The Rossi RM66 – A Good Addition to Any Gun Fancier’s Collection

By Jason Baird

Rossi has manufactured firearms since the late 1800’s, but only recently (in 2023) returned to revolver production and sales. The RM 66 is one of its three new wheelguns currently offered to the marketplace. They are each six-shot, double- and single-action revolvers with hammer-block safeties, chambered in .38 Special/.38 Special +P/.357 Magnum. The most apparent difference among the three handguns is barrel length, with the RM66 having a six-inch full underlug barrel, while the other two have four- and three-inch barrels, respectively.

The RM66’s frame, cylinder and barrel are matte-finished stainless steel, making for a durable and attractive firearm. Presenting a striking appearance, the black wrap-around rubber grips and the black-finished sights contrast with the silvery stainless frame and barrel. Speaking of sights, the rear is fully-adjustable and the front has a replaceable ramp blade.

The fit and finish of the revolver is very good; the cylinder locks up tightly and I could detect no end-shake with it. Only once, during my first range session firing the gun, did I notice a slight cylinder rotation hang-up. That glitch could have been due to the gun needing some break-in work, or possibly to a cartridge with a thicker rim or high primer, but I never noticed it again.

Being medium-framed, the RM66 fits holsters for similar sized revolvers with six-inch barrels from other gun companies, and six-shot speed-loaders for such revolvers also work with the RM66. I have several medium-frame revolvers from Ruger and S&W, and verified the RM66 fit and operation with holsters and speed-loaders made for those wheelguns.

To check on the RM66’s all-round utility, I carried it with me daily while I worked on equipment and around my property. I also carried a couple of speed loaders stoked with .357 Mag hollow-points in a belt pouch. With my rural and somewhat isolated home and property and the four-legged varmints around here, I never know when I’ll see a “target of opportunity” when I’m working and I find it wise to always be armed or to have a gun close-by. Alas, during the couple of weeks I carried the RM66, no opportunities to use the pistol arose. Nevertheless, I found the gun light enough that I didn’t notice its weight on my hip, and the RM66’s long barrel seldom inhibited my movement or my seating comfort when operating forest management equipment.

When I first handled the RM66, it felt muzzle-heavy to me due to its long barrel and underlug, and its somewhat tapered (rather than flared) grip frame. The medium frame revolvers I use have shorter barrels and flared grips, so I didn’t know if this feeling would affect my shooting (it didn’t). To illustrate the differences, I took a photo of the RM66 along with a four-inch barrel .357 Mag revolver I purchased new in 1977 and have been shooting ever since in competitions, target practice and while hunting.

To try-out the RM66 on the range, I fired and chronographed four types of ammunition from two different manufacturers – .38 Special 125 grain XTP and .357 Magnum 125 grain FTX from Hornady, and .38 Special + P 125 grain semi-jacketed hollow point and .357 Magnum 158 grain lead semi-wadcutter from Remington. I also shot my old, well-used revolver for comparisons of balance, trigger feel, and muzzle velocity with the RM66.

Here are the chrono results for each ammo variation in each gun; the RM66 velocity was higher in each test, as is expected due to its 2-inch longer barrel: (all velocities in feet per second)

Ammunition	Average velocity for RM66	Average velocity for 4” barreled revolver	Velocity difference between revolvers
Hornady American Gunner .38 Special 125 gr XTP	852.5	831.7	20.8
Remington High Terminal Performance .38 Special +P 125 gr SJHP	975.0	951.5	23.5
Hornady Critical Defense .357 Magnum 125 gr FTX	1497.5	1430.0	67.5
Remington Performance Wheel Gun .357 Magnum 158 gr Lead SWC	1307.4	1215.4	92

Interestingly, the velocity spread between the longer and shorter barrels increased as the velocity increased. I don’t have any visibility into the various canister powders and charge weights used by Remington and Hornady in these cartridges, so I can’t precisely explain why this happened, but the longer barrel of the RM66 was obviously more optimal for the .357 Magnum ammunition than the shorter barrel of the other revolver.

As I mentioned previously, the RM66 balance in a shooter’s hand is noticeably muzzle-heavy (particularly compared to my shorter-barreled older revolver), but I expected and noticed a bit less muzzle rise with the RM66 when shooting the high-test .357 rounds. This was better than I expected, because even with the longer barrel the RM66 is still a little over two ounces lighter than the four-inch barreled pistol (unloaded, 34.9 versus 37.2 ounces).

Compared to the older gun, the RM66’s trigger feel during the “mash” (as my Air Force Academy pistol coach described proper trigger manipulation) was not quite as smooth, but it was clean to the break in both single- and double-action operation. I expected this, as I’ve fired many thousands of rounds through the older revolver and the RM66 is still breaking-in. With time and use, the new gun’s trigger will only get smoother. I measured the trigger pulls of each gun in both modes with my digital trigger gauge, and the single-action force required (averaged over five tries) for each was remarkably close – 4 pounds 9.8 ounces for the RM66, and 4 pounds 9.3 ounces for the older revolver. The RM66 double-action force exceeded my gauge’s 12-pound limit, but the older gun clocked-in at 11 pounds 4.0 ounces. I wasn’t surprised at this, as I can’t remember a new revolver that I’ve tested in the last several years that had a double-action trigger pull that my gauge could measure. I don’t know why this is; at least the RM66 pull was smooth with no appreciable stacking.

Although I was skeptical initially at the feel and balance of the RM66, after test firing it and carrying it in a hip holster for a couple of weeks I was pleased with the revolver. I think it would be difficult to find, at its price point ($636.99), a new pistol from another firearms company that could compete with it.

About the Author

Jason Baird is a retired Air Force B-52 navigator and “rocket scientist” and also, a retired professor of mining and explosives engineering. He owns and operates Loki Incorporated, a successful small business participating in a wide range of energetic materials and ballistic resistance topics and performing test and expert witness services. As a hobby, he enjoys building useful stuff out of wood and steel. He also runs a brush hog on his own property, and enjoys using a wide variety of power tools. Oh, and he’s known as “Dr. Bomb,” or “the Bomb,” to friends.