Colt cobra vs. modern alloy snubs?

[megatronrules]

I was wondering what the thought of my fellow THR's are on this,i have and love a colt cobra and agent,the cobra is my EDC. Now today I was chatting with a nice guy I know from the gun shop(we got to talking about lightweight snubs for carry) and he says that as far as build quality goes,he feels that my two colt alloy framed snubs are better built then the ones today. Now hes an older gentleman but he seems to really know his stuff,he also said that yes the metals are better these days BUT the only advantage he saw to a modern alloy gun is the ability to use +p ammo regularly. Besides being able to shoot a steady diet of +p ammo do you feel modern aloy framed snubs are better in terms on internal parts and workmanship?

Now I realize that some feel newer is better but I can't help but thinking that these old guns are 40 and 35 years old respectfully. Yet they lock up like a bank vault and their actions are so smooth. So what do you guys think,should I get a new lightweight snub and retire the cobra? Do you prefer the old or the new alloy snubs?

 

[NCBeagle]

I lack the knowledge to comment on the relative quality of the metals or construction in these older and modern revolvers, but I have some thoughts.

I have a preference for the older guns, Colt Cobras, S&W Model 37, etc...I believe that my preference is based, almost solely, on the quality finish of the older revolvers and other aesthetic issues. I really like a polished blue or nickel and the shape of the Colt D-Frame.

On the issue of durability...I doubt that I will be able to wear out my old or modern revolvers. I have many, many Cobras, Detective Specials, Models 36, 37, 60, 442 and 642 (multiples of each and then some). My fingers will fall off before most, if any, of these guns come less than 98% perfect mechanically. I do not consider the difference between "standard pressure" and +P ammo to be tactically significant from a snub. I might be wrong, but don't think so.

The older revolvers give me more of what I want...but I don't feel like the newer allow Smith & Wesson revolvers lack anything (except maybe a little soul ). That said, I sure do love my Model 442-2.

Regarding the pre-lock / post lock issue. . . I am with the minority who do not care about the lock.

 

[Shade00]

megatronrules, I sincerely doubt you will find a contemporary equivalent of a Cobra in terms of workmanship. The problem, I assume, would be with the materials put into making the gun. It was never intended for +P use. Smith & Wesson manufactured Airweights for many years before switching to a "J-magnum" frame that was strong enough to handle consistent use of +P ammunition. As such, if you are looking to carry +P, the OCCASIONAL cylinderful for practice might be ok. But - keep it to a minimum.

The only Airweight I own is a S&W Model 37, late 50s vintage. I would HATE to fire a +P round through that. It's bad enough firing 130gr MC Remingtons through it. It's stoked with 148gr wadcutters.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Now today I was chatting with a nice guy I know from the gun shop(we got to talking about lightweight snubs for carry) and he says that as far as build quality goes,he feels that my two colt alloy framed snubs are better built then the ones today. Now hes an older gentleman but he seems to really know his stuff,he also said that yes the metals are better these days BUT the only advantage he saw to a modern alloy gun is the ability to use +p ammo regularly.

Have you been talking to Old Fuff?

I largely agree, although "they don't make 'em like they useta" makes me go . Now, if your Cobra is a post-1972 gun (identifiable by the ejector rod shroud/underlug on the barrel), it is OK for limited use of +P if checked for frame stretching every 1000 rounds. The problem is that by the time you notice any frame stretching it is too late and it cannot be repaired. I think that if you stick to standard-pressure ammo, your hand will give out long before that Cobra will.

 

[Dr. Fresh]

I have a 1970-vintage Cobra that looks like it survived a nuclear explosion, but it functions fine, other than being inaccurate, but that's a whole 'nother story.

 

[XDShooter07]

Don't know much about cobras. My M&P 340 is built extremely well though; the trigger is great, feels like it's already had an action job. The 642/442 are also very nice, i just like the sights on the 340 better.

 

[Ala Dan]

I'm an old fart (61), by many standards~! Therefore, I agree that the old
Colt snub-nosed .38's are very hard too put down, in favor of the new
generation Smith models 637 and 642. Yes, I have old Colt D-frames; but
I also have a brand new 442, and a 642. Wait a minute- oops, I forgot I
gave the Smith & Wesson 642 to my daughter~! :banghead:

 

[Old Fuff]

The newer aluminum alloys might edge the older ones a bit, but I don't think it's enough to matter. What the manufacturers have done is beef up the frames at certain critical points to make them stronger.

When Colt first designed what would become the Cobra, they made a prototype with a special cylinder chambered in .357 Magnum. Note my remark, "special cylinder," because they did not simply take a .38 cylinder and rechamber it. They then fired 3000 rounds of full-house .357 Magnums through it (and remember this was before most .357 loads were cut back a bit.)

The test shooters were badly pounded and complained, but at the end of the test the frame was not distorted or damaged in any way they could find.

At a later time both Colt and Smith & Wesson recommended that Plus P (and especially +P+) ammunition not be used in certain revolvers because at the time there were no real standards applied to these loads. However there was no doubt that continued and constant use of such ammunition could and did cause accelerated wear.

I know of a case where an owner unwisely had a conventional .38 Cobra rechambered to .357 Magnum, and then beat it up so badly that the factory declined to try and fix it. He did not however, blow up the gun.

On a personal note: I don't want to beat up my older revolvers. I still have a Detective Special that I bought in either 1955 or '57 (obviously I'm getting old) but the gun locks up as tightly as it did the day it was made, and the timing is dead-on. I believe that a lower powered bullet that’s correctly placed will stop an attack much faster then one of the super-hot new ones that hits in a less critical place - or even fails to hit at all because the shooter flinched.

So far as better workmanship and some materials are concerned I think older is usually better, and I say that because I get inside and look. But in fairness to the manufacturers I'll point out that in today's economy they can't do it the old way, and still make a product people will buy. Labor, taxes, and other overhead expenses are far different then they were in 1936 or even 1996.

But reality hasn't changed my opinion - I much prefer the older guns because of the fine craftsmanship they represent.

 

[18DAI]

I agree, nothing currently produced holds a candle to my 1961 vintage Cobra.

To quote another revolver aficionado, "Its everything I want in a revolver, and nothing I don't".