I was at the range the other day, and after I finished shooting I was checking out at the desk. There was this gentleman there who had a brand new 4" 620. Hmm, it looked to me to be pretty much like a model 66, the only difference I could see was that it was a 7 shot instead of a 6 shot. Am I blind, or is that the only real difference? Could it be that S&W may be thinking of phasing out the 66 in favor of the 620? Their website posting here makes me think that is the case.
What's the scoop on the S&W 620?
- Thread starter gb_in_ga
- Start date
41Defender
New member
My understanding is that they're discontinuing the 65 and 66 and replacing them with the 619 and 620 respectively. btw, am I the only one who sees this as bassackwards? 
41Defender:
That's about the way I feel about it. I suppose that they are trying to compete with Taurus pertaining to the 7 shot thing. But why the new model number? They didn't do that with the 686, when they brought out the 7 shot version. And why do this to the exclusion of the 6 shot version? There are still people out there who are more comfortable with the 6 shot revolvers than the 7 shot ones, they perceive that the 6's are more reliable. Now I'm wondering if they are going to discontinue the 6 shot L frames, in favor of the 7 shot ones, too? It would be consistent.
I suppose that they are both trying to compete (with Taurus) and consolidate their product lines at the same time. It is sad that a popular classic design ends up going by the wayside in the process...
That's about the way I feel about it. I suppose that they are trying to compete with Taurus pertaining to the 7 shot thing. But why the new model number? They didn't do that with the 686, when they brought out the 7 shot version. And why do this to the exclusion of the 6 shot version? There are still people out there who are more comfortable with the 6 shot revolvers than the 7 shot ones, they perceive that the 6's are more reliable. Now I'm wondering if they are going to discontinue the 6 shot L frames, in favor of the 7 shot ones, too? It would be consistent.
I suppose that they are both trying to compete (with Taurus) and consolidate their product lines at the same time. It is sad that a popular classic design ends up going by the wayside in the process...
Tripplethreat
New member
I am also in agreement with you both,but of course I am of the old school. Yesterday I examined a21/2 in mod 66 Smith which shows none of the quality of my 34 yo Mod 19 2 1/2 in.
Also looked over the 620. It's an L frame without the heavy full underlug,which is an improvement in my opinion,but it has the two piece bbl. which to me looks like a cheap sleeve containing the rifling,that has been slid down into the bbl.
They may well use a fool proof process for doing this but whats the point in it? Cheaper manufacture,and heavy use oif CNC machinery of course.
I guess I'm old fashioned but I policed with S&W revolvers for 17 years and it's obvious the older guns were well made.I don't think I can ever get used to this change,so if I'm shopping for a Smith wheelie,I'll stick with the oldies and goodiies
Also looked over the 620. It's an L frame without the heavy full underlug,which is an improvement in my opinion,but it has the two piece bbl. which to me looks like a cheap sleeve containing the rifling,that has been slid down into the bbl.
They may well use a fool proof process for doing this but whats the point in it? Cheaper manufacture,and heavy use oif CNC machinery of course.
I guess I'm old fashioned but I policed with S&W revolvers for 17 years and it's obvious the older guns were well made.I don't think I can ever get used to this change,so if I'm shopping for a Smith wheelie,I'll stick with the oldies and goodiies
So, it is really more of a 686+ with a half lug barrel than a 7 shot 66? I guess that frame did look sorta heavy, now that you mention it. Oh, well, I've already got my old model 686, so I really see no reason to get one of these newer models, I could care less about that extra shot. When it comes time for me to get my next revolver, I'll be getting either another older used S&W or a Ruger.
Tripplethreat,
This is the first across-the-board manufacturing change S&W has made in my lifetime that doesn't seem solely driven by the bottom line. After all, it can't be any cheaper to make two chunks of barrel than it is to make one. I can see two advantages off the bat:
1) A barrel tensioned at both ends should, all other things being equal, be more accurate than a barrel tensioned at just one. (cf Dan Wesson.)
2) This should finally put an end to overtorqueing and undertorqueing of barrels, and the occasional wail of "My front sight is on crooked!"
It sure does look like ass on most guns, though.
This is the first across-the-board manufacturing change S&W has made in my lifetime that doesn't seem solely driven by the bottom line. After all, it can't be any cheaper to make two chunks of barrel than it is to make one. I can see two advantages off the bat:
1) A barrel tensioned at both ends should, all other things being equal, be more accurate than a barrel tensioned at just one. (cf Dan Wesson.)
2) This should finally put an end to overtorqueing and undertorqueing of barrels, and the occasional wail of "My front sight is on crooked!"
It sure does look like ass on most guns, though.
SnWnMe:
"Well, the 619 and 620 also have the same dimensions as the 686 so they are not just 7 shot 65s and 66s. They are L frames."
It fits with what I caught from rumor central, that S&W was completely phasing out the K Frames, in favor of L Frames. So, you will have the older L Frames with the full lug barrels, and the newer "pseudo K Frame" L Frames with the half lug barrels. Why the difference, other than some people just like the look of the half lug better than the full lug, and they shaved 1 whole ounce off the 686P? Whoopee Doo. Now what I'm wondering is that with a relative concentration of models in the L Frame line, are they going to pare some of those down, too? I mean, why have both the 620 and the 686P? There isn't enough difference between them to rate having 2 different models, IMHO.
Speaking of the rumors of S&W dropping the K Frame line, what about those old classic .38 spl models? Are they going by the wayside? It wouldn't surprise me, but it would sadden me.
Oh, BTW, S&W actually does have to compete with Taurus. Apparently there actually are people who like having an extra shot or 2 in their revolvers, Taurus is giving it to them, and some people are buying them for that reason. S&W has to provide that as well, or face loosing market share. Personally, I think that S&W is slipping a little overall, and Taurus is picking up some overall, too. Hence, the gap between them is closing.
"Well, the 619 and 620 also have the same dimensions as the 686 so they are not just 7 shot 65s and 66s. They are L frames."
It fits with what I caught from rumor central, that S&W was completely phasing out the K Frames, in favor of L Frames. So, you will have the older L Frames with the full lug barrels, and the newer "pseudo K Frame" L Frames with the half lug barrels. Why the difference, other than some people just like the look of the half lug better than the full lug, and they shaved 1 whole ounce off the 686P? Whoopee Doo. Now what I'm wondering is that with a relative concentration of models in the L Frame line, are they going to pare some of those down, too? I mean, why have both the 620 and the 686P? There isn't enough difference between them to rate having 2 different models, IMHO.
Speaking of the rumors of S&W dropping the K Frame line, what about those old classic .38 spl models? Are they going by the wayside? It wouldn't surprise me, but it would sadden me.
Oh, BTW, S&W actually does have to compete with Taurus. Apparently there actually are people who like having an extra shot or 2 in their revolvers, Taurus is giving it to them, and some people are buying them for that reason. S&W has to provide that as well, or face loosing market share. Personally, I think that S&W is slipping a little overall, and Taurus is picking up some overall, too. Hence, the gap between them is closing.