SPRINGFIELD, Mass. –-(Ammoland.com)- Smith & Wesson today announced that it has begun shipping the new short barrel versions of its Model 66 and Model 69 Combat Magnum revolvers.
The new Model 66 and 69 revolvers feature a 2.75” barrel and are chambered in .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum, respectively. The Combat Magnum revolvers are purpose-built for those seeking a magnum caliber in a medium size frame.
Jan Mladek, General Manager for Smith & Wesson and M&P Brands, said, “The two new shorter barrel length Combat Magnum revolvers, the Model 66 .357 Magnum K-frame and the Model 69 .44 Magnum L-frame, offer the consumer a powerful personal protection option. We are proud to continue delivering innovations to our revolver product line, and the new 2.75” barrel length versions allow for easy carry and concealment of the highly regarded Combat Magnum series in these two popular calibers.”
The new Model 66 and 69 revolvers feature a stainless steel frame and cylinder, glass bead finish, and a 2.75 inch barrel. Innovative new features include a redesigned ball detent feature to strengthen the yoke to frame lockup to support heavy magnum loads, as well as a full-length extractor for quick, effortless cartridge removal. Both revolvers come equipped with a red ramp front sight, an adjustable white outline rear sight, synthetic grips, ball-detent lock up, full top strap barrel serrations, and a two-piece barrel. The Model 66 revolver is equipped with a 6-round cylinder to handle both .357 Magnum and .38 S&W Special +P, and the Model 69 features a 5-round cylinder capable of handling the large .44 Magnum caliber, as well as .44 Special.
For more information on the Model 66 and Model 69 Combat Magnum series revolvers please visit www.Smith-Wesson.com.
About Smith & Wesson
Smith & Wesson Corp. is a U.S.-based leader in firearm manufacturing and design, delivering a broad portfolio of quality firearms, related products, and training to the U.S. consumer and law enforcement markets, as well as global military and law enforcement customers. The company’s firearm division brands include Smith & Wesson, M&P, Performance Center and Thompson/Center Arms. For more information on Smith & Wesson, call (800) 331-0852 or log on to www.smith-wesson.com.
Ruger already offers the .44 Kodiak Backpacker, which I happen to own. It is SS steel w/a 23/4″barrel,it also comes with a round butt grip frame. Take a LOOK!
For S&W Revolver J,K,L,N Frame, purest,there is still a very large quantity of used revolvers in circulation. Take a look at the inventory of GunBroker.com! You may have to pay a premium,for the item that you want,but these fine revolvers can still be had. There is also several web based parts stores on line,for most any repair part,that might be needed, to keep them up and shooting!
I actually did buy a 629 classic, pre-lock and pre-MIM.
But the model 69 is a completely new model, and was not made pre-unwantedlock.
So I’ll have to wait until Smith + Klinton makes it without a lock, or else buy some other brand.
I’ve bought 4 Rugers in the last year, as an example… S+W doesn’t want my business, apparently. And therefore I must spend my money elsewhere.
I’m just waiting for Ruger to offer a model similar to the 69.
Glad to see the 2.75″ .357 with 6 shot capacity. I have searched for a 3″ model 66 they have become hard to find. I have a model 21 in .44 special that has the lock. I’ve never used it. I would prefer it wasn’t there but it has never been a problem. I really don’t notice it is there. Now I just need to wait and see if Smith and Wesson will sell these revolvers in the People’s Republic of California. Specifically up here in the Stage of Jefferson
I have the S&W 500 with a lock, Could not get the lock unlock, had to go to a gunsmith to open the revolver.
If I can remove the lock, I’ll keep the revolver, If not that will be the last S&W I’ll ever buy. Who idea was it in the first place to put a lock on a revolver in the first place? I need a firearm that I can depend on! with the lock I’m not sure, !
You can thank Bill Clinton for the wonderful revolver safety locks!
I bought the model 69 combat Magnum 44 and is very easy to remove the lock lever inside the gun. YouTube have couple videos and showing how it’s done you don’t have to be a gunsmith to do it is very simple process.
I don’t buy guns with locks. Period.
I don’t want to remove a lock that should not be there in the first place.
I’ll keep buying Ruger until S+W stops making unintelligent choices.
@Chuck
Good for you! You buy what you like, and let other people do the same.
Chances are S&W will not be removing it, as it is already there and it is one more argument they can use against lawyers who come after them wrongly when progressive liberal idiots push for “Wrongful death” litigation.
I also prefer blue carbon steel over the stainless steel!
And Square butt grip frames!
When S&W installed locks and removed the firing pin from the hammer,is when I lost interest, in their entire product line.They had very desirable firearms,until then.
Another Smith & Wesson revolver with a lock. No thanks. Ruger makes a much better, more durable revolver, and if you have a problem, Ruger will actually fix or replace your gun. Smith & Wesson makes guns with horrible triggers, internal locks, and if you have a problem, good luck getting it fixed. I will be sticking to Ruger.
I want a 69 with a 5 inch barrel to hunt with here in Ohio.
What Part of Ohio? I’m in the flat land Northwest myself, but I understand that further south and east in some of the more heavily wooded area’s Handgun Hunting is one of the best ways to go. Best Wishes to you this season by the way.
Above was supposed to read “Smitty”…
A year or so back I paid top dollar for a 629 classic, 5″, USED, specifically because it didn’t have the lock, and was pre-MIM. It’s pretty hypocritical of S+W to sell me a .45 ACP shield with no lock nor an external safety (a pistol which I love by the way), but they won’t get rid of that stupid and unnecessary lock. I will not buy a gun with a lock. Extra unnecessary parts, that no one wants, means Ruger is selling more revolvers. Smutty can do what they want, but if they want my business (I’m a collector… Read more »
Why not calibers in 41 mag or 45 Colt? Although I like and own a S & W 44 mag it would be nice to see a resurgence in these great calibers. The 41 mag beats the .357 by a country mile in power and lethality.
I’ve got several short barreled 357s and a 4″ 629 Mountain Gun that is unpleasant to shoot. I don’t think I want a shorter, lighter 44. Ostlanders comment about doing one in 41 mag, maybe a 6 shot, really got me to thinking. A 6 shot “L” frame in 41 with a short barrel would be something I could justify.
Why not a 45 ACP model using moon clips?
I am a degreed gunsmith who worked in a S&W warrantee shop. My choice based on my own personal biases would be a pre-Slick Willie Smith.
revjen45… Heck I will carry a Hobbly Wobbly Webley as a back up!! Lol….
Hampton, you need to take gunsmithing courses. The keylock does render the revolver inoperative…..sometimes. It is unnecessary. If u really feel like u need it…….. My response is…….. why?
Are your gun handling skills that poor?
This is another re-invention of the wheel!
It is not needed………
No need for this comment Rick Pere, That’s not what he was saying. Why bring his “gun handling skills” into it when he was not advocating for the lock in the first place? In fact he said he thinks no lock guns look better, but he won’t simply let a lock stop him from enjoying shooting a firearm, he instead just doesn’t mess with it.
Let other people buy and shoot what they want to, and you do the same. Fair enough? There is no reason to make things personal
Smith and Wesson will continue to lose mine and other educated handgun owners until they discontinue the STUPID lock. These locks have locked up pistols unintentionally making the gun untrustworthy. I will not have one of these Clinton era useless locks on a defensive pistol. I have already sold the model 60 357 that was in the room when my son was born. Boycott Smith and Wesson until calmer more intelligent thinking starts come out of the upper management.
@gentlemen, I think the value of pre-lock S&W pistols just went up at the gun shows.
We all know that it’s just a CYA for Smith.
Big Willie, Didn’t a new owner buy Smith and Wesson some years back after the Clinton era deal? Would you like to tell me how a company is supposed to justify the expenditure of capital to retool machines in a depressed market where profit margins have become much leaner due to inflation and an economy that is just barely climbing out of a major recession that was lengthened because of incompetent bureaucratic bungling in the hands of our Government, and a now shrinking sales base from people who no longer support them because of a feature that was on the… Read more »
Rodney I have the same gun and the 629 version also. I have never had a issue with the lock. Has never just locked itself or any kind of issue with it. Do the ones without look cleaner ? Yes. But,besides that I don’t see the big deal with them
I think everyone’s disdain with the lock goes to the point of careful gun handling. If you need a lock, you may be careless and if you have children they need to be educated. Responsible gun owners don’t need locks.
It goes back to a Clinton Era agreement by Smith and Wesson.
Lock or no lock, I’ll be buying one, I have a lock on my Talo 686 3″, and it poses no problems at all, I would prefer not to have the lock, but it doesn’t bother me to have it…
I don’t like the fact that they have the lock, but that won’t stop me from buying a fine handgun. Here I go again!!! I do wish they’d make some with a unfluted cylinder though….
Why continue to reinvent the basic wheel? There is no need for this. And the flat, besd blasting makes it very ugly. This is all unnecessary.
FINALLY, somebody agrees with me that bead blasted SS is UGLY!
It’s not meant to be pretty, it is meant to be a carry gun. Something that an owner isn’t afraid to use without babying it. Some people want a slimmer revolver with 44 Magnum Capability. For others, the L frame grip just fits their hands better. This is not a one size fits all market you know.
I already talked w SW. There is, a lock. And with only 5 shots, it is not needed. As long as there is a key lock, and only 5 shots, I will not be buying this handgun.
Gotta have at least a satin polish, otherwise it’s a waste of stainless steel for me. Not that my opinion matters. Just 1 less sale.
Why on esrth would Smith reduce the cylinder cspacity by one round in the 44 magnum? Is there a key lock?. If there is, I will not be buying this handgun!
Because it is an L frame. That is smaller than the N Frame for the original six shot cylinder. The cylinder that fits in the L Frame is smaller in diameter. Five shots means a smaller slimmer 44 Magnum that is more easily concealed.
When Smith and Wesson discontinues the locks, is when I start buying Smith and Wesson revolvers again.
I really want the Model 69; but I don’t “need” it, and therefore I’ll wait until Ruger comes out with something similar, or Smith and Wesson takes the lock off.
Ruger already has a new GP100 chambered for the 44 S&W Spl w/3″ brl. Just bought one and love it! 5 Rd cylinder and adj. sights (Fiber optic front)
I wonder if the lack of mentioning the “lock” and the choice of which side of the gun to present was intentional or just happenstance.
Not happenstance Im sure. Good Lord, why did they have to do that to fine revolvers. Im glad I have at least a few without that junk.
I won’t be buying ANY new revolvers until they all start polishing their SS.
Most people prefer a matte stainless or brushed stainless finish. Even if you purchase a revolver with non polished stainless you can always polish to the shine you want on your own with mothers or flitz etc. This would not be a major permanent modification to the firearm such as removing an internal lock. I prefer Ruger over Smith and Wesson any day. I have had a 686, 586 and a J frame 442. I have sold all of those and own Ruger’s now. Not only are they less expensive, but the customer service is better. Not sure how people… Read more »