I'd would be very interested in hearing any comments that you may have. For me, I'll take an older blued model anytime.
You will certainly not be alone.
However, with the disclaimer that I own far more older ones than newer ones, I have found stereotypes to lack accuracy and conventional wisdom to not be all that wise. One really should have and appreciate both.
I will differ with many in not seeing a steady decline in S&W N frame quality. Most assuredly, all the production expedients that folks bemoan have actually happened. However, while all this usurpation by the accountants was going on concurrent improvements were being made.
It's most obvious in the pre-vs-post 2E model 29. The fit and finish everyone goes ga-ga for are buried in the past but those characteristics which define it's worth as a firearm have, on average, actually gotten better - chamber throats are more uniform, metallurgy and heat treat have improved.
It depends on your priorities - if your guiding light is "looking at" and admiring hand finishing, you will prefer the older version. If your priority is actually shooting the thing, a post-CNC might better serve.
I simply can't seem to post to one of these "the good old days are toast" threads without quoting my favorite moderator:
I own a Smith or two, and consider myself at least somewhat qualified to comment on the topic.
As far as fit and finish goes? There is no doubt, a pre-'57 (or better yet, pre-War) Smith is vastly superior in fit, finish, and polish; the cosmetic characteristics that catch the eye.
As far as mechanical tolerances and measurable characteristics like mechanical accuracy or metallurgical strength? It is no contest; an ugly modern 29 dash-whatever-number-they're-on-now is ten times the gun that a beautiful '60 Model 29 no-dash is. It is more accurate, the chamber throats are more consistent, the b/c gap is much more likely to be spot on, and the insides of the lockwork (under the side panel where a lot of people never look) won't look like it was whittled with a flint axe. Seriously, I have a pre-25 that is maybe the prettiest gun I own, but if you pulled off the sideplate and dragged a phonograph needle around in there backwards, it would probably say "I buried Paul..."
This is completely ignoring the better heat treating and metallurgy. A new 29-9 will swallow loads that would leave a Bangor Punta gun a frame-stretched, backwards-cylinder-spinning wreck. Don't believe me? Go get an old 29 and a few boxes of Cor-Bon or Buffalo Bore and try it yourself.
A topic which may deserve its own thread is the fact that what has been learned should sometimes not remain "learnt". I've recently had an epiphany whereby I realized that it's natural for the lay person to have memories cast in stone. That usually works if one is discussing casting manhole covers or blanking sheet steel. It doesn't work worth a wet slap with computers - if all your opinion on computers was based on a 1977 Apple 2E, your knowledge of a 4GB, Terrabyte drive, quad core machine will be sadly lacking, if not actually stone backwards in some areas.
Knowledge of dynamic fields which isn't itself dynamic isn't knowledge worth having.
MIM is neither integrated circuits nor cast iron but it does land in between. It's first commercial applications were in the middle '70s. It was getting a little steam in the 90s and has now passed its adolescence.
It flabergasts me that people that learned about MIM 10 or 20 years ago will pontificate as though their knowledge of the process wasn't hopelessly out of date. If you learned about forging 20 years back you don't have a lot of catching up to do. If your opinions of MIM were formed 20 years back you might as well be posting about building cobblestone streets.
In the end, if you bury your head in the past or look only to the present and future, you lose either way. All eras have something worthwhile to offer - even 'Nam era Bangor Punta.
