Grayfox,

Understand. Unfortunately, those of us who live in non-free states are bound by the tyrannical laws that seem to permeate places like Kalifornia.

True that the older guns have a special charm. I've been blessed to have popped the sideplate on an otherwise original un-molested 1934-vintage .38-44 Outdoorsman and have handled a 1950 pre-Model 20 Heavy-Duty. No comparison.

The ONLY thing that the new Smiths have going for them is the metallurgy and the CNC'd machinery. The new Smiths are stronger than the Smiths of yesteryear.

The 'Hillary Hole' serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever (Massachusetts and California both don't recognize them as a bona-fide storage safety). I can't fathom WHY S&W does it. My belief was that it was the result of the 1998-2000 Federal DOJ lawsuit brought about by Janet Reno at the behest of the Clintons.

We can only hope that at some point, S&W will abandon a clearly useless assembly to an otherwise great set of revolvers. Many don't realize that the S&W revolvers we know already have three safeties engineered into their design.

I often wonder if the shooting public of the early 20's was similarly upset when S&W instituted the sliding hammer block? That was due to the supposed "accidental" discharges that seem to have stung several British Officers during the Great War.