frames if possible. Later... MNike.....

 

[Stainz]

The 619/620 replaced the 65/66. They are L-frames, with the same frame and 7-shot cylinder as a 686+. Initially, the 620 was just a bit more than the 4" 66 - now, it's just a bit less than a 4" 686+, cost wise. It also has the same two-piece barrel that the last 4" 66s were delivered with. The 619 has already seemingly faded into oblivion. Oh, the 386 is just an alloy frame 686 variant, thus, an L-frame. The only current produxtion K-frames are the 10, 64, 67, and 617.

Stainz

 

[Rover 'n Rugers]

In most cases the 4" 66 will weigh less than a 4" 686 especially the 6 shot versions. However, if you can find a 686 Mtn. Gun that is 7 shot the guns weigh about the same per S&W. The 66 will be slightly more compact in frame size and cylinder diameter. The 66 can be found in pre MIM versions as can the 686 7 shot (-4 version) but not the Mtn. Gun configuration (-5). The Ruger Sec. 6 weighs about what the 66 does and is about the same size and offers a alternative. Have (or had them) all and like them all. The MIM guns can be tuned to be quite light (Randy Lee, Apex Tactical).

 

[Baron357]

Get a 620 perfect size, strength, 7 shots, L frame and great trigger pull for a stock guy especially after a few hundred rounds.

 

[def4pos8]

I prefer the handling "feel" of the Model 66.

The 686 is OK but a bit muzzle heavy for me.

The only L-frame I'd have an interest in would be the 692, as a compact version of my Model 21.