The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 29, 2017, 01:47 PM   #26
DPris
Member Emeritus
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 7,133
12,
Current Smiths are far from the best made in decades.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old December 29, 2017, 04:19 PM   #27
saleen322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2010
Posts: 778
I have 6 Smiths, 3 older and 3 newer. The new ones as a group will out shoot the old ones. I think people who have bad experiences with anything tend to verbalize or post about the problem and conversely if something works well it does not get as much press. I am old enough to remember the "gun experts" saying don't buy anything after Bangor Punta took over. I like the performance of the new Smith & Wessons compared to its contemporaries. They are not exactly the way I like if I made the decisions; for example, the lock on the new ones was not necessary IMHO but I never use it anyway. However for putting shots where you want them, you would have to spend a bunch of money to get something more accurate. YMMV
saleen322 is offline  
Old December 29, 2017, 04:43 PM   #28
DPris
Member Emeritus
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 7,133
Shooting more accurately is not the only criteria for many of us.
Workmanship, materials & function are also important.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old December 30, 2017, 12:23 AM   #29
PzGren
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2001
Posts: 1,246
I find no advantage in the accuracy of new S&W revolvers over the older pre-1980 guns. There may be less overall problems nowadays than with guns during the 1980s and 1990s - the period that I consider Smith & Wesson's dark ages - but despite the greater uniformity that modern production methods like MIM and CNC offer, longevity does not appear greatly improved.

I have a 1952 S&W K-22 and a S&W M14-2 that are among the guns that I use to compare other to when it comes to accuracy - and I expect six shot groups of about an inch at 25 yards from a simple sandbag rest with open sights with two inches being still acceptable.
PzGren is offline  
Old December 30, 2017, 12:47 AM   #30
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 2,032
Quote:
However for putting shots where you want them, you would have to spend a bunch of money to get something more accurate.
Please explain how having to crank the rear sight way over to the right in order to get the windage correct is acceptable accuracy.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old December 30, 2017, 10:59 AM   #31
saleen322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2010
Posts: 778
Some years ago I competed in silhouette, PPC, Conventional Pistol and International matches so accuracy was (and pretty much still is) my focus when I buy a gun. My older Smiths are a model 14, a 27, and a 52. They all shoot well but not quite as good as the newer models, a 625, a 952, and a 460. The 625 will edge the model 14 head-to-head more times than not at 25 yards but there is not a big difference. The 27 shoots well but the 14 and 625 are usually better. At 50 yards with my competition load the 952 will group under 2". The best loads I shot from the 52 are in the 2.5" range at 50 yards. The 460 is just really accurate and will routinely put 5 shots under 2" at 100 yards with jacketed bullets and a 240 grain bullet I cast myself groups in the 2.5" range at 100 yards. This is as good or better than my Dan Wesson silhouette guns will do.

Everything on the Smiths, both old and new function as they should and they look good IMHO. As far as cranking the sight way over to the right, I had that happen with two revolvers--a Ruger single six and back in the late 70s a Dan Wesson model 15. I returned both guns and got corrected ones back in fact I still have the Ruger that was returned. It is still one great shooting 22. So yes it happens and it is not just with Smith.

Last edited by saleen322; December 30, 2017 at 08:14 PM.
saleen322 is offline  
Old December 31, 2017, 12:54 AM   #32
PzGren
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2001
Posts: 1,246
Quote:
So yes it happens and it is not just with Smith
If you buy enough Korths, you will even find a less than stellar example among the $6,000 revolvers. I had a .32 S&W Long with a forcing cone that would have been better on a .357 !

This is a 9mm 125 truncated bullet fitting into the cone.

PzGren is offline  
Old December 31, 2017, 10:20 AM   #33
otasan
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 17, 2005
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driftwood Johnson View Post
I beg to differ.

I bought this Model 686-6 brand-spanky new in 2015.






The first time I took it to the range I had to crank the rear sight way over to the right to get windage correct.





Turns out the barrel was canted pushing the shots to the left. The amount of cant is visible in this photo. The barrel will not allow the crane to close all the way. That is just not right. I have dozens of Smiths, some from every decade since the 1850s. (yes, 1850s) A defect like that would never have left the factory before S&W let their quality control get lax.






The only other MIM and lock S&W I own is this Model 617-6, made in 2003. I bought it used a few years ago because I was shooting a plate match and needed to knock down 8 steel targets in 15 seconds or less. Couldn't do that with a six shooter. It's a nice enough gun, but I hate the full lug barrel.






And the quality inside simply cannot match the quality of my Model 17-3 I bought in 1975.







Yes, I am very biased.

And I will never again buy another brand new Smith and Wesson revolver.
Nice-lookin' revolver.
otasan is offline  
Old January 8, 2018, 03:42 PM   #34
otasan
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 17, 2005
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 519
My first handgun was a S&W M28 6-inch barrel. Great gun; I wish that I still had it.
otasan is offline  
Old January 8, 2018, 04:51 PM   #35
Old Stony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,705
I bought a 586 back in the 80's to use shooting sillouette. I took it out to try, but it shot way off on the windage. I contacted Smith and they had me send it to a shop that does warranty work for them, in northern California. They said nothing was wrong with it...but you could put a straight edge along the frame, and see the barrel badly canted.
Old Stony is offline  
Old February 1, 2018, 11:47 PM   #36
R I Swampyankee
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2018
Location: Tiverton R I
Posts: 7
Not a Smith story but Colt. Back in the 80s a friend of mine got a python. He noticed on DA it would hang up. We had a ace gunsmith at the time and he called me to take the ride with him to have him check it out. Less than a week later he got a call to pick it up. I again went along, I was dying to see what the problem was. He handed him the pistol and put some snap caps in and had him check it out. It was like glass. Then he handed him a plastic bag with metal shavings. He told him it was all down in the lock works, then he said "So much for Colt quality control".
R I Swampyankee is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 04:53 PM   #37
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,819
My Grandfather, back in 74, bought a brand new 39-2 9mm. It jammed twice during the first mag, 124 grain Rem full patch ball. Sent it to S&W, who repaired, polished, and returned it. He never fired it again, but carried it / kept it loaded bedside until his death in the early 90's. His reasoning for not shooting it was "Why waste shells, S&W wouldn't return it if it wasn't working perfectly ". I begged to shoot it, test fire it... he declined. Stubborn man, and it was his weapon, not mine. I later inherited the 39-2, box, papers, ammo, etc, after he passed and quickly shot it, several boxes of ammo, ... without issue. Gramps was right. Although it was fun to shoot, pertaining to my excuse of "testing", it was unnecessary, a waste of ammo, S&W fixed it right. Fast foward, in the past 3 years, I have purchased 6 brand New S&W handguns, 4 of which are revolvers, a 642, 638, 629 Talo 3" and a 4" 29-10. 2 were pistols, a Shield and a M&P, both 9mm's. All function 100% perfectly, fit and finish are superb and although I despise "That Hole", on the Talo 629, 29-10 and 638, thus far, there has been no issue. If offered without a trigger lock, that is my preference, I'll buy without it, hence the non lock 642. I don't even turn them once, I ignore them. Haven't engaged yet. Non issue (although I wish they would stop installing them, reminds me of a certain female politician I do not want to mention, as I'm hoping she will just fade away from my memory as quickly as her career has evaporated). In my opinion, and I have owned allot of older S&W's over the years, these new S&W's are built stronger and much more durable than the vintage ones, even if partially built by machines / MIM, CNC, etc. They keep getting better over time, improving, stronger steel, better design, etc. These new guns will take ALLOT of HOT loads, probably far more than most of us will ever shoot, truth be told. Only gripe I have is they no longer include a cleaning rod with new handguns. I always thought that was a nice touch. Ford, Chevy and even Toyota all produce the occasional lemon. Difference is, back in the old days, no internet existed to complain to about guns (or anything else), therefore I suspect we tend to idolize the quality control of yesteryear, while crucifying any current oversights or flaws. S&W is a stand up American company and have a solid Warranty, 2nd to none. I will continue to Purchase from them without fear and with full confidence, same as Gramps did back in 1974.

Last edited by shurshot; February 13, 2018 at 06:15 PM.
shurshot is offline  
Old February 14, 2018, 09:37 PM   #38
Carmady
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Location: on the lam
Posts: 1,735
Mr. OP, any update? Inquiring minds wanna know.
Carmady is offline  
Old March 6, 2018, 08:40 PM   #39
coolbreezy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2010
Posts: 271
I own 5 Smith revolvers currently, and owned approx. 7 since I first started buying firearms. My current 5 are as follows: early 70's model 28, mid 80's 629-1, current 686+, current 460 XVR, current 629 PC v-comp (I traded a 629-3 for it.) While my 629-1 is my favorite, all of my S&W revolvers are well made, well finished and go boom every time I pull the trigger.
__________________
S&W highway patrolman 28-2/ Springfield mil spec 1911 (semi custom)/ Sig P220 match elite .45 acp/Kimber micro 9 stainless/ Remington 870 tac14/ Taurus pt22/ S&W 629-1 3" .44 mag/ S&W 629 PC V-Comp/ Beretta M9/ Stevens/Savage 311A 12 ga double bbl/ Magnum research Desert Eagle XIX .44 mag/ S&W 460 xvr/ Glock g40 10mm longslide/ H&K usp compact .45 acp/ Ruger SuperBlackhawk Lipsey Edition/ S&W 686+ 3-5-7 talo edition
coolbreezy is offline  
Old March 9, 2018, 02:22 PM   #40
41 Magnum
Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2010
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 66
I am speaking as the past owner of three (3) S&W Mdl. 686's that all ended up back at the S&W service center ! Each of them had the same basic flaw, & I must have just happened to get them all ??! To start with they all had fantastic triggers. One of them so exceptional, that my son said it was scary light. He's a Police Officer, & it worried him.
What happened was this ;
They all got to the point that, while firing in single action mode, the hammer would drop off the single action sear, & immediately catch on the double action sear & simply pull the trigger forward, stopping the revolver from firing. (Almost seemed like a de-cocker)
This happened twice on my 6", first time at about a year. And the second time at about 5-6 Months! The second time they fixed it, I sold it immediately when I got it back. Thinking I just got a lemon, I went and bought another new 6". It lasted four months, & had the exact same malfunction. Back to S&W, and when fixed it lasted about 6 Mo. I by that time knew what the problem was & knew what needed to be done to correct it ! I did, & SOLD IT Too ! About 5 years later, I came on a great deal on a 4" 686, & was stupid enough to think they may have solved the problem on the new ones ! NOT !!!
That one began to act the same way within about 8 Mo.
I now own three GP100's a 6", a 4", & a Match champ, & I'll never look back to S&W. None of those 3 S&W's had ever had any modifications done to them leading up to the problem. I was shooting several thousand rounds a year of .38 Spl. & .357 Mag. from them at that time, and I know how many 686'S must be out there, but none of them will ever be mine again. I would not trade my 3 GP's for two dozen 686's, if I had to keep them & depend upon them !

I do have three other S&W revolvers I will keep, one is an 8⅜" 657, also a 6"Mdl. 66, & the other is a 4" 617.

I have a safe full of assorted Ruger revolvers, that have never required repairs of any kind, for many, many years now.
__________________
I have gotten smarter as I've aged, . . . . . . . . No, Really !!!
41 Magnum is offline  
Old March 9, 2018, 04:20 PM   #41
223 shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 557
41 Magnum , what time frame were those 686s made? I have owned my 686-4 6" since new in 1994 and no issues. Prior to that I had owned 3 late 1980s 686s with no problems.
223 shooter is offline  
Old March 9, 2018, 05:19 PM   #42
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,824
Anybody know if that stud is MIM, casted or machined from round stock?
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old March 10, 2018, 11:41 AM   #43
coolbreezy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2010
Posts: 271
Shot in the dark (no pun intended), I'm going to say bar stock. I honestly don't know for sure though.
__________________
S&W highway patrolman 28-2/ Springfield mil spec 1911 (semi custom)/ Sig P220 match elite .45 acp/Kimber micro 9 stainless/ Remington 870 tac14/ Taurus pt22/ S&W 629-1 3" .44 mag/ S&W 629 PC V-Comp/ Beretta M9/ Stevens/Savage 311A 12 ga double bbl/ Magnum research Desert Eagle XIX .44 mag/ S&W 460 xvr/ Glock g40 10mm longslide/ H&K usp compact .45 acp/ Ruger SuperBlackhawk Lipsey Edition/ S&W 686+ 3-5-7 talo edition
coolbreezy is offline  
Old March 10, 2018, 01:10 PM   #44
41 Magnum
Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2010
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by 223 shooter View Post
41 Magnum , what time frame were those 686s made? I have owned my 686-4 6" since new in 1994 and no issues. Prior to that I had owned 3 late 1980s 686s with no problems.
First two were mid to late 90's, & the 4" was around 03 or 05. I originally loved the 686, but after trying to find just one good one three times, I just gave up ! The ones I had, all had the silver hammer & trigger, & now I've noticed that the hammers & triggers are not silver any more, but a darker color that looks from a distance like color case hardened finish. But, I'll never know because I'll not touch another one ! My GP's all have been slicked up by dry firing, ( actually not DRY, as all contact surfaces were coated with cheap toothpaste several times.) & have the Wolfe spring kits & Shim Kits installed, & they are amazing, especially the Match Champ !

My 657, & 66, are older ones, & the 617 has gone thru many 500 round bricks of .22LR & is perfect. I would not sell them for any price, but I'll probably never own another S&W, especially a new one.
__________________
I have gotten smarter as I've aged, . . . . . . . . No, Really !!!
41 Magnum is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10380 seconds with 10 queries