[Surefire]

I keep reading this, but am not seing it when I actually examine a S&W at the range. Or when I shoot one.

Where is the quality slipping, what parts?

Maybe I'm lucky, but I am not seeing a difference in quality from my 1997 686+ (has given me 8 years of fabulous performance) to the new one (2004-2005 model) I looked over today at the range today.

Is the issue that S&Ws are now hit-and-miss, or all they all "slipping"?

I've seen more quality slipping from Rugers than from S&W, and I am a Ruger fan (my favorite make) saying this. Three of my last four Ruger revolvers have had "issues" out-of-the box. :(

[Standing Wolf]

Smith & Wesson's quality control has been an on again, off again affair for decades. A friend in the business tells me the general quality is higher today than it was when the company was British-owned, but some individual guns are still lemons.

What's the percentage of guns with serious problems? There's probably no way to find out, since a.) a great many gun buyers wouldn't know the difference, and b.) a great many guns are hardly ever shot.

[Surefire]

I guess I was lucky with my 1997 686+.


Now I'm hoping that when I get a newer S&W, I'll be lucky and get a decent one.

[grey9551]

I may be wrong but, it seems that 8 out of 10 complaints come from new guys who don't know there weapons well enough yet. I read of the new guys removing the side plates just to make sure they are clean we all know that is just plain foolish and usually more harm than good comes from it

Also most folks aren't shooting their weapons nearly enough to tell if they are working properly or not. They set a target 10 yards away and if they can't hit the black with every shot they think they have a problem with the weapons.

I think S&W and all the big name brand dealers should hold basic armorers classes not so much to teach the folks what to mess with and how to fix it but, mainly to teach them what to keep their hands out of. I think it would go a long way for customer relations.

Gary
.

[Majic]

Maybe I'm lucky, but I am not seeing a difference in quality from my 1997 686+
Most posters would stick your 1997 model in with the new models. The quality that is spoken about is from decades ago.

[unspellable]

I think S&W quality control has improved from where it was say fifteen or twenty years ago. (Which was stinko, so there is still room for improvement.)

On the other hand I think the designs have gone down hill starting with dropping the 6.5 inch barrel on the Model 29, then the barrel pin, then the counter bored chambers, and now we've lost all the good old ones and have a collection of stuff that look like refugees from a Buck Roger movie and are stuck with locks, etc.

[nero45acp]

I've owned 9 S&W revolvers, the oldest a M14 from the early 60's and the newest a 2005 M60-18. Having said that, I'm not a revolver expert and I won't pretend to be one, but what I have noticed is a number of cost cutting moves by S&W that for me makes the newer models a little less appealing. Some of those cost cutting moves include:

-No longer pinning the barrels
-Two-piece barrels
-Hollow triggers
-Fake case-hardened triggers and hammers
-Fugly angular cylinder latches
-Not polishing the inside of the frame on their stainless revolvers as well as they once did
-Very few blued models offered (model 10 & Thunder Ranch .44)

I realize that these changes don't really effect the function of the revolver, but for me they do negatively effect the aesthetics of them. This is not meant as a bash S&W post, I love S&W revolvers. It's just that I'd love them even more if they weren't cutting some of these corners.


nero

[Boats]

I dunno, all of these new ones come with an extraneous hole in the side. :D

[scubie02]

hmm, yeah, I guess I'd have to say it seems true overall, I'm not sure its so much "quality slipping" as in they are trying to make them the same, but are doing a bad job of it, I think its more cost cutting measures maybe. All I know is that I don't see a big improvment from my Smith's over my Taurus', in fact my model 85 taurus has a better trigger than my 642 smith, and I sold a 686 not so long ago because it was easily outshot by my 1911's and even my xd 9 easily kept up with it in the accuracy department. Finish's are pretty so-so too. I don't think the 686's was actually as good as my taurus tracker, and my 642 had several flaws in the finish when I bought it new.

[recondoc]

I don't know much about quality slipping in the past few years but can see and feel a very distinct difference in overall quality between my friends 686 from the early '90s and my 28-2 from the '70s. I just got the 28 last Sunday and it is the first, of what I hope will be many, older Smiths. There is no question that a lot more time and workmanship went into the older guns. I don't know if they are doing more CAM CAD stuff now but I would expect it in this day and age. I still think that overall, Smith still puts out the finest quality revovers on the market today. They should have passed that quality standard over to their auto department.
Doc

[JohnBT]

A poster at rimfirecentral sent his 647 back because it shot patterns. They called him, said that the 647 has been discontinued, and offered to send him a different model - because they don't have enough parts to fix his. I think he picked a 648.

I don't know if this is quality service or a quality snow job.

I hope our 647 doesn't break before it becomes a rare and valuable collector's item.

John

[mete]

The real fall in quality of S&W was around 1980.I worked on many of them.Often a brand new gun wouldn't function !!! Typically they would have 2 or three major problems and a number of minor ones .A sad story and that's when many turned their backs on S&W forever. Remember that at one time they earned the reputation of making the best handgun in the world.

[unspellable]

In some circles they still have the reputation for making the best handgun in the world. If we confine the discussion to double action revolvers, I'd be willing to say they are still in the top three of the majors. There are some VERY good revolvers by VERY small makers out there, but one seldom even hears of them let alone sees one.

I'd say Dan Wesson makes the best large frame revolvers today, but they have had their ups and downs.

Colt has become one of the VERY small makers.

Rugers are strong, but I for one do not care for the looks or handling and as a consequence I have little experience with their quality control.

Taurus is obviously out to steal S&W's thunder and they have improved a lot but QC is very good with some models and poor with others. But if they continue to gain and S&W continues to slide Taurus will pass up S&W one of these days.

[Surefire]

Maybe I'm lucky, but I am not seeing a difference in quality from my 1997 686+


Most posters would stick your 1997 model in with the new models. The quality that is spoken about is from decades ago.

Hmmm...I'm very happy with the quality of my 97 model. Excellent trigger pulls in DA and SA, very tight lockup, good cylinder gap, and absolutely no obvious quality problems. It shoots like a dream, and has held up well to thousands of rounds. If the quality was even better decades ago, I got to get me one of them older guns soon!


And as for S&W quality vs. Ruger....IMO the Ruger design is much better (which is why I own more Rugers than any other revolver), but the quality-control of Ruger is not as good as S&W. Rugers QC has gone down greatly the last three years, IMO....I've had three problem Ruger revolvers within the last four I bought. The think the Ruger itself is more durable, but out of the box greater chances of problems, which is unfortunate because its my favorite design of the revolvers.

[drannor]

I own around a dozen smiths, with the majority made from 1975 - 1985. Most of these were purchased LNIB or NIB unfired. (14,15,17,19,29,586,686) I have a couple from the 60's and early 70's, and a few new ones made since 2000. If the 1985 - 2000 were bad years then I guess I'm blessed....

That said I've only had one functional problem with any S&W and that was a 1977 M19. Cosmetically perfect but the ejector rod was a little bent causing a vastly irregular DA trigger pull. Replaced the rod and now it's butter smooth. It's entirely possible the damage was inflicted by the previous owner fondling it. He certainly never shot it.

The 586 has the most beautiful bright blueing I've ever seen on a S&W, the 14's blueing by contrast is a little mottled and uneven. Both are tackdrivers. By comparison my brand new PC 29's cylinder is so badly blued I'm considering shipping it back to S&W.

I'm in agreement with the folks that say there are good and bad guns from any period.

As to specific parts:
- Average blueing quality is way down judging by the new 586s, 10s, etc
- Trigger actions in general aren't as smooth as my older guns

[Gordon]

My 296 of 1999 will be the last new S&W I ever buy and even that one is not great, just unique. I saw a new Model 60 5" apart on an armmore's bench last week and almost threw up! :barf: I was thinking about the Model 60 5", but after I saw the innards-FORGET IT! :cuss:

[JohnBT]

Are you sure that wasn't the Model 60 do-it-yourself kit? :evil:

John

[Stainz]

My absolute worst-ever QC S&W was my NIB safe-queen 24-3 from '83, the 'Bangor Punta' era. My other older unit is a 3" 65 from '88 - a police trade-in. That 24 had spattered brazing remnants from the posts on the frame's innards, sporadically interfering with moving parts - even the rebound slide. It wouldn't launch a cylinderful without help. Horrible. My ten new purchased 2000-2005 produced revolvers have had a total of two 'problems' - a loose ejector rod (LH thread - just tightened it.) and a kinked ejector spring, evidenced by a less than smooth feeling when pressing the rod in. S&W sent me a spring quickly. Additionally, I tried to wear out a 4" 625-8, even dropping the cylinder several times due to the loose sideplate/yoke screw, all my fault... S&W fixed it gratis. No, I am thankful that they '... don't make them like they once did'!

I think a lot of folks expect a smooth and light trigger 'out of the box'. They all smooth up with a 'trigger job' - or 1,000+ dry-fires, if properly cleaned & lubed. The hammer must hit with authority to pop all primers, certainly a design requirement for a PD firearm. For a dedicated plinker - especially if you roll your own ammo and employ Federal primers - you can try lighter effort hammer springs. I advise against sideplate removal for the squeamish/mechanically challenged, too. A bit of spray cleaner/lube (RemOil/Breakfree - available from Wally World, even!) in the openings prior to the 1,000+ dry-fire regimine helps with the 'owner-derived trigger job'. Even if your revolver is already 'broken-in', your finger will be stronger - you'll think the 'pull' is smoother & lighter!

Stainz

[SnWnMe]

I think a lot of folks expect a smooth and light trigger 'out of the box'. They all smooth up with a 'trigger job' - or 1,000+ dry-fires, if properly cleaned & lubed. ....
.....Even if your revolver is already 'broken-in', your finger will be stronger - you'll think the 'pull' is smoother & lighter!

+1

[Surefire]

Upon further review (looking at my receipts), my 686+ 6" must be a 1996 model. It was bought by me in November 1996.

[HankB]

I inherited a "Pre-27" .357 made shortly after WWII . . . one need only compare that finely finished revolver, side by side, to anything coming out of S&W during the last several decades to answer the question "Is S&W Quality slipping?"

Current S&Ws are certainly functional, in much the same way that a Glock is functional - but they don't really inspire much admiration. The guns coming out of Springfield these days are the firearm equivalents of the generic groceries you can find at the cheaper grocery stores.

[Peter M. Eick]

Hankb nailed it.

When I put my pre-numbered guns and even my pre-wwII guns up against the stainless steel or even blued steel that has been coming out of S&W in the past decade or so I find it hard to understand why anyone even questions the quality slippage.

Put a nice Registered Magnum, next to a Pre-27, next to a 627 and tell me that there is not a direct decrease in fit and finish with time. You are joking yourself. The fit and polish/finish has definately decreased.

This is why I now only own 1 numbered S&W a 610 6.5" fluted. I just could not see the point. My preference is for the pre-war fit and finish while still being able to have modern guns. For example these are all pre-numbered guns:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/eickpm/11_n_frames.jpg

The best ones for overall fit and finish are the pre-war Registered Magnum and 38/44 Heavy Duties. They are TIGHT which is amazing considering they have been in use for over 70 years in some cases.


Now with all that said, I have to admit that from a raw accuracy point of view, I would tend to argue that the modern guns are probably more accurate.

[Surefire]

So, I think I see the point.

Quality has slipped compared to several decades ago. Its not something that just happened within the past 5 years or so.

I have NOT owned an older S&W in the 1970s and before. Every S&W I've owned or fired was made after 1980.

[SnWnMe]

Take an old M29 and a 90s and up M29. Run em with hot loads. See which one will involuntarily unlock the cylinder for you in recoil.

Take an old 36 and a recent production 36. Run em with +P loads. See which one will give up first.

The old guns have their quality features. The newer guns have improvements that the older guns will not match. Best to have a few (or many) from all eras :D

[Old Dog]

The old guns have their quality features. The newer guns have improvements that the older guns will not match. Best to have a few (or many) from all eras My feelings exactly.

While I feel the older (pre-70s) are the coolest-looking and some of the best made (overall) revolvers ever (in terms of workmanship); I have some recent production Smiths that are exceptionally accurate, show excellent fit & finish (no, I don't like the blemish on the left sideplate, but I ignore the lock), are totally reliable (and still look pretty good, too, IMO) and hold up better to hotter loads ...

[J Miller]

As I read this thread I keep seeing a reoccuring theme. This is that the new S&W products are not as good as those of of the past.

Well, maybe this is because the company we are calling Smith & Wesson, is Smith & Wesson IN NAME ONLY. Think for a moment. Before what's their name, Safety Lock bought them they were British owned. Before that Bangor Punta, with maybe something in between.

How far back do we need to go to get to when Smith & Wesson was really Smith & Wesson? The 1970's, maybe?

Each entity that has owned S&W has changed something. Not every thing for the good. Better manufacturing methods is sometimes good, sometimes not. MIM parts are NOT good in my personal opinion. They are functional, but have no asthetic value. They look CHEAP.
The companys insistance in replacing older, not real old, but just older guns with new versions because they don't have the parts to repair them, is a clue that S&W is not the S&W we knew. It's a different company making a look alike replica of the guns we used to know and love.

Sadly, I believe my early 80's Bangor Punta Mdl 25-5 is a much better product than what is coming out of S&W today. Even with all the wear it's accumulated from being used.

S&W quality slipping? Naw, it's not really S&W anymore. Just a facimile.


Joe

[SnWnMe]

IIRC the last time Smith and Wesson was owned by the Wessons was in the early 60s. It was sold to BP @ about that time. In the 80s it went from BP to LZ, then to Tomkins and finally, to Saf T Hammer.

Maybe Ruger will buy them next :D

But seriously, if you haven't had a chance to examine a pre War 44HE target, you have not seen a beautiful Smith and Wesson. I had a stab at one. But the $2500 asking was too much :)

Oh and RMs too.

[BluesBear]

So, what most of y'all are saying is that you judge quality purely on cosmetic appearance and not on functionality and durability.

[Peter M. Eick]

Blues,

It is hard for me to comment on the durability of a modern S&W like my 610. It is only about 10 years old. It is just a baby, a pup, a yearling.

Now I can comment on the durability of my pre-numbered smiths. Every one is at least 8 years older then I am and most of them are over 65 years old. My favorite 38/44 is from 1930 which makes it 75 now. It has been shot a lot, a whale of a lot and it still works great. Most of my pre-war guns have been used hard and are "working" specimens and not safe queens.

So from a durability standpoint the modern stainless steel smiths could best be considered suspect since we just don't have enough time to tell if they will really last. The older pre-war N frames can be described as "proven" since they have passed a reasonable test of time. By the way, I consider a reasonable test of time to be at least 50 years.

So lets see, the pre-numbered S&W's are more durable or at least have proven durability, have better cosmetics, fit and finish and have a proven functionality.

The modern S&W's (stainless) appear to be more accurate and have lesser cosmetics, unproven longevity and durability and somewhat questionable fit and finish.

[HankB]

Modern Smith Durability? Hmmm . . . when stainless M629s were first introduced, they had problems with the heat treatment, and some suffered early failure.

Just recently - within the last year or two - S&W Performance Center 329's were blowing their barrels off with factory ammo.

And there are persistent reports of "The Lock" failing. (This is admittedly quite rare.)

Exceptions, sure . . . but my "pre-27" .357 has been fired a LOT, and is still tight and accurate. As is my blue 5" M-27. And my customized blue M-28. And my "pre-M10" M&P. Etc.

"Durability" and "strength" are important considerations - the endurance package for .44 Mags that was introduced, IIRC, with the late -3 versions of the M29 was a mechanical improvement. But if durability and strength were the only criteria in choosing what to buy, then Redhawks and Super Redhawks would have driven the M29/M629 out of the market entirely. (And the folks driving Lamborghinis and Porsches would be in Chevy and Ford pickups.)

[Boats]

(And the folks driving Lamborghinis and Porsches would be in Chevy and Ford pickups.)

Thanks for the laugh. It's been decades since S&W could not laughably be compared to high end products in any field. I'll take the Ford or Chevy these days because if S&W is making Porsche equivalents, it is the disguised Volkswagen.

http://members.aol.com/DerWhite/73914B.JPG

Today's S&W "Porsche:"

http://www.firearms.smith-wesson.com/userimages/170245_large.jpg

Well, they both have locks in their sides anyway. :evil:

[SnWnMe]

Boats, you have a Smith yet?

[Boats]

Nope. I almost bought a 66-2 last month, but the owner wanted too much for it.

Still looking for a preagreement. . .

581 or
586
13
19
27
66 or

a P&R .357 that is 5" or less with some sort of underlug.

or a J frame that isn't beat to death. I don't hate Smith & Wessons of a certain bygone era, but I absolutely despise the current product offerings and the pusillanimous nature of the current ownership group. What good is "American Owned American Made" if one is going to act like the French but without the aesthetic sense?

[StrikeEagle]

Today's S&W "Porsche:"

ROFL! That is the ugliest thing I've seen this afternoon... all my Smiths are from the 70's, and I'm out of touch. What the heck IS that thing? :)

StrikeEagle

[Boats]

That thing is a Model 327. N-Frame, 8 shot 357 Mag. Hammer lock, titanium cylinder, two piece barrel, Scandium frame. Average street price is around $850.00

It's PC in more ways than one. :evil:

[BluesBear]

Peter,

I am not doubting the durability of the older S&W revolvers. I have seen way too many that had beem through hell and were amazingly resolute. But I have also seen many that had not fared so well.

Vintage S&W and Colt revolvers will stand up to an amazing amount of use. It's the ones who are subjected to large amounts of abuse that don't fare so well.

All of my recently owned N-frames date from 1968 to 1986. They have all been shot a lot but also have been well cared for. They should be good for at least another 100 years. Is the blueing as good as a Registered Magnum? No. Is the fit as good as a New Century? No. Will they last as long. I'll wager they will.

I have chosen to aquire and use more modern S&W revolvers only because of economics. My budget just can't stand the strain of vintage Smiths and Colts.
But I still expect quality and durability.

The enhancement packages S&W has incorporated on their newer revolvers enable them to handle larger amounts of hotter than designed ammunition. Therefore they should last for several more generations. As long as they are cared for as well as your pre numbered models have been.

Now sure S&W has had some problems. But you'll notice very few problems with guns made using the older technology. Read that to mean real forged steel.
I see no reason that a 1999 Model 10 shouldn't last well into the next century.

[Krag]

I have recently tested the new M619 and M620 revolvers and found them to be as well made and reliable as any Smith I have ever owned.

There are always doom and gloom stories about a particular gunmakers quality slipping. The only one that has really be a fact is Colt. They haven't made a decent firearm since 1945. :mad:

[Drifter721]

"S&W Quality slipping??"

No. Still the best revolver company around, bar none. You can sure do a "costly" whole lot worse!

[Peter M. Eick]

So Blues where do we differ?

We agree that the blueing and the finish of the older guns are better
We agree that the older guns can take a lot of abuse and have lasted a long time.
We agree that the newer ones are probably more accurate then the older ones.

You feel the new ones will last just as long, I am unsure of that (I don't trust MIM for some reason). ;)

I think the key difference is a slight change in budgets. You said your cannot take the strain of vintage S&W/Colts, I can only take a bit of strain. Let me tell you I have passed up several Registered Magnums so far and everyone killed me. I have been wanting a Triple Lock Target and just have not been able to swing the cash for a nice one. Heck even my beloved pre-war HD's are now costing more then $1000 for a nice one and shooter grades are $500 a pop.

I guess I don't see much difference in our position. They are surprisingly similar.

[BluesBear]

Peter you and I pretty much are in agreement.

My previous comment was NOT directed to you.

So, what most of y'all are saying is that you judge quality purely on cosmetic appearance and not on functionality and durability.

It was, however, directed at those who judge a gun simply on whether is has a lock or not. Or because the blueing isn't as good because the terribly expensive hand polishing was eliminated. Or that such & such company hasn't made a decent firearm since 1776. Or because of the politics of the company president/owner.

I own two Lear Siegler S&W and they are just as good as my Pangor Punta S7Ws. And before someone denounces all Bangor Punta guns as junk let me remind everyone that B-P took over in 1965!
All stainless guns were originally B-P procucts. The L-frames originated under B-P control.

IS anyone going to tell me that a 1966 nickled Model 29 wasn't a beautiful gun? That a 1969 Model 58 didn't have a spectacular deep blue job? That a NIB 1970 Model 19 wasn't a work of art? That a 1978 Model 37 wasn't suberbly fitted? That a 1981 586 didn't have an excellent fit and finish? Well the ones I had did. All of those were Bangor Punta guns.

So I don't think that S&W quality has slipped as much as it has evolved.
A working revolver doesn't need to be as lovely as a registered magnum was.
Due to the cost of labor and taxation cosmetics are forced to suffer.
Durability has the modern day standard.
Function has superceeded fanciness.

One has only to look at the modern day semi-automatic handgun to confirm this. After all the Luger may have been a work of art but a Sig works better.

[StrikeEagle]

The only one that has really be a fact is Colt. They haven't made a decent firearm since 1945.

Please tell us you're kidding. :)

Second Gen SAA's are mighty sharp. I never liked Pythons myself, but I have to admit that they were a superior product and a class act.

You think not?

StrikeEagle

[lawboy]

Hotly contested but ... Me thinks BluesBear has won the day.

[J Miller]

Hotly contested but ... Me thinks BluesBear has won the day.

Nope, I don't agree. The only way he wins is if all of us acept the uglyness of MIM parts and the key lock. And the hokey designs they have come out with.

I won't do that. As far as I'm concerned, S&W is a facade, a hollow excuse for what it once was. Their products may or may not be as durable as the older ones, but they are less desirealbe TO ME because of the ugliness of the parts and lack of finishing as a whole.

BluesBear has some good points, but he don't win me over. Maybe in 25 years when the MIM equiped guns have been around and in continous use and have proven to be as durable as the forged parts guns, maybe then.
But not yet.

Any way, you key lock, MIM and agreement lovers go right ahead and buy these new suedo S&W's. I'll pass thanks.


Joe

[BluesBear]

I'm not trying to win anything nor convert anyone. Just saying that there's more to quality than physical appearance.
Hopefully y'all don't judge people the same way you judge firearms.


Having said that, I also refuse to own a MIM S&W. :D

[Boats]

Quality has evolved?

That is a curious way of marking obvious slippage.

Why can it not be accepted that economic expediency drives many of the current moves rather than a desire to offer similar or superior quality at a similar or lower price?

Heck, I am the owner of a revolver that is an ode to cost cutting. The Ruger GP series replaced the Security and Speed Six in part because the predecessors were money losers on the manufacturing effort compared to the even more modular replacement series. I don't feel shamed that I bought "the cheaper" revolver. It was designed to be built the way it is and meets all my requirements. To my way of thinking, it is far better to have something designed from the start to be manufactured inexpensively, than it is to have something that was designed to be made relatively expensively face a cheapening out of its production values on an ad hoc basis.

I think the small tragedy that is currently S&W's revolver line-up stems from the fact that one used to get so much attention to detail for the price, but now one obviously does not but is still charged a premium for the end product. Today's Airweight (non Scandium) is more cheaply made that one ten years ago, but the price is relatively the same. Therefore the changes could not be for your benefit so much as it is to the bottom line of the company. It is laudable to keep prices in check, but to pretend no compromise in quality has taken place is naive.

Even if Ruger's blueing is tantamount to a paint job, at least if one desires, the revo can be reblued. Smith has the Model 10 available in blue as its only regular carbon steel offering. When one can go to a really decent shop or show and see offering after offering of used blued Smith guns, that Smith is down to one currently made blue model is really tragic.

No matter how hard one tries, no one can spin surface hardened MIM firing group parts as anything near the equivalent of the older forged parts.

I don't so much mind the crush fit barrels, but the profligation of the new two piece barrels is something I am not a fan of. Even if they are functional, they look awful.

The mismatched or multicolored revolvers they make do nothing for me, and I am not old enough to clearly remember "the good old days." Lest one think I am solely picking on S&W for their aesthetic sins, Beretta completely buggered up one of the best looking auto pistols of all time by hanging black plastic parts all over their latter day stainless 92FS series pistols. Some materials "progress" is anything but as far as form is concerned.

So I find S&W's marketing to indeed be curious. I wonder who they believe themselves to be in competition with in the market place.

A survey would say that they might think they have two competitors in the DA revolver market. The first is Ruger, which really only overlaps the S&W product line head to head in a handful of DA examples. The second is Taurus, which S&W competes with rather broadly on materials design and product line up.

What Smith is not being honest about is that the Company is also in market competition with a third force: Its past product. For many people, there is no compelling reason to buy any current S&W offering when their needs and desires might be better served by their past offerings, some of which are much more sought after than any current offering. It is a sad dynamic when a manufacturing company finds its better products of the past commanding near new prices and a sizeable market share in terms of sales lost to the buying and reselling of those past products. Each "past" (read preagreement) S&W revolver that is resold, is pretty solidly a lost sale of new product. S&W's recent moves remind me of how "New Coke" turned out. Since far more fizzy drinks are sold nationally in an hour than are firearms in a decade just means that S&W's New Coke disaster will take more time to play out should they stay the course of not really giving all but the most brand loyal customers what they might want were their preferences being taken into account.

I might only be a sample of one, but if I could buy a Smith 586 or 19 in even their 1990-91 incarnations, today, brand new, I'd buy one over a used one in a heart beat. The grief comes from knowing that if Smith reissued the 586 tomorrow using their current practices, I would not want it unless it cost about $400, the price of the equivalent Ruger, and probably not even then, because of the extra "feature" that I don't care for.

Then again, maybe Smith will be saved by all of the newbies and such who have never handled or fired a real Smith. :rolleyes:

[cortez kid]

I remember when Harley-Davidson was bought out by AMF. They made terrible bikes. Came out with the shovel head. Lousy. If you wanted something good, you wanted a knuckle or pan head. Time goes by and now the shovel head is reguarded as a classic. What? It happens with time. Tripple lock Smith's were garbage also. How bout now? The gun lock controversy will indeed fade. Many of those who kick about it now will just as enthusiastically tout the workmanship 20 years from now as a classic. A lot unfortunately will be dead. Many who remember things as they were will be a memory themselves, no one here of course. Most people will only remember that old guns are worth more and today's guns will get old. I buy old and I buy new. One thing I do,and am proud of, is keep the shooting spirit alive. So in 20 years, when I hear some "pimple faced" salesman tell me all about the classic design of those old '05's , I'm gonna remember all of us and smile warmly.
kid

[Gordon]

Hey; all I want is real forged/milled barrels with real cut or hammered or buttoned rifling, that are pin/or other positively secured with correct headspace! :neener:

[BluesBear]

Cortez Kid, Just about the same thing happened with Fender & Gibson guitars.

Those 1970s model that no one wanted when they were new are now "Vintage"* and the prices are obscene.

But at least when Fender reissues a 1962 Telecaster it is made just like an original 1952. Sure it may not be as precisely made but at least it's made from the same stuff or at least as close as possible to the original.


*Vintage is to guitar manufacturers what Tactical is to firearms manufacturers. Marketing hype to drive up the demand/price.

[cortez kid]

I know what you mean on the Fender Guitar's. I didn't like the Japanese versions, although they played nice. The only guitar I have is a 61 SG jr.. Sits in the corner coverd with an afghan. I've seen where someone is trying to start another thread on locks. Here we go again!
kid

[SnWnMe]

Hey! I like my Japanese Jazz :mad: ;)

There are too many knobs and frets but it's a Fender :neener:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v729/syciprider/fenderjazzbrass640.jpg

[cortez kid]

That's one purdy axe. I guess I was showing my snob side. Those Jap guitars played every bit as good as the US ones.
kid

[dogngun]

Smith is making a different product than what they made in the "good old days". I think the quality is still there, but the entire manufacturing process is different. I used to own a K-38 that was a hand fitted gem. I have had Model 110's from tha late 1960's that were close to it. I just looked over and handeled several new Smiths and they feel very different to me. They are not bad guns, but they are not the same.

Mark

[BluesBear]

Does anyone besides me remember when Browning stopped having their shotguns made in Belgium and started having them made in Japan?

Now those very same "junk" guns are highly prized "vintage" models.

[ajax]

I own 3 smiths. 629 625 686 all stainless. I shoot deadnutz with all 3. I also think that their purdy. Personlly i dont like to argue with results like that. So keep the new smiths comin and i will keep shootin. ;)

[Surefire]

Today was my pickup day for a new S&W 686+, 4" barrel. I wanted to actually own a new S&W (I've handled several, but only briefly examined them) , so I can shoot it and compare it side-by-side with my 1996 S&W 686+ 6".


Here are my findings:

Trigger pull: The 1996 S&W wins by a HUGE margin. In DA, the trigger on the '96 year is smooth as butter AND light. It barely feels 9 lbs. SA trigger on the '96 year is outstanding, breaks like glass and feels less than 3 lbs.

The '04/'05 686+ has a DA trigger that feels twice as bad as a stock Ruger (in terms of stacking and pull quality). Weight feels 15-17 lbs, and there is stacking. While Rugers might be similar in pull weight, most of mine are smoother than this and thus don't feel so heavy. SA is very good though, but SLIGHTLY spongy and doesn't have the crisp feel of the '96 model--feels in the neighborhood of 5-6 lbs.

Overall fit/finish advantage goes to the 1996. Although overall they are close, the hammer and trigger look cheaper on the 2004/2005, almost looks like it is made of tin or cheap light metal. The other thing about the hammer is that the firing pin is no longer on it with the new '04/'05 year 686+, which maybe accounts for the heavier DA pull? I new that they no longer use firing pins on the hammer from previous handling of a new S&W though.

Tightness/ cylinder indexing/cylinder gap are even, both years are very good but NOT top notch. These characteristics are better than any GP 100 I have, and only one SP 101 I have surpasses the S&Ws here.


The lock....can't say I like it, but its NOT that ugly IMO. It would look nicer without it, but it certainly could have been worse.


Grouping: My groups are about twice as tight with the 1996 686, most likely due to better trigger, and more sight radius.


My overall opinion, I definitely prefer the 1996 year much better, but I think with some gunsmithing I can get the 2004/2005 686 up to my standards. I'd like to have trigger work done, replace the hammer and trigger (if they even make mod parts?), and change the grips--I HATE finger grooves.

I'm also going to consider buying older S&Ws in the future, those that were made before they put locks on them, or removed the firing pin from the hammer. Just IMO, YMMV

[BluesBear]

Surefire,

The triggers and hammers of new S&W revolvers are made of MIM.
Which is why they had to move the firing pin. A MIM hammer doesn't lend itself to having the pin on the hammer. Colt also went to a frame mounted firing pin when they went to a sintered metal hammer.
But, I know of no issues with the S&W MIM triggers and hammers. Good MIM is more that sufficient for the job.

As for your trigger pull, don't worry it will smooth up. The MIM parts are installed right from the mould. After about 1000 dry firings you'll notice a huge difference as the pieces break in together.

[Marshall]

Does anyone besides me remember when Browning stopped having their shotguns made in Belgium and started having them made in Japan?

Yes I do, and I was crushed. However, the Jap made A-5's I bought worked just as well.

[Surefire]

As for your trigger pull, don't worry it will smooth up. The MIM parts are installed right from the mould. After about 1000 dry firings you'll notice a huge difference as the pieces break in together.

Thanks for this advice, I'll give it a try. Its not good to dry fire though, I should use snap-caps right? I don't want to kill my firing pin before its time....


My favorite trigger was on a IIRC late 70s or early 80s Colt Python. Very nice revolver, but they tend to not hold up to hot loads too well (my buddies Python loosened up and got out of time quickly when using exclusively magnums).

[Surefire]

Does anyone besides me remember when Browning stopped having their shotguns made in Belgium and started having them made in Japan?

If Japanese guns are as reliable and well made as Japanese cars, I could live with this. Although, I admit I hate seeing US jobs lost to other countries. However, just in terms of quality, IMO Japan is well ahead of us in many commericial areas (electronics, cars for example). When I owned Buicks and Cadillacs, I had incredible amounts of parts breaking, and the cars suddenly giving out. Since switching to Honda, the only parts breakage have been minor and I've only been stranded once (due to an alternator in my now sold Honda--and all cars eventually lose the alternator). So far, my Toyota Camry has been flawless--both in terms of reliability and also at keeping me happy (ride quality, engine smoothness, etc). Same situation applies with my electronics, I got ticked that my US made TV and VCR kept giving out, and when I switched to Japanese I haven't had problems.

I admit though, that the US does make some pretty great guns!

Unfortunately, my understanding is that Japan, as a country, are socialist gun nazis (most civilians can't own guns). :fire:

[BluesBear]

Good luck trying to find ANY TV or other consumer audio or video elctronic device made in the USA.

I fired a tarp load of full magnum loads though a Python I bought new in 1976 and it was still as tight as the day it was bought when I stupidly sold it many years later. I also abused my 1978 Cobra by firing a box of .38 Special +P ammo through it once a month, along with a couple of hundred handloads.
It was still tight when I traded it away in 1999.


Snap caps? In a S&W revolver?
Well I guess you could.
I have some that I use for speedloader practice.
Maybe I ought to start using them for dry firing.

[RON in PA]

You can't compare the trigger pull of a new revolver with the trigger of a gun that has had nine years of use. Your trigger will smooth-up with use and dryfiring, but I do believe that the DA trigger pull on the MIM and frame mounted firing pin revolvers is somewhat heavier and more important to this DA only shooter is my feeling that Smith has changed the basic DA pull configuration somewhat so that there is some stacking before let-off. I base this on my experience with a 2001 vintage model 10 and a 2004 vintage 625.

[BluesBear]

My youngest S&W revolver that I curently own is the Model 544 .44-40 that was made in 1986.
My oldest that I have had in revent times was made in the 60s.

In the past 30 years I have owned about 75 N frame S&Ws.
I have noticed a steady increase in trigger pulls starting about 1980.

I still have a stash of late 1970s vintage trigger return springs. I install one of these in every one of my S&Ws.
There is a BIG difference in the strength of those springs compared to the newer ones.

I suspect that S&W had "strengthened" the trigger return in order to reduce some lawyers salaries.

[Surefire]

You can't compare the trigger pull of a new revolver with the trigger of a gun that has had nine years of use.

I know where you are going, but the trigger was excellent out-of-the-box in 1996 when I bought it. Its gotten better with age, but it was still excellent back then in both DA and SA.

The 2004/2005 year 686 is by far the worst DA pull I have on any revolver, including many Ruger GP 100s that are under 2 years old.