Thanks,I have an older model 686 that I got from a dealer,that got it from a NEW MEXICO State Police auction,ironically when my brother retired from the N.MS.P. he bought his service revolver from the dept. and it is also a 686, & the serial numbers are consecutive!
I’ve had my 6” 19-4 since 1982, it’s definitely seen it’s fair share of .357’s in its early life. Now in its elder years (though still in excellent condition) it see’s mostly .38’s. I also own a model 66-8 that now get the brunt of .357 fun. Great review and nice looking Smiths!
I have both 66 in 4.25 inch and the 686+ Performance Center in 4 inch. I like both for different reasons, but if I had to choose it would be the 686. My 686 has a better trigger, but the performance center versions have a trigger job on them. The Model 66 kicks a bit more, but not uncomfortably so. I despise the Hillary holes in both, but other than being uggers they have never caused me issue. I do have a target variant model 19 from the mid 70s (in pristine condition) to compare my model 66 too, and yes the forcing cones are shaved on the bottom of them. I stay away from the lighter bullet weights (I usually shoot the 148 grain) with it and have had no problems. With the 6 inch barrel and target trigger and hammer it is definitely a sweet shooter. The Model 19 feels a bit more refined than the new Model 66 as far as the lock works go, but still not as nice as my 686 trigger pull or to shoot long periods with. I would say the 686 is probably Smith and Wessons best .357 they have ever made for straight up hammering full house loads out all day. The older model 19 beats both the others as far as fit and finish though. Pinned barrels just look nicer, and the blueing is absolutely gorgeous.
The frame of the 66 was not the reason for not recommending a steady diet of 357…. The forcing cones of prior models was the reason. It was thinner on the bottom part of it. That has been fixed in the models 66-8 (newest). The 66-8 can eat a steady diet of 357… forcing cone is even, all around😊
Nice grips on the 66, plan on picking one up when prices stabilize and changing out the hammer to an Apex Evolution, having Mag-na-port Quadra port the barrel and changing the sights to an XS big dot front sight and a D&L fixed rear sight. Grips would be similar to those you chose.
That sounds like a fun project. I like the VZ grips. Better for ccw than the Hogue grips, but the Hogue Square butt conversions are my favorite of all time, so far.
Thank you! I can see why you'd say that. I think the differences really boil down to "do you want a slightly larger or slightly smaller revolver? Do you want 6 or the potential of 7 rounds? Do you want the full underlug or half lug, and do you prefer the design of the new K frame vs the L Frame (with the ejector rod locking point)?" I think I've improved in keeping on track with my talking points since I made this video.
Had a k frame 66 split the forcing cone and broke the back strap after shooting 100 rounds of wad cutters. Then shot a 357 fmj . Probably my fault. Should have known better.
@@steelbearacademy8855 new gun in 1986, happened in 1987. I kind of figure I got lead build up from the .38 wad cuters, and when I ran the fmj .357 threw, it was too much pressure.
@@stevenerpelding1946 That's crazy. I'd be really pissed if that damaged my brand new gun. I hope Smith replaced it for you. Did they say anything about it? That it was unusual or anything?
@@steelbearacademy8855 sent it in with explanation and said fix it. They sent letter to me $270..00 to fix it, with no coment other than labor, new frame, and 6" barrel. Got the gun back in about six weeks with the same serial number plus a letter at the end. Sold it at gun show long ago.. still have 4" mod. 66 and 4" 686 that still shoot great.
The biggest issue with the K frame .357’s turned out to be certain very hot 125 grain, and in some cases 110 grain, JSP and JHP loads. These caused a great deal of stress at the forcing cone, a fairly thin area of the barrel. Early on, these same loads proved to be a problem with the 686, when a combination of hot loads and soft primers were pushing metal back into the firing pin bushings on the breech face. The 686 action is not inherently more durable than the 19/66. In fact, because of the heavier cylinder of the 686, cylinder stop wear, as well as peering on one side of the cylinder stop window in the frame, is greater.
I have heard of the 125gr being particularly hard on the Smith revolvers. That's a good point you bring up about the weight of the cylinder. I hadn't considered that.
@357 MAG Me neither, everyone has nothing but good things to say about them. I feel like the trigger is slightly less good than on my 686. It's also a little disappointing that the ejector isn't as pretty. I'm really in love with my 19 Classic. A video is coming out on that soon.
I own a 2.5 inch and a 4 inch in the 686 plus.....I load it with 38 plus p.....unless ur getting chased by a pack of Samoans...there is absolutely no reason to be using 357 magnum loads...especially indoors...kiss ur hearing goodbye.
@@user-rd8vp6nq8b If the only difference is one round (vs. the plus), and it’s lighter and smaller (2.75" vs. 3") it makes perfect sense for concealment purposes.
@@ddaman2442 who said anything about a extra round, also as far as concealment goes I guess that depends on whats comfortable for you, maybe your 5,7 or you maybe your 6,6, to each his own, on a side note and extra round is better ,now that you brought that up, and I never said, I didn't like the Model 66
@@user-rd8vp6nq8b You don’t have to bring up every point of a discussion, lol. I can bring things up too, right? I am weighing these 2 guns with the view of purchasing one of them. I had hoped you had more to add than “get an L frame” with no particular reasons to do so (since there certainly are some, but the 66 not being able to shoot .357s regularly isn’t one of them since the 66-8 came out).
