Smith, Colt - Would You Pay A Premium?

[ArmedBear]

Armed Bear...I carry a Colt Detective Special circa 1973. The weight is not a problem and I shoot it very well. Such cannot be said of a new ultra lightwieght snubby. I might be able to get the first round where I want it but the second round will have to wait until I find the gun and pick it up. (okay an exaggeration...but you get the point)

It's not an exaggeration. It's bull****.

I have a 642 and I can put all 5 where I want them. I also practice with the thing.

I've said over and over, too light a carry piece and either you won't practice with it

Speak for yourself.

I also have a 60. I have said over and over that I don't think that the alloy frames are a good match for real .357 loads. The 60 is no problem. Again, I practice with it, and I do it with full-house compressed 4227 158 grain .357 handloads at that.

Again, I don't care what you carry.

But not everyone with a revolver is a gun collector (or necessarily wants to collect and carry all of the same guns).

...not that I'd get an LCR. There's such thing as too ugly.

I don't collect guns. They just follow me home sometimes. My wife doesn't understand the difference...

But the guns that follow me home aren't necessarily the same as the ones that I stick in my pockets, that's all.

 

[Old Fuff]

I'm just saying that a decided lack of perspective permeates these discussions as soon as the Smith collectors chime in.

Them is fight'n words!!!

Anyway, some of that hand craftsmanship I defended wasn't all used up in polishing and perfect bluring. Incidentally a lot of my guns have a fair amount of finish wear on them and I have no idea how they got that way...

For one thing these older guns were individually shot and targeted - to insure that they worked and there was some relationship between the sights and where the bullet went. This was helpful when you were trying to actually hit something.

So far as Smith & Wesson was concerned, great care was taken to make sure the double-action trigger pull was smooth, and to this day they haven't been equaled or surpassed on an overall basis. That also makes a difference if you're trying to hit something.

Where the &*%%## did you ever get the idea that I don't shoot at least some if not most of my guns?????

 

[ArmedBear]

Where the &*%%## did you ever get the idea that I don't shoot at least some if not most of my guns?????

Didn't say "shoot." Said "stick in pocket."

I understand accuracy. If my 642 didn't have a smooth trigger, and didn't put all of them dead-on POA at distances far past legitimate snubbie range, I might not like it. But it does, ILS and all. I can put them all where I want them at 25 yards, insofar as the sight radius allows.

That does not mean I have no other guns. It just means that, were it not for the Internets, I wouldn't know that I'm not supposed to like the 642 for what it is -- and the old blue pinned Model 10 next to it, too...

 

[Old Fuff]

The 60 is no problem. Again, I practice with it, and I do it with full-house compressed 4227 158 grain .357 handloads at that.

That's impressive!!!

What sort of groups to you get at 25 yards in rapid fire (1 shot per second)??

 

[Jim K]

I doubt that $1500 would even come close to the cost of a new Python MADE THE WAY THEY USED TO MAKE THEM. In other words, no castings, no MIM, no CNC machines, just close tolerances and superb craftsmanship, made in the USA. IMHO, $5000 or $6000 would be more realistic and maybe not even then.

I once had a production engineer look at a Krag rifle and try a WAG at how much it would cost to make the way they did it then. He thought $10k might do it.

Remember, he was talking about 1) amortizing the cost of setting up the machines and tooling, 2) while manufacturing in sporting rifle quantities. Costs would come down if the guns were made in military quantities (at least a half million) vs. the few thousand that would be closer to the actual number one could expect.

Jim

 

[ArmedBear]

Last time, I was bouncing cans at about 20 yards, rapid fire. Some vertical stringing, but the cans were on their sides after the first shot. I can shoot more accurately with a 6.5" Blackhawk.

I have to shoot some paper with it and find out. I'm confident that I can hit an attacker, WRT shooting is concerned. As I said, what my nerves would do is another matter. Usually I go "cold" under stress, though -- a good thing, I think.

I shoot Bullseye with guns more suited... Don't care to shoot indoors if I can help it, otherwise.

EDIT: These were big beer cans that I found out in the dirt, not little beer cans.

 

[420Stainless]

Not at my income, but perhaps if I had chosen a more lucrative career (or had more ambition). But even then I'd probably rather look for well preserved older examples. Then again, with new ones I wouldn't need to scrounge for obscure parts or knowledgeable machinists if something breaks.

 

[crebralfix]

I would have no problem with a company that made very fine revolvers using modern techniques. My gripe is only with silly add-ons like locks, cheap internal parts, icky triggers and ugly finishes.

I have been contemplating starting a custom gun manufacturing company to do this. The real problem is designing the guns...I wouldn't be S&W and would have to come up with my own stuff.

Anyone want to pitch in some cash to help me buy Colt?

 

[ArmedBear]

One final note...

In a self-defense scenario, I don't figure I'll have the same stance, or be holding the gun in the same way as I would when target shooting. I don't think that I can blast silver dollar sized groups with ANY gun, in defense mode.

I just want to know that the gun will operate smoothly and predictably, and hit where it's pointed. The newer Smiths do that -- at least in my experience. Others report serious QC problems. THAT is a whole different ballgame, and unacceptable.

 

[Guillermo]

Armed Bear,

Maybe you can shoot a bottlecap at a thousand yards with a 3 oz 44 magnum clenched in your butt cheeks while dancing the rumba in the bed of a monster truck jumping the Staue of Liberty.

If such is the case I bow to your amazing ability and I will overcome my desire to never see your butt in order to be present at your next demonstration.

As to us mere mortals, I require a little more heft in order to shoot a gun well.

Of course most people shoot a gun with a little heft better that some exotic microgun with the weight of styrofoam.

While I do not care what you carry either, you might be able to shoot that bottle cap at a 32 miles if you used a heavier gun.

 

[ArmedBear]

LOL I never made any such claims.

I do shoot a .44 at 100 yards, but it's FAR from a snubbie. Old Fuff's advice made it possible -- plowhandle single actions are really different, especially if they have substantial recoil. There's no pain, but vertical strings are hard to avoid.

I tried an Airlite .357 and I DID NOT BUY IT. The extra weight of the all-steel Model 60 makes the gun FAR more controllable. The 642 makes more sense to me, since .38+P is the hottest stuff I think is controllable in that light gun.

For fun shooting, I load 3.2 grains of HP38 (or 3 grains of Trail Boss, but it's dirtier) behind a 125 grain Oregon Trail LFN bullet. An Airweight is easy and pleasant to shoot with those loads. I mix it up; I don't go and shoot 100 rounds of the hottest ammo I can, for the hell of it.

However, for the number of rounds one might use in self-defense, an Airweight with .38+P or a steel J-frame with .357 is controllable.

 

[Guillermo]

Old Fuff knows his stuff.

When I find myself disagreeing with him I pause and reflect.

Except for the fact that he does not care for old shotguns he is a good guy.

 

[ArmedBear]

One last comment...

My training goal is to be able to shoot what's in my hand. .22, .44, Airweight or Super Blackhawk.

I shoot some hot stuff so that I know that I can -- but it's BY NO MEANS all I shoot.

And all of that said, I agree with you re, say, a 340. I just think that a 642 is manageable with self-defense .38+P, for a good number of cylinders.

It may get fatiguing after that, but if I need to shoot 50 rounds in self-defense, I guess I should follow the carbine fanatics' advice and bring an AR.

And Old Fuff absolutely knows his stuff, 110%. No doubt he's forgotten more than I'll ever know, and knows more than I ever will.

He's absolutely right about how nice those old Smiths are, too. I just don't think that the more recent ones, particularly those that offer some new features, are utterly without merit.

(I'm just one of those people who can't bring myself to pay collectors' prices for an old gorgeous polished blue classic revolver, and carry it around in my pocket!)

 

[Guillermo]

I'm just one of those people who can't bring myself to pay collectors' prices for an old gorgeous polished blue classic revolver, and carry it around in my pocket!)

I would guess I have less in my 2 old snubbies than anyone with a new one. Traded a NAA Guardian for a Smith 36 and overpaid for the DS...500.

Buds gets 425 for a Smith 37 Airweight and an LCR is 400 bucks minimum

 

[Old Fuff]

Except for the fact that he does not care for old shotguns he is a good guy.

What!!! I'll sue for libel!

Of course I like old shotguns, but with my mailbox filled with handguns questions I don't always get around to answering inquires as quickly as I should. I have considered charging $1,000 per answer since Obama hasn't sent me any bailout money. Anyone want to be my first client???

(I'm just one of those people who can't bring myself to pay collectors' prices for an old gorgeous polished blue classic revolver, and carry it around in my pocket!)

Ya' know, I wouldn't either. In fact I've bought far more finish-distressed guns then absolutely perfect ones. I even buy broken ones (for peanuts) that I can easily fix and either keep or turn around to make a few extra bucks.

My user/carry guns are for the most part older ones because (1) I'm older, and my favorites have been with me for a long time, and (2) Based on lengthily experience I think they are made better. The only reason today's guns - with a long history of cost-cutting changes - are made the way they are is because economic issues force the manufacturers to do what they do. That doesn't change the fact that they've been cheapened.

And it doesn't hurt when I get a chance to buy one of the older "golden age" guns that's in perfect condition except for some cosmetic finish wear, for far less then one of the new "cost-cut specials" would set me back.

On the other hand sometimes I get a chance to buy what you call a "collectable." It may be so because of its condition, or simply because of what it is, but if the seller's price is right I can see some unexpected money in my future. Some folks speculate in stocks, bonds and real estate. I'm a much smaller player and guns are much more fun...

I can't understand why so many of our members are opposed to making money... They must all be rich.

 

[Maxw]

Hand Fitting Quality of the Past

I went to S&W armorers school in the early 80's and was re-certified in the late 80's. I suppose that time frame qualifies as the "OLD" days. One thing that still haunts me is the number of revolvers assembled during a shift. These guys were paid piece price and were fitting 40+ revolvers a day. That included assembling the cylinder assembly, adjust the barrel cylinder gap with a hand file, file the flat on the barrel bottom for K-Frames, off to the grinder to "Fit" the center pin length. Off to the grinder to "Fit" the front bolt and use your hand file to fit the front of the bolt so the thumb piece can be used to open the cylinder. Then you fit the cylinder stop & check for 4 way action and then we cut ratchets that were cut with a cutting hand mounted on a trigger with a steel bar welded to it to provide leverage. Burrs were not stoned off but were swaged into place using a babbit bar and beating the from of the cylinder to smash down those burrs. If a cylinder needed additional timing adjustment, well use the barrett file with a stroke or two. Now we "Fit" the sear with the barrett file, whoops do we have rough DA or stubbing, re-fit a new sear. make sure that SA trigger pull meets spec and hammer spring with the strain screw meets spec otherwise it comes out and off to the grinder. All in 10 minutes or less. They were paid for revolvers that met factory specifications and had to produce at least 40 "Good" ones per day. Gotta love all that TLC and hand fitting.Take a look at the parts in an "Old" Smith and you will see very little in the way of fitting marks. The design was such that when assembled correctly one got a smooth action just like today.

For me I like the new Smiths and shoot the hell out of them running hundreds of rounds a week.

 

[Guillermo]

For me I like the new Smiths and shoot the hell out of them running hundreds of rounds a week

God bless ya...more old guns for me.

Of course in addition to the quality issue, I do not look at the hole in the side of my gun and have to be reminded of Smith wearing a blue dress.

All is well in my gun world

 

[JohnBT]

"These guys were paid piece price and were fitting 40+ revolvers a day."

5 or more an hour. One evey 12 minutes. That explains a lot. Thanks.

John

 

[Guillermo]

"These guys were paid piece price and were fitting 40+ revolvers a day."

allegedly

 

[Old Fuff]

Actually, the 1980's was late in the game...

Even so, there was still a final inspection to check things out.

And while a barrel wasn't always straight in the frame, you never heard of one blowing out of it and going down range.

You will find the best workmanship happened before 1973 when Bangor-Punta bought the company from the Wesson family. Some would go further back and say middle 1950's.

 

[ArmedBear]

My Model 10-5 is from around 1976, and it's still pretty nice inside and out. The DA trigger is wonderful, and it's neat that they put that trigger, and that level of exterior polish, on a run-of-the-mill cop carry gun.

Of course, it's possible that the assembly lines were just kept running as they had been, on an old model like that, for a few years after Bangor-Punta bought S&W. It's still pinned, so maybe any major disruptions would have happened a year later when the 10-7 replaced it.

On a related note, I wonder what Marlin lever guns will be like in a few years...

 

[JohnBT]

"allegedly "

There was a show on the National Geographic channel last week that showed the factory floor at S&W and the process of making and assembling the Model 500. The final 25-point inspection by a skilled, experienced employee took ONE MINUTE. He was good. And fast. Then they sent it over to be fired 3 times.

I don't think they're sitting around contemplating the melding of the parts and the massaging the fit until the stars align properly and all is right with the world. Not now, not then, although they probably took a little more time then. They have to get them out the door to make a buck.

John

 

[Old Fuff]

The final 25-point inspection by a skilled, experienced employee took ONE MINUTE

Yup...Now days they are indeed fast .

Why that's just a little under 2 1/2 seconds for each check.

I suspect the old timers were a bit slower and perhaps a little more observant, and it seems their guns show it...

 

[RedLion]

Well, for everyone bashing China, just remember they are one of only three nations to put a person in space, which even we have trouble doing every now and then. Plus they manufacture lots of other parts like diesel engine blocks for ocean freighters, and I haven't seen any trouble there. The problem arises when a business person shows up on the floor and says "i want X million of these and I want to pay you $.02 for each part" of course the Chinese are going to say yes.... anyone with a brain would..... they just make sure the parts only cost $.001 to make.

Also I don't see why people got to get aggravated at cheap people like me. You like fancy guns and no one is making them? Well, there's an opportunity knocking. I'll stick with cheaper guns. Why? because I know there's guns out there that do what they are supposed to for lower prices, and I don't care about name brand and fit and finish.

I'll leave the nice guns to rich people and museums. I'd rather have a gun full of idiots marks like on that other thread, than one with a perfect finish, Why? because then I don't mind if I drop it or scratch it. I also would rather save my money than spend it on a gun I can only look at.

 

[Guillermo]

Quite frankly I don't care if the New Smiths are built by the Swedish Bikini Team and the old ones built by crack whores. All of this is just silly because the proof is in the pudding.

Open up a Model 27 from the 40's or 50's and open up a brand new Mountain Gun. I don't care how they did it...the old model 27 is a piece of art. The internals of a brand new Mountain Gun is...well you decide...I can't tell a new Smith from a Charter Arms once the side plate is off.

But hey...I am NOT trying to convince anyone. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stay out of the classic gun market. I do not want any more demand for the limited supply.