NEW Model 66 vs 686 A bottom feeder wants to know?

[tiger49931]

Ok i talked to a buddy of mine in the idpa club here and he said for IDPA ssr he would go 66 over the 686 even tho he has a 686 that he uses because they quit making hte 66 in 2005. But now that its back he would if he had to do it over again go with a 66 due to the heavier barrel and better accuracy from the 2 piece barrel. which he said is more weight forward than the 686 which helps with your recoil control and sight picture. sounds reasonable to me and as he is the only SSR master shooter i know so i found a 66 combat magnum and ordered one.

So my question to all you revo guys is do you like the 66 more than the 686 ? Does a 2 piece barrel really make it more accurate? What is the weight of a 686 ?

[Toolguy]

I would take the 686 (L frame) over the 66 (K frame) because the K frame barrel is very thin right above the crane in front of the cylinder. There is a flat milled on the bottom of the barrel for clearance and they often crack there. Also the frame is very thin there and can crack. If the barrel splits you have to replace it. The L frame is more meaty in this area and never has that problem. The 686 has a heavier barrel than the 66. Neither one is inherently more accurate. Every gun is an individual. The one piece barrel can be just as good or better than the 2 piece. Due to manufacturing tolerances not all of either kind will be a tack driver.

Both are good guns, the K being slightly smaller than the L. Either one is fine for IDPA. At the distances they shoot, a gun would have to be seriously out of spec. to not be accurate enough for that.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Toolguy

[Brian Gonsalves]

I'll throw in my 2 cents!

I shoot a Model 67 in SSR. A friend of mine just received his new model 66 and I was able to check it out. It is very nice!! The barrel is heavier than my 67, but I don't believe it is heavier than a 686. Most 686's have a full lug that would make the barrel weigh more than the 66 or the lighter yet 67. Plus the L frame of the 686 is bigger (heavier) than the K frame of the 66 and 67.

From the S&W website:

67 - 36 ounces

66 - 36.6 ounces

686 SSR - 38.3 ounces

686 4" - 39.7 ounces

I shoot the K-frame gun, because the holes are closer together and I feel it loads faster.

I have told that the two piece barrels are more accurate, but I believe any of the guns list above are plenty accurate for IDPA.

[tiger49931]

Ok the reason i was asking is ive been on wait for a 686 ssr for about 6 months at the local gun shop. But he did find a new model 66 combat magnum and it will be here next week. The way my buddy made it seem the model 66 would be a better overall ssr gun than the 686. he may be right he may be wrong but i have a 66 on the way and am eagerly waiting to see how it handles. I was just wondering what revo shooters thought about it. suppose i should have asked here first before i ordered but what can i say im impulsive hahahaha. I really don't think it either is bad. I know it will all come down to perception but he seemed really excited about the re-intro of the combat magnum..

[bountyhunter]

Ok i talked to a buddy of mine in the idpa club here and he said for IDPA ssr he would go 66 over the 686 even tho he has a 686 that he uses because they quit making hte 66 in 2005. But now that its back he would if he had to do it over again go with a 66 due to the heavier barrel and better accuracy from the 2 piece barrel. which he said is more weight forward than the 686 which helps with your recoil control and sight picture. sounds reasonable to me and as he is the only SSR master shooter i know so i found a 66 combat magnum and ordered one.

So my question to all you revo guys is do you like the 66 more than the 686 ? Does a 2 piece barrel really make it more accurate? What is the weight of a 686 ?

For same barrel length, the 686 will weigh more than a 66 because the 66 is the smaller K frame gun and the 686 is the larger L frame.

I have many 66's and do like them better. I think they fit my hand and balance perfectly, the 686 is a shade large and higher bore axis. The 686 is better for shooting a lot of magnums, the K frames like 66 are magnum rated but not all the time.

[PatJones]

The larger frame 686 has a longer yoke. This provides more clearance for a speedloader around the grip.

[bikerburgess]

I like the 66 less meat between the holes in the cylinder = harder to miss them when reloading

[Bubber]

More taste!!! Less filling!!!! Ford or Chevy each have trade offs. Grab one and shoot it.

[Gregg K]

Well since you ask about IDPA, unless S&W is isn't telling the truth about the new model 66's, the new model 66's are not legal for use in IDPA. They state that the barrel length is 4.25" and the maximum length for revolvers is 4.2". Now the odds of anyone at a match having a clue as to what the rules for revolvers are is indeed very slim.

The 2 piece barrel example that I have is one of the most accurate that I have, it's a model 66-7 that has a total barrel length that includes a recessed crown that is .160" deep is 4.132" so no matter how they decide to measure the barrel it would be a legal length. If the pictures on the S&W site are accurate the 2 piece barrel that is on the new model 66 is of a different design than the 66-7 that I own. One or two piece barrel doesn't matter as they will both shoot better than we ever will at a match.

I vote for the K frame guns for SSR. You don't need weight to shoot IDPA's 105 power floor. I still hate that they turned SSR into airsoft.

[GOF]

Gregg... you're not the only one talking about "airsoft" 105 PF. It was heavily discussed when the proposal was made. The consensus among experienced revolver competitors was that something around 115 would be appropriate. Even ICORE has a 120 PF, and if one is shooting factory 158 grain from several manufacturers, they don't even have to chrono in ICORE. It seems that the testing function conducted by IDPA HQ wasn't in line with what experienced revolver shooters were telling them, even those who knew about ammo and velocities.

Don't know about the factory claimed specs for the new 66 are. Also don't know how competent the new crop of SOs would be at measuring the actual barrel length since "The Purge" when the new RB came out. I guess you take your chances if you pay money to travel to a Sanctioned Match.

There is, however, the standard model Ruger GP-100 (not their new Match Master). It's lighter than the 686, a couple ounces heavier than the original M66, seems to shoot lead bullets more accurately, has a nice interchangeable front sight system (pop 'em in and out... change FO colors on a moment's notice, or go to plain black... or whatever color floats your boat).

And, a simple DIY Wilson spring kit and a bit of polishing will give you a very smooth 8-pound DOA pull. And, Ruger claims a legal 4.2 barrel length in their specs.

Just a thought

Edited July 4, 2014 by GOF

[Gregg K]

Well, the idea behind the 105 PF was that a shooter could buy off the shelf ammo and be in compliance. The problem is that WW white box doesn't even make 105 in some guns so to be in compliance they still have to either reload or buy one of the many 158 gr rounds available that do make the power floor like they could have done before the rule change. What we have now is a watered down division with some still crying that their factory rounds don't make the power floor. They should have left the power floor alone in my opinion but I don't get to make the decisions.

[Macinaw]

I would take the 686 (L frame) over the 66 (K frame) because the K frame barrel is very thin right above the crane in front of the cylinder. There is a flat milled on the bottom of the barrel for clearance and they often crack there. Also the frame is very thin there and can crack. If the barrel splits you have to replace it. The L frame is more meaty in this area and never has that problem. The 686 has a heavier barrel than the 66. Neither one is inherently more accurate. Every gun is an individual. The one piece barrel can be just as good or better than the 2 piece. Due to manufacturing tolerances not all of either kind will be a tack driver.

Both are good guns, the K being slightly smaller than the L. Either one is fine for IDPA. At the distances they shoot, a gun would have to be seriously out of spec. to not be accurate enough for that.

If the OP is talking about the "New" model 66 it has a stronger forcing cone area compared to the older model 66. The new model can handle full power .357 all the time. No worries like the older model had about cracking the narrow rear area of the barrel.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Macinaw

[polymerfeelsweirdman]

Gregg... you're not the only one talking about "airsoft" 105 PF. It was heavily discussed when the proposal was made. The consensus among experienced revolver competitors was that something around 115 would be appropriate. Even ICORE has a 120 PF, and if one is shooting factory 158 grain from several manufacturers, they don't even have to chrono in ICORE. It seems that the testing function conducted by IDPA HQ wasn't in line with what experienced revolver shooters were telling them, even those who knew about ammo and velocities.

Don't know about the factory claimed specs for the new 66 are. Also don't know how competent the new crop of SOs would be at measuring the actual barrel length since "The Purge" when the new RB came out. I guess you take your chances if you pay money to travel to a Sanctioned Match.

There is, however, the standard model Ruger GP-100 (not their new Match Master). It's lighter than the 686, a couple ounces heavier than the original M66, seems to shoot lead bullets more accurately, has a nice interchangeable front sight system (pop 'em in and out... change FO colors on a moment's notice, or go to plain black... or whatever color floats your boat).

And, a simple DIY Wilson spring kit and a bit of polishing will give you a very smooth 8-pound DOA pull. And, Ruger claims a legal 4.2 barrel length in their specs.

Just a thought

I like the gp100 but I notice that it is very easy to short stroke the trigger and not have it completely reset. Is there a fix for this?

[GOF]

I have to be really... really!... running hard to short stroke a GP-100. I'm running a 8# trigger return spring. What is yours? Maybe a slightly heavier return spring might help. Short stroking a GP-100 is not a common problem, especially when compared to S&Ws with highly tuned 6 - 7 pound DA pulls. Those I can easily short stroke!

Edited July 5, 2014 by GOF

[RePete]

The new Model 66 has a 4.25" barrel and isn't legal in IDPA. Rule 8.2.5.1.4

The 66 vs 686, IMO, is a personal thing. I use a 686 while I have friends that prefer the K-Frame.

As for the bunny fart PF, I think that dropping it from 125 was a mistake, but if they "had" to drop it, then 115 or 120 would have been fine.

[jhgtyre]

I am not normally a big defender of IDPA but I think they did the right thing with the power factor. I just searched online for some typical 38 special loads that guys who don't reload might pick up at the store. Here is what I found. It certainly isn't an extensive list and I didn't pick and choose which ammo to list. I just went with whatever came up first and had velocity listed.

Federal American Eagle 158gr 758fps for a 119pf
Winchester White Box 130gr 800fps for a 104pf

Remington UMC 130gr 790fps for a 102pf

PMC 132gr 841fps for a 111pf

Fiocchi 130gr 950fps for a 123pf

As to the L frame or the K frame gun I like my model 19 for IDPA. I like the way the K frame handles.

-ld

[Luv2rideWV]

I do not shoot IDPA. However, revolver is what I shoot in USPSA and what I carry all the time. Revolvers just seem to find their way to my gun safe.

I like the 686 because it feels like a more robust firearm. The K-frame guns always seemed a little light when/if you shoot much magnum ammo. Sometimes I carry a 2 1/2" 686; it would be tempting to use were I to try IDPA.

As far as gaming it, the heavier gun (assuming it balances well) will be the better competition gun. If you have a big match where you shoot 250 rounds, the heavier gun with a nice set of grips is less painful.

Either will work fine for your stated purpose. Either are more accurate than you or I. You would need a pistol rest and a large assortment of ammo to make a determination as to which one is more accurate, and even then the difference may be attributable to production variances rather then the inherent benefits of one model over the other.

Pick the one you like. The best thing would be to shoot a match with one of each (test drive) because sometimes our perception in the gun store is a little different than what it feels like to actually shoot the thing. However, you cannot go wrong with either - until you second guess yourself.

[toothguy]

I would take the 686 (L frame) over the 66 (K frame) because the K frame barrel is very thin right above the crane in front of the cylinder. There is a flat milled on the bottom of the barrel for clearance and they often crack there. Also the frame is very thin there and can crack. If the barrel splits you have to replace it. The L frame is more meaty in this area and never has that problem. The 686 has a heavier barrel than the 66. Neither one is inherently more accurate. Every gun is an individual. The one piece barrel can be just as good or better than the 2 piece. Due to manufacturing tolerances not all of either kind will be a tack driver.

Both are good guns, the K being slightly smaller than the L. Either one is fine for IDPA. At the distances they shoot, a gun would have to be seriously out of spec. to not be accurate enough for that.

If the OP is talking about the "New" model 66 it has a stronger forcing cone area compared to the older model 66. The new model can handle full power .357 all the time. No worries like the older model had about cracking the narrow rear area of the barrel.

What did they do to make it stronger?

[VIPERONE]

My 2 Cents

I have a pair of SSR/Classic Revolvers. Both are Power Customs. My older revolver is a 64-2 with a dovetailed Novak 1911 Fiber Optic Front Sight. The other is a 686-5 also with a Fiber Optic front sight. Both are Square Butt guns with the same grips on both. They are about as close as a 64 and a 686 can get.

I reload the 686 with Safariland Comp III speed loaders. I reload the 64 with Jet Loaders. The K Frame Jet Loaders seem to work better in a K Frame than the Comp III's.

I normally shoot the 64 a hair better with a great run with both revolvers.

So my 2 Cents would be, you will be happy with either one.

I still recommend Jet Loaders over Safariland Comp III's for the K Frame.

Infact if I were to replace my 15 or so L Frame Comp III's, I would probably spend the extra money and get L Frame Jet Loaders for the 686 as well. They are just a little better built in my opinion.

Strength Comparison. If we are still talking SSR/Classic Match Revolvers, shooting 38 Special ammunition. Strength is not an issue at all.

If you are planning on a steady diet of Full House 125 Grain 357 Magnum ammunition, by all means get the 686, or even better an N Frame 6 shooter.

Bob

Edited July 7, 2014 by VIPERONE

[Macinaw]

I would take the 686 (L frame) over the 66 (K frame) because the K frame barrel is very thin right above the crane in front of the cylinder. There is a flat milled on the bottom of the barrel for clearance and they often crack there. Also the frame is very thin there and can crack. If the barrel splits you have to replace it. The L frame is more meaty in this area and never has that problem. The 686 has a heavier barrel than the 66. Neither one is inherently more accurate. Every gun is an individual. The one piece barrel can be just as good or better than the 2 piece. Due to manufacturing tolerances not all of either kind will be a tack driver.

Both are good guns, the K being slightly smaller than the L. Either one is fine for IDPA. At the distances they shoot, a gun would have to be seriously out of spec. to not be accurate enough for that.

If the OP is talking about the "New" model 66 it has a stronger forcing cone area compared to the older model 66. The new model can handle full power .357 all the time. No worries like the older model had about cracking the narrow rear area of the barrel.

What did they do to make it stronger?

It is stronger because of the thicker section of the barrel. On the original 66 the area under the forcing cone was thin. At least this is what the old curmudgeons say a on the S&W forum.

[bountyhunter]

I would take the 686 (L frame) over the 66 (K frame) because the K frame barrel is very thin right above the crane in front of the cylinder. There is a flat milled on the bottom of the barrel for clearance and they often crack there. Also the frame is very thin there and can crack. If the barrel splits you have to replace it. The L frame is more meaty in this area and never has that problem. The 686 has a heavier barrel than the 66. Neither one is inherently more accurate. Every gun is an individual. The one piece barrel can be just as good or better than the 2 piece. Due to manufacturing tolerances not all of either kind will be a tack driver.

Both are good guns, the K being slightly smaller than the L. Either one is fine for IDPA. At the distances they shoot, a gun would have to be seriously out of spec. to not be accurate enough for that.

If the OP is talking about the "New" model 66 it has a stronger forcing cone area compared to the older model 66. The new model can handle full power .357 all the time. No worries like the older model had about cracking the narrow rear area of the barrel.

What did they do to make it stronger?

On the old K frame 66 guns, the "rim" of the forcing cone was trimmed (flat cut) on one edge which was obviously not as strong as if the full rim had been there around the circumference. It was done that way to make the frame more compact, the L and N frames do not have this "feature".

[toothguy]

Due to the K frame size to get the crane to clear the bottom of the barrel (forcing cone) during closing a flat was milled into the barrel. Are the new K frames made with out this flat milled? If so how did they solve the clearance issue?

[bountyhunter]

Due to the K frame size to get the crane to clear the bottom of the barrel (forcing cone) during closing a flat was milled into the barrel. Are the new K frames made with out this flat milled? If so how did they solve the clearance issue?

I was wondering that myself....

[mikey357]

The "New, Improved," Model 66 does NOT have the Flat machined on the bottom of the Barrel Forcing Cone area...Not sure how they "Solved" the Clearance Issue, as I have not been able to measure a new Gun & compare it to one of my "Vintage" K-Frame Guns yet...HTH....mikey357

Edited July 11, 2014 by mikey357

[toothguy]

I have always liked the K frame size the best, it fits my hand really well. It will be nice to see that they worked out the frame-barrel issue.