Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,281 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Was reading about it in the latest issue of "American Rifleman" magazine. They're bringing back the "Combat Magnum". It is stainless and designated the M66, but there are differences in the new gun and the old version, some good, some bad. The bad, as I see it, is the Hillary hole (internal lock on the side of the frame) and the price of the thing, $849 MSRP. BUT, they FINALLY added some beef to the frame enough to give it a ROUND forcing cone, got rid of the flat spot on the bottom where my M10 split. I had a M19 which I sold that didn't have a big round count to it, never game me trouble, but this was a known problem especially with the K frame Magnum. I think what split my M10's forcing cone was lead build up at the forcing cone from all the wadcutters I was shooting, very mild loads, but enough to split the forcing cone with enough time and round count. I still have that gun, rebarreled it with a heavy barrel which balances better for me than the old pencil barrel, anyway.

So, I consider the added frame bulk, 36.5 ounces vs about 34 for the old K frame IIRC, a rip off or copy cat of the Taurus 66. The Taurus is more like 38 ounces in a 4" version and has a much beefier frame in the area of the forcing cone giving the barrel enough room to be round. This has been a Taurus 66 trait from the beginning and one of the things I preferred of it vs the old K frames. It's still light on the hip vs L frames, GP100s, etc, but stronger than the old K frames. I still consider the Taurus a stronger, more durable, more desirable revolver than the Smith and Wesson K frame and the gun is quite a bit lower priced.

Now, to top the Taurus copy cat K frame, they built an L frame 5 shot .44 magnum. Taurus Tracker, anyone? Then, of course, there's the "Governor". Is it me, or is Smith and Wesson taking their design ques from the Brazilians now days? :D They should locate the lock on the hammer, I mean, so long as they're in a copy mood. :rolleyes:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,526 Posts
As usual, it's an overpriced S&W. I love their revolvers, but dang if I'm going to pay the same amount of money for one that I could get an AR15 for. Sorry NT, I know that's a bad example in your thread lol :)

The Governor cracks me up. All of the S&W snobs who used to say that the Judge was a POS, they shut up pretty quickly after their company came out with one themselves. 8)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
As I read the article, it's designated the Model 69 and is a five-shot .44 magnum built on the L frame. There are changes to the cylinder, yoke and ejector rod to accommodate the .44 magnum cartridge.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,281 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
As I read the article, it's designated the Model 69 and is a five-shot .44 magnum built on the L frame. There are changes to the cylinder, yoke and ejector rod to accommodate the .44 magnum cartridge.
Yeah, that's the M69, not the M66 6 shot .357 magnum in the same article which is a revamped K frame.

One other thing I prefer my Taurus 66s for is the coil springs. The cut away of the 66 in the article shows the same old leaf spring which can snap, but never has on me.

Now, they don't mention this in the article, but the old K frames has hammer mounted firing pins. This new K appears to have a floating firing pin, just looking at the picture of the hammer cocked on the gun. If this is the case, yet another idea from Taurus...or actually Ruger. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOldRedneck

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,620 Posts
I love the fact that about 3 or 4 decades too late S&W is getting around to fixing the problem in design.

I really like the "L" frames but they are as heavy as an "N" frame. Smith waited too long and I am hooked on the old Ruger Security Six for the .357 in a, roughly" K frame revolver.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,815 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,133 Posts
I feel a Taurus® 4" 44 Magnum TRACKER™ is a much better gun, and a better value than a S&W® Mdl 69. Lighter, smaller, less recoil, less cost, and superior performance. It's a No Brainer!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,281 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I always liked the older mod 19's. Being able to replace the barrel myself if the cone splits helps.
When I bought my 4" Taurus 66 used at a gun show, I was totally amazed at the trigger, the improved accuracy especially with .38 loads, and the ROUND forcing cone and bit of added beef in the frame, also the floating firing pin and Ruger style transfer bar. I sold my 19. The good thing about that deal was I got more for the 19 used than I paid for it. The Taurus depreciates, but that's a good thing when you're buying used, gave $197 at a gun show for that 66 in excellent condition. I just love the guys who berate the Taurus for its depreciating value. Well, buy one USED then. :D Besides, I don't buy revolvers as investments to be sold off at a later date. That's what stocks and bonds are about....or maybe milsurp rifles. My SKS is worth a lot more than the 75 bucks I gave for it. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOldRedneck

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,133 Posts
Wise man for one so young!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOldRedneck

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
I read that article as well and thought it was interesting that, despite this being the modern age of the semi-auto, that S&W is going down the line and bringing back a lot of their revolvers. They even revamped the model 10 which looks like its here to stay. I will agree that is funny that they took so long to fix the problem with their K frame magnums, but at least they did.

Now, my biggest criticism I have is that I'm having mixed feelings about them using a barrel shroud now instead of a one piece barrel. I guess it makes sense why, but I cant help but think "charter arms" when I see the muzzle. Also, they changed the shape around the hammer making it profile different from their older models....I cant explain it but it doesn't look quite as nice as it did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,380 Posts
Native Texan, the part about changing barrels was tongue in cheek, but true. I have loved the old Smith revolvers in general for a life time. The 32's, 38's, from early years, model 19's and 29's later. The 19's and 29's have had some problems but I like the way they feel, handle. Action jobs on the old Smiths make for the smoothest revolvers. That said the later Smiths have been a huge disappointment. I have said several times that a Taurus Tracker in 44 shot better groups than a Performance Center Smith. Both scoped and with same ammo for apples to apples testing. Cost of the Smith was several times as much as the Tracker. I like the older Smiths, but Taurus, Ruger and other brands are carried and shot more. This time of year a scoped handgun is used for deer. Usually a 44 Tracker or 454 Raging Bull is used. For me it is more harvest than hunting, shooting is often from back yard. When bean counters become involved in design and or production of guns or anything quality usually suffers. It is also where I draw a line on dollars spent. My last few Smiths were most probably the last new Smiths I will buy. Left a very bad taste that doesn't go away quickly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,296 Posts
I don't like the lines of the new S&W Model 66.

If I'm gonna lay down that much "dinero" I'd prefer to shop around for an "Original" S&W M-66.

Yeah, the vintage Smith and Wesson market is kind of backwards. Unless you buy a pristine original, the old vintage guns that everyone likes are usually less money than the new guns. It's often the opposite for other collectable items. In that sense, original S&Ws are the way to go. That's what I usually do, anyway.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,281 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Yeah, the vintage Smith and Wesson market is kind of backwards. Unless you buy a pristine original, the old vintage guns that everyone likes are usually less money than the new guns. It's often the opposite for other collectable items. In that sense, original S&Ws are the way to go. That's what I usually do, anyway.
Stands to reason, to me. They made a bazillion M10s and older M&Ps, were issued to military, and for 3/4 of a century, K frames of one sort or another were in every law enforcement holster in the nation. Colt had a minor share of that market, mostly was k frames. So, older guns, plenty of supply to meet demand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOldRedneck
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top