RS,
I think you are I are looking at the same broad problem but with different facts so I say let's continue on and enjoy the discussion. As long as no one minds the banter, I think this will be interesting.
Lets jump to the basis of my observations. I started out collecting S&W's due to 38/44 1950 Outdoorsman and a 38/44 1930 Heavy Duty. They were and are great, but I originally bought them because my plan was to convert them to 10mm. I just did not like stainless guns back then but after I bought them I liked the 38/44 so much I said "ok" lets's not abuse these. Next I started buying 610's. I bought one 6.5" and liked it so much I bought a 5" and then this led to a bunch more until I finally decided I really just liked the one 610 (6.5") and sold off the rest and went back to 38/44's.
What I observed was every 610 was accurate, sometimes stinking amazing accurate. No duds, no hits no errors. Now after 4 vintages and I think like 24 610's to not find one that was a dud led me to have the opinion that modern stainless N frames are really really consistent and accurate. I have shot some L's (586/686), some other N's (29/629, 41 Mags, model 25's) and all of them have been consistently accurate. I have almost no K frame experience though. So having experimented with say over 60 (give or take) different N's and about 24 610's, I have concluded modern N's are consistent and accurate.
Now on my 38/44's, I try to buy "nice" pieces. I have not a single one rechambered 357 Mag so they are mostly original. I have around 53 of them but I have not counted. What I have noted is that there is more sample to sample variation in accuracy in the 38/44's then with the modern N's. They look good, they seem nice but you just see more spread in overall accuracy. I have some that are borderline shotgun patterns. Say 6" at 15 yrds and others that are tack drivers say 1" at 15 yrds for 50 shots. I have no idea what has been fired in them in the past 80 years but they look good seem fine so I shoot them.
My conjecture is that in the 5 screw era, fit and finish was critical and easily measured and assessed. Just like today we can easily visually inspect an S&W and tell if it is flawless or has rough fitting edges. BUT, (at least I can't) one cannot easily measure the subtle variations in cylinder, throat and barrel sizes to the thousand's of a inch. This is where I believe the more modern guns are more consistent and the older ones are slightly looser in the tolerances.
One could also take my experiences and say that over the last 80 years the older guns have been shot more, abused more and are less accurate because of it. How do we prove it one way or the other?
