New Rumblings Coming From S&W

[loplop]

Plainsman: The one that I looked at had the hi-viz from sight and the adjustable rear, like in the photo. It was a nice sight setup, at least dry firing towards my foot... Not sure how it would actually shoot. I suspect it would be a great little gun.

I can see the regular 317's sight being less accurate, but the setup above should be excellent.

There's always the 617, although it's not a 3" j-frame, it is steel. I bet it's a better shooter, really.

Re: blueing. I think the new "classics" are coming very well blued, to tell you the truth. I was looking at a new 25 and an old 19 side by side, and while the 19 was a little lighter in color, that 35-year old 19 wasn't night and day better. Perhaps you have to go farther back than that to get the really excellent bluejobs. The blueing on the Model 22 I bought isn't nail polish jet black, it definitely has a blue radiance when the light hits it. Polishing is quite nice, too.

Could it be even better? Sure. Would it cost more? Yep. I personally think Smith is doing a nice job with them, and am happy with the results. I do think they're a tad overpriced, though if I see a model 36 I'm apt to grab it.

Question for those who have seen and handled some of the "classics" reissues:
1. has anyone seen a "color case" gun? How do they look in person?
2. when would a color case hardend Smith have been produced, originally?

Not sure what I think of that finish.

 

[Old Fuff]

Smith & Wesson never made color case hardened frames in the past. Standard finishes were blue or nickel plate.

Each color case hardened frame is different when it comes to the pattern and colors. On an individual basis, what you see is what you get. Nice ones are I think, very nice. Less then best are so-so, and anything lesser is awfull.

I strongly suggest that you don't buy a color cased revolver unless you can inspect it first, with a right to reject it if you aren't satisfied.

 

[Harve Curry]

WHY DON"T THEY MAKE THE TOP BREAKM IN MODERN CALIBERS

In my opinion S&W messed up when they remade the Schofield with it's short cylinder unable to accept the 357 magnum, 45 Colt, or even the 44 special.
It was doomed from the start.

They should remake it, include a modern sight version, and be capable of using speed loaders.

 

[Old Fuff]

While it is possible to make a .357 Magnum top-break (the Russians did it as a proposed commercial export) the Smith & Wesson design doesn't lend itself to Magnum level loads - especially if someone decides to upload them from standard specs. They chambered their Schofield in .45 S&W because it was intended for collectors, not shooters - with the exception of some of the ones in SASS who were more likely to use reduced loads.

 

[Jim K]

Top breaks just won't work with high pressure ammo, even though many have been tried. If there is enough play to allow the joints to operate, there is enough play to allow battering and eventual looseness. The British got away with it for many years because the cartridges were very low pressure (even if high caliber) and because they really didn't shoot them very much. (The standard British army ammunition issue for a man armed with a revolver was 12 rounds, with 6 rounds in the supply train.)

Jim

 

[Jim K]

I love the contradictory types who want super finish, all milled parts, stocks made from the best wood, and oh, by the way, sell the guns for $50 or less, retail.

The fun never ceases.

Jim

 

[GEM]

I wonder with all the consistent posts about the 547, we don't see that proposed.

Also, I once saw mention of new 7 shot SS 22 LRs like the old 6 shot Model 63. I missed gettng the snubby version once and would like another shot at it. I didn't like the 317 with its heavy trigger.

 

[Marshall]

Quote:
Think I'll start buying more Rugers, just because.

Because Ruger supports the rights of gun owners? That's laughable.

Where did you come up with that? Maybe you just thought I said that? Or maybe you were just itching to say it.

No, because Ruger builds a stronger gun, they don't have a hole, I can shoot as heavy of a load as I want, they cost less money and have a better looking stainless finish.

Don't get me wrong, I like Smith's, I have more of them than I do Rugers. But I think that's going to change if something at S&W doesn't.

IMO, Smith's have gone downhill while their prices have gone up considerably.





Model 60 357 2"......$479.00 is about the cheapest I can find with $500.00 and over being common.

SP-101 357 2"........$383.00 is about the lowest I found with $400.00ish being common.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&W 686 4".......$530.00 is the cheapest I found with $565.00 being common.
(S&W 620 close to the same but a tad higher)


GP-100 SS 4"........$445.00 is about the cheapest I found with $480.00ish being common.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

S&W 629 4".........$639.00 is about the cheapest I found with $650.00 being common. (Make it a 3" and it jumps to over $700.00)

Redhawk various"...$539.00 is about the lowest and that is also pretty common.

 

[Car Knocker]

I can shoot as heavy of a load as I want,

This implies that a Ruger revolver can handle unlimited pressures - that, obviously, is incorrect.

 

[Marshall]

This implies that a Ruger revolver can handle unlimited pressures - that, obviously, is incorrect.

This implies you think 1 + 1 = 3. That, obviously, is incorrect.

What it implies is, that "I want" to shoot heavier loads than are recommended in a S&W.

The heaviest load "I WANT" to shoot, may be a .45 Colt from Buffalo Bore or Corbon, which each advise against in a S&W.

 

[RustyShackelford]

.44spl S&W centenial model...

I'd like S&W to sell a small frame DA only/hammerless .44spl model like the 640/642 but in .44spl.

I'm sure it would be very popular with the CC/protection users in the US market.

Think about it.

Rusty S

 

[Old Fuff]

They already did...

The model 296Ti was based on an inclosed hammer, aluminum L-frame with a 5-shot .44 Special Titanium cylinder. Barrel length was 2 1/2". It was made from 1999 to 2001. I think it failed because it was too big for pocket carry.

 

[RNB65]

If they make the gun I'm looking for, I'd pay a premium price to buy it. But right now there isn't a single revo in the S&W catalog that I'd pay to own.

 

[BigG]

Jim Keenan said:

I love the contradictory types who want super finish, all milled parts, stocks made from the best wood, and oh, by the way, sell the guns for $50 or less, retail.

The fun never ceases.

Some of these same types ask why doesn't Colt make such and such. Then you see them on another thread extolling the virtues of something below the price point of Taurus or Rossi.

 

[Pepper46]

S&W

I personaly don't think you will see any new Smiths without the lock. I think it is too bad, makes a mess out of another wise great gun. HMO

 

[loplop]

Smith & Wesson never made color case hardened frames in the past. Standard finishes were blue or nickel plate.

Thanks, Fluff, I appreciate the history lesson. I wonder why they slapped color case on "classics" that never had that option?

I know what you mean about color case: it either looks spectacular or... Not. I handled a really well done color case Colt SAA recently. Man, it was nice. Now color case looked great on that gun... The Nickel Colt SAA didn't look as nice to me.

I have seen a few S&W nickel guns lately, and they look great. If you're into shine

I just wish S&W would produce more blued guns in general. So much stainless. I'm just not a big fan.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff isn't a fan of stainless either...

A problem with true color case hardning is that parts with thin sections (such as a revolver frame) can warp during the process. The Colt Single Action frame is pretty thick throughout, and much less likely to warp. Recently they worked out a way to case harden the Smith & Wesson frames so the warpage was within reasonable limits. They are doing it on certain guns because (1) Some customers like it, and (2) They can, and it's different. In past times they probably would have engraved the frames instead.

As an aside: It used to be when Colt got awfull colors on a S.A.A. frame they would set it aside, and it would become a nickel plated gun.

Some years they had lots of nickeled Single Actions, and others they didn't.

 

[loplop]

I just looked through the S&W catalog. There's not one blued medium frame revolver chambered in 357 mag. That's a huge bummer.

Thanks again for the insight. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[Old Fuff]

Well gee......

There are a whole lot of them on the used market, running from new-in-the-box to finish-worn-but-otherwise-O.K. They that look, will find.

 

[OPOEFC]

Gentlemen: The internal lock is here to stay, I'm afraid. So, if you can't beat 'em - join 'em, somebody once said. I had a nice discussion with Mike Golden, President of S&W, on this very subject at the S.H.O.T show. Marketing is driving the boat. Calif. Mass, and a couple of other states require the lock, and Mike said Calif is our biggest market for civilian & LE handguns, so we designed a lock that Calif. accepts. We could make the same model w/o the locks for sale else where but it is not economical. There is an exception possible, he admitted. If a large distributor ( Lew Horton, RSR , etc?) were to place and order for say 10,000 guns w/o a lock then we would have to give it serious consideration if the profit margin there was enought to warrant reprograming some CNC machines, etc to turn out frames w/o lock holes, etc. So all you people who won't buy a gun with the lock, get on Lew Horton's back and send him your check in advance for him to place an order. Put your money where your mouthis, OK? Ed.

 

[Old Fuff]

Gentlemen: The internal lock is here to stay, I'm afraid. So, if you can't beat 'em - join 'em, ....

Well I suppose some might wish it was that way, but I don't see that Smith & Wesson can dictate on the issue, considering the wide and healthy used market. Older guns are perceived by many to offer better quality and value – and come without the lock - are available at prices that compare very favorably with what is now coming out of Springfield. These handguns will be found in all kinds of condition – running from like-new-in-box to finish-worn-but-functional.

Clearly, in this business environment, potential but dissatisfied customers can tell the company and it’s marketing department to go whistle Dixie, and many in fact are doing exactly that. Thus the better-liked older guns are appreciating while the current one are going the other way.

Unquestionably many if not most Smith & Wesson customers don’t care about the lock, and a handful may even like it. They are welcome to buy whatever is available in the current catalog. But don’t think that those who disagree don’t have any viable alternatives, and knuckling under isn’t one of them.

 

[454c]

QUOTE:
***They that look, will find. ***


Now Fuff, don't be tellin' people that. That encourages competition for the older guns.





QUOTE:
***I had a nice discussion with Mike Golden, President of S&W, on this very subject at the S.H.O.T show. Marketing is driving the boat. Calif. Mass, and a couple of other states require the lock, and Mike said Calif is our biggest market for civilian & LE handguns, so we designed a lock that Calif. accepts. We could make the same model w/o the locks for sale else where but it is not economical. ***



I sincerely hope your memory is failing you. If not, this gives a bad impression of Golden.

Cali. has NO law that requires an internal lock.NONE. In addition to that, folks from Cali. have said they still have to use other means of safe storage since the internal locks are not accepted as such. The locks may give Smith some brownie points with certain circles in Cali. but, they are not required.

Some time back, I searched for the states with internal lock laws. I was only able to find 1 or 2 in the NE corner. How ignoring folks in the other 48 or 49 is better economics is beyond me.

 

[SunRunner]

I actually posted this on a different thread but thought it appropriate on this thread also.

I now also agree with those that say the lock is ugly and serves no useful purpose on a revolver. I intend to tell that very point S&W in writing. I believe they should have had many other options for providing secure storage without hacking up an otherwise tried and true handgun with a Band-Aid. Not that it’ll probably make any difference with them, I’m also going to let them know that my desire and plan to acquire a new 629 4” 44 mag and a 617 6” .22lr are on hold as long as that, IMO, worthless lock is on those handguns.

I too have a soft spot for S&W but have no problem with Ruger as we own several. Smith and Wesson should understand what their customers are telling them and I believe they do have alternatives to the internal lock.

 

[loplop]

Fluff: I've been watching. The right one will come.

 

[Gator]

I understand that the lock will be hard to get rid of, but has Smith given any thought to relocating it to a less obtrusive spot on the guns? Like under the grips, or on the back of the hammer? I could live with it if it wasn't staring me in the face, sticking it's tongue out and chanting every time I picked it up.