Is the Taurus Model 66 a copy of the S&W M19?
- Thread starter greenr18
- Start date
- Status
Taroman
Member
Appearance wise it looks like a copy. Internally, the lockwork is different, however.
.44 Associate
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 51
The Taurus is a copy of the Smith only to the extent that they're both medium frame .357s.
MCgunner
Member
I own 2 Taurus 66s, a blued 3" and a nickel finish 4", and owned a Smith 19 and still own the .38 caliber M10. NO. The Taurus uses a beefier frame, slightly heavier, but with more room in the forcing cone area that allows for a round forcing cone. I like that as I've had a K frame forcing cone split on the flat at the bottom, before.
The Smith has a hammer mounted firing pin. Both my Taurus 66s have floating firing pins. Sometime around 1990, they switched from a hammer block system similar to Smith and Wesson, all-be-it with a floating firing pin to a transfer bar trigger system like the Ruger. The transfer bar system on my 4" is a very smooth, great DA and SA, a bit better than the older system on my 3". My 66s are slightly better shooters than my Smiths. Personally, I kept them and sold the 19. The 10 ain't for sale, though.
The Rossi 971 I had was a closer copy of a Smith. It had the hammer mounted firing pin which broke and I fitted a K frame firing pin to the hammer.
The Smith has a hammer mounted firing pin. Both my Taurus 66s have floating firing pins. Sometime around 1990, they switched from a hammer block system similar to Smith and Wesson, all-be-it with a floating firing pin to a transfer bar trigger system like the Ruger. The transfer bar system on my 4" is a very smooth, great DA and SA, a bit better than the older system on my 3". My 66s are slightly better shooters than my Smiths. Personally, I kept them and sold the 19. The 10 ain't for sale, though.
The Rossi 971 I had was a closer copy of a Smith. It had the hammer mounted firing pin which broke and I fitted a K frame firing pin to the hammer.
Guillermo
member
correct me if I am wrong, but aren't both injection molded internals?
Elm Creek Smith
Member
They weren't when I had a Taurus 66. Of course, that was a long time ago. My Taurus was blued and very accurate. My current Taurus 85SSUL has some MIM parts, as does my issue S&W Model 686-6, but they both are durable and accurate.
ECS
MCgunner
Member
These are both Taurus M66s. Neither is stainless, though they do make it in stainless. The three inch is a sometimes OWB or IWB carry and wears a Hogue, now. The new ones are 7 shooters.
Guillermo
member
I was questioning the assertion that the injection molded parts of Taurus are somehow "not as well made as the S&W" injection molded parts.
I have come across smith apologists with IL-flavored koolaid for blood and even they did not make that assertion.
Was hoping Mr. Walkalong would pontificate.
soooo I bought this with the tag listed as "TAURUS MODEL 66 .357" so I'm assuming that's what it is but I HAVE noticed the newer ones listed Model 66 don't look quite the same
So I guess I'm asking now if this really is a Model 66?
I'm assuming if it is the Model 66 it's an older production version. I feel dumb asking, but when it comes to revolvers I'm a little bit out of touch.
So I guess I'm asking now if this really is a Model 66?
I'm assuming if it is the Model 66 it's an older production version. I feel dumb asking, but when it comes to revolvers I'm a little bit out of touch.
Have you seen the internals on a Taurus? I know you have a certain dislike for S&W from your postings, but the internals on the S&W are beefier and just better formed. A poorly formed part can be very strong, but I would still say it is not as well made. I like my Taurus revolvers, but the internals remind me of a Charles Daly 1911 I had. It looked great on the outside as far as fit and finish, but the internals were looked cheap.
I hope the poorly formed junky looking internals in my Taurus revolvers last forever, and they may very well do so, but they are still poorly formed which makes them look cheap, and, in my mind, not as well made as nicely shaped parts.
The "tunnel" that the crane rotates in on my Taurus Model 83 was machined very poorly. Lots of deep grooves and sharp points. After polishing the mating surfaces, the cylinder swings in and out very smoothly, but the machining is poor. Lots of ridges with polished tops.
I would still buy another Taurus if it checked out and the price was right. I want a 441.
Just my opinion.
Last edited:
MCgunner
Member
greenr18, looks like a 66 and has the grips I had on mine from the early 90s when i got it. Open the cylinder crane and look under it at the frame part. Should be a "66" stamped there.
Guillermo
member
and I thank you for offering it
BTW,
While Grant Cunningham does not say exactly what you do, he does say something similar.
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/no_taurus_work.html
Last edited:
Stainz
Member
An old friend of mine, who passed away from natural causes several summers ago, bought a 4" 66 several years before his demise. We both thought the 'ribber' grips were nasty - and changed them. I resprung it with reduced effort Wolff helical springs from their kit - great improvement & 100% reliability. It was slightly larger than my S&W 66, as evidenced by it's 7-shot capacity. He kept it stoked with +P .38 Specials and plinked with .38 lead - 158gr LRN/LSWC. It was his answer to my 'S&W snobbery', as he termed it. Sadly, an emergency responder must have relieved him posthumously of it when they found his body. The same responder asked his brother - at the funeral - if there was any .357 Magnum ammo to 'dispose of', as all he found there was .38. Sorry - that still makes me mad. I didn't want the 66, don't get me wrong, but still... that guy, if he didn't take it - knew who did.
The end result is simple - the Taurus 66 today is a decent piece of home protection and up to the task of +P .38's - seven at a time! Shoot it enough to determine that it was put together right and will work reliably - maybe a couple boxes of plinkers and at least one of defensive ammo - and you should have a dependable home protector.
Stainz
The end result is simple - the Taurus 66 today is a decent piece of home protection and up to the task of +P .38's - seven at a time! Shoot it enough to determine that it was put together right and will work reliably - maybe a couple boxes of plinkers and at least one of defensive ammo - and you should have a dependable home protector.
Stainz
CajunBass
Member
Because they make/did make it in a seven shot version. I had one. Good shooting gun, good trigger. VERY nice looking too with it's full length underlug 4", barrel, one of the few guns with a full underlug I've ever said that about.
roaddog28
Member
I think if I were on a budget I would buy a Taurus 66 4 inch. I like the older ones. I have had only one Taurus revolver. It was a Tracker 627. Worse revolver I have ever owned.
I have only heard good things about the Taurus 66.
Trouble is I own several Rugers and S&W revolvers. No comparsion because in my opinion they are better revolvers.
Regards,
Howard
I have only heard good things about the Taurus 66.
Trouble is I own several Rugers and S&W revolvers. No comparsion because in my opinion they are better revolvers.
Regards,
Howard
oldfool
Member
Although your mindset and mine are similar, roaddog, be not too quick to dismiss 'selected vintage' Taurus revolvers.
Me, I have a thing for k-frames, re: "what fits me best" (pair of S&W k-17s, k-48, pair of k-66s, all six inch barrels). Those mighty-like-K older vintage Taurus six shooters (model 96 and model 66, 6" six shooters, not 7 shooters) yield nothing to S&W, IMO. Whatever you, the shooter, can do with any one of 'em, T-66 or K-66, you can do with all of 'em, and practice with any one is practice with all, they are that close in performance to one another in your own hand.
Prime example there, picture by greenr18, with original grips like my own, very nice. See one like that, pause and ponder before you just walk on by.
Me, I have a thing for k-frames, re: "what fits me best" (pair of S&W k-17s, k-48, pair of k-66s, all six inch barrels). Those mighty-like-K older vintage Taurus six shooters (model 96 and model 66, 6" six shooters, not 7 shooters) yield nothing to S&W, IMO. Whatever you, the shooter, can do with any one of 'em, T-66 or K-66, you can do with all of 'em, and practice with any one is practice with all, they are that close in performance to one another in your own hand.
Prime example there, picture by greenr18, with original grips like my own, very nice. See one like that, pause and ponder before you just walk on by.
Last edited:
MCgunner
Member
All the new ones are 7 shooters. Not sure when the last 6 shooter came out. My 4" is circa early 90s and my 3" blued gun is older, late 80s i think, not real sure. Both are 6 shooters. I'll take either gun heads up against a M19, had a 19, sold it. Also had a Security Six, traded it for a 6.5" Blackhawk. The Taurus doesn't have the snob appeal, but I didn't buy mine for that. They are great shooters and they were KILLER deals I just couldn't pass up in a world of 400 dollar M10s.
I had a Taurus Model 66 4" 6 shot until someone I don't know borrowed it while i wasn't home. it was a great gun. 20 years later I finally replaced it with a S&W Model 66 4". Another great gun. I hope you enjoy yours for years to come as much as I've enjoyed mine.
roaddog28
Member
I own 2 Taurus 66s, a blued 3" and a nickel finish 4", and owned a Smith 19 and still own the .38 caliber M10. NO. The Taurus uses a beefier frame, slightly heavier, but with more room in the forcing cone area that allows for a round forcing cone. I like that as I've had a K frame forcing cone split on the flat at the bottom, before.
The Smith has a hammer mounted firing pin. Both my Taurus 66s have floating firing pins. Sometime around 1990, they switched from a hammer block system similar to Smith and Wesson, all-be-it with a floating firing pin to a transfer bar trigger system like the Ruger. The transfer bar system on my 4" is a very smooth, great DA and SA, a bit better than the older system on my 3". My 66s are slightly better shooters than my Smiths. Personally, I kept them and sold the 19. The 10 ain't for sale, though.
The Rossi 971 I had was a closer copy of a Smith. It had the hammer mounted firing pin which broke and I fitted a K frame firing pin to the hammer.
I like older revolvers MC Gunner. I grew up shooting older single actions and then bought my first double action revolver. It was a H&R . Terrible double action trigger but reliable. When Ruger came out with the Six series I bought one. I still have my Police Service Six 4 inch. Later bought S&W revolvers and more Ruger single actions. I do agree the older Taurus revolvers seem to be more reliable. My experience with Taurus is a new Tracker 627. The machining on the cylinder bores was terrible. Shell casings would stick so bad I had to tap them out with a light hammer. I sent the revolver back to Taurus twice without resolving the problem. There are so many good used Smiths and Rugers at reasonable prices it seems to be a better decision to look for them.
Regards,
Howard
boomstik45
Member
Looking to get one of the newer (2009) Taurus model 66s - a 4" blued model that's a 7 shooter. It's hardly been used, and the guy wants to trade it for my Taurus model 441. I kinda like the 441, but I'd rather have the versatility of a .44 mag that will shoot both rounds (mag and special) and would also rather have the .357/.38 special capability over the .44 special only.
That said, the 441 has proven able to hold a group and shoot nicely.
That said, the 441 has proven able to hold a group and shoot nicely.
- Status
