S&W Classic Revolvers

[DPris]

Guys,
If you'll go back through ALL of my commentary in this thread, and any other thread where I've discussed current Smith quality, you will NOT find a post where I said their guns are junk , nor will you find a post where I said not to buy new.

When the subject of Old Vs New comes up, you WILL see posters who know the difference & do not like the difference.
For those like me, it'll be Old, hands down.

I know what Smith revolvers were, I know what they are.

At ANY price point, we should simply not be getting canted sights, loose sights, over-turned barrels, poorly fitting grips, badly cut crowns, poorly cut cones, badly cut chambers, gaps between steel and wood, and so on.

These ARE quality issues that should not be occurring.
These ARE quality issues that DID not used to happen with such regularity.
Many of us get very tired of having to routinely pay for after-buy gunsmithing to finish what the factory didn't.

My acquaintance with Smiths goes back to 1959.
My father & I both carried 'em in uniform.
I've had enough, and still have enough, Smiths here to compare from various years of production.

Borland,
I'm not arguing with you on the "new" for the hundred-thousand guy.


The PC has gone way downhill, which is sad, but another matter entirely.
I used to talk to people there that knew their stuff (one of whom was the guy who told me the Smith MIMs were not as good as their forged).
Those guys are gone.
Y'oughta hear the words my gunsmith uses to describe the PC.
You're right, basically just different configurations.

As far as the "minority" of which I'm a member goes- as I said most of the Smith revolver market doesn't know & doesn't care.
That does not preclude my minority from expressing an opinion regarding new vs old.
And in the current setting, while NOS & 90% samples of vintage classics ARE still available, prospective buyers do still have a choice, IF they want true quality & don't mind making the effort to find it.
In some cases, a better quality used gun can be actually cheaper than a new one.


Again- I paint NO picture of these new Smiths being junk, total or otherwise.
Those who may pull that out of my commentary are inserting verbiage not there.

Shur,
Yes, I have checked prices.
Would you not rather spend another $25 on a new Smith to ensure that they actually took the time to put the barrel on right?
To cut the crown right?

To BUILD IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I for damn sure would.


Shoot more & complain less?
I shoot for a living.
Anytime I get a new Smith or Ruger in nowdays, I expect to find something wrong with it.
Something the factory should have picked up in manufacture.
Something the factory should not have let out the door.
Something the buyer should not have to pay to get fixed, or return to the maker immediately to get corrected.


What's this about "the new ones are stronger"?
If you're citing the Endurance package on SOME N-Frames as being stronger, that doesn't cover the entire revolver line-up, and I'm not aware of anything else "stronger" aside from the new K-Frame cones, which have been causing problems of their own.

Your 29-10?
I'll put my 29-5, pre-MIM, pre-frame firing pin, up against it any time. Got "The Package", certainly no weaker than your newer model, and I'd bet money the forged parts will outlast your MIM hammer & trigger.

I think you're making an unsupported blanket statement.

Dglud,
I was referring to the STATEMENT as idiotic, not the poster.
The sentiment expressed was idiotic.

We could go on for another month or two, but the subject's been well covered.
There HAS been a notable decline, but if you're satisfied with Smith revolvers today, buy 'em.
If you're not, better stuff's still available.

Denis

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by DPris

]Again- I paint NO picture of these new Smiths being junk, total or otherwise.
Those who may pull that out of my commentary are inserting verbiage not there.

Denis - To be clear, I wasn't saying or implying you were claiming they're junk. I've always appreciated your insight (and agree with you more than you might realize) and that we can discuss it openly. But, as mentioned, those who participate in these new/old threads tend to be very passionate about their views. Often, "junk" never gets mentioned or intentionally implied (well, maybe in the S&W forum ), but at some point my spidey senses start to tell me the overall picture those who haven't seen S&W's over the decades get - intentioned or not - is that the new stuff is never worth their consideration. In this case, I simply try to offer some balance.

Originally Posted by DPris

]That does not preclude my minority from expressing an opinion regarding new vs old.

No question. Same goes for me. And, again, I appreciate it and that we're able to do so .

Originally Posted by DPris

To BUILD IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I for damn sure would

I would too. My life's priorities have shifted a bit, and I'm barely shooting nowadays. But, if I were shooting as much as I was, a Freedom Arms, Manurhin or Korth would've likely found it's way into my safe by now. I AM, in fact, one of those guys who'd pay extra for quality (If FA offered a DA revolver, I'd be one of the first in line). I just did it again today, and most of the stuff in my closet would express that value as well.

[shurshot]

Stronger, yes. Not a blanket statement, but fact, as the basic designs have evolved over time in order to address design flaws and weaknesses, hence the subsequent model designations. The "forged vs. MIM" strength debate is an old one. Impossible to prove either way, too many variables. I agree MIM is due to cost cutting measures, but if the guns are stronger (stronger in the opinions of many of us anyhow, or at least AS strong as forged parts in factory durability / quality control testing), and more durable with MIM parts, what's the issue? Personal preference and perception I guess. I also have several old vintage S&W's and they are finely crafted tools. I wouldn't dare subject them to the hot loads I put through my newer Smith's. To each his own. As far as your 29-5 vs. my 29-10 in an endurance test... I have a plastic 5 gallon bucket I'll bring along. When your gun cracks into pieces, I'll loan you the bucket to carry your smoldering broken parts home in. LOL!!!

[DPris]

Stronger exactly where & exactly how?
Denis

[shurshot]

Example. Older S&W 29's used to skip a chamber during heavy recoil. So, Smith cut the bolt notches larger and put in stronger bolt springs which eliminated the skipping. The design change made the gun stronger (or at least improved function and reliability due to "strengthening" of the design). Fact.

In the late 1980s or early 1990s, (1989 perhaps?), S&W introduced CNC machines and the yokes / cranes no longer required hand fitting... end result being that they could be heat treated and hence STRONGER. Fact, not a blanket statement.

But don't just take my word on the subject. John Taffin wrote an excellent article on the 29 and its various designs and improvements, resulting in STRONGER guns over the decades. I hope I can post the link for you within the guidelines, it's from Sixguns.com.
http://www.sixguns.com/range/SmithWesson44Mag.htm

[DPris]

Shur,
As I acknowledged, the 29 HAS been improved in terms of strength with the Endurance Package.
My 29-5 has that package, done prior to MIMs & frame-mounted firing pins and other QC issues becoming more common.

You've mentioned the "stronger" issue without, until now, delineating which models were stronger & how.

Now you bring up an article where John also notes a deterioration in overall quality.
Stronger is only one area, and this refers to only one model.

The endurance package does not apply to all Smith revolvers.
And there are still the associated QC issues I've been stating that I've personally found in several late model Smiths of various models & calibers for years.

Saying "they're stronger now" is not a broad reality, it's pretty much confined to the two areas I acknowledged earlier- the N-Frame Endurance Package where it applies, and the K-Frame forcing cone.

The last K-Frame sample I had here was a comparison between a minty vintage 66 snub & a brand new 66-8 snub, both in .357.

Both spit with a 140-grainer JHP, a known issue in that bullet weight, but the new gun also spit with other rounds badly enough that if I'd kept that sample it would have had to go back to S&W to correct the cone.

In addressing the cone cracking issue of the older K-Frame magnums, S&W had re-engineered the 66 to remove the flat at the bottom of the cone.
Stronger cone wall, yes.

But, there pretty much WAS NO CONE.
To achieve thicker walls, they'd cut almost no forcing cone, creating a tendency to shave bullet material.

The sample I had got me in the hand & the face.
It was a common problem as detailed by other people on the S&W forum who were getting new 66-8s at the same time.
Many had to go right back to S&W for correction.

The vintage sample didn't have that issue with other rounds than the 140.

On the new 66-8 I tested the front lockup, with its ball detent.
I could push the front of the cylinder out of lockup by pushing the cylinder sideways.
On the vintage gun, with its traditional ejector rod lockup, I could not push the rod out of lockup by pushing the cylinder sideways.


New gun is stronger there?
Well...…gain in one area, loss in others.

Denis

[shurshot]

I won't debate on the K frames, you win that round. I was referring to N frames. I think the new K frames are ugly and as you elaborated on, there appear to be some issues. My vintage 19 Combat Magnum snubby is about what I deem to be perfect in trigger, lockwork, bluing, fit and finish. With a Tyler T grip adapter, it just fits my hand perfectly. I carried it to Florida last winter on vacation and was worried the entire time pertaining to scratching it. I also looked at a new K frame last year... I was not impressed. I have owned several Combat Magnums in the past, old ones, and they were indeed built different. That being said, if I had a new one and it was less than acceptable, I would immediately send it back to Smith and have them fix it. That cylinder opening as you describe... that's BS.

[DPris]

To be clear- the cylinder didn't open, the rear cylinder pin lock still held the cylinder shut.
It was just that the front lockup really wasn't a strong lockup at all.
Should not affect function all that much, just noting it in response to your comments about Smiths being stronger today.

I have to be fair to S&W if I worded that poorly.
I could push the cylinder's front end sideways & pop the crane out of lockup at the front.
I could not pop the vintage ejector rod out of its lockup on the other gun.


I gave that 66-8 a fair review, but I returned it to Smith when I was done with it, kept the vintage one & shortly after acquired a new-in-box unfired vintage 66 snub as a spare.
The old stuff is still out there, and it can be worth the hassle to acquire it.
Denis

[USSR]

Crane? This ain't no stinkin' Ruger.

Don

[flashhole]

Interesting turn on the initial posting. Good reading nonetheless.

[riverdog]

I too have a mix of new and old S&W revolvers. The relatively new Mod 629-something (w/ the trigger lock) shoots great, as does my old Mod 686 which I had to send in to S&W for the mod to make it not spike primers. Currently looking for a good concealment holster for my Mod 19 (4” bbl) which was cheaper than it would have been without the holster wear. There are a lot of revolvers out there which have been carried a lot, but shot very little. Do not fear a used S&W revolver; if there’s a problem, S&W can make it better.

[DPris]

Still working with the new 27-9 & the 1962 27-2, just about at the range test.

In comparing the two side by side, it's quite obvious where S&W has made changes to cheapen manufacture.

The front sight on the 27-2 is a one-piece base & blade, but a separate piece from the barrel rib.
Attached to that rib by two solid pins, and so perfectly mated & polished you have to look for the join line & look harder for the pins that pretty much disappear.
The 27-9 has an integrally milled base with a blade retained by a single roll pin, and the blade is slightly loose. I can rotate it slightly back & forth.
Obviously much cheaper to do it the 27-9 way.

The famous Model 27 checkering on top is a cheap-looking checkerboard flattish pattern of tiny laser-cut squares on the new gun, nicely pyramidal-pointed actual checkering on the older gun.
Obviously much cheaper to do the new way.

The chambers are counter-bored on the older gun, not on the new gun.
Obviously cheaper the new way.

The ejector star and ratchet teeth are machined quite differently on the newer 27-9.
Obviously much cheaper to do on the new gun.

The rifling was mechanically cut on the older 27, the newer guns use an electro-chemical rifling process that seems to leave badly formed muzzle crowns.
Visible & tactile circular burr ring around the crown on the new gun, older one's clean.
Not the first time I've seen a bad crown on a new Smith.
Obviously cheaper to do the new rifling method.

Laminated wood grips on the new vs solid on the old.
Obviously cheaper to manufacture on the new.

MIM parts on the new.
Obviously cheaper to use than the forged of the old.

Mainspring seat position in the gripframe moved back roughly 1/8 inch.
Not necessarily cheaper to do, but changes the degree of spring arc & the spring tension against the hammer at the top, done in conjunction with the relatively short firing pin protrusion in the frame-mounted firing pin, as an unnecessary effort to increase drop-safety.


Cylinder on the 27-9 is fractionally shorter & the gripframe fractionally thinner than the older 27-2.
Unable to find out why the cylinder length was changed several years ago, and the gripframe thickness is just a minor difference.
Neither should affect manufacturing costs.

Don't need to mention the unwanted lock on the 27-9....
If I did, I'd have to say that one INCREASES manufacturing costs.

There have been other minor changes in things like the crane & other areas during successive dash-changes between the two "generations" of Model 27s, but those are the most obvious.

Some of the changes mentioned are essentially cosmetic & have no affect on performance. The front sight, loose as it is, is still perfectly functional. The cheaper checkering on the new gun just affects aesthetics & shows a degradation in one of the quality indicators the Model 27 has been known for; it has no affect on function.

Changes like the cylinder modifications should not affect performance.
The rough barrel crown process can.

The mainspring & firing pin set-up can affect ignition & do affect trigger pull.

The grips' biggest actual difference in performance between old & new, aside from their looks, is that the newer laminates are thinner & create a thinner overall grip in the hand.

Looking forward to seeing how well both shoot, hopefully next week.

A while back I did a head-to-head between a brand new Smith 686 & a brand new Ruger GP100.
Both had their minor nigglers, but the Smith surprised me by being the most accurate of the two, DESPITE having a distinctly indistinct crown.
So- could see the newer gun outshoot the older gun here.
Denis

[disseminator]

Cylinder on the 27-9 is fractionally shorter

Wouldn't that be because the case heads are no longer recessed? IME the newer non recessed revolvers have a wider gap between the frame and the cylinder face because of this.

[DPris]

Could be, I'm just noting the differences.
Denis

[USSR]

Quote:
Cylinder on the 27-9 is fractionally shorter

Wouldn't that be because the case heads are no longer recessed? IME the newer non recessed revolvers have a wider gap between the frame and the cylinder face because of this.

Yes, that would account for it, but why do it? The original Model 27's cylinder was so short that you couldn't seat a Lyman 358429 so that you could crimp in the crimp groove in a .357 Magnum case without the OAL exceeding the cylinder length. Why not pick up a little extra cylinder length rather than shortening the cylinder further?

Don

[DPris]

Ask S&W.
Let us know if you get a coherent answer.
Denis

[USSR]

Ask S&W.
Let us know if you get a coherent answer.

Yeah, right. Maybe that's why I don't buy S&W's made after 1981.

Don

[Bushmaster1313]

Deleted

[DPris]

Shot both the 1962 & the 2018 27s, and it was a good shoot-off.
Like the last new .357 Smith I did a shoot-off with, it continues to amaze me how well these new Smiths can shoot with such bunged-up muzzle crowns.

Out of 7 different loads covering 125, 130, 158, and 180-grainers, the '62 won by beating out the '18 with best groups with four loads.
It was fairly close overall, though.


All accuracy testing off a rest at 25 yards at an indoor range.
I may prefer older, but newer CAN shoot.
Denis

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by DPris

I may prefer older, but newer CAN shoot

As I've been saying...

[shurshot]

See, we all agree!!!

[DPris]

I've never said otherwise.
When I did the shoot-off between the new 686 & the Ruger GP100, the Smith was slightly more accurate, but it had other issues & I bought the Ruger instead.
And I wrote it up that way for publication.

I've never been anything but fair to new Smiths.
I just don't won't own one, for reasons previously mentioned.
Denis

[riverdog]

Some of the old Smith & Wesson revolvers have issues too. My S&W 686-0 came to me without the mod that fixed the pierced primer issue. S&W did the modification to it and paid for FEDEX shipping both ways. Great service.

[shurshot]

DPRIS; which publication? I would like to read your review.

[DPris]

Slated for the May/June issue Combat Handguns, but that's never chiseled in stone.
Denis