Well I have several of both, and I will say this for the new models, in this one particular instance of my owning a lock 4 inch 629, the trigger is one the nicest I have ever handled in any Smith. The cylinder also rotates extremely evenly, and smoothly chamber to chamber. It is also very accurate, easily putting handloads into 2 inches at 25 yards off the bags. The 6 inch that I had, also lock, was again accurate, but the trigger was not as good and the cylinder rotation had rough spots, at least it was certainly not as smooth as my 4 inch. Now I also have pre lock 29s and they of-course, they are classics and look better, but functionally, I trust my lock model 629 with heavy loads just fine, and have fired full power 240 jacketed gold dot handloads with full charges of W296 and not a problem.
new S&W s' vs. older ones
- Thread starter Sauer Grapes
- Start date
- Status
I liked pinned as there was no way the barrel was coming loose but I never cared for recessed.
The recesses allowed the cartridge rims to be flush with the back of the cylinder but were difficult to clean out. You would have to get some sharp edged tool and a cloth or paper towel to totally scrub out the gunk that would collect in the corners.
Then you could not look at the side of the pistol to determine if it was loaded. You either popped the cylinder or pointed the thing at your head to see the bullets.
I miss the hammer mounted firing pin. A direct strike mechanism is much more reliable in ignition than one which the energy of the hammer is transfered through a firing pin, firing pin spring (in some mechanisms a transfer bar is part of the system). Each time energy is transferred some is lost. That may explain the very strong mainsprings on late model Smiths.
I called Smith and Wesson and asked why they had removed the hammer mounted firing pin. It took a dedicated machine and person to make the frame cut.
My Mountain Gun in 45 LC is a fine pistol.
The recesses allowed the cartridge rims to be flush with the back of the cylinder but were difficult to clean out. You would have to get some sharp edged tool and a cloth or paper towel to totally scrub out the gunk that would collect in the corners.
Then you could not look at the side of the pistol to determine if it was loaded. You either popped the cylinder or pointed the thing at your head to see the bullets.
I miss the hammer mounted firing pin. A direct strike mechanism is much more reliable in ignition than one which the energy of the hammer is transfered through a firing pin, firing pin spring (in some mechanisms a transfer bar is part of the system). Each time energy is transferred some is lost. That may explain the very strong mainsprings on late model Smiths.
I called Smith and Wesson and asked why they had removed the hammer mounted firing pin. It took a dedicated machine and person to make the frame cut.
My Mountain Gun in 45 LC is a fine pistol.
Even if S&W lost the pot metal parts, stupid lock, and cost cutting two piece barrels, they don't currently make a gun that is desireable, to me.
Give me my pre lock, pre cost cutting measure S&W's. Not only are they superior to the current production, they LOOK GOOD TOO!
Give me my pre lock, pre cost cutting measure S&W's. Not only are they superior to the current production, they LOOK GOOD TOO!
Guillermo
member
I think Thaddeus and I drink the same brand of Kool-Aid 
rbernie
Contributing Member
Due to circumstance, I have acquired several NIB and lightly-used post-lock K frame and N frame S&Ws over the last couple of years. I justified their purchase by allocating them to weekly range beater duty, while my P&Red K frames stood duty as carry/HD guns.
After close to 10K rounds so far through a 66-7, I have to say that it's been a satisfying and boring ride. The gun has a very decent DA pull, and while it does lack that last little bit of 'oiled ball bearing' smoothness of my older well-burnished 19's, it's really quite nice and the difference between them is pretty small indeed. I may not yet be ready to call them equals, but they're dang close.
One thing to bear in mind is that S&W has a limited stock of parts left for their older designs. At some point in the future, the only source of parts for these P&Red guns will be cannibalized from donor guns. If someone is contemplating a S&W for high-mileage duty, a newer one with factory support may be a better choice than a 'classic' one that the factory might not be able to fix when it breaks.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I won't buy new ones. I love S&W's but everything they've changed in recent years has resulted in a cheaper gun with a stiffer price tag. It's a shame because they have some great configurations in their "Classic" lineup but I ain't payin' that much for a cheapened version of the original with the bunghole in the side. The older guns are just better....and less expensive.
Actually the current SAA is better than the 3rd generation has ever been.
dashootist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 551
nevermind
Last edited:
CajunBass
Member
Pinned and recessed. A pin is used to lock the barrel in place on older Smith & Wessons. You can see it in most pictures. New barrels are crush fitted. Recessed means the ends of the cylinders are counterbored to contain the cartridge heads inside the cylinder. Originally it was to contain a ruptured cartridge case. Not so important today with the improvements in cartridge cases.
The lack of them doesn't necessarly mean a gun is "bad" it's jut more a mark of the "old way" they used to do it.
A P&R Model 19. You can see the pin just ahead of the forcing cone area.
Personally I think it's about numbers. I've never had much interest in any Smith & Wesson with more than a two digit model number...10, 15, 19, 27, 28, 29, and so on.
zombie1210
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 193
I hate the bead blast cheesy finish on the newer stainless guns.
I hate ANY gun with those horrible laser etched logos.
Guns that go "CLANG" instead of click when you dry fire them are bad. Damm, I hate that sound. It just screams cheaply made. Many of the new ones do that.
The lock is hideous, and I will not own a gun that has it.
The use of MIM parts is also not something I care for.
Older S&W's are much more desirable to me.
I hate ANY gun with those horrible laser etched logos.
Guns that go "CLANG" instead of click when you dry fire them are bad. Damm, I hate that sound. It just screams cheaply made. Many of the new ones do that.
The lock is hideous, and I will not own a gun that has it.
The use of MIM parts is also not something I care for.
Older S&W's are much more desirable to me.
Guillermo
member
so they are not even going to be a parts supplier and will only serve to keep the demand down on the good (old) guns, thus keeping prices reasonable.
I can dig it
788Ham
Member
A very good friend of mine bought a S&W 629 Hunter awhile back, it is a custom-shop work job from Smith, #1XX a beautiful firearm!! It has the weighted under lug barrel, additional weights can be added if needed, the top of the barrel is set up for scope. I have an older model 629, thought the trigger on mine was decent..... HA !! Nothing compared to my buddies, when squeezing off a round with his, its like dragging you finger thru an puddle of oil, absolutely no grit or hesitation what-so-ever! I shot some of my 240 gr handloads thru his, all within a 4" spot at 25 yds, course, the mag porting helps his also, too bad he found it before I did, too bad they don't make this one anymore!:banghead:
rbernie
Contributing Member
I've been using this as an excuse to accumulate as many 19-2/19-4 models as I can.
fastbolt
Member
Well, I've had more problems with the older style models I've bought than the new models.
The manufacturing has changed significantly.
Hard fitting was required in old models.
It took 7 machines to make an old style hammer.
The frame in the old models took 75 machining steps to make (without the barrel). The new frames are turned out in 3 machining steps and then go for heat treat.
The tolerances have been tightened up quite a bit in some respects regarding parts in the new models.
The new models use the cases to hold the extractor in the necessary relationship to the hand, instead of the extractor being pinned. (Which is why carry up must be checked with properly sized dummy rounds in the charge holes instead of being empty). No pins to bend or break anymore.
MIM has given us some easier replacement of parts from an armorer's perspective, too.
Don't get me wrong, I still like my old style models, but I enjoy my new models, too.
The manufacturing has changed significantly.
Hard fitting was required in old models.
It took 7 machines to make an old style hammer.
The frame in the old models took 75 machining steps to make (without the barrel). The new frames are turned out in 3 machining steps and then go for heat treat.
The tolerances have been tightened up quite a bit in some respects regarding parts in the new models.
The new models use the cases to hold the extractor in the necessary relationship to the hand, instead of the extractor being pinned. (Which is why carry up must be checked with properly sized dummy rounds in the charge holes instead of being empty). No pins to bend or break anymore.
MIM has given us some easier replacement of parts from an armorer's perspective, too.
Don't get me wrong, I still like my old style models, but I enjoy my new models, too.
Last edited:
My last new Smith was a September 2001-made Model 646 .40 S&W caliber competition revolver from their Performance Center. The 2002 introduction of the hideous Hillary hole and how their (then) British leadership cowed down to the anti-gun White House turned me off to all new S&W handguns.
Ditto to Colt at the time . . . and I dumped the PC Model 646 AND my original edition (highly customized) Colt Combat Elite .45 Auto.
Frankly, there are simply too many gorgeous old pinned barrel vintage Smith revolvers continually coming on the market to mourn S&W losing their way. I can live with the MIM parts . . . and tolerated the frame-mounted firing pins . . . but that damn lock is simply a bad reminder of how close America once came to losing all our gun rights . . . and I won't go there ever again.
Thus my recent S&W revolver purchases in the past few months have included guns like these . . . and these kind of revolvers will cure you of missing the new ones completely!!! First . . . from 1970 . . .
And from 1950 . . .
Then again, sometimes I want to purchase an older Smith . . . like this new (to me) 1916-made Model 1903 Hand Ejector, 5th Change . . .
BTW, after years of turning my back on Colt autos, I'm looking at a new one right now . . . new for me that is . . . a nice Government Model made in 1969, back when Colt cared for the civilian shooting public.
Nope . . . don't miss the new ones one bit!
Ditto to Colt at the time . . . and I dumped the PC Model 646 AND my original edition (highly customized) Colt Combat Elite .45 Auto.
Frankly, there are simply too many gorgeous old pinned barrel vintage Smith revolvers continually coming on the market to mourn S&W losing their way. I can live with the MIM parts . . . and tolerated the frame-mounted firing pins . . . but that damn lock is simply a bad reminder of how close America once came to losing all our gun rights . . . and I won't go there ever again.
Thus my recent S&W revolver purchases in the past few months have included guns like these . . . and these kind of revolvers will cure you of missing the new ones completely!!! First . . . from 1970 . . .
And from 1950 . . .
Then again, sometimes I want to purchase an older Smith . . . like this new (to me) 1916-made Model 1903 Hand Ejector, 5th Change . . .
BTW, after years of turning my back on Colt autos, I'm looking at a new one right now . . . new for me that is . . . a nice Government Model made in 1969, back when Colt cared for the civilian shooting public.
Nope . . . don't miss the new ones one bit!
Last edited:
zombie1210
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 193
! ! ! ! ! !
Wow. nice ones.
Wow. nice ones.
Stainz
Member
Just a reminder. G.W. Bush was elected in 2000 - and AZ based Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W in early 2001. S&W was finally an American owned company again when the IL was launched in late 2001 - and Bush, etc, renounced the British owned S&W 'agreements'.
Stainz
Stainz
The really bad era for S&W was the Bangor Punta era. I reached legal age for buying firearms during that time, and so I developed an early aversion to S&W by seeing gaps where there should not be gaps, misaligned parts, and feeling the gritty actions. Not all Bangor Punta guns were bad; when I had to use personally-owned S&W revolvers as a young police officer, due to PD policy, I managed to find a really nice Model 581, to offset the horrendous 686 I had received sight unseen though a local vendor as part of a special deal for police cadets.
The LSI era was a breath of fresh air; all of a sudden, S&W revolvers were tightly fitted, and had decent to excellent actions. I bought a really sweet 3" Heavy-Barrel Model 60 during this time, and recently acquired an LSI-era Model 19-5, pre-owned, that appears unfired, that I consider one of the sweetest sixguns I have ever handled.
Things stayed quite good until the MIM trigger era. The contour of the MIM triggers does not work well for me; the "combat" width forged trigger is perfection for me, in DA fire, with K/L frames. An MIM trigger is hollow in the back, not suitable for being dressed-down to the feel I like. Therefore, my preference for sixguns built during the era of forged triggers. The Performance Center continued using forged triggers for at least a while after the standard models went MIM.
The keyhole is ugly, but the actual malfunctions attributed to the internal locks seems limited to certain lightweight models firing powerful cartridges. I am considering a certain J-frame purchase, which would be my first IL purchase. The MIM trigger is OK for me with J-sized guns.
Not all pre-Bangor Punta S&W revolvers were so great. I had an S-numbered (pre-N-frame designation) Model 58 with what felt like gravel in the action. I sold this one when I started divesting myself of N-frames, which I finally had to admit were too big for me to shoot well in DA. (I did, however, keep my ex-SAPD Model 58; we shared to many adventures for me to sell that one.)
To be clear, though I am better-known for what I have written on THR about my Rugers, I am still a fan of S&W, too. I am not a one-brand type of guy; an individual Colt, Ruger, or S&W weapon can make me feel all warm inside.
The LSI era was a breath of fresh air; all of a sudden, S&W revolvers were tightly fitted, and had decent to excellent actions. I bought a really sweet 3" Heavy-Barrel Model 60 during this time, and recently acquired an LSI-era Model 19-5, pre-owned, that appears unfired, that I consider one of the sweetest sixguns I have ever handled.
Things stayed quite good until the MIM trigger era. The contour of the MIM triggers does not work well for me; the "combat" width forged trigger is perfection for me, in DA fire, with K/L frames. An MIM trigger is hollow in the back, not suitable for being dressed-down to the feel I like. Therefore, my preference for sixguns built during the era of forged triggers. The Performance Center continued using forged triggers for at least a while after the standard models went MIM.
The keyhole is ugly, but the actual malfunctions attributed to the internal locks seems limited to certain lightweight models firing powerful cartridges. I am considering a certain J-frame purchase, which would be my first IL purchase. The MIM trigger is OK for me with J-sized guns.
Not all pre-Bangor Punta S&W revolvers were so great. I had an S-numbered (pre-N-frame designation) Model 58 with what felt like gravel in the action. I sold this one when I started divesting myself of N-frames, which I finally had to admit were too big for me to shoot well in DA. (I did, however, keep my ex-SAPD Model 58; we shared to many adventures for me to sell that one.)
To be clear, though I am better-known for what I have written on THR about my Rugers, I am still a fan of S&W, too. I am not a one-brand type of guy; an individual Colt, Ruger, or S&W weapon can make me feel all warm inside.
My first was a 66-5 from about 2000 which is the best S&W I've owned. It has no lock. The second was a 29-10 Mtn Gun with lock. Very good accuracy and decently put together. The third was a 625 Mtn Gun with no problems. The fourth was a 686 +. Every one of them were well made and shot well.
I have no preference as to new or old, they are still S&W's. I've found the newer guns to be just as accurate if not more so then the older guns.
Would I buy another newer model? Heck yes.
I have no preference as to new or old, they are still S&W's. I've found the newer guns to be just as accurate if not more so then the older guns.
Would I buy another newer model? Heck yes.
Joe Demko
Member
The only time S&W made good guns was, I think, before they were in business. I've been shooting them decades now, and all I've ever heard is "S&W ain't what they used to be."
zombie1210
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 193
I'd take a brand new 68 Camaro over that abomination Chevy has now. I'm like that with new S&W's.
madcratebuilder
Member
SaxonPig said:
+1
Old or new, they shot just fine. It's all relative, I recall from hanging out at gunshops in the 70's, the old timers complained how quality went down hill since the war (WWII).
Stainz
Member
zombie1200,
The metallic 'clang' you hear when dry-firing a 'modern' S&W has been the formed sheet metal hammer block safety for a while. It came about after the second World War. Additionally, while being hollow-backed makes the MIM trigger at least as sturdy as a forged part, you cannot reshape it without weakening it. And... the PC Shop still has forged parts - my new 2 5/8" PC627 UDR's, both of them, came with them - and they were made this year. The trigger is easy to see - if it isn't hollow back, it's still forged. Case in point - triggers with the short roll pin installed on the backside as a trigger stop. Also, flash chromed - a la the early 620's and the 625JM (Apparently, you cannot flash chrome MIM.). In their defense, MIM parts are highly uniform - and strong - and ugly. Forged still require fitting.
Stainz
The metallic 'clang' you hear when dry-firing a 'modern' S&W has been the formed sheet metal hammer block safety for a while. It came about after the second World War. Additionally, while being hollow-backed makes the MIM trigger at least as sturdy as a forged part, you cannot reshape it without weakening it. And... the PC Shop still has forged parts - my new 2 5/8" PC627 UDR's, both of them, came with them - and they were made this year. The trigger is easy to see - if it isn't hollow back, it's still forged. Case in point - triggers with the short roll pin installed on the backside as a trigger stop. Also, flash chromed - a la the early 620's and the 625JM (Apparently, you cannot flash chrome MIM.). In their defense, MIM parts are highly uniform - and strong - and ugly. Forged still require fitting.
Stainz
Stainz
Member
These date in the original run of the 2 5/8" PC627 UDR from 1999 - new models today differing by the included IL and plastic PC box in lieu of the Al/plastic box. My pair were made this year - and came with the same too-small boot grips. Larger grips - like my Ahrends, which they sport in the picture below, are far more comfortable. An N-frame with boot grips seems like an oxymoron.
No, before '99, there wasn't anything quite like them... eight-shooting SS .357M's in the 27 style. Why two? One will be a home defender... only a few bucks less than the 327NG I considered - and my choice has a PC Shop trigger, eased charge entries, and is moonclip ready. It's additional ten ounces won't be a problem, either.
Stainz
No, before '99, there wasn't anything quite like them... eight-shooting SS .357M's in the 27 style. Why two? One will be a home defender... only a few bucks less than the 327NG I considered - and my choice has a PC Shop trigger, eased charge entries, and is moonclip ready. It's additional ten ounces won't be a problem, either.
Stainz
- Status
