How much better were P&R S&W revolvers, if at all?

From a fit & finish standpoint, the older S&W's were far & away beyond the new guns.

However, the new guns are far more accurate then all but a select few of the old ones because of the new tooling and CNC machining used today.

The older guns were made on worn out equipment by craftsmen who knew how many thousands slop the slide & quill on his mill had developed over the years.
He "allowed" for it when making the cuts!

The new guns are made on new CNC machines by young computer operators, and the new & tight CNC machines don't have any slop in them.

The result is cylinders with all the chambers perfectly in line with the bore, and perhaps better rifling then ever.

rc

Fuff, old buddy, I never said that MIM parts are identical to machined parts. They are as functional, for sure, and that's fine for some folks.

Click to expand...

I could have made better use of language to explain my point...

The two kinds of hammers (older vs. MIM) are not identical in various respects, but one of them is that the newer ones are lighter in weight. To compare the density of the material one way would be to make two identical ones and weight them. For reasons that be should be obvious, the one made of particles + binder would weigh less then one made from 100% steel barstock or a forging. That is if all other things were equal.

Does this make any practical difference? Only in two respects, neither which may (or may not) be important. The heavier hammer will impact the primer harder (acting through the hammer nose or firing pin), and it's easier to improve the double-action trigger pull when tuning the action - or at least many, if not most 'smiths see it that way.

Again, my point is that, given the same price, I go with used guns built by craftsmen. I'll pay less for a more cheaply-made gun, but I will not pay the same amount.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way, but as a practical matter if S&W was making them the old way, probably neither of us, as well as everyone else, couldn't afford to buy them. This is why Colt for example, quit the hand-ejector revolver business. Smith & Wesson is still in business because they incorporated current manufacturing technology to keep their costs down. No way, no how are you going to buy a new S&W made the old way.

What Jelly Jar really wants to know is, what kind of quality do those revolvers made between the time S&W stopped pinning barrels and recessing chambers in some models, and when MIM lockwork was introduced, represent?

I'll go into that in another post.

However, the new guns are far more accurate then all but a select few of the old ones because of the new tooling and CNC machining used today.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I appreciate the fit and finish of the older guns, and have a few, but "better" is subjective: To me, "better" is the better shooter, no matter the age. Just so happens, my shooters are all newer.

Quality is certainly an attribute with many possible dimensions respecting how something functions on many levels.

Any given individual will have personal values or emphasis which will make their evaluatory 'Graph' unique.

Function/reliability, is one level, among possibly many others.

When I was growing up, I used to argue with my dad all the time about this stuff.

To him, 'quality' meant only that something functioned...a car was a 'only' way to get from point A, to point B.

To me, if the Car was not a car I genuinely liked the design and engineering and details of, I would not want it, even if it meant I had to take a Bus or walk.


So, he drove his '64 Chevy II, and I drooled over side-of-the-gas-station Barn Find '31 Hudson Roadsters with the 'Big' Eight.

My S&W Model 10-6, when I removed the side plate, there was some raised metal around one of the screw holes, which had been left there, causing the side plate to be elevated somewhat. It was ground flush then, that way, and no one cared.

It is a very good Revolver, I am fond of it, but I see also, that it was made in a period when the people asssembling, and the people next-in-phase of the assembly progression, no longer cared.

The Mechanism also had burrs and machinging 'ears' of metal here and there, and, I carefully corrected those.

It is probably totally reliable...I have made it mine, and I am fond of it.

But the most it can ever be, is a 'pretty darned good' Revolver.

The 'early' S&Ws I have, when dismantled and inspected, are 'superb'...and they are superb in every other way also.

One could argue that the Steels are not as strong on the M1899, M1902 or early M1905 K Frames.

But, it is easy to respect that, and, to just accept they were made for what at the time, were the Standard Loadings.

I do not see this as a deficit in any way.

Far as I have seen, S&W remained 'Superb' well into or through the 1930s.

After that, they made 'very good Revolvers'...or sometimes maybe not so good ones on a case by case basis during the 'punta' period.

Not the same.


CEOs and Stock-holders care about profit, not 'quality'.

Thus, to my mind, both are inimical and detrimental to the Health and well being of the Society which tolerates them.

A systemic illness...

The result is cylinders with all the chambers perfectly in line with the bore

Click to expand...

the lock up is more of an issue than machining alignment in my experience

Oyeboten

Point well made

just look at the nasty tool marks in Smith in the sticky about dismantling a Model 10

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=397027

it may work fine but so does a corrugated metal wall, but it is not as "nice" as stone

I would be hesitant to use P&R as an indicator of quality if for no other reason than it, in and of itself, doesn't distinguish the firearms that everyone waxes poetic over from those produced during darkest Bangor Punta.

This is not to say that BP era firearms blew chunks - most, perhaps nearly all, were products that would make S&W proud. Anecdotally, one of my favorites is a 5" nickel model 27 which exhibits all the qualities associated with expert craftsmanship. Best as I can tell it may well have been made at nearly the same time and possibly in a workstation adjacent to the one which produced my 28-2 which is a dog's dinner of Bangor Punta horror stories that would make Charter Arms blush on their worst day. Then there's the 57 no dash that split the difference.

MIM would seem to be an issue which is treated differently in the world of firearms than in the world at large. I'm not saying the view of the process in the firearms field is wrong. It is perhaps, on rare occasion, dated.
[Seinfeld]
Nothing wrong with that. No sir, nothing.
[/Seinfeld]

The MIM process is relatively new and advances come at too fast a pace for me to keep pace with (my ASM membership lapsed before MIM was commercially viable). However, I do know that available relative densities exceeded 99% some years back. As of two years ago 3.5 pound flow control assemblies for passenger jets became reality in MIM and, if density vs. SAE 4140 is an issue it's easy enough to use a specialty alloy. MIM can also be polished, plated, heat treated and machined. A MIM tungsten hammer will make a primer think it's been hit with the hammer of Thor.

This is not to challenge any observations previously made here as I will make the obvious observation that what is available with MIM may have little or nothing to do with what S&W has seen fit to implement with the process. Or, most especially, <shudder> Kimber's early forays into the process.

Anecdotally again, and admittedly lacking the Fuff's numerous examples (my oldest unmolested example being from 1948), the finest fit and finished examples of S&W are P&R - several from the BP years.

The one I shoot best, out of the box, is a 2008 627. Arguably, putting the maximum number of rounds downrange, quickly, where one intends for them to go, repeatedly, is what Smith & Wesson intended back in the 19th century. At the job of actually doing what a revolver was, I believe, intended to do, the 2008 PC version comports itself well.

In the interest of full disclosure, the late model 627 has a forged (blanked / conventional) hammer and trigger. Whereas some of my earlier non-locked examples have MIM. I'll not re-open that can.

Lastly, though the OP already mentioned it, P&R only applies to S&W's slide into perdition. The Colt Python, introduced around 1955 if memory serves, is without recessed chambers, a pinned barrel and even has a frame mounted firing pin. And everyone knows how those Pythons represented a general decline in Colt's quality.

I have a 10-5 4" from 1967. That there is the best gun I've ever fired. Fine quality & very accurate for fixed sights. It's brother is a 2" from 1977 that runs along side as far as quality & not bad accuracy (it's a snubby so it's not gonna be as accurate).

I've got a 36 from 1969-70 that I bought 2nd hand. It had to go back due to less than stellar workmanship on the cylinder (chambers are different sizes).
I'm waiting to get it back.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that each gun is different.

I think pre-war Colts are better fitted than post-war Colts. I'll take a Shooting Master or Officer's Model Target over a Python any day.

Time for an old Dfariswheel quote that I bookmarked:

One more time:
You cannot judge a gun based on just the year it was made. Guns aren't wine.

Each individual gun must be judged on it's own merits.
I've seen recent Colt and S&W guns that are made in "bad times" that are some of the finest quality guns I've ever seen.

I've seen a Colt Officer's Model from the 1930's when quality was supposed to be the absolute top of the mountain, that was a mess. Bad blue job, bad action, misfit sideplate, badly out of time, it should never have left the plant, especially then.

I've seen a pre-war REGISTERED S&W .357 Magnum, supposedly the finest quality gun S&W ever made, BRAND NEW IN THE BOX,
that looked like something a shade tree mechanic put together.
Barrel not indexed properly so the sight was off to the right, there was NO barrel-cylinder gap, cylinder crane didn't lock up properly and you could actually hear the cylinder clunking if you shook the gun sideways, the hammer would "push off", and a blue job with scratches, ripples, and dished-out areas.
The original owner kept it as a, then rare, factory curiosity.

The point is, people who say "Oh, I've never buy a 1990's Colt or Smith, their not any good", is passing by some good quality guns.

The current crop of guns is not up to the old standards because the OLD PEOPLE are gone. With all the strikes, layoffs, corporate downsizing, and more layoffs, the old workers are all gone.
The people who knew exactlly how to make high quality guns, and took pride in their workmanship have been replaced by off-the-street employees who know little about guns, and haven't the experience and skills.

A lot of this I blame on the Harvard-Yale-Wharton MBA grads that are running, and ruining companies today. They are taught to watch the money. Ignore the product, ignore the producton floor, ignore the workers, and ignore quality. Manage the money and everything will be fine.
These people have the same attitude toward workers. The therory is: workers are as interchangeable as screws and bolts. It doesn't matter if you're making paper, jet aircraft, cars, plastic, or guns, the same people will do fine.

There is a difference in "gun people". They have the natural talent base that allows them to develope high order skills, and the pride in workmanship. people like this make good guns, in spite of the company. "Interchangeable" people will make bad guns in spite of the company.

Bottom line: Judge a gun on it's own merits, not when it was made. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, from 2002 but probably as valid as in 1952.

Hi Guillermo,



Lol...

My Model 10-6 similarly...seemed a little crude for Mill Marks internally where the Lockwork is.

I made some little flat hard 'pads' on which I glued 320 Grit Silicon Carbide Abrasive Paper, and, I addressed some of those areas where I felt it would do some good, and it did.

I also glued a half sheet of the same Abrasive Paper to a small sheet of 1/4 Inch Plate Glass, and wetting well with WD-40 used that true up and or improve the flat surfaces of several of the internal parts themselves...removing Machining burrs and so on also.

All of this was quite easy and common-sense sort of straight forward.

There were milling 'burrs' in the end area of a recess in the Frame, where some of the Crane/Cylinder Release related parts ride, and the Milling 'burrs' were interfering with function, and I got those cleaned out.

Central Rod of the Ejector was too short...and that was making some problems, so I added a teeny bit of hard Brazing Alloy to the end, filed that down to where all was about perfect then for that.

It is more like buying a 'kit' I guess...in it's way.

All of those detials are things which ought to have been noticed and addressed in the assembly phase, rather than being ignored by the S&W operatives doing the assembly and fitting phases.

Anyway, I took care of those little things as I saw fit, and, the Revolver then functioned very nicely and was smooth feeling when pulling it through double action, or, cocking for single action.

But all of those things should have been done as it was being fitted and assembled originally at the Factory.

How demoralizing it must be to have a 'job' where you are not permitted to care about the quality of what you do...or where the boss gets mad if you try to.


Sad...

You can castigate S&W et. al. for being profit-oriented , if it pleasures you, but businesses must stay profitable or die. Hobbyists have the luxury to make the finest geegaw they possibly can because they are doing it for pleasure and satisfaction. Businesses have bills to pay. Even when, IYO, S&W was doing things right, they were still doing it for profit as part of a business plan. They have always been in the business of making money. Processes, markets, and wages changed. They changed to stay in business.

Oyeboten

It is sad that many people are in the situation where pride in their job is not expected.

And since Smith and Wesson is profitable they will continue to produce mediocre (at best) revolvers with crap QC and moronic locks (that work on the same axis as the recoil of the gun).

I am a small Manufacturer.

I understand a good deal about what challenges and kinds of solutions prevail now a days.

I believe high quality and effecient methods are still possible, but, they would require a different mentality and values than one will find in those people who are managing or running things.

CEO's are about the worst thing that ever happened to our Country...they are merely serial rapists...and worse.

I believe high quality and effecient methods are still possible, but, they would require a different mentality and values than one will find in those people who are managing or running things.

Click to expand...

As Old Fuff indicated above, S&W could still be making their revolvers the old way and to the old standards. Of course, they'd be priced in the stratosphere and it is doubtful that S&W would still be able to stay in business due to poor sales.
Luckily for those who like the old Smiths, there are lots of them out there for you to buy.

No...they would not have to be unreasonably priced.

How things are done would have to change, and, waste and inefficiency reduced or eliminated.

Piece work, getting paid for what one actually does, continuous inspection pass/no-pass, defective parts or returned guns are redone on workers own time, etc.

The Old Methods.

No wages, no benifits, no BS, no affirmative action, no politics. Eveyone is an outside Contractor doing Piece Work in an assembly/manufacturing context.

Good pay for good Work...means everyone gets faster, better, and gets rewarded for it, while costs go 'down'.


Instead of making 85 dollars a day for slogging through dispirited clock watching routines, and costing the employer a fortune in ancillary add ons, a person soon is making three or four hundred a day, turning out eight times the output with better quality...they stay ten or twelve hours a day, making good dough, instead of leaving after eight hours having done poorly...costing the employer no additional anything.

Otherwise there is no motive, unless driven by personal ethos, and, few are.

If it is that simple, then I look forward to purchasing one of the revolvers your new company should be turning out at a reasonable price. Certainly, in today's economy you should have people stepping on eachother's necks for the opportunity to do "piece work" for you.