Don't Build 'em Like They Used To!

[Stainz]

It's me - the bearer of the current production S&W revolver flag. When you compare the current to past examples, remember the older one has had the trigger engagement areas worn in by firing. Additionally, the springs are lighter. To be as PC as possible - that is, to insure that it goes bang when you pull the trigger - they use stronger hammer springs. So it will work regardless of your cleaning regimine, they employ a stronger trigger return spring. Sure, forged/CCH parts look better than MIM - but MIM parts are strong and very uniform, even if they are ugly. Replace those springs and break-in the new revolver, and it will feel better than your older example.

Now, the butt-ugly IL... or, if you must refer to the POTUS on who's watch it was introduced, the Bush lock. That's right, my hero - Dubya. The American company, Saf-T-Lock, had bought S&W when they started showing up nine years ago. Oddly, for all of those IL failures everyone hears about, S&W has not had a single lawsuit concerning them. Weird, huh? I don't like them - didn't know about it until I cleaned my new 4" 625-8 (.45 ACP) 9/02 - had to put my readers on to see why that carbon blob over the cylinder release wouldn't come off with Hoppes. I had to call S&W C.S. to find out what it was - then found the weird little keys under the foam in the box. I tried to make it engage - key in or out, turned to just before the lock, fired it with ball ammo - limp wristed so much a 1911 would have jammed. It always 'unlocked' - never 'locked'. By 10/02, I was convinced it was 'safe' - for my use. Today, I carry a 642-2 with the IL - because that's what they had when I needed to buy one. In fact, over half of my S&Ws have the IL. YMMV.

Did someone mention QC? My '83 production 6.5" 24-3 was horrid... it made my worst Ruger look like a Korth. I fixed it - and happily sold it. My next oldest was an '88 65 - ho hum there. Today, I have a '96 625-6 MG as my oldest; everything else is '01 or newer production - and most were bought new. I did have a QC issue with one - my latest - my UDR PC 627. Just like the '99 issue of what would become known as the 'Blood Work' revolver, my Eagle boot grips were a miserable fit - same as the other example my dealer had. S&W sent a FEDEX label - just for the grips - and I am awaiting it's replacement. BTW, every wood N-frame RB grip I have here fits it fine... it's the grip. In all of my S&W purchases, that's the only QC issue.

The key here is just that - if it makes you happy - buy it. I am elated with what I have - fine revolvers - from an American-owned company. YMMV.

Stainz

 

[MCgunner]

I have fine revolvers from an American company. None have frame holes. One's even a Smith.

 

[Old Fuff]

Sure, forged/CCH parts look better than MIM - but MIM parts are strong and very uniform, even if they are ugly. Replace those springs and break-in the new revolver, and it will feel better than your older example.

Lets see...

What I'm supposed to do is go out and buy a new revolver that has lockwork that is more uniform then the older parts, but no stronger and as you put it quite correctly, "ugly." On that point we agree. Then I'm supposed to switch out the springs for lighter ones that may make the double-action trigger pull feel better, but at the expense of reliability.

Then for absolutely free I can get the "butt-ugly" internal lock that I don't what.

Question: Why am I paying for all of this "ugly" when I can get an equally or better revolver made by the same company at an earlier time for less money?

Since I like to shoot lead bullets do I really want shallow rifling that was made using an EDM machine? Also what is the advantage to having a crush-fit barrel that requires a trip to the factory if it needs to be changed? I happen to prefer square butt frames, not to mention high-polish blued finish, but for the most part, hand polished, blued finishes are a thing of the past.

All of the differences mentioned above came about because the company needed to cut production costs, not make a better product. I understand that, and it's an unfortunate fact of life. But to tell me that the new guns that have been changed to reduce production costs are better then those that were made before the cost-cutting came about are better is a stretch.

Last but not least - why should I pay more (or the same) to get less?

 

[Guillermo]

Old Fuff has spoken

might as well shut the thread down

it has all been said

 

[sgt127]

Take a look at the inside of this Smith & Wesson. I think its pretty pathetic. Mill marks everywhere. You can see where a one of the hammer pins has
been scratching the inside of the frame. The hand has been dragging against the window. Shocking. Not what I would expect from the premier revolver manufacturer.





By the way, that's a 1936 Smith and Wesson Registered Magnum.

Surprised?

 

[sgt127]

The current crop of Smiths are of as good or better steel than has ever been used. The use of CNC machines gets a fit and finish far superior to the older ones. I'm sure the heat treat is better than ever. I have a very late model 629, MIM parts, just before the lock. Its a wonderful gun. It times up as well as any Smith I have ever owned, locks up great and, the insides look like they have been vapor honed.

But.

I cannot get past the lock. They can make all they want, I can't make myself buy one.

 

[18DAI]

No, they do not make them like they used to. I can only guess that people who don't know any better are buying those new wind up guns. Who else would buy that overpriced ugly junk?

I'll continue to pay more for nice pre lock S&W's. The pre locks hold their resale value, shoot flawlessly, and look good doing all that. Oh, and can be photograped from the left side too! TJ

 

[Old Fuff]

sgt127:

You, and everyone else that might be interested should go to the following link and see what a brand new Model 10 looks like on the inside.

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

As you follow down, notice the tool marks that were left by the milling cutter on the inside of the frame, after the hammer and rebound slide are removed. They are highly visable and rougher then those in the .357 Magnum. Also notice that although the revolver is hardly used the hand is scuffed on the side. It should be, because if it wasn't the hand could move out far enough on the ratchet tooth to prevent the cylinder from fully rotating to the next chamber.

I can see what you claim is where a hammer pin is leaving a mark in the .357 Magnum, but notice that it isn't leaving a scratch in the shape of an arc, that would indicate that it was rubbing as the hammer rotated. The Magnum is over 70 years old, and if the pin is actually protruding a pin-punch and one hammer blow will correct the issue.

Also notice that the hammer stud (the pin the hammer rotates on) in the Magnum is threaded, and can easily be removed if necessary with a spanner wrench. In the new gun the stud is press fitted, and if the pin breaks the revolver has to go back to the factory for a replacement, which can only be done one time. After that a new frame will be required!

Notice the hollowed out hammer in the new gun. Looks kind of cheap doesn't it? That's because it is, but the more important factor is that the heavier (old) hammer impacts with a harder blow because of the difference in weight. This is a small thing of not great consequence, but it is also part of the reason these MIM guns have heavier springs.

There are no scuff marks of any consequence on the sides of the trigger or rebound slide of the Magnum, that might be expected on a 70+ year-old gun if those parts were rubbing on the sidepalte. Apparently they are not.

As I look at pictures of both your old Magnum and the new Model 10, I would say you made a good try, but I'm not buying what you're trying to sell.

 

[sgt127]

Hmmm...Ok, I will grant you, that model 10 looks pretty rough. I am basing my statement on this 629-5. As I said, I am thunderously impressed with the fit and finish of this gun and, a 696-1 of roughly the same vintage.

 

[Guillermo]

sgt

Old Fuff is the smartest revolver guy in the world.

He is only wrong on one issue (DAO full sized revolvers)

Listen and learn

 

[bowfin]

The absolutely most accurate revolver I have ever shot was a Smith & Wesson .460 revolver. It also has the best trigger I have ever tried. This statements include comparison to many of the "older is better" type Smith & Wessons mentioned. My brother used it to take a doe deer at 110 yards after he broke his wrist and couldn't use a rifle for deer season...shooting weak handed no less.

Pretty is as pretty does...

 

[Old Fuff]

He is only wrong on one issue (DAO full sized revolvers)

Guillermo, you is hopelessly confused.

Just before they switched to pistols, most of the larger police departments and federal agencies had they're revolvers modified to double-action-only (DAO). This was after some bottom-feeding lawyers found they could weedle big judgements out of urban juries by claiming a good shoot was a bad one because an officer or agent had cocked his revolver and accidentally set it off when he touched the (so called by them) hair trigger.

Besides, according to what I've learned on the Internet, gunfights don't take place at distances over 10 or 15 feet, so there is no reason to keep the single-action mode because it's worthless.

Guillermo simply doesn't know what a REAL combat gun is...

I wonder how an accessory rail would look on his Detective Special?

 

[Hawk]

It's difficult to post anything "new" in the "older vs. newer" arena but I feel compelled to note that:

It is altogether possible to buy a current production S&W revolver with a pinned DA sear, forged hammer and trigger, nicely polished and blued, with button cut rifling, without a lock.

What I find frustrating is that it would seem impossible to do all that with a single current S&W revolver.

I've got one example of forged parts in a lock revolver, several examples of MIM parts in non-locked revolvers (transitional 629s) and a current no-lock 40 with a really nice finish (apart from the sorry fitting of the Altamont grips).

Old Fuff is the smartest revolver guy in the world.

Pretty much. Without the Fuff I'd still be confused about my 5" nickel 27-2, wouldn't own the SCoSW and wouldn't own my pre-17. But it is incumbent on the rest of us to not "cherry pick" his advice and ignore that which does not comport well with our prejudices.

Since he's "in the house" on this thread I'm sure I'll get chastised if I mis-state anything following:

First, the Old Fuff does not consider Bangor Punta era revolvers to be "older" S&Ws - they're pretty much "new" apart from some processes and "features". Apart from the absence of the IL, I'm not at all sure much is to be gained if the "older" revolver dates from the late '70s. Hand fitting only works well if the hands aren't inexperienced as they well might be while trying to ramp up production.

Second, the Old Fuff mentioned that my 27-2 was likely more tuned toward single action trigger pull than double as that was what was expected in that day. Hence, it should not be all that surprising if a PC627 from 2009 actually has a markedly superior DA to any of my older S&W's. Here I would take pains to note that my "older" S&Ws consist primarily of Bangor Punta and Lear Siegler. I have no experience with really older stuff like, say, long actions. Herein we have something of a problem wherein the Old Fuff will extol the fit and finish of an "older" gun and his fans will automatically apply the appraisal to darkest Bangor Punta rather than pre-'57 - which has been known to flush me from the weeds.

Or, not to put too fine a point on it, Old Fuff has characteristically been absolutely level-headed about the IL and hasn't, so far as I've noticed, allowed himself to be dragged into the political stuff - though his distaste for the thing's aesthetics is sometimes cited by those with a political issue. I'm not sure if he maintains his appraisal that the "flagship" Wiki photo of a lock-up is bogus but that hasn't set well with the lock haters.

I have roughly a 40-to-1 ratio between my version of "older" S&Ws and current production, though my oldest (outside rescue mission examples) is a K-22 Fuff found for me (now, that was a comical thread - both bidders in the thread and me trying to "lay low"). Despite my fixation with "older" models honesty would compel me to note that the PC627 actually shoots better for me than it's older siblings. After all is said and done, isn't that what a revolver is supposed to do? I'm getting older and shoot less so have no problem (and am, in fact enthusiastic) with buying older revolvers but, in many ways, they're more for looking at than shooting.

So, how 'bout it Old Fuff?
How'd I do in trying to listen to everything?

I'm sure Gillie is going to give me an "F-minus" but I'm curious what you have to allow.

 

[Guillermo]

gunfights don't take place at distances over 10 or 15 feet, so there is no reason to keep the single-action mode because it's worthless

With that attitude why carry a full size revolver?

And since most gunfights have less than 5 shots fired...why carry more?

using Old Fuff's reasoning the 442 should rest in every patrolman's holster






enough thread diverting...old stuff rules unless you like revolvers that have the same volume to weight ratio as cotton candy

 

[Old Fuff]

using Old Fuff's reasoning the 442 should rest in every patrolman's holster

I konw a whole lot of LEO's that wish you were running they're departments, especially in hot, humid weather...

If I was a cop I wouldn't bother with a handgun, but the patrol car would need a trailer hitch to tow the cannon...

And I'd always park in front of any car I stopped...

 

[Slamfire]

Question: Why am I paying for all of this "ugly" when I can get an equally or better revolver made by the same company at an earlier time for less money?

All this talk of the wonderful "old" S&W revolvers is just driving the prices up.

Talk them down, so I can afford to pick up a few more.

Morons.

 

[Old Fuff]

Talk them down, so I can afford to pick up a few more.

Too late! I think the cat is out of the bag...

 

[Dave T]

Even a cursory inspection of my pre-M27 5" (made in late 1954) next to a current production Classic 27 with the IL and MIM decides this issue for me. Other's may differ which is their choice.

Dave

 

[earlthegoat2]

I would gladly pay more money for an older Smith sans lock than a new one.

I just hope no one else is like me so the pre locks stay lower priced.