S&W Classic Revolvers

[rep1954]

All I had was Wonder bread and peanut butter.

At least you got the store bought stuff, I had to eat homemade bread with butter they made me make with a shaker and heavy cream.

[Real Gun]

Any new or used Ruger or S&W should go directly to your gunsmith. New ones are problematic, and used ones too often are being sold because they aren't right.

[shurshot]

Seriously Realgun??? A gunsmith?

I guess mine are the exception. No issues with my new N frames, 642 or 638. And I shoot hot loads!! Perhaps I should buy lottery tickets I'm so lucky. Some of you guys act like these guns are made in Spain of pot metal... Lol! Then again, what do I know, I was brought up on Wonderbread.

These new S&W's are stronger than my old ones (in my opinion), despite the Hillary hole and MIM parts. Mine are NOT for sale. Neither is my new 3" Ruger GP-100, which also functions PERFECTLY.

[Real Gun]

Being happy with recent production is a nice place to be, but let's be respectful of differing experiences.

[shurshot]

No disrespect intended, however don't expect a statement like that to go unchecked. I understand there have been quality control issues with certain models and your experience may differ from mine. You wrote that "Any new or used Ruger or S&W should go directly to your Gunsmith". That's a very bold and highly subjective statement, unless you are a Gunsmith trying to ramp up buisness. If there is an issue with a new or used gun, of course take it to a Gunsmith or return it to the manufacturer. But to publicly imply that "Any new or used Ruger or S&W" needs to be checked out by a Gunsmith, is at best, an inaccurate blanket statement. There are some damn fine weapons being produced by both Ruger and S&W.
Now, if one of my new guns I mentioned or posted a picture of malfunctions... I'll be eating crow and will owe you a beer! Lol!!

[DPris]

It's not about resistance to "new" or "change", it's about a clear degradation of quality in those two brands in recent years.
If you've been around long enough & gone through enough guns, you've seen it happen as it did happen.
Even if not, when you put a brand new sample Smith next to a good sample built 30 or 40 years ago, and you actually LOOK at the details, you can see the difference.

As I said above, my statement regarding new Smiths are taken entirely from new guns over a period of several years.
I've encountered manufacturing flaws in every single one.
I told you what's wrong with the latest one here now.
I suspect the majority have no clue about true quality & couldn't care less, which is what keeps S&W selling these things.

It shoot, it look like gun, iz OK for me.

If you can be happy with such merchandise, go for it.
I've never said not to buy one.

In the past three years I've gotten a Ruger Red in with internal problems, went back to Ruger, on returning I had to pay my gunsmith to fix their fix.
On a GP .357, had to pay a gunsmith to clean up the insides.
A GP .44 had to be cleaned up internally, took two tries to get one that was cut right in the chamber mouths.
A 7-shot .357 GP snub took THREE tries to get one here that was functional. First one, as mentioned previously, rejected by my gunsmith/dealer on arrival, second had no front sight.

It took two samples to get a new 4.2 .22LR GP that was built right.

And so on.

Seriously, I don't think 90% of the current S&W revolver market has any clue what's been lost over the years.
Ignorance truly is bliss.
Denis

[MrBorland]

There's a lot of garment-wrenching over S&W's QA/QC (much of which is valid), these days, but it's not clear to me if Denis is largely commenting on that, or on the modern design in general.

As I've said many times, the newer models certainly don't have the fit and finish of vintage Smiths, but if they're in spec, they definitely shoot - at least as well as the older ones, IME. Yes, the folks on the S&W forum scoff at the new stuff, but they're not the only authority on what constitutes a quality revolver.

"Quality" is a bit vague - so "quality is as quality does" is just as valid a criteria as fit & finish. The S&W forum dudes may be S&W aficionados in the latter sense, but the best revolver shooters in the country hang out on the Enos forum, and they, by choice, universally use newer guns. These guys use their revolvers hard and as tools, and their revolvers perform and hold up well. Yes, they're generally tuned, but their basic "modern" design & some supposed "degradation of quality" definitely doesn't hold them back from high quality performance.

Just to be clear - I love the vintage stuff as well as anyone (and I've got my share in my safe), but IME, and QA/QC issues aside, there isn't anything in the design of the newer revolvers that makes them functionally inferior to the old ones.

[DPris]

Thought it was quite clear- the QUALITY of manufacture.

Poor machining & assembly, a loss of detail previously built in or on, inferior function, further work required by the buyer to "finish" what the factory did not, or correct what the factory did.

As far as the finest shooters in the country hanging out on a forum using new Smiths goes, of course they do, if heavily used.

But- there are reasons for that.
One is that if you want a new S&W to use up in high-volume shooting, S&W is the only game in town.
Service & current parts availability are another reason.

And you note yourself those are "generally tuned".
If you want a competition gun, that's the route you take; you buy a new one as a range toy, and you have an aftermarket guy thoroughly clean it up to make it good to go for games.

You're not going to buy an older version to wear out, with no real factory support.

And- there actually is something in the design of the new that makes them functionally inferior to older guns.
Re-locating the mainspring seat increases hammer cocking effort & DA trigger weight, and the shorter firing pin has caused ignition issues.

Difficult to achieve the same degree of trigger/action work on the new guns without affecting ignition that was possible on the older guns.

For most buyers today, they won't know anything about this & the majority doesn't get action work done anyway.
Again, ignorance is bliss.
Denis

[Real Gun]

No disrespect intended, however don't expect a statement like that to go unchecked. I understand there have been quality control issues with certain models and your experience may differ from mine. You wrote that "Any new or used Ruger or S&W should go directly to your Gunsmith". That's a very bold and highly subjective statement, unless you are a Gunsmith trying to ramp up buisness. If there is an issue with a new or used gun, of course take it to a Gunsmith or return it to the manufacturer. But to publicly imply that "Any new or used Ruger or S&W" needs to be checked out by a Gunsmith, is at best, an inaccurate blanket statement. There are some damn fine weapons being produced by both Ruger and S&W.
Now, if one of my new guns I mentioned or posted a picture of malfunctions... I'll be eating crow and will owe you a beer! Lol!!

If you buy enough guns, new and used, as I have, you will learn to respect what I posted. You can't tell me what my experience was, but you can argue with my conclusions. I know that I have been more unlucky than some, but there are few guns out of about 50 some that didn't spend time at my gunsmith or didn't go back to the manufacturer. It is just simpler to have my FFL receiving shipped guns to be my gunsmith and let him certify the guns before I waste time and frustration on them. I am going to resist anything new from S&W and will just take it for granted that any Ruger will go back at least once.

[Cosmodragoon]

Bologna is basically MIM meat. It can be made from scraps and can be cheaper to produce. Sure, it makes an okay sandwich, but some people prefer actual cuts of meat.

Seriously though, there might be older threads on this topic here, but there are lots of recurring topics that keep coming up. People remain interested and want to have new conversations about this stuff. I'd sure appreciate it if manufacturers took note. I know they sell plenty of the new stuff and it must be enough to keep them profitable. The cost savings must be enough to matter. There are obviously costs involved in changing things. Still, there have to be some people who care somewhere in the mix. Even if only for a few limited edition or premium test runs or something.

Honestly, I have enough guns. I'm in a spot where I think long and hard about new purchases now. If Smith and Wesson wants me to buy a new revolver from them, it can't have the lock hole. I know I'm not alone in this and I'm sure there are plenty of us who'd be fine paying a little extra for the effort. Also, lawyers be darned, why can't these guns just have "good" triggers from the factory?

Dear manufacturers, if you build it, they will come.

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by DPris

If you want a competition gun, that's the route you take; you buy a new one as a range toy, and you have an aftermarket guy thoroughly clean it up to make it good to go for games.

You're not going to buy an older version to wear out, with no real factory support.

Competition aside, my point is that the newer ones haven't been shown to limit the shooter.

My recommendation to anyone looking at new vs old, then, is to decide how much you're going to shoot it and/or whether you're wanting something with collector value. If you want a S&W of yore, get a S&W of yore. But if you want a shooter, don't automatically shy away from the newer ones just because the interweb told you they're lower quality. But DO inspect it before taking it home

[DPris]

The average buyer won't shoot enough to notice any limitations.
The younger buyer won't have a clue on what he or she's missing.

S&W is literally banking on that.
Denis

[shurshot]

So it's a conspiracy S&W is plotting against older, experienced shooters? Damn, they got me!!

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by DPris

The average buyer won't shoot enough to notice any limitations.
The younger buyer won't have a clue on what he or she's missing.

S&W is literally banking on that.

I think what S&W is banking on (likely quite correctly) is that, despite the hot air on gun boards, very few (if any) would actually pay for a revolver built as they were. There are many here who lament loss of quality in one thread, then proclaim in another that you'd have to be a fool or a trust fund baby to pay for a Freedom Arms, Manurhin or Korth .

[shurshot]

MRBoreland... you nailed it! Hey, are you the same guy on youtube with the Diana 52?

[USSR]

My recommendation to anyone looking at new vs old, then, is to decide how much you're going to shoot it and/or whether you're wanting something with collector value.

Hmm, I fail to see where how much you shoot your revolver should enter into the equation. I shoot my S&W revolvers made in the 60's and 70's all the time and they hold up just fine. The key factor is whether you want to be able to shoot your revolver, maintain it in the condition it was in when you bought it, and watch it appreciate in value. I bought a 6" S&W Model 25-5 in Near Mint Condition for $500 in 2010. Anyone want to wager what it's worth now?

Don

[shurshot]

I'll give you $550.00, sight unseen.

[USSR]

I'll give you $550.00, sight unseen.

I bet you would.

Don

[DPris]

Shur,
No need to be idiotic about it.
S&W has merely gone cheaper to sell more product.

Borland,
There are & always have been those who would cheerfully pay more to get more.
The prevailing attitude nowdays seems to be "Better to have ten mediocre guns than five great guns."

Smith COULD have tried to offer a line of top-quality variations for that market segment willing to pay for it.
They don't consider it worth catering to, and that leaves us where we are today.

Majority of the current Smith revolver market is rapidly becoming "Don't Know, Don't Care".

You can't fault those of us who do know & do care.


USSR,
The volume you'll expose your gun to does matter.
Parts wear out & parts break.

In comp guns & other high-volume toys, you bust an older firing pin at 30,000 rounds in, you don't send it to Smith for repairs.
You can't GET Smith parts from Smith.

You buy a new gun, factory support all the way.
That's firing pins, worn barrels, worn out hammers & triggers.

Denis

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by USSR

I fail to see where how much you shoot your revolver should enter into the equation. I shoot my S&W revolvers made in the 60's and 70's all the time and they hold up just fine.

Well. there's shooting, then there's shooting. There are folks out there who put lots of hot magnum rounds through their guns. And there are folks out there who shoot 20k/year in fast DA, doing fast & hard reloads every 6-8 rounds. Most would cry if they saw their vintage minty guns go through just one of their practice sessions .

My point is that if you want a tool you're going to use hard (not necessarily to abuse), get a new one. If you just want something to work well for general (and tamer) range work, evaluate a used or new one. If you want something that's vintage, collectible and will retain it's value, get a vintage one. But in that case, don't expect to run it hard and expect it to stay that way

Originally Posted by shurshot

Hey, are you the same guy on youtube with the Diana 52?

eh...no.

Originally Posted by DPris

Smith COULD have tried to offer a line of top-quality variations for that market segment willing to pay for it.
They don't consider it worth catering to, and that leaves us where we are today.

Seems to me they did consider it worth catering to in the form of Performance Center revolvers, but too few were buying them, so now, PC revolvers are simply revolvers of the same quality but in configurations not available in their standard lineup.

Originally Posted by DPris

Majority of the current Smith revolver market is rapidly becoming "Don't Know, Don't Care".

You can't fault those of us who do know & do care.

I don't disagree with you Denis, but those who know & do care are a tiny minority and S&W is a large publically-owned company answerable to their shareholders.

[USSR]

And there are folks out there who shoot 20k/year in fast DA, doing fast & hard reloads every 6-8 rounds. Most would cry if they saw their vintage minty guns go through just one of their practice sessions

The average guy, and in this thread we are talking about the average casual shooter and not a competition shooter, will take his gun to the range and shoot however many rounds thru it, and never look back. In my case, year after year of range shooting without abuse and, no broken or worn out parts. I would expect nothing less.

Don

[shurshot]

Denis, have you checked S&W's N frame revolver prices lately? Nothing "cheap" about them. Price and quality are both high, despite what some elitists may state. Some of you guys act like they are importing a bunch of old factory second LLamas and restamping them as Smith's. Perhaps Some guys need to shoot more and complain less. I own both old and new S&W's, both are solid guns... older ones look better, but the newer ones are stronger. Smith stands behind and warrantys their products. I'll put my 29-10 up against any 29-2 out there... Magnum loads too. I guarantee the 29-2 breaks first.

[dgludwig]

There's no need for anyone to call posters on this site "ignorant" or "idiotic" just because their opinions might differ from your own. There's an old complaint that reflects some people's attitude in general: "Those who think they know everything annoy those of us who do."

[shurshot]

Thanks for that defensive intervention Dgludwig, but it's ok. Denis was just replying to my sarcastic comment. No offense taken. Just two rusty gun cranks engaged in Socratic Dialectic. No one is triggered or needs a safe space... LOL! We are all men here.

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by USSR

The average guy, and in this thread we are talking about the average casual shooter and not a competition shooter, will take his gun to the range and shoot however many rounds thru it, and never look back

We're getting too focused on the "competition" thing.

Whenever these old vs new S&W threads pop up, a picture is painted that suggests the newer guns are total junk. That may not be what's said or intended, but I feel that's what's often read, so I try to inject some balance when I can.

I mention competitive shooters only because they use their guns hard, they universally use new ones, they do well with them, and the guns hold up fine. Ergo, the newer guns aren't total junk.

As I said in my previous post, then, if someone wants something more collectible or vintage, by all means, get an older one. But, if someone wants a shooter, and doesn't really care about vintage or collectibility, I'd think they'd do well with old OR new, so long as they check the gun out before they buy.