Mixed Feelings About The New S&W Guns...

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dave1

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
47
Location
Winter Springs & Cudjoe Key, Fla.
I was and still am considering buying a new S&W handgun, probably a 686 4" if I buy new, but I do not like the idea of the barrel not being pinned, cylinders not recessed, and having parts in the gun that were not made in the USA.

It just does not appeal to me when I see a top quality product being manufactured cheaper and to lower quality standards. It seems the same thing is ocurring in our traditionally American culture but that is another sad and depressing story.

I do believe S&W is still far above and ahead of the imports (as far as I am concerned) but just not as far ahead of them as they once were.

It broke my heart when I learned of these changes by S&W but I am sucking it up and somewhat accepting it as a necessary competitive change (but still don't like it).

Still thinking whether to buy new or try to find a good used.

Dave
 
having parts in the gun that were not made in the USA.
Click to expand...
Didn't hear that one yet. All my Smith & Wessons are older than I. The only new revolvers that I'll buy are Rugers. They still seem to be high quality though they're not as nice as the older S&W's.
 
If you're interested in a 686, than the age of the gun won't make too much difference to you. This model was never pinned and/or recessed. I would agree that the newer guns show signs of cost cutting but, as far as I know, S&Ws are still 100% U.S.-made. I still prefer the older guns, however.
 
The barrel need not be pinned, but like you I like recessed chambers. The real truth, though, is they're not needed, either. And they're a pain to clean. If fouled they can actually contribute to malfunctions.

My biggest problem with Smith & Wesson is that each time they cut corners, they don't pass the savings on to the customer. It goes into their own pockets. Remember years ago when the price of silver was manipulated by the Hunt brothers and rose dramatically? All the film companies raised their prices accordingly. But when the price of silver came back down, guess what didn't come down? That's right, the price of film.

Got'cha!

Now Smith has been cutting corners for years. First the pinned and recessed barrels went, yet the price of the guns kept rising. Now they make MIM parts and save more money, but the prices of the guns continue to go up. Now much of that, admittedly, was due to the company's decision to add internal locks that users don't need or want, but if you look at the stainless finishes you'll see they appear to be done with sandpaper.

Ruger never had pinned barrels or recessed chambers (well, .22s still have recessed chambers) and they've offered reasonable prices for years. But Smith has a "take it or leave it" attitude that I find hard to take.

If I were going to get a .357, I'd either get an older Smith 686 with chromed hammers and triggers (and no internal locks) or I'd get me a Ruger Security-Six in stainless steel. Both are tough guns and have a great amount of appeal.
 
I was just wondering if anyone has any information about S&W's sales of the locking models. I was kind of hoping that it was a passing thing and that slow sales would force them to eliminate the lock. All in all, if it was a shooter and I liked the gun I would buy it. For SD, no lock for me. However, I don't see myself spending 5 or 6 hundred for a new gun with a lock when that can buy me maybe two nice used classics.
 
For what it's worth,
I have an older 686 snubbie that I use part time for carry gun. (firing pin on the hammer)
I love it.
I also have a 6" 686 that I bought a couple of years ago. It has the "dreaded lock", that I never use. It's well made and I love it. (firing pin internal)
On top of that, I have a 625 that I bought about a year ago or so.
This obviously also has the "demon lock", which I never use.
I absolutley love this pistol! It is my favorite mainly because of the .45ACP round. It is such a pleasure to shoot.
There is an obvious difference betwen the older Smiths and the newer ones, but I still prefer a Smith over the other options out there.
Just my personal opinion:)

Jim
 
1. Unpinned barrels: The lack of the pin doesn't make any difference unless you decide - for whatever reason - to remove and/or replace the barrel. Then there is a problem. When the barrel was installed at the factory the threads were a crush fit, and they don't crush twice. Replacing or changing one should be done at the factory. This is probably a good idea anyway, but the older pinned barrels could be unscrewed and returned by any 'smith that had the right blocks to support the frame and barrel.

2. Other then in rimfire revolvers, recessed cartridge heads are no longer necessary, because ammunition made today has solid heads. That wasn't the case back in 1935.

3. So far as I know, all of the parts going in today's S&W revolvers are made in the USA. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. My greater worry is about the quality of the parts, not where they came from.

Smith & Wesson revolvers are made out of better materials then we had years ago, but in general the finish and fit isn't as good, and skilled handwork is a thing of the past. I prefer blued steel over stainless, and that special "feel" that the older guns usually have. Don't need a rail to hold a flashlight neither... :neener:

I say, get whichever you like best. ;)
 
i know what you mean. Sooner or later we wont even make our own lunch in the USA. Another example is on my springfield xd. It says "springfield armory USA". then "made in croatia". lol
 
Yes, the XD's are made in Croatia. Good catch, most guys don't notice that. A lot of the SA stuff is also made in Brazil now also.

Back to the Smith's. I soooo wish they would do away with that ugly foolish lock, till then I won't buy any of their stuff. Would rather spend it on the older stuff myself.

The least they could do is make it not look so freaking ugly! Maybe put it in the hammer like Taurus or the spring system like Ruger. Or, like the others and leave the ignorant thing out all together!
 
Dave 1
I'v purchased two new Model 29's in the last two weeks. One blue, one nickel. Fit and finish are excellent. Both are accurate, (for three inch barrels ) and so far have 300 rounds of 44 mag and special without problem.

I like the old Smith's better myself, (pre war if possible) but the new ones are not bad in my experience.
 
I like the older ones, too. I wish I could buy a carbona blued 38/44 to go with my original, but it's not gonna happen.

My new 620 performs very, very well. Like my older guns, it's a product of its time. It's SS, has a 2 piece barrel, MIM parts and a lock. It shoots beautifully and is a pleasure to own. It makes my GP100 and Security Six (both of which are GREAT guns) feel like little trucks. It has been to the Performance Center to be slicked up.

Point is, our choices are different than what they were back when. Not necessarily bad, just different. I'm glad that the lock or two-piece barrel didn't keep me from buying this superb gun.

My 2c,
Jeff
 
The youngest revolver I have is 20 years old. EVerytime I see a new S&W, I know the angels shed a tear for what they could have been & what they were :(
 
Folks, I hate to be the bringer of bad news but Smith and Wesson has been cutting corners since the 44 HE 2nd Model. They dropped the third lock on the crane to cut costs. Cheap bastards. And what was the idea behind dropping screws #4 and 5 without an attendant drop in price? The nerve of these greedy suits trying to make money!

I also hate to point out that your computers are NOT made in the USA! Some of you even go as far as trusting these cheap Asian made junk PCs to *gulp*, manage your finances and lives...
 
*


I own several S&W revolvers of various vintages, from about 1920 to very recent manufacture. The recent MIM parts appear to be just as strong as forged/machined parts, and are made to closer tolerances. The new revolvers will smooth up beautifully with a poor man's trigger job: take a new revolver, clean and lube it, dry fire it about 3000 times, clean and lube again and there you are. It works. The new revolvers compare quite favorably to the old ones.


*
 
Last edited:
I feel they have cut corners and ruined the revolvers they make. What I want to know is where the cost savings went. They don't make them as nice, but they charge Performance Center prices for them. $600 for a 686 with lock and MIM, vs $450 for a 686-4 with forged parts, which would you choose?
 
They don't make them as nice, but they charge Performance Center prices for them. $600 for a 686 with lock and MIM
Click to expand...

Compared to what, $500 for a Glock that's half plastic? Hell, Glock 21s used to run over $600 back where I lived in MI a few years ago.

Rugers cost less because they're entirely made of investment castings. It's one of the reasons Ruger revolvers feel "chunkier" than S&W and are almost always heavier; a cast piece of steel typically requires more mass to equal the strength of a forged piece of steel. Ruger smartly capitalized on this, though, figuring if the revolver's going to be a bit heavier anyway, they might as well maximize durability.

I've owned two classic S&W revolvers: a Model 25 made in 1981 and a model 57 made, I think, in 84. The 57 was a particularly nice specimen, a transitional model without recessed chambers but with a pinned barrel.

You know what? My 2006 produced 629 classic has every bit as nice of a trigger and locks up just as solidly.

The reason old guns feel like they have more hand fitting is because they do. A lot more than today. Problem is, labor costs have gone up incredibly since the 1950s and 60s. A S&W gun today made like the guns of yore would cost every bit as much as a Brown or Les Baer 1911, because an equal, if not great, amount of man-hours of labor would have to go into it.

People don't like the MIM'd internals, and in truth, I'd feel better knowing it was forged also. Honestly though? Of the six S&W revolvers I've owned, only one has broken on me, the Model 25-5. It had to go back to the factory because of something with the pawl/cylinder stop. (Essentially, on one chamber, the cylinder wouldn't stop rotating in the correct place, causing the firing pin to hit the primer off-center and causing failures to fire. It's fortunate that the round didn't ignite, however, as with the cylinder not lined up, the bullet would've struck the forcing cone off-center and possibly destroyed the gun.) To be fair, I don't know how many rounds that gun had had through it before I bought it. But until my guns with their MIM'd internals start breaking, I'm not going to gripe. FWIW, Colt was one of the first gun makers to start using "sintered steel" parts in their guns back in the 70s. So King Cobras and Anacondas share a similar "failing" as the new S&W guns in this regard.

If *I* were in charge of S&W, I'd do a run of "classic" guns just like that and sell 'em at premium prices. But if you guys are grumbling about the price of a stock 686, you wouldn't like the prices of a hand fitted piece.

Anyways, a stock 686+ runs about $550 at the Cabelas here. Comes to just over six bills out the door, with taxes, NICS, and fees. That's competitive with stock service weapons from Glock and Springfield, and less than guns from Colt and HK.

*shrug* I hear a LOT of grumbling about the new S&W guns on the internet, but I personally have no problem with them. My 686+ didn't seem like it had the fit/finish that my 625 did; I emailed S&W about it and they sent me a shipping label to have it sent back to the factory for a polish job, free of charge. If nothing else, they stand behind their products.

Personally, I have an on-again, off-again fascination with the Ruger guns. But I like big-bore revolvers. Ruger's big bores are just too huge for my uses; I carry an N-Frame. Ruger's 4" Redhawk is only slightly larger than a 4" 629, but it's heavier even than my 5" 629 Classic, which has an inch more barrel and a full underlug to boot. Of course, the Ruger will withstand a steady dose of much more powerful loads than my S&W, but I don't shoot those loads anyway.

So I'm sticking with S&W. Your mileage, as always, may vary.
 
Ruger's investment cast frames are not heavier then a similar Smith & Wesson because they are cast vs. S&W's forging. In designing guns Ruger deliberately overbuilt them so that they would last indifenately (more or less) even if they were fed a steady diet of the heaviest loads used in the particular cartridge they were chambered in. So when one looks in some loading books they will find "Ruger only" loads, but not "Smith & Wesson only" ones.

Since I am not in the race to see if my lightest revolver will stand up to the most hairy loads I get away with the lighter Smith & Wesson's - even the older ones that I prefer, but are not rated for Plus-P ammunition. However for those who absolutely must have the biggest and the most there will always be a trade-off between power vs, gun weight.
 
I've thought about this a while. It would be near impossible to make happen, but here it is... If the word would spread around the net that buying a new S&W should be put off (if possible) for at least 6 months. It would put such a hit on their bottom line that they would either remove the locks, or go down. Fine by me. I love my older revolvers, but to tell you the truth, I'll NEVER own a late model one anyway, so it's worth a shot.
This crap about not being able to remove the locks due to liability is just that IMO. There are tons of revolvers they've manufactured that are pre lock that can do damage without the lock. Putting the lock on new ones just proves that they were negligent in producing the pre locks models. They've made an attempt at keeping the people safe from themselves. See where this is going?
Sure - they've invested capital in re-tooling, but bad buisness decisions are made every day. All they have to do is look at resale value on the lock models. I don't care what the book says. Someone that pays 600 for a new lock model, fires 2 boxes through and puts it on the market. For the most part - they sit, even at a fairly large loss to the seller. Not so with the pre's. I feel so strongly about this probably because I hate having something crammed down my throat (don't we all?:D ) I would NOT trade 3 new 686's for my 686-1. Foolish? To some, I'm sure it seems that way.
Some couldn't care less whether they have the lock or not. That's why it's ruined for every one else that cares.
OK. Too much coffee for me....:banghead:
 
You're right xring...if S & W had been boycotted right after the locks were introduced we'd likely be able to buy a brand new one without the lock these days. Voting with your wallet works but sadly this day in age people will allow themselves to be spit on and do nothing. Don't count on seeing those locks go anywhere.

In the meantime I'll be buying new Rugers like the last 7 revolvers I've bought in the past 5 years.
 
Don't forget to boycott Taurus, of course, and probably Ruger too. After all, each new model Ruger introduces has their own internal lock, and Taurus guns have had locks for as long as I can remember. The Ruger P345, the New Vaquero, and the 50th Anniversary editions of the Blackhawk all have locks, for example. Wouldn't that then make Ruger as bad as S&W? They're just being more gradual about the change.
 
Nightcrawler - Of course you're correct. It's a huge task, and should be done. But, alas, it won't.
We are for the most part...sheep.
 
Smith & Wesson is... pardon the pun, going great guns. Why? Because most buyers don't care about the lock, and some may not know that revolvers didn't always come that way. Some even like the darn thing. So that leaves a handful of unconsequental buyers off on the sidelines that complain and buy the older used guns. I much prefer this because in my own interest I don't want to see the prices of the models I like go up. But it's a lost cause I think because while the lock is an issue, the greater one is overall value and quality of the older guns vs. new ones. The term, "pre-64" helped sink Winchester, as many buyers thought that this is where top quality left off. Smith & Wesson is beginning to discover that "pinned and recessed" is doing somewhat the same to them. But so long as new buyers with no past experience keep buying thay don't particularly care about the discontented ones.

As far as internal locks, loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconectors are concerned, we are going to see a lot more of such in new gun designs, because of laws in certain states, and constant lawsuits from lawyers with an agenda. Manufacturers are simply trying to protect themselves or remain viable in certain markets. Some of us will avoid this stuff by buying older guns that don't have such things, but I think as time passes those earlier guns are going to become more expensive - especially the more popular models.
 
Most of the Smith lockers I see people admitting to buying are the super-lights and the super-heavies, for which there isn't a pre-lock option. Niche aimed guns and limited edition guns will only carry them so far. It's sad,all they'd have to do is give customers a choice and all would be happy.( how many "glocks with locks" threads have you seen ? )

I wouldn't turn down a mim Smith but, I'd drop it in a second for a pre-mim. Not a big fan of 2pc. brls. unless I can change them.

As it stands, Rugers and older Smiths keeps the lead flyin' for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top