CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I would of course prefer a 4" version of my 2nd model .44Spl but I doubt I'll run across another deal like it for $850.
New Production S&W “No Locks”
- Thread starter Mr. Mosin
- Start date
jeff-10
Member
Probably factors into them comfortably removing a safety. Old guys who buy 6 shot revolvers probably have less AD's than the new people buying polymers with safe action triggers.
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
A 4” model 25? I would love that!
Archie
Member
I just looked at the S&W official website. Found a left side picture of the Model 10.
It doesn't have the lock hole!
It does still have that ugly lump down the left side which seems to have housed the lock mechanism. It doesn't have the barrel pin.
I obviously have to keep buying old stuff, huh?
It doesn't have the lock hole!
It does still have that ugly lump down the left side which seems to have housed the lock mechanism. It doesn't have the barrel pin.
I obviously have to keep buying old stuff, huh?
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
Which ugly hump? The hump in the hammer?
Photos from:
red rick
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,799
I did that to reward them when they started making the 642 without the lock again .
bigpower491
Member
Optical illusion.......
That don't look bad. I being new to smith revolvers i guess I'm one not really worried one way or the other about the lock. I was thrilled to get a 629-6 somewhat local for a good deal, and it's trigger, feel, and accuracy made me question why I hadn't put a Smith revolver in the stable yrs ago. The 586 I grabbed recently is another great gun, trigger is better than my Colt KCT, and it's accuracy is about on par. So locks don't really bother me much.
I'd really like to get a new model 25. Sure it be nice if they eventually came out with a no lock, but that wouldnt stop me from buying one. Especially in 44 special. But a nice DA 45 Colt to go with me Bisley that isn't a monster Super Redhawk would more than fit the bill.
Elkins45
Member
IIRC that change was necessary when they changed the firing pin location from the hammer nose to captive in the frame.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 2,047
The move from the hammer nose to the firing pin in the frame improved reliability and resulted in fewer failures due to the hammer nose breaking and the tip jamming in the firing hole. The lock was the most indefensible change that S&W ever made to their revolvers. I bought the ones with locks and carry one now, but I can't think of a single valid argument in its defense. The other changes had to do with lowering costs and improving the result of manufacturing.
The first cost-cutting change was to stop fitting the stocks to the half-moon curve on the frame. They introduced the Magna grips to put a blob of wood over that instead of hand fitting it to the frame.
Then they discontinued the long action wherein the hammer travel arc was greater. This reduced lock time and improved fast action shooting but was lamented by some at the time. There were certainly some details on the Registered Magnums that were omitted in later years, but other than the long action, there was nothing that couldn't be added through customization after production.
Then they stopped pinning the barrels. This could have been one of the worst changes they ever made. I can't accurately estimate how many barrels have been deformed in the process of crush fitting them, but I know that a large portion of the revolvers I've bought from recent production have distorted barrels. The only ones that seem exempt from this feature the two-piece barrels.
Soon after, they stopped recessing the chambers on the models they had previously done so on. This is a cost-cutting change that can't easily be resolved after the initial sale. Given the modern steels used to make cylinders, it can be claimed that the only effect is aesthetic. There is a bigger gap between the cylinder and recoil shield. I do know that recessed chambers are important to function on a single-action revolver, but can't make the same argument for a double-action without a loading gate.
At a later point, S&W introduced MIM to replace inconsistently and poorly machined parts. The MIM parts have a high level of consistency and a long track record of performing well. For those who want custom triggers and hammers machined with wire EDM instead of MIM, they can easily swap those in for additional expense. It's hard to fault S&W for offering high-value MIM parts when machined parts are readily available to those willing to pay the expense. Get what you want.
I mentioned the two-piece barrels. I would never buy another S&W with a one-piece barrel without checking that it is not distorted. Many people remember the problem S&W had with "canted" barrels that had threads cut improperly so they did not clock correctly when torqued. The two-piece barrels eliminated the need to have machinists clock the threading on the barrel accurately. Fewer people are aware of how crush-fitting the barrels to the frame often distorts the barrel. It can be checked with a precision ground rod to verify the barrel is straight and consistent in bore diameter. The two-piece barrels should not be distorted because they never need to be over-torqued to clock correctly.
Quality at S&W is poor. Defects escape routinely. Sometimes they agree to fix them, and other times they do not.
The first cost-cutting change was to stop fitting the stocks to the half-moon curve on the frame. They introduced the Magna grips to put a blob of wood over that instead of hand fitting it to the frame.
Then they discontinued the long action wherein the hammer travel arc was greater. This reduced lock time and improved fast action shooting but was lamented by some at the time. There were certainly some details on the Registered Magnums that were omitted in later years, but other than the long action, there was nothing that couldn't be added through customization after production.
Then they stopped pinning the barrels. This could have been one of the worst changes they ever made. I can't accurately estimate how many barrels have been deformed in the process of crush fitting them, but I know that a large portion of the revolvers I've bought from recent production have distorted barrels. The only ones that seem exempt from this feature the two-piece barrels.
Soon after, they stopped recessing the chambers on the models they had previously done so on. This is a cost-cutting change that can't easily be resolved after the initial sale. Given the modern steels used to make cylinders, it can be claimed that the only effect is aesthetic. There is a bigger gap between the cylinder and recoil shield. I do know that recessed chambers are important to function on a single-action revolver, but can't make the same argument for a double-action without a loading gate.
At a later point, S&W introduced MIM to replace inconsistently and poorly machined parts. The MIM parts have a high level of consistency and a long track record of performing well. For those who want custom triggers and hammers machined with wire EDM instead of MIM, they can easily swap those in for additional expense. It's hard to fault S&W for offering high-value MIM parts when machined parts are readily available to those willing to pay the expense. Get what you want.
I mentioned the two-piece barrels. I would never buy another S&W with a one-piece barrel without checking that it is not distorted. Many people remember the problem S&W had with "canted" barrels that had threads cut improperly so they did not clock correctly when torqued. The two-piece barrels eliminated the need to have machinists clock the threading on the barrel accurately. Fewer people are aware of how crush-fitting the barrels to the frame often distorts the barrel. It can be checked with a precision ground rod to verify the barrel is straight and consistent in bore diameter. The two-piece barrels should not be distorted because they never need to be over-torqued to clock correctly.
Quality at S&W is poor. Defects escape routinely. Sometimes they agree to fix them, and other times they do not.
Boom Vang
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 887
No domestic manufacturer has pinned barrels in generations. "Crush Fit" done correctly works, at least on steel frames.
Recessed chambers offer no performance benefit with modern centerfire metallic cartridges, but do enhance the possibility of cylinder drag and/or ignition problems, due to harder-to-clean crud build up in the recess. They also make it harder to quickly determine loaded status. It's an aesthetic only and on a working gun I prefer it gone. If they were so essential for SA revolvers, Ruger would have used it, and they don't.
Shrouded barrels are subject to canted assembly if the shroud doesn't mechanically index on the frame. My last S&W purchase 432UC had a canted shroud with front sight... I was able to move it myself but it was frightful. I'd rather have a non-shrouded barrel as at least I have a better chance of repairing it with homemade tooling and jigs. You're not hand-making the torque wrench needed for the S&W barrel shroud, and it's not available outside of the factory.
I agree with the elimination of the hammer nose, it was a weak link. MIM parts don't bother me either if they are not aesthetically ugly, such as hollow-back triggers. The integral cylinder lug on the frame is just one less part to have to be fitted, loosen or wear up over time, and need to be replaced. As far as the "long" frame redesign to accommodate the lock hole goes, I doubt you will ever see that revert. That change has been made and it's done. Willy-nilly forged frame changes are expensive, and the new frame does have added strength.
Threads like these smoke out all the big talkers who claimed they wouldn't buy a new S&W until they got rid of the lock. Well guess what, then they nit-pik anything that isn't period correct circa 1948, 1957, 1973 - pick your era. It turns out that most of these types wouldn't buy any new S&W unless it is made the exactly same way as 65 years ago, and at a bargain price. Which means, not at all.
These odd choices for retro editions are all based on S&W figuring the semi-auto market is saturated, and maybe these pistol gunsumers want a revolver range toy. I don't expect the quality to be any better than the revolver poop they've been putting into boxes for the past 5 years. IMO, it would be far better if S&W simply announced: We Make It Right or Your Money Back.
Recessed chambers offer no performance benefit with modern centerfire metallic cartridges, but do enhance the possibility of cylinder drag and/or ignition problems, due to harder-to-clean crud build up in the recess. They also make it harder to quickly determine loaded status. It's an aesthetic only and on a working gun I prefer it gone. If they were so essential for SA revolvers, Ruger would have used it, and they don't.
Shrouded barrels are subject to canted assembly if the shroud doesn't mechanically index on the frame. My last S&W purchase 432UC had a canted shroud with front sight... I was able to move it myself but it was frightful. I'd rather have a non-shrouded barrel as at least I have a better chance of repairing it with homemade tooling and jigs. You're not hand-making the torque wrench needed for the S&W barrel shroud, and it's not available outside of the factory.
I agree with the elimination of the hammer nose, it was a weak link. MIM parts don't bother me either if they are not aesthetically ugly, such as hollow-back triggers. The integral cylinder lug on the frame is just one less part to have to be fitted, loosen or wear up over time, and need to be replaced. As far as the "long" frame redesign to accommodate the lock hole goes, I doubt you will ever see that revert. That change has been made and it's done. Willy-nilly forged frame changes are expensive, and the new frame does have added strength.
Threads like these smoke out all the big talkers who claimed they wouldn't buy a new S&W until they got rid of the lock. Well guess what, then they nit-pik anything that isn't period correct circa 1948, 1957, 1973 - pick your era. It turns out that most of these types wouldn't buy any new S&W unless it is made the exactly same way as 65 years ago, and at a bargain price. Which means, not at all.
These odd choices for retro editions are all based on S&W figuring the semi-auto market is saturated, and maybe these pistol gunsumers want a revolver range toy. I don't expect the quality to be any better than the revolver poop they've been putting into boxes for the past 5 years. IMO, it would be far better if S&W simply announced: We Make It Right or Your Money Back.
Last edited:
stonebuster
Member
Good move for S&W to offer these non IL revolvers, no doubt. Firearms manufacturers are always trying to offer something new to stimulate sales and in this case something "new" is really something old. I've never had a problem with my Model 10-14 or 64-8 w/IL after thousands of rounds but still prefer the pre-lock S&W revolvers. Great shooters for the $300/each I paid for them. If I was to buy another S&W revolver it would still be a used gun but have decided I've got more than enough already.
wanderinwalker
Member
Except the pinned barrels were initially crush fit, then pinned in place to prevent them from coming off. Though I did have a 586 no-dash that was a victim of having the barrel over-torqued on installation. That revolver used up a fair bit of the windage adjustment to zero.
The recessed chambers were ONLY on the Magnum and rimfire revolvers. In the early Magnum revolvers, the idea was to provide extra case support to the ballon-head cases. If it really mattered that much, the legendary Cadillac of .357 revolvers, the mighty Colt Python would have had recessed chambers (and pinned barrels!). Hint: the Colts weren't built that way. Rimfire revolvers still have the recessed chambers to support the soft, rimfire cases to prevent case head blowouts. It's debatable if it was ever necessary on the centerfire guns. While a lot of people refer to any pre-1980/82(ish) S&W as "P&R", I can go to my safe right now and pull out a 1954 Combat Masterpiece that doesn't have recessed chambers, and I had a mid-70s Model 15 that was the same. Look at the photo @CraigC posted of his .44 Special and you can see the lack of recessed chambers. They also aren't a requirement for proper function on a single action revolver - see all of the centerfire SA revolvers Ruger has ever made.
However, the last point I rather have to agree with. I would never put money down on a new production S&W revolver without at least being able to give it a once over and possibly refuse it. Especially the blued models. Finish issues were common on them even 5-6 years ago, and I can't imagine the last couple years of production have been more reliable. The stainless models and J-frame were better bets for a decent gun right out of the box. But this isn't unique to S&W. Ruger and Colt have pushed plenty of product out the door with poorly fitted parts or incomplete finish machining. Even H&K isn't immune to making the occasional dud these days. And don't get me started on how I really feel about current SIG products.
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
Regarding barrel installation:
In 2017 I bought a model 60 Pro. A J frame 5 shot .357 Magnum with a 3” barrel and weighed 22.9oz. It was made at their so-called “Performance Center”.
This gun was a .357 Magnum so I fired .357 Magnum ammo in it. A lot. Several hundred rounds of 158gr Magnum ammo, both factory and my hand loads within SAAMI specs.
I bought this gun for woods carry in Oregon in the Mount Hood area. No brown bears, but black bears, mountain lions and possible 2 legged varmints.
At first I really liked this gun then the barrel canted to the left a bit. I sent it back. It was “repaired”. Long story short, it went back a total of 4 times for barrel rotation. Each time the canting got worse.
I learned that if a Perf Ctr gun goes back for repair the “technician” that did finally assembly receives the gun for repair. It doesn’t go to a group of techs to be assigned.
The last time I received the gun back I got a very snotty note from the guy that “repaired” it stating he would no longer accept its return for repair.
Numerous emails to individuals at S&W including 2 CEOs did nothing to fix this and I got no responses.
I sold the gun with full disclosure at a loss.
I do recall asking why they just couldn’t pin the barrel and was told “2 piece barrels can’t be pinned” which lead me to believe it was a 2 piece barrel. It was not. It was a 1 piece. Not sure why I was told different.
That gun is obviously not meant to fire a lot of .357 Magnum ammo. I think S&W assumed most people would shoot .38 Special in it.
This experience taught me two things:
1. The Performance Center is not customer friendly and, in my opinion, only semi competent.
2. More money and fancy laser engraving does not mean it’s better than their base products.
My Blood Pressure goes up every time I bring up this revolver and my experience with the Perf. Ctr.
I, for one, will never buy a new PC gun from S&W.
I know if I ever have a non-pinned barrel move on any of my other revolvers I won’t bother with sending it back. I will have a gunsmith fix it and add a pin, if warranted.
In 2017 I bought a model 60 Pro. A J frame 5 shot .357 Magnum with a 3” barrel and weighed 22.9oz. It was made at their so-called “Performance Center”.
This gun was a .357 Magnum so I fired .357 Magnum ammo in it. A lot. Several hundred rounds of 158gr Magnum ammo, both factory and my hand loads within SAAMI specs.
I bought this gun for woods carry in Oregon in the Mount Hood area. No brown bears, but black bears, mountain lions and possible 2 legged varmints.
At first I really liked this gun then the barrel canted to the left a bit. I sent it back. It was “repaired”. Long story short, it went back a total of 4 times for barrel rotation. Each time the canting got worse.
I learned that if a Perf Ctr gun goes back for repair the “technician” that did finally assembly receives the gun for repair. It doesn’t go to a group of techs to be assigned.
The last time I received the gun back I got a very snotty note from the guy that “repaired” it stating he would no longer accept its return for repair.
Numerous emails to individuals at S&W including 2 CEOs did nothing to fix this and I got no responses.
I sold the gun with full disclosure at a loss.
I do recall asking why they just couldn’t pin the barrel and was told “2 piece barrels can’t be pinned” which lead me to believe it was a 2 piece barrel. It was not. It was a 1 piece. Not sure why I was told different.
That gun is obviously not meant to fire a lot of .357 Magnum ammo. I think S&W assumed most people would shoot .38 Special in it.
This experience taught me two things:
1. The Performance Center is not customer friendly and, in my opinion, only semi competent.
2. More money and fancy laser engraving does not mean it’s better than their base products.
My Blood Pressure goes up every time I bring up this revolver and my experience with the Perf. Ctr.
I, for one, will never buy a new PC gun from S&W.
I know if I ever have a non-pinned barrel move on any of my other revolvers I won’t bother with sending it back. I will have a gunsmith fix it and add a pin, if warranted.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
On a single action, recessed chambers offer support for an empty chamber. With really heavy recoil, such as in the big five-shots, an empty chamber can allow the loading gate to get damaged. So they say, anyway. I think it makes the gun look more finished if the cylinder completely fills the window.
rcmodel. You got that right, he was like E.F Hutton.Not just locks but tons of stuff. I reckon at least half the crap people say online is just regurgitating something they heard someone else say. And I don't mean something in print, written by someone with a reputation to uphold, like Ross Seyfried or John Taffin but their fellow numbskulls. Not everybody listens to the smart ones. That's what's wrong with the internet generation. They're listening to free info from their fellow dummy instead of reading books and articles written by actual experts. I tell people on Facebook, there's a guy on several groups named Tom Sappington. If you just listen to him, you'll never be steered wrong. Kinda like "rcmodel" was here. On the other hand, there's dummies who spent 50yrs in plumbing that think it makes them experts in metallurgy as it pertains to firearms construction. Ya gotta be smart enough to pick the right teachers.
Ethan Verity
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,014
Two more S&W lock free revolvers were announced this morning, both Lipsey's exclusives.
Model 686 'Mountain Gun' - 357 Magnum:
Model 629 'Mountain Gun' - 44 Magnum
Model 686 'Mountain Gun' - 357 Magnum:
Model 629 'Mountain Gun' - 44 Magnum
shoebox1.1
Member
I’d be in but I don’t like the front sights
Ethan Verity
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,014
Same!
I prefer the traditional ramp with red insert. That partridge sight is pinned, I wonder if a ramp sight would fit if somebody wants to swap it out.
I actually did this "downgrade" on my M&P Model 340, to replace the original, somewhat snaggy and fragile tritium sight, with a good'ol ramp sight.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Very interesting! While stainless .357's are not my cup `o tea, I always thought the 686 Mountain Gun should be a standard catalog item. They can add a 586 version and I may be interested.
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
This trend is good. I see the 686 does not have ejector rod bolt lockup, no doubt ball detent yoke/frame.
wanderinwalker
Member
And I'm one of the weirdos who wants the Patridge front sight instead of the ramp! Can't please everybody I guess. Looking at it closer, it looks as though those front sights have a brass bead on the face. Very interesting.
I distinctly remember reading an article in one of the publications back in the late 90s when S&W produced the 686+ Mountain Guns and the 657 Mountain Guns for a brief period before the ILS was introduced. As a gun-crazed teenager, I thought the 686+ MG would be the ultimate general-purpose revolver for my wants. This new announcement from S&W will prompt me to take the risk of getting a good one at some point in the next year, as it is the revolver I've always wanted. The only bad part (from my perspective) is they're too late for me to get a new set of Ahrend's retro target stocks for it, and my small stash of Ahrends stocks are all for square butt K/L frames.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 2,047
The front sights are easy to change to whatever you like. They're just pinned in and can be drifted out with a small pin punch.
Ethan Verity
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,014
Not too easy though, new sights come without the pin hole drilled, since the hole location varies slightly from revolver to revolver for proper sight placement. You'll have to hand fit a new sight by drilling the roll pin hole. So, add in a proper size drill bit, and preferably a drill press, to this easy change process.
