Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961
o

Notices

S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 All 5-Screw & Vintage 4-Screw SWING-OUT Cylinder REVOLVERS, and the 35 Autos and 32 Autos


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-12-2017, 07:30 PM
Dave T Dave T is offline
Member
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 882
Liked 1,719 Times in 549 Posts
Default Then vs Now

This is an opinion thread inspired by my most recent acquisition, a 1954 vintage 357 Magnum with a 3.5" barrel. As it came the trigger pull was about what I expect from a gun of that era or even 10-15 years later. Fairly smooth but heavy, with full tension factory springs. My first reaction to any newly acquired S&W with a heavy trigger pull is to pull the side plate, cut the rebound slide spring by 1.5 coils and replace the factory main spring with a Wolff reduced power main spring. I then clean everything and put it all back together and replace the side plate. I've been doing this for years and have lost count of the number of Smith's revolvers I've done it to. In fact the last two revolvers I've bought prior to the pre-27 got the same treatment, but they were a different kind of animal and that's the point of this thread.

Because of a severe disability (badly damaged lower back) I can't carry a steel gun with me all day long anymore. For that reason I am quite thankful for some new and innovative models S&W produced a few years ago, the Night Guard series. For everyday carry I have both a 386 NG and a 325 NG. These two revolvers both came with very heavy trigger pulls, something I posted about here on the forum several months ago. So, in doing the above fix of the heavy trigger pulls I was inside the guts of both of these "modern" S&Ws.

I couldn't help but think of what the hammer, trigger, sear, rebound slide and even the frame itself and it's pins to hold all these in place looked like. Compromise, cut corners and designs to make make manufacturing easy and hand fitting a thing of the past are evident in both guns. And how much more did all this come into focus after looking at the inside of a 1950s N-frame S&W, arguably the finest decade of this great old company's production history.

I'm sorry for all the folks who think today's revolvers are just as good as in "the old days", or worse who think modern guns are better. But looking inside at the fitting, the machining and the quality of the parts and the frame itself on an old gun is a real eye opener as to the quality then and the cheapened product you get now.

I fully admit I am taking advantage of the Scandium framed models, something not available back in the 1950s. They fill a role that nothing from back then would do. That's why I paid more for each of them than I did for the 357 Magnum.

What I'm talking about is the overall quality and pride of craftsmanship that is evident in the older revolver. It is a world apart from these new high tech wonders. Yes they shoot OK and yes they are innovative in that they offer features not previously available. But, they have no soul. They don't speak to me.

This 3.5" 357 Magnum isn't something I'm going to carry and I may not shoot it all that much, but my wife will no doubt have to sell it when I'm gone as it evokes something in me that I missed for a while there. It is a real Smith & Wesson and that counts for a whole lot.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programing. (smile)

Dave
__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)
Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Like Post:
  #2  
Old 04-12-2017, 10:25 PM
Laketime's Avatar
Laketime Laketime is online now
Member
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,147
Likes: 2,420
Liked 3,586 Times in 1,597 Posts
Default

I agree with everything you just said.But will add that the factory CNC machinery produced guns, were a Breath of fresh air compared to what was leaving Springfield towards the end of lear Siegler era.Also I read somewhere that an abundance of over 60 yrs old workers remained employed for well past normal retirement age back then.That to me would explain the quality craftsmanship back then.

Last edited by Laketime; 04-12-2017 at 10:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-12-2017, 10:48 PM
JP@AK's Avatar
JP@AK JP@AK is offline
US Veteran
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Palmer, Alaska
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 5,114
Liked 18,984 Times in 6,864 Posts
Default

What you say makes sense, but I can't speak from any experience of the newer S&W guns. I have absolutely no interest in any of them produced after 1982. In fact, I own exactly one S&W revolver that was made after that watershed year. It is a Model 29-3 from 1984 that was purchased solely for the purpose of it being a backup gun for my hunts in bear country.
__________________
Jack
SWCA #2475, SWHF #318
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #4  
Old 04-12-2017, 11:22 PM
sodacan sodacan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 1,100
Liked 5,123 Times in 1,572 Posts
Default

I am a huge fan of '50's era pre-model number revolvers, but I won't buy anything that has been modified, and won't alter them myself. They are arguably some of the finest revolvers ever made by S&W. I no longer want to expend the energy to argue the finer points of old time craftsmanship versus CNC and MIM manufacturing methods. I do own guns of later vintage, but I am VERY particular about the ones I buy. Buy what you like. Shoot what you like. Ignorance is bliss to the uninformed, but knowledge is king.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:20 AM
H Richard's Avatar
H Richard H Richard is offline
US Veteran
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Central IL
Posts: 22,758
Likes: 18,437
Liked 22,313 Times in 8,245 Posts
Default

While I appreciate what the OP says, and I am a fan of (especially) the 1950's revolvers. I have been inside of many S&W revolvers dating to the 1800's, Pre War, and Post War, as well as some made as recently as last year. Thinking of labor rate, can you imagine what the retail price of any J,K,or N Frame would be if manufactured under the same conditions as the Pre War and Post War were made? The only way we continue to get the reliable quality of S&W is by automated machinery (which actually is equal to or greater tolerance).

I recently was inside my 431PD and 432PD and I did nothing different than I would have done to a 1950's J Frame. I marvel at the timing of these guns, exhibiting perfect timing and lockup. It may have a hole in it's side, but it is every bit as accurate and reliable as any older J Frame. Yes, hand fitted smoothness may be missing, but after 500 or so rounds it may be difficult to tell.
__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:37 AM
Arik Arik is offline
Member
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Outside Philadelphia Pa
Posts: 16,601
Likes: 7,342
Liked 17,200 Times in 7,303 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave T View Post
This is an opinion thread inspired by my most recent acquisition, a 1954 vintage 357 Magnum with a 3.5" barrel. As it came the trigger pull was about what I expect from a gun of that era or even 10-15 years later. Fairly smooth but heavy, with full tension factory springs. My first reaction to any newly acquired S&W with a heavy trigger pull is to pull the side plate, cut the rebound slide spring by 1.5 coils and replace the factory main spring with a Wolff reduced power main spring. I then clean everything and put it all back together and replace the side plate. I've been doing this for years and have lost count of the number of Smith's revolvers I've done it to. In fact the last two revolvers I've bought prior to the pre-27 got the same treatment, but they were a different kind of animal and that's the point of this thread.

Because of a severe disability (badly damaged lower back) I can't carry a steel gun with me all day long anymore. For that reason I am quite thankful for some new and innovative models S&W produced a few years ago, the Night Guard series. For everyday carry I have both a 386 NG and a 325 NG. These two revolvers both came with very heavy trigger pulls, something I posted about here on the forum several months ago. So, in doing the above fix of the heavy trigger pulls I was inside the guts of both of these "modern" S&Ws.

I couldn't help but think of what the hammer, trigger, sear, rebound slide and even the frame itself and it's pins to hold all these in place looked like. Compromise, cut corners and designs to make make manufacturing easy and hand fitting a thing of the past are evident in both guns. And how much more did all this come into focus after looking at the inside of a 1950s N-frame S&W, arguably the finest decade of this great old company's production history.

I'm sorry for all the folks who think today's revolvers are just as good as in "the old days", or worse who think modern guns are better. But looking inside at the fitting, the machining and the quality of the parts and the frame itself on an old gun is a real eye opener as to the quality then and the cheapened product you get now.

I fully admit I am taking advantage of the Scandium framed models, something not available back in the 1950s. They fill a role that nothing from back then would do. That's why I paid more for each of them than I did for the 357 Magnum.

What I'm talking about is the overall quality and pride of craftsmanship that is evident in the older revolver. It is a world apart from these new high tech wonders. Yes they shoot OK and yes they are innovative in that they offer features not previously available. But, they have no soul. They don't speak to me.

This 3.5" 357 Magnum isn't something I'm going to carry and I may not shoot it all that much, but my wife will no doubt have to sell it when I'm gone as it evokes something in me that I missed for a while there. It is a real Smith & Wesson and that counts for a whole lot.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programing. (smile)

Dave
Depends how you view it. You look at the internals and make up your mind from there. I look at it and think anyone can polish poop and judge by performance. If both can go through high round counts without issue then both are equally well made. Or another way to look at it is many older guns are hand fitted and all but no one would be crazy enough to shoot BB or Underwood or any modern high pressure rounds.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:50 AM
Dave T Dave T is offline
Member
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 882
Liked 1,719 Times in 549 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik View Post
Or another way to look at it is many older guns are hand fitted and all but no one would be crazy enough to shoot BB or Underwood or any modern high pressure rounds.
The steels in the 1950s S&Ws were the best ever used in the gun industry. There isn't a Buffalo Bore load (I have no personal experience with Underwood) I wouldn't be comfortable firing in my newly acquired 357 Magnum.

Dave
__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:52 AM
Arik Arik is offline
Member
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Outside Philadelphia Pa
Posts: 16,601
Likes: 7,342
Liked 17,200 Times in 7,303 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave T View Post
The steels in the 1950s S&Ws were the best ever used in the gun industry. There isn't a Buffalo Bore load (I have no personal experience with Underwood) I wouldn't be comfortable firing in my newly acquired 357 Magnum.

Dave
I'm just saying in general. A 38spl from 1912 shooting 125gr SD ammo.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-13-2017, 11:25 AM
RKmesa's Avatar
RKmesa RKmesa is offline
SWCA Member
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 7,356
Likes: 27,588
Liked 45,316 Times in 4,759 Posts
Default

Most of my collection is older than the 1970's. I primarily focus on P&R 357s and 22's and I love the handcrafted feel of the pre- and early post-war guns. BUT I do own several of the newer 357s (born after the year 2000). I have had very positive experiences with the newer guns and all of the parts seem to fit well and work great. However, I think that most of my newer guns are PC guns...

A couple of photos of then and now...





BTW- the extra two rounds in the 8-shot 357s are very nice.
__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-13-2017, 01:44 PM
Laketime's Avatar
Laketime Laketime is online now
Member
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,147
Likes: 2,420
Liked 3,586 Times in 1,597 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik View Post
Depends how you view it. You look at the internals and make up your mind from there. I look at it and think anyone can polish poop and judge by performance. If both can go through high round counts without issue then both are equally well made. Or another way to look at it is many older guns are hand fitted and all but no one would be crazy enough to shoot BB or Underwood or any modern high pressure rounds.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Arik......watching you hang out on these old school Smith & Wesson revolver threads,would be like finding Doc44 all over the M&P or Shield threads.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #11  
Old 04-13-2017, 01:54 PM
Troystat Troystat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 1,529
Likes: 790
Liked 678 Times in 436 Posts
Default

Love the look,feel and craftsmanship of the older S&W's but a gunsmith/target shooter I know showed me his stainless steel late model K or L frame that he did a trigger job on and it was truly amazing, especially the double action pull. I think you can tune one of the newer S&W's just as well as an older one but they certainly are not as pretty.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-13-2017, 01:54 PM
Arik Arik is offline
Member
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Outside Philadelphia Pa
Posts: 16,601
Likes: 7,342
Liked 17,200 Times in 7,303 Posts
Default

I hang out everywhere!!! Actually it just shows me unread topics not sub categories. And I like them too and have a few. I just look at them in terms of use and nothing​ else


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Last edited by Arik; 04-13-2017 at 01:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-13-2017, 02:02 PM
Laketime's Avatar
Laketime Laketime is online now
Member
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,147
Likes: 2,420
Liked 3,586 Times in 1,597 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik View Post
I hang out everywhere!!! Actually it just shows me unread topics not sub categories. And I like them too and have a few. I just look at them in terms of use and nothing​ else


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
I know you do,and I'm mainly joking.But even a guy who owns a new sports car should be able to appreciate a 1955 Bel Air,giving the lack of today's technology in that day.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-13-2017, 02:21 PM
gman51 gman51 is offline
Member
Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now Then vs Now  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Just West of Houston
Posts: 3,468
Likes: 787
Liked 4,674 Times in 2,062 Posts
Default

I really do believe if the hand craftsmanship of old was used now instead of the machines then we couldn't afford to buy one today. The old way of making guns is sorry to say to cost prohibitive with labor cost today.
I believe many if not most new production guns will outlast the present buyers. New guns aren't junk contrary to being compared to the old guns. Look at how many of the old guns didn't stand up to a lot of use. That proves to me the old guns even had their problems. The steel used today is often probably so much more superior to the steel used back in the old days.
It is seldom to see a quality deep blued finish on new guns because it is just to cost prohibited.
The new guns IMO are very much like the old guns in that if the gun is taken care of it will last more than a lifetime. Is my 627-5 pro an inferior product compared to an old 8 shot revolver? I don't think so. I have yet to find a flaw in it. I am not about to bash old quality guns anymore than I will bash a new quality gun.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:57 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)