Basically you are saying that people grumble because they don't understand that modern manufacturers have to use MIM parts, 2 pc, crush fit barrels and virtually no QC.
I really don't know why I am continuing to reply to this thread.
Where in the world did you get the idea that there is virtually no QC at S&W? That sounds like the kind of misinformation that gets repeated on the internet often enough that people start believing it. Have you ever toured the factory? I have. I can tell you, I saw plenty of inspection stations.
And continuing to bring up this business about crush fit barrels is a bit tiresome. The Colt Single Action Army 1st and 2nd Gen revolvers had an interference fit between the barrel threads and the frame. Starting in 1873 up until 1975. There was never a pinned barrel in the SAA. The barrel had tapered threads, just like pipe threads. The more it was screwed into the frame, the tighter it got. Third Gens do not have tapered threads. Gee, guess what, Colt decided to save a little money in 1975 and did away with tapered barrel threads. And no pin either. But everybody makes a big deal when Smith does away with the pin and goes to an interference fit barrel thread. How do you think Uberti keeps their barrels from backing out? They do not have interference fit threads, they use a thread locker.
That's the kind of thing that I hear grumbled about, and when folks grumble about that stuff, pardon me for being blunt, they usually don't know what they are talking about. Instead, they get on internet forums and spread misinformation.
What I was trying to say earlier is that S&W is doing what any modern company does. When new technology becomes available they evaluate it. If it makes sense to incorporate the new technology, they do so, rather than puffing themselves up and saying they are still making their product the exact same way they did 100 years ago. The bankruptcy courts are full of companies that insisted on resisting change.
Well, it's a form of "modern manufacturing". USFA builds their sixguns in a thoroughly modern manner. They're so well machined, they actually require very little handwork. Yet they are just about as finely made as a sixgun can be, yet not exhorbitantly priced. If the modern S&W represents "modern manufacturing", I don't want any part of it. At any price.
OK, I will admit that I have not bought a new S&W for almost 40 years. So I looked up some prices. Yikes - most of the classic S&W revolvers are going for $900 - $1000. I usually buy old used ones for 1/3 to 1/2 of that, depending on the model. Then I went to the USFA site. Most of their revolvers are going for about $1000 - $1500, depending on the model. Yes, you could buy the Rodeo for a lot less when they were making it, but the Rodeo does not have the high polish and beautiful blue of their other models, so that is not a fair comparison to the classic Smiths.
So what do you get for $900 -$1000 for a classic Smith vs $1000 - $1500 for a USFA? Well for one thing, you get a much more complicated piece of machinery. Not counting springs, there are only four moving parts inside a single action revolver of the old SAA design, like a USFA. There is the hammer, trigger, hand and bolt. That's it. There are other moving parts, but they are not part of the action.
But a Smith is a double action revolver. It has a lot more moving parts and the mechanics are much more complicated than the old SAA. Anybody who has ever tinkered inside a Smith knows that. I won't go so far as to say that current Smiths are a bargain, but they sure are a more complicated piece of machinery for the same money or less than a USFA. And you can say the same about the current crop of real Colt SAAs too.
As far as what year is the cut off for 'old' Smiths, you guys who think the 1970s are really making me feel old.
).
). Regardless, it's a great car and the best for me, so I'm free to appreciate the old and the new.
