cortez kid
Member
That's one purdy axe. I guess I was showing my snob side. Those Jap guitars played every bit as good as the US ones.
kid
kid
"S&W Quality slipping??"
- Thread starter Surefire
- Start date
- Status
dogngun
Member
Smith is making a different product than what they made in the "good old days". I think the quality is still there, but the entire manufacturing process is different. I used to own a K-38 that was a hand fitted gem. I have had Model 110's from tha late 1960's that were close to it. I just looked over and handeled several new Smiths and they feel very different to me. They are not bad guns, but they are not the same.
Mark
Mark
BluesBear
member
Does anyone besides me remember when Browning stopped having their shotguns made in Belgium and started having them made in Japan?
Now those very same "junk" guns are highly prized "vintage" models.
Now those very same "junk" guns are highly prized "vintage" models.
ajax
Member
Do you feel lucky punk Well do yu
I own 3 smiths. 629 625 686 all stainless. I shoot deadnutz with all 3. I also think that their purdy. Personlly i dont like to argue with results like that. So keep the new smiths comin and i will keep shootin.
I own 3 smiths. 629 625 686 all stainless. I shoot deadnutz with all 3. I also think that their purdy. Personlly i dont like to argue with results like that. So keep the new smiths comin and i will keep shootin.
Okay.....
Today was my pickup day for a new S&W 686+, 4" barrel. I wanted to actually own a new S&W (I've handled several, but only briefly examined them) , so I can shoot it and compare it side-by-side with my 1996 S&W 686+ 6".
Here are my findings:
Trigger pull: The 1996 S&W wins by a HUGE margin. In DA, the trigger on the '96 year is smooth as butter AND light. It barely feels 9 lbs. SA trigger on the '96 year is outstanding, breaks like glass and feels less than 3 lbs.
The '04/'05 686+ has a DA trigger that feels twice as bad as a stock Ruger (in terms of stacking and pull quality). Weight feels 15-17 lbs, and there is stacking. While Rugers might be similar in pull weight, most of mine are smoother than this and thus don't feel so heavy. SA is very good though, but SLIGHTLY spongy and doesn't have the crisp feel of the '96 model--feels in the neighborhood of 5-6 lbs.
Overall fit/finish advantage goes to the 1996. Although overall they are close, the hammer and trigger look cheaper on the 2004/2005, almost looks like it is made of tin or cheap light metal. The other thing about the hammer is that the firing pin is no longer on it with the new '04/'05 year 686+, which maybe accounts for the heavier DA pull? I new that they no longer use firing pins on the hammer from previous handling of a new S&W though.
Tightness/ cylinder indexing/cylinder gap are even, both years are very good but NOT top notch. These characteristics are better than any GP 100 I have, and only one SP 101 I have surpasses the S&Ws here.
The lock....can't say I like it, but its NOT that ugly IMO. It would look nicer without it, but it certainly could have been worse.
Grouping: My groups are about twice as tight with the 1996 686, most likely due to better trigger, and more sight radius.
My overall opinion, I definitely prefer the 1996 year much better, but I think with some gunsmithing I can get the 2004/2005 686 up to my standards. I'd like to have trigger work done, replace the hammer and trigger (if they even make mod parts?), and change the grips--I HATE finger grooves.
I'm also going to consider buying older S&Ws in the future, those that were made before they put locks on them, or removed the firing pin from the hammer. Just IMO, YMMV
Today was my pickup day for a new S&W 686+, 4" barrel. I wanted to actually own a new S&W (I've handled several, but only briefly examined them) , so I can shoot it and compare it side-by-side with my 1996 S&W 686+ 6".
Here are my findings:
Trigger pull: The 1996 S&W wins by a HUGE margin. In DA, the trigger on the '96 year is smooth as butter AND light. It barely feels 9 lbs. SA trigger on the '96 year is outstanding, breaks like glass and feels less than 3 lbs.
The '04/'05 686+ has a DA trigger that feels twice as bad as a stock Ruger (in terms of stacking and pull quality). Weight feels 15-17 lbs, and there is stacking. While Rugers might be similar in pull weight, most of mine are smoother than this and thus don't feel so heavy. SA is very good though, but SLIGHTLY spongy and doesn't have the crisp feel of the '96 model--feels in the neighborhood of 5-6 lbs.
Overall fit/finish advantage goes to the 1996. Although overall they are close, the hammer and trigger look cheaper on the 2004/2005, almost looks like it is made of tin or cheap light metal. The other thing about the hammer is that the firing pin is no longer on it with the new '04/'05 year 686+, which maybe accounts for the heavier DA pull? I new that they no longer use firing pins on the hammer from previous handling of a new S&W though.
Tightness/ cylinder indexing/cylinder gap are even, both years are very good but NOT top notch. These characteristics are better than any GP 100 I have, and only one SP 101 I have surpasses the S&Ws here.
The lock....can't say I like it, but its NOT that ugly IMO. It would look nicer without it, but it certainly could have been worse.
Grouping: My groups are about twice as tight with the 1996 686, most likely due to better trigger, and more sight radius.
My overall opinion, I definitely prefer the 1996 year much better, but I think with some gunsmithing I can get the 2004/2005 686 up to my standards. I'd like to have trigger work done, replace the hammer and trigger (if they even make mod parts?), and change the grips--I HATE finger grooves.
I'm also going to consider buying older S&Ws in the future, those that were made before they put locks on them, or removed the firing pin from the hammer. Just IMO, YMMV
BluesBear
member
Surefire,
The triggers and hammers of new S&W revolvers are made of MIM.
Which is why they had to move the firing pin. A MIM hammer doesn't lend itself to having the pin on the hammer. Colt also went to a frame mounted firing pin when they went to a sintered metal hammer.
But, I know of no issues with the S&W MIM triggers and hammers. Good MIM is more that sufficient for the job.
As for your trigger pull, don't worry it will smooth up. The MIM parts are installed right from the mould. After about 1000 dry firings you'll notice a huge difference as the pieces break in together.
The triggers and hammers of new S&W revolvers are made of MIM.
Which is why they had to move the firing pin. A MIM hammer doesn't lend itself to having the pin on the hammer. Colt also went to a frame mounted firing pin when they went to a sintered metal hammer.
But, I know of no issues with the S&W MIM triggers and hammers. Good MIM is more that sufficient for the job.
As for your trigger pull, don't worry it will smooth up. The MIM parts are installed right from the mould. After about 1000 dry firings you'll notice a huge difference as the pieces break in together.
Marshall
Member
Yes I do, and I was crushed. However, the Jap made A-5's I bought worked just as well.
Thanks for this advice, I'll give it a try. Its not good to dry fire though, I should use snap-caps right? I don't want to kill my firing pin before its time....
My favorite trigger was on a IIRC late 70s or early 80s Colt Python. Very nice revolver, but they tend to not hold up to hot loads too well (my buddies Python loosened up and got out of time quickly when using exclusively magnums).
If Japanese guns are as reliable and well made as Japanese cars, I could live with this. Although, I admit I hate seeing US jobs lost to other countries. However, just in terms of quality, IMO Japan is well ahead of us in many commericial areas (electronics, cars for example). When I owned Buicks and Cadillacs, I had incredible amounts of parts breaking, and the cars suddenly giving out. Since switching to Honda, the only parts breakage have been minor and I've only been stranded once (due to an alternator in my now sold Honda--and all cars eventually lose the alternator). So far, my Toyota Camry has been flawless--both in terms of reliability and also at keeping me happy (ride quality, engine smoothness, etc). Same situation applies with my electronics, I got ticked that my US made TV and VCR kept giving out, and when I switched to Japanese I haven't had problems.
I admit though, that the US does make some pretty great guns!
Unfortunately, my understanding is that Japan, as a country, are socialist gun nazis (most civilians can't own guns).
BluesBear
member
Good luck trying to find ANY TV or other consumer audio or video elctronic device made in the USA.
I fired a tarp load of full magnum loads though a Python I bought new in 1976 and it was still as tight as the day it was bought when I stupidly sold it many years later. I also abused my 1978 Cobra by firing a box of .38 Special +P ammo through it once a month, along with a couple of hundred handloads.
It was still tight when I traded it away in 1999.
Snap caps? In a S&W revolver?
Well I guess you could.
I have some that I use for speedloader practice.
Maybe I ought to start using them for dry firing.
I fired a tarp load of full magnum loads though a Python I bought new in 1976 and it was still as tight as the day it was bought when I stupidly sold it many years later. I also abused my 1978 Cobra by firing a box of .38 Special +P ammo through it once a month, along with a couple of hundred handloads.
It was still tight when I traded it away in 1999.
Snap caps? In a S&W revolver?
Well I guess you could.
I have some that I use for speedloader practice.
Maybe I ought to start using them for dry firing.
RON in PA
Member
You can't compare the trigger pull of a new revolver with the trigger of a gun that has had nine years of use. Your trigger will smooth-up with use and dryfiring, but I do believe that the DA trigger pull on the MIM and frame mounted firing pin revolvers is somewhat heavier and more important to this DA only shooter is my feeling that Smith has changed the basic DA pull configuration somewhat so that there is some stacking before let-off. I base this on my experience with a 2001 vintage model 10 and a 2004 vintage 625.
BluesBear
member
My youngest S&W revolver that I curently own is the Model 544 .44-40 that was made in 1986.
My oldest that I have had in revent times was made in the 60s.
In the past 30 years I have owned about 75 N frame S&Ws.
I have noticed a steady increase in trigger pulls starting about 1980.
I still have a stash of late 1970s vintage trigger return springs. I install one of these in every one of my S&Ws.
There is a BIG difference in the strength of those springs compared to the newer ones.
I suspect that S&W had "strengthened" the trigger return in order to reduce some lawyers salaries.
My oldest that I have had in revent times was made in the 60s.
In the past 30 years I have owned about 75 N frame S&Ws.
I have noticed a steady increase in trigger pulls starting about 1980.
I still have a stash of late 1970s vintage trigger return springs. I install one of these in every one of my S&Ws.
There is a BIG difference in the strength of those springs compared to the newer ones.
I suspect that S&W had "strengthened" the trigger return in order to reduce some lawyers salaries.
I know where you are going, but the trigger was excellent out-of-the-box in 1996 when I bought it. Its gotten better with age, but it was still excellent back then in both DA and SA.
The 2004/2005 year 686 is by far the worst DA pull I have on any revolver, including many Ruger GP 100s that are under 2 years old.
- Status
