The Model 66 represents a significant chapter in Smith & Wesson’s history of K-frame revolvers. These .357 Magnum chambered firearms are renowned for their balance of power and controllability. Distinguishing between specific iterations, such as the dash-one and dash-two variants, involves understanding subtle but potentially significant changes implemented during production. These modifications often reflect refinements in manufacturing processes, material selection, or internal mechanisms.
Understanding these seemingly minor variations offers collectors and enthusiasts critical insights into the evolution of this classic revolver design. Changes made between revisions can impact aspects like durability, reliability, and even collector value. This knowledge is essential for informed purchasing decisions and appreciating the nuances of firearm history.
The following sections will delve deeper into the specific differences between these models, exploring the rationale behind the changes and their practical implications for shooters. Topics covered will include variations in internal components, modifications to the frame and yoke, and any resulting impact on performance and longevity.
1. Yoke retention system
The yoke retention system represents a key distinction between the Smith & Wesson Model 66-1 and the 66-2. The 66-1 utilizes a radius stud located on the front of the frame to secure the yoke. This design, while functional, allows for potential movement and flex in the yoke during firing, especially with magnum loads. This flex can contribute to accelerated wear and potentially affect accuracy. The 66-2 addressed this issue with the introduction of a redesigned yoke retention system. A larger, more robust radius stud, combined with a corresponding change to the yoke itself, provides a more secure lockup and minimizes yoke movement. This enhancement translates to improved durability, tighter tolerances, and potentially enhanced accuracy.
The evolution of the yoke retention system exemplifies Smith & Wesson’s continuous improvement philosophy. While the 66-1’s system was adequate for standard use, the increased stresses of magnum cartridges highlighted the need for greater rigidity. The 66-2’s improved design directly addressed this, resulting in a stronger, more reliable revolver. Observed differences in accuracy between the two models, while not solely attributable to the yoke retention system, can often be partially explained by this crucial modification. Some documented cases of frame stretching or cracking in 66-1s subjected to heavy magnum use further underscore the importance of this design change.
Collectors and shooters alike should consider the yoke retention system when evaluating Model 66 revolvers. The improved design of the 66-2 demonstrably enhances the revolver’s structural integrity and long-term performance. This factor contributes to the 66-2’s reputation for robust handling and reliability, making it highly desirable among enthusiasts and collectors seeking a durable and accurate .357 Magnum revolver.
2. Gas ring count
The number of gas rings on the extractor star constitutes a subtle yet significant difference between the Smith & Wesson Model 66-1 and 66-2. The 66-1 typically features three gas rings, while the 66-2 transitioned to a two-gas-ring design. This change stemmed from observations regarding carbon buildup and cleaning difficulties associated with the three-ring system. The accumulation of fouling between the rings could occasionally lead to extraction issues and increased maintenance requirements. The reduction to two rings aimed to simplify cleaning and improve overall reliability, particularly with sustained firing of magnum cartridges. While the three-ring setup offered a marginally better gas seal in theory, the practical benefits of the two-ring design, in terms of simplified maintenance, ultimately prevailed.
The impact of this seemingly minor change manifests in several ways. Shooters experiencing sticky extraction with a 66-1 might find the two-ring system of the 66-2 offers improved performance in this area. Conversely, the marginally tighter gas seal provided by the three-ring setup might be preferred by some, despite the increased cleaning demands. This difference underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of each model when selecting a revolver for specific shooting needs. While both configurations are functional, the two-ring system generally offers a more practical and reliable solution for most shooting applications. Documented cases of extraction issues with heavily fouled three-ring extractors further support this conclusion.
The shift from three to two gas rings exemplifies the ongoing evolution of firearm design, often driven by field experience and user feedback. While seemingly minor, this modification addresses practical concerns regarding cleaning and reliability, particularly with high-volume shooting or prolonged use of magnum loads. This seemingly small detail can significantly impact the overall shooting experience, highlighting the importance of understanding the subtle differences between revolver models. Ultimately, the optimal choice between the two depends on individual preferences and priorities regarding gas sealing versus maintenance requirements.
3. Hammer nose bushing
The hammer nose bushing stands as a noteworthy point of distinction between the Smith & Wesson Model 66-1 and the 66-2. The 66-1 incorporates this bushing, a small component located within the frame, designed to reduce friction and wear between the hammer nose and the frame. The 66-2, however, omits this bushing. This decision reflects a shift in manufacturing practices and a reassessment of the bushing’s practical necessity. Eliminating the bushing simplified production and marginally reduced manufacturing costs. While the bushing theoretically reduces wear, its absence in the 66-2 has not demonstrably resulted in accelerated wear rates in normal usage. This suggests the bushing, while beneficial, was not strictly essential for the revolver’s function or longevity.
The practical implications of this difference are generally minimal. The presence or absence of the hammer nose bushing does not significantly impact the revolver’s performance, trigger pull, or reliability under typical shooting conditions. However, for collectors and those seeking originality, the bushing’s presence serves as a key identifying feature of the 66-1. Furthermore, gunsmiths performing action work might observe subtly different wear patterns between the two models, reflecting the bushing’s role in mitigating friction. For instance, a 66-1 with extensive use may exhibit less wear on the frame around the hammer nose compared to a similarly used 66-2. While this difference is unlikely to affect functionality, it represents a tangible consequence of the design variation.
Ultimately, the hammer nose bushing serves as a minor yet illustrative example of the evolutionary changes implemented between revolver revisions. While the bushing offered a theoretical advantage in terms of wear reduction, its practical significance proved minimal. The decision to remove it in the 66-2 demonstrates a pragmatic approach to manufacturing, simplifying production without compromising the revolver’s core functionality. This understanding provides valuable context for collectors and enthusiasts seeking to appreciate the nuances of Smith & Wesson’s design choices across different model variations.
4. Cylinder stop stud
The cylinder stop stud plays a critical role in the timing and lockup of the Smith & Wesson Model 66 revolver’s cylinder. While seemingly minor, differences in the cylinder stop stud’s design and placement contribute to the distinctions between the 66-1 and 66-2. The 66-1 often features a cylinder stop stud with a slightly different profile and engagement surface compared to the 66-2. These variations arose from ongoing refinements in manufacturing processes and tolerances. The 66-2’s modifications aimed to improve the consistency of cylinder lockup and potentially enhance accuracy. A more precisely machined and positioned cylinder stop stud contributes to more consistent alignment between the cylinder and barrel, a critical factor for optimal accuracy.
The practical significance of these differences lies in the potential impact on accuracy and reliability. A poorly fitted or worn cylinder stop stud can lead to timing issues, excessive cylinder play, and ultimately reduced accuracy. While both the 66-1 and 66-2 are generally reliable, variations in the cylinder stop stud’s design can influence long-term performance. Documented cases of inconsistent lockup in some 66-1 examples underscore the importance of this component. The refinements implemented in the 66-2 aimed to mitigate these issues, contributing to its reputation for enhanced accuracy and reliability. Gunsmiths specializing in revolver tuning often focus on optimizing the cylinder stop stud’s fit and function to achieve optimal performance.
Understanding the role of the cylinder stop stud provides valuable insights into the ongoing evolution of revolver design. While not as readily apparent as other changes, the cylinder stop stud’s influence on accuracy and reliability should not be underestimated. The modifications incorporated in the 66-2 represent a refinement of existing technology, addressing potential shortcomings and contributing to a more robust and consistent shooting experience. This attention to detail highlights the importance of seemingly minor components in achieving optimal revolver performance. Collectors and enthusiasts should consider these nuances when evaluating and comparing different model variations.
5. Overall Finish
The overall finish of a Smith & Wesson Model 66 contributes significantly to its aesthetic appeal, perceived value, and, to a lesser extent, its long-term durability. While both the 66-1 and 66-2 generally feature a highly polished blued finish, subtle variations exist between individual revolvers and across different production periods. Discerning these nuances requires careful observation and an understanding of Smith & Wesson’s manufacturing practices during the respective production runs of each model.
-
Bluing Variations
The bluing process itself can exhibit slight variations in color and depth. Early 66-1 models sometimes exhibit a deeper, richer blue compared to later production runs. Similarly, some 66-2 revolvers might display a slightly lighter shade. These variations can result from differences in bluing solutions, application techniques, or even polishing methods employed during production. While these differences rarely affect functionality, they are of interest to collectors seeking specific aesthetic qualities.
-
Polishing Techniques
Polishing techniques employed prior to bluing contribute to the final appearance. Differences in polishing compounds, wheel materials, or even the skill level of the polisher can influence the degree of polish and the presence of subtle polishing marks. A highly polished surface reflects light differently, potentially impacting perceived value and collectibility. Collectors often examine these details closely to assess a revolver’s originality and condition.
-
Stock Materials and Finish
Variations also exist in the stocks, or grips, used on these revolvers. While both models typically feature wood stocks, differences in wood type, grain patterns, and checkering patterns can occur. Additionally, the finish applied to the stocks can vary in sheen and color. These seemingly minor details contribute to the overall aesthetic of the revolver and can influence collector preferences.
-
Markings and Engraving
The markings and engravings on the frame, barrel, and other components can also exhibit subtle variations. Differences in font styles, logo placement, or even the depth of engraving can indicate specific production periods or factory locations. Collectors and historians often scrutinize these markings to determine a revolver’s provenance and place it within its historical context.
Considering these seemingly subtle aspects of the overall finish provides valuable insights for collectors and enthusiasts seeking to understand the nuances of Smith & Wesson Model 66 revolvers. While functionality remains paramount, the overall finish contributes significantly to a revolver’s aesthetic appeal and collectibility. Careful examination of the bluing, polishing, stocks, and markings reveals a wealth of information about the revolver’s history and production. These details, combined with the mechanical differences discussed previously, provide a comprehensive framework for distinguishing between the 66-1 and 66-2 and appreciating the rich history of these classic revolvers.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common inquiries regarding the Smith & Wesson Model 66-1 and 66-2 revolvers, providing concise and informative responses.
Question 1: What is the primary difference affecting the structural integrity of the 66-1 and 66-2?
The most significant structural difference lies in the yoke retention system. The 66-2 features a more robust design, minimizing yoke movement and enhancing overall frame rigidity compared to the 66-1.
Question 2: How does the gas ring count affect revolver performance and maintenance?
The 66-1 typically has three gas rings, while the 66-2 has two. The reduction simplifies cleaning and potentially improves reliability, though the three-ring system may offer a slightly tighter gas seal. This difference affects cleaning frequency and potential extraction issues.
Question 3: Does the absence of the hammer nose bushing in the 66-2 significantly impact its longevity?
While the bushing in the 66-1 theoretically reduces wear, its absence in the 66-2 has not demonstrably led to premature wear under normal usage conditions. This difference is primarily relevant for collectors and gunsmiths.
Question 4: How do variations in the cylinder stop stud influence accuracy?
The cylinder stop stud’s design and placement affect cylinder lockup and timing. Refinements in the 66-2’s cylinder stop contribute to more consistent lockup and potentially improved accuracy compared to some 66-1 examples.
Question 5: What are the key aesthetic differences between the 66-1 and 66-2?
Subtle variations exist in bluing shades, polishing techniques, stock materials, and markings. These differences are primarily of interest to collectors and do not typically impact functionality.
Question 6: Which model is considered more desirable for collectors?
Collectibility depends on individual preferences and specific features. Early production runs, unique finishes, or documented historical provenance can influence a revolver’s desirability regardless of the dash number. The 66-2, however, is often favored for its enhanced structural integrity.
Careful consideration of these frequently asked questions, along with the detailed comparisons provided earlier, allows for a more informed assessment of the Smith & Wesson Model 66-1 and 66-2. Understanding these nuances enables collectors and enthusiasts to appreciate the subtle yet significant differences between these classic revolvers.
For further exploration, the following sections will delve into specific examples, case studies, and historical context surrounding these models.
Tips for Discerning and Selecting a Smith & Wesson Model 66
This section offers practical guidance for those seeking to acquire or better understand the Smith & Wesson Model 66-1 and 66-2 revolvers. Careful consideration of these tips aids informed decision-making and fosters a deeper appreciation for these classic firearms.
Tip 1: Examine the Yoke Retention System:
Close inspection of the yoke area is crucial. The 66-2’s enhanced yoke retention system offers improved rigidity and durability. Observe the size and shape of the radius stud and its corresponding recess in the yoke for identification.
Tip 2: Verify the Gas Ring Count:
Confirm the presence of two or three gas rings on the extractor star. This seemingly minor detail influences cleaning requirements and potential extraction characteristics. Consider individual preferences regarding gas sealing versus ease of maintenance.
Tip 3: Inspect the Hammer Nose Area:
The presence or absence of the hammer nose bushing distinguishes the 66-1 from the 66-2. While functionally insignificant for most users, this detail assists in model identification and informs potential wear patterns.
Tip 4: Assess Cylinder Lockup and Timing:
Evaluate cylinder play and rotation smoothness. A tight, consistent lockup is essential for accuracy and reliability. Subtle differences in the cylinder stop stud contribute to variations in lockup between models.
Tip 5: Scrutinize the Finish:
Carefully examine the bluing, polishing, and stock condition. Variations in these aspects reflect production periods and individual revolver history. Assess the finish based on personal aesthetic preferences and collector value considerations.
Tip 6: Research Historical Production Data:
Consulting factory records or reputable sources aids in verifying production dates and features specific to each model. This information provides valuable context for understanding individual revolver variations.
Tip 7: Consult with Experienced Collectors and Gunsmiths:
Leverage the expertise of experienced individuals within the firearms community. Their insights and observations provide invaluable perspectives for evaluating and authenticating specific Model 66 revolvers.
By adhering to these guidelines, informed decisions regarding acquisition, maintenance, and appreciation of these classic revolvers can be made. Careful observation and research are essential for navigating the nuances of the Smith & Wesson Model 66.
The following conclusion synthesizes the key distinctions and offers final considerations for discerning and selecting between the 66-1 and 66-2.
Concluding Remarks
Discerning the nuances between the Smith & Wesson Model 66-1 and 66-2 requires a comprehensive understanding of their respective features. The yoke retention system, gas ring count, hammer nose bushing, cylinder stop stud, and overall finish contribute to the subtle yet significant distinctions between these seemingly similar revolvers. The 66-2 generally represents an evolutionary refinement of the 66-1, incorporating design changes that enhance structural integrity, simplify maintenance, and potentially improve accuracy. While both models remain highly regarded among enthusiasts, the 66-2 often commands a premium due to its perceived enhancements. Collectors, however, may find specific features or historical significance in certain 66-1 variations, highlighting the importance of careful evaluation and research.
The Smith & Wesson Model 66, regardless of the dash number, represents a timeless example of revolver design. Understanding the subtle variations between iterations provides valuable insights into the ongoing evolution of firearms technology. This knowledge empowers collectors, shooters, and enthusiasts to make informed decisions and appreciate the enduring legacy of these classic revolvers. Further research and hands-on examination remain crucial for fully grasping the nuances and historical significance embodied within each individual firearm. The pursuit of such knowledge enriches the overall experience of owning and appreciating these iconic revolvers.