S&W revolvers now vs. then
- Thread starter peacebutready
- Start date
- Status
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
The older guns are just better. During the golden age, they were made as finely as possible. Now they are made as cheaply as possible. Used to be that you didn't mind paying more for a S&W over a Ruger because they were a more refined, more elegant design with better fit & finish. Now they just cost more. Over the years, the American consumer has become more and more content with "good enough" as long as it's cheap. "Modern manufacturing techniques", often spouted as a feather in the cap of the modern S&W, just allows them to produce passable guns without reducing prices. MIM eliminates the fitting of parts, precludes any after the fact tuning and is "good enough" for the average buyer. The average buyer who will never even handle a professionally tuned S&W. Two piece barrels are easier to produce and install, yet cannot be modified by a gunsmith but they're "good enough" for the average buyer who would never pay $150 to have a barrel shortened. In a world where more and more things are recycled rather than rebuilt, I don't know why anyone would be surprised.
Sam Cade
Member
I am heartily sick of the gun snobs telling us that new production techniques are no good and done just because they are cheap. This is usually followed by the big lie that "I would pay two (or three or ten) times as much to get the quality of the old days". That, to put it delicately is BS. Anyone who really believes that can easily enough buy new or nearly new examples of those old guns, so he should do so.
I have several S&W's and Colts made in the 1920's and the 1930's, any of which I will gladly sell for $4000, or what it would cost to make them that way today. So if you want that old time quality, you can have it and a likely lot cheaper than that.
Gun makers who manufacture guns as works of art either charge big bucks or go out of business, or both. Gun makers who make guns as tools make them at a price the market will bear and stay in business. And that includes using whatever manufacturing methods will give decent quality at reasonable cost.
P.S. If S&W's were so good in the good old days, why did we all pay gunsmiths to work them over, lighten the springs, smooth triggers, etc., etc.?
Jim
I have several S&W's and Colts made in the 1920's and the 1930's, any of which I will gladly sell for $4000, or what it would cost to make them that way today. So if you want that old time quality, you can have it and a likely lot cheaper than that.
Gun makers who manufacture guns as works of art either charge big bucks or go out of business, or both. Gun makers who make guns as tools make them at a price the market will bear and stay in business. And that includes using whatever manufacturing methods will give decent quality at reasonable cost.
P.S. If S&W's were so good in the good old days, why did we all pay gunsmiths to work them over, lighten the springs, smooth triggers, etc., etc.?
Jim
Derry 1946
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 516
Well, y'know, as far as epistemological positions go, I'm not a fan of pure solipsism.
Nice.
Derry 1946
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 516
Quality gun manufacturers have created an interesting conundrum. Crafting a tool that withstands the internal forces at play under the external conditions of warfare or police work, reliably for thousands of rounds, equates to creating a very durable implement. Add in the great volume of revolvers made for WWII and police forces in the postwar decades, suddenly abandoned for the wonder nines.
When the venerable tool fit for war then lives in a drawer, dry and rarely fired, it's not surprising that it lasts almost indefinitely, subject perhaps to tending to gummed up lubricants. Hence the abundance of old, used, and perfectly functional firearms. It's no wonder that it has been a challenge for manufacturers to compete with the huge surfeit of their own fantastic product. Throw in a bit of nostalgia, and it's easy to see why so many of us are attracted to the guns of yesteryear. All the more when you consider developments like internal locks and MIM parts that some find distasteful.
I applaud S&W for even trying to stay in the game, much less succeeding as well as they have.
When the venerable tool fit for war then lives in a drawer, dry and rarely fired, it's not surprising that it lasts almost indefinitely, subject perhaps to tending to gummed up lubricants. Hence the abundance of old, used, and perfectly functional firearms. It's no wonder that it has been a challenge for manufacturers to compete with the huge surfeit of their own fantastic product. Throw in a bit of nostalgia, and it's easy to see why so many of us are attracted to the guns of yesteryear. All the more when you consider developments like internal locks and MIM parts that some find distasteful.
I applaud S&W for even trying to stay in the game, much less succeeding as well as they have.
RealGun
Member
Newer guns are sexier designs. If you don't think that matters, then stop putting custom grips on your guns or choosing sides between blued versus stainless.
F-111 John
Member
I own a Model 19-4 that I purchased new in 1980. The firing pin on the hammer had so much travel that it actually dinged the top of the hammer slot in the back of the frame. My first time firing it the ejector rod backed out freezing the action enough that I had to bugger up the rod with needle nose pliers to get the gun open again. The factory target walnut stocks were horribly mismatched; one was a dark walnut and the other was a light blonde. The front blade ramp sight had no red insert.
And 35 years later it is still running, so I guess all those little things didn't matter so much. It still has a pinned barrel, a countersunk cylinder, no MIM parts, and no internal lock. And as my first handgun that I purchased when I turned 21, it is still my favorite and the last one I would part with.
And 35 years later it is still running, so I guess all those little things didn't matter so much. It still has a pinned barrel, a countersunk cylinder, no MIM parts, and no internal lock. And as my first handgun that I purchased when I turned 21, it is still my favorite and the last one I would part with.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I'm heartily sick and tired of being chastised for not loving the new guns.
I know it makes things easier to consider us "snobs" and arbitrarily dismiss anything said as snobbery but I think we can be a little more mature and objective than that. I don't look down my nose at them because I want to. Because I "want" to love the new guns, I just can't. It should be rather obvious that it's far easier to plunk down your money for a new production "Classic" than to find an original. Who wouldn't want that??? It has nothing to do with machine work. If used properly, CNC systems do a wonderful job of making gun parts out of hunks of steel. All one has to do is to take apart a USFA single action to see that. The USFA is a fine example of melding modern manufacturing with old world craftsmanship.
Let's look at some facts that perhaps can be discussed objectively without either side getting defensive.
FACT - It is cheaper and easier to produce a cast barrel housing and insert a liner than it is to forge a complete rifled barrel or to machine one from barstock.
OPINION - I don't like the fact that only S&W can do any barrel work. I don't like that a gunsmith cannot shorten a barrel and install a new front sight. I don't like that in 20yrs if S&W is out of business, no one else can replace or shorten a barrel. We should be able to discuss this objectively without either side getting defensive.
FACT - It is cheaper and easier to injection mold internal parts into the desired shape than it is to machine them from raw forgings and then case harden them. Parts that require no further fitting, whereas the forged part may. This cuts way down on skilled labor costs.
OPINION - I don't like parts that can't be tuned or rebuilt. If the hammer on your 50yr old S&W has a broken notch, it can be welded up and recut. If I want my S&W with forged innards to be slicked up and tuned, that can be done and the parts re-hardened if necessary. Before the switchover, you could still buy new parts from S&W for the older guns. Can't do any of those things with MIM parts. We should be able to discuss this objectively without either side getting defensive.
FACT - The internal lock is unnecessary for proper function of the weapon. Some folks object, some do not. Some don't like what it symbolizes, some don't care. Some believe they can fail, some do not. Either way, like it or not, this is an issue for some.
OPINION - The lock is not a deal breaker for me by itself. It's just one more negative thing added to the pile. We should be able to discuss this objectively without either side getting defensive.
FACT - S&W has largely gone to stainless steel and does not polish their blued guns the way they used to. The stainless guns are tumble-polished. No more do you have a room full of skilled polishers. This also cuts production costs.
OPINION - I have all the stainless steel I'll ever need. I just simply don't care for it. That's not snobbery, it's not being resistant to change or any other generalization thrown this way. It's simply my preference. I prefer blued steel and I like it to have a good polish on it. We should be able to discuss this objectively without either side getting defensive.
All those things combined with the lofty price tag, makes my decision easy. S&W no longer gives me what I want.
Isn't it those same "golden era" guns that are why SAAMI is always having to come back and de-rate cartridge pressures? Around the same era S&W was making their "finest" products, the US government was building ships that literally snapped in half when entering Arctic waters. There have been a lot of advancements in metallurgy and manufacturing since then. Granted there definitely is less "polish" put to the guns made today, but I wouldn't say they are necessarily worse.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Metallurgy is no better. You're talking about guns that were designed around low pressures being adapted to higher pressure cartridges. In the K-frames, the weakness was found to be the thin area of the forcing cone at the 6 o`clock position coupled with a high volume of 125gr loads. Only the 29/629 endurance package has addressed this issue and it's more slight design changes than anything. That doesn't make the modern 627 "better" than a Registered Magnum. If it did, Rugers are "better" than any S&W of any era.
rswartsell
Member
If the belief that newer Smiths are also "improved" reduces the amount of bids for the old boys, then I'm all for it.
Guys those old Smiths run like Model T's and they'll probably blow up in your hands!
Guys those old Smiths run like Model T's and they'll probably blow up in your hands!
No. What happened here is that during the early 1970's new techniques for measuring pressure came into use, and in some cases showed that older data underestimated what the real pressure was.
Then they had to take into consideration that Magnum cartridges, that formally were only chambered in heavy framed steel revolvers were being introduced in smaller frames - sometimes using aluminum - were being introduced.
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
"All those things combined with the lofty price tag, makes my decision easy. S&W no longer gives me what I want."
Ruger started the race to the bottom. Smith needed to follow them down... or perish.
The bad news is that you can either buy a Ruger, or a S&W that's built like a Ruger.
The good news is that used Smiths will fill any need and are available almost anyplace.
Willie
.
Ruger started the race to the bottom. Smith needed to follow them down... or perish.
The bad news is that you can either buy a Ruger, or a S&W that's built like a Ruger.
The good news is that used Smiths will fill any need and are available almost anyplace.
Willie
.
I don't get hung up on "new guns are no good" etc. The biggest real criticism I have seen is the Internal Locking Mechanism on the new ones. I am not a smith and don't know how much a hole in the frame weakens it, but a bigger concern is "lock-ups":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzKh5Y0TaY0
May be a minimal risk, and I would not be concerned with a Range gun, but for self protection I would steer clear.
Chris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzKh5Y0TaY0
May be a minimal risk, and I would not be concerned with a Range gun, but for self protection I would steer clear.
Chris
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
For that reason, if nothing else, we should stop even participating in these threads.
Old Dog
Member
Too late ... I just saw someone sell a 66-3 for $900 locally this week. I see similar craziness in my region especially for the older blued Smiths ... Guys are going to ask for the moon because they are usually getting it. The last good deal I got was a cherry 19-3 for $395 a couple years ago. Now I see the same model in similar condition priced at 700 or more.
For the record, I've got several Bangor Punta era Smiths, and I love each one.
stiab
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 638
I acquired my first S&W revolver new in 1970. I currently own 11, and have sold and given away about 30 others in the last few years because I am getting old. The current ones cover a time period from 1920 to now.
As tools, I have seen no difference in effectiveness or trustworthyness over the years. My modern Smiths are just as likely to function properly when I call upon them as those from any other era.
As tools, I have seen no difference in effectiveness or trustworthyness over the years. My modern Smiths are just as likely to function properly when I call upon them as those from any other era.
bikemutt
Member
A perfect revolver would be, well, perfect, and would last forever. Everyone would buy one. Until everyone had one. Then you'd be out of business.
Planned obsolescence and imperfection, capitalism's raison d'etre.
Planned obsolescence and imperfection, capitalism's raison d'etre.
Master Blaster
Member
I have a fairly new 627 PC, a 629 mountain gun and, a modern model 22.
I also have many older S&W revolvers Old K22's, and even a 1924 22/32 heavy duty target. My new ones while different, and not as hand crafted, are fine revolvers and shoot very very well. None of my old Smiths are the functional equal of my 627 PC. The 627 PC is a quantum more refined and a much better double action revolver than anything Ruger has made in the last 20 years or ever will make. I do likemy Black hawk convertable .45 and super Blackhawk .44 mag very much though. The new S&W revolvers have the advantage of the lifetime warranty and replacement parts if they are ever needed. I like my NEW S&W revolvers as much as my old antique ones.
Thats my story and I'm stickin to it...
I also have many older S&W revolvers Old K22's, and even a 1924 22/32 heavy duty target. My new ones while different, and not as hand crafted, are fine revolvers and shoot very very well. None of my old Smiths are the functional equal of my 627 PC. The 627 PC is a quantum more refined and a much better double action revolver than anything Ruger has made in the last 20 years or ever will make. I do likemy Black hawk convertable .45 and super Blackhawk .44 mag very much though. The new S&W revolvers have the advantage of the lifetime warranty and replacement parts if they are ever needed. I like my NEW S&W revolvers as much as my old antique ones.
Thats my story and I'm stickin to it...
Last edited:
They are what they are. No more, no less. The old guns aren't better nor worse, simply built to a different purpose. If your goals are better suited to the older models, buy them. If the new ones fit better, buy them. The people who I find unbearable are those who act as if anyone that doesn't agree with their choice is both wrong and stupid. This forum has gotten nasty with the "Old Model Snobs" and the "New Model Snobs" attacking each other, or whatever the current derogatory term is today for each group.
For me, I don't see those gems of an old model pop up at a reasonable price locally. I simply don't. Some say they find $500-$600 examples in near new condition of the old models. Great and I'd love to as well. At that price, I'll buy the older options. I don't find them worth a premium over today's models, simply because any of their positive attributes (which some find priceless) hold relatively little value to me.
The old models had far better bluing. No question about it. If I were to pick one or the other, the older models are the clear winner. Problem I find is that those older models are harder to find in good shape for what I consider fair money (less than a current production model of similar features). I also don't care as much about the external finish as some. If the artistic value of an old blued steel and wood stocked firearm are worth the price of admission to you, then buy them and enjoy them for it. I find I want a shooter first and a value second. Finish is down the line. Again, that's just what I like for most uses and I have no issue if you like something different. I find I also shoot "prettier" guns less. As such, today's generic brushed stainless works well for me and sees more use.
For most, the lock is at best a neutral point and at worst unacceptable. I don't care. I've never had an issue and I don't shoot at people or mean animals with my revolvers. If it locks up, it locks up though it hasn't happened yet. Removing it is simple and cosmetic plugs are cheap. It's a non-issue to me. It seems like a small complaint that is easily resolved. I consider it a minor annoyance, and while I'd rather not have it, I don't avoid models simply because of it either.
I'm going to take heat for this but... A quality made MIM part is better than a forging for the mass market handguns. For custom work or low production work it is not, but for mass market guns, it's better. If it breaks, you buy another for $50 and drop it in. No fitting, no hassle. If a forging breaks, you need to reweld it, reheat treat it, and refit it. Why? What advantage is that for the common handgun? A MIM hammer/trigger won't clean up like a forged version will and on a small scale, I would agree its a better choice for a top tier build, but there are also plenty of ruined forged parts that have been trashed when the masses tried to stone them at home and went right through the case hardening. If you want to build a factory mass production gun, MIM is the winner. If you want to build an upper tier (and price bracket) boarder line custom firearm, go with a forging done right from the start.
Again, it's which is the best for the purpose and as a general use firearm built to a budget for the common public, I don't personally see MIM as a bad thing. My factory stock MIM 625 action is better than the forged part J frame I've got. It's one example of each but it is what it is. They both then had minor work done, shimmed and resprung. The MIM action was both lighter and smoother. I'd like to say it wasn't the case but with my pistols, it was. I don't doubt if a competent smith were to put a full on action job on each that things may change, but that's a $100-$200 proposition where as a shim and spring kit runs $20 and gets you most of the way there. I also don't doubt many people have found opposite results, and if you have, I'm not saying you are wrong, just what I personally have experienced..
Then there is the warranty, which many buyers find worth while. Many of us may be able to trouble shoot a wide variety of problems, but many of us cannot or would rather not be required to do so. I don't put a huge weight on this as I haven't had many warranty issues, but a full lifetime warranty is better than no warranty in any situation. If you want to pay for it or not is another debate.
In the end, the old revolvers were built for a different market. If that market was still here in mass, we would have deep blued steel and wood stocks on every revolver. Trouble is the mass buying public doesn't vote that way with their wallets, for better or worse.
If the feature set of the old models fits you better, buy it. If the feature set of the new models fits you better, buy it. No need to degrade anyone on the internet for not buying the firearms you personally enjoy most. I tend to find the slightly used version of the new production models easier to find, cheaper to find, and functionally equal to the old models. If an older model were to fit a given desire better, I'd buy it at the current cost. If an older model were to come by in great shape at a steal of a price, I'd buy it as well. I have no loyalty to one or the other without reference to use. I do have a loyalty to pick the best option that fits my desires. I have filled most of my "functional" roles with current production models (from various manufacturers) and am at the point where a few nicer examples of the old deep blue models will fit nicely as both light use shooters and borderline display pieces. Both Old and New have a place in my collection.
EDIT TO ADD: A clean Model 15-3 seems to have popped up for very reasonable money locally. Tomorrow looks like I'll be adding another old production blued model to the stable.
For me, I don't see those gems of an old model pop up at a reasonable price locally. I simply don't. Some say they find $500-$600 examples in near new condition of the old models. Great and I'd love to as well. At that price, I'll buy the older options. I don't find them worth a premium over today's models, simply because any of their positive attributes (which some find priceless) hold relatively little value to me.
The old models had far better bluing. No question about it. If I were to pick one or the other, the older models are the clear winner. Problem I find is that those older models are harder to find in good shape for what I consider fair money (less than a current production model of similar features). I also don't care as much about the external finish as some. If the artistic value of an old blued steel and wood stocked firearm are worth the price of admission to you, then buy them and enjoy them for it. I find I want a shooter first and a value second. Finish is down the line. Again, that's just what I like for most uses and I have no issue if you like something different. I find I also shoot "prettier" guns less. As such, today's generic brushed stainless works well for me and sees more use.
For most, the lock is at best a neutral point and at worst unacceptable. I don't care. I've never had an issue and I don't shoot at people or mean animals with my revolvers. If it locks up, it locks up though it hasn't happened yet. Removing it is simple and cosmetic plugs are cheap. It's a non-issue to me. It seems like a small complaint that is easily resolved. I consider it a minor annoyance, and while I'd rather not have it, I don't avoid models simply because of it either.
I'm going to take heat for this but... A quality made MIM part is better than a forging for the mass market handguns. For custom work or low production work it is not, but for mass market guns, it's better. If it breaks, you buy another for $50 and drop it in. No fitting, no hassle. If a forging breaks, you need to reweld it, reheat treat it, and refit it. Why? What advantage is that for the common handgun? A MIM hammer/trigger won't clean up like a forged version will and on a small scale, I would agree its a better choice for a top tier build, but there are also plenty of ruined forged parts that have been trashed when the masses tried to stone them at home and went right through the case hardening. If you want to build a factory mass production gun, MIM is the winner. If you want to build an upper tier (and price bracket) boarder line custom firearm, go with a forging done right from the start.
Again, it's which is the best for the purpose and as a general use firearm built to a budget for the common public, I don't personally see MIM as a bad thing. My factory stock MIM 625 action is better than the forged part J frame I've got. It's one example of each but it is what it is. They both then had minor work done, shimmed and resprung. The MIM action was both lighter and smoother. I'd like to say it wasn't the case but with my pistols, it was. I don't doubt if a competent smith were to put a full on action job on each that things may change, but that's a $100-$200 proposition where as a shim and spring kit runs $20 and gets you most of the way there. I also don't doubt many people have found opposite results, and if you have, I'm not saying you are wrong, just what I personally have experienced..
Then there is the warranty, which many buyers find worth while. Many of us may be able to trouble shoot a wide variety of problems, but many of us cannot or would rather not be required to do so. I don't put a huge weight on this as I haven't had many warranty issues, but a full lifetime warranty is better than no warranty in any situation. If you want to pay for it or not is another debate.
In the end, the old revolvers were built for a different market. If that market was still here in mass, we would have deep blued steel and wood stocks on every revolver. Trouble is the mass buying public doesn't vote that way with their wallets, for better or worse.
If the feature set of the old models fits you better, buy it. If the feature set of the new models fits you better, buy it. No need to degrade anyone on the internet for not buying the firearms you personally enjoy most. I tend to find the slightly used version of the new production models easier to find, cheaper to find, and functionally equal to the old models. If an older model were to fit a given desire better, I'd buy it at the current cost. If an older model were to come by in great shape at a steal of a price, I'd buy it as well. I have no loyalty to one or the other without reference to use. I do have a loyalty to pick the best option that fits my desires. I have filled most of my "functional" roles with current production models (from various manufacturers) and am at the point where a few nicer examples of the old deep blue models will fit nicely as both light use shooters and borderline display pieces. Both Old and New have a place in my collection.
EDIT TO ADD: A clean Model 15-3 seems to have popped up for very reasonable money locally. Tomorrow looks like I'll be adding another old production blued model to the stable.
Last edited:
stiab
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 638
I have and continue to do so, without any doubts. My first issued revolver was a Colt Official Police, my second was a S&W Model 10, which I preferred over the Colt. I bet my life on that 40 year old Model 10, and currently I carry one or more recently manufactured S&W revolvers daily, and I am just as confident now as I was in yesteryear.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
