What year did Smith & Wesson begin to be considered “Not made like they used to be?”

[bluegrassrules]

I have a question, “What was the last good year for what many on this forum consider to be an “Old School Smith?” I read this all the time on the forum, fellows saying, “They are not made like they used to.”
Cheers, Brian.

[s&wchad]

Before WWII
When Bangor Punta took over
When they stopped pinning barrels
When MIM was introduced
When the device that shall not be mentioned was added

[scooter123]

IMO you would have seen those complaints EVERY time there was a noticeable change. Such as the first time that a loop trigger guard was featured on a S&W. Then when the first double action was released. Next, I'll bet those infernal swing out cylinders had many "loyal" users pitching an absolute fit.

I hope you get the idea. That is that people just hate change. It doesn't matter if that change is actually an improvement, if it's different it's not as good as what was made 10 or 20 years ago, whenever that 10 or 20 year period took place.

[Photog]

IMHO, when they started to "round butt" all N frames, started using MIM, and replaced the nice caliber marking/brand name on the side of the barrel with what looks like a billboard because it is such a large print.
Pinned barrels I liked, but I must admit a 29-3 I have is among my favorite guns. Also when they stopped using real wood grips and not those "artificial" ones they come with now, or even worse, rubber.

[pharmer]

1982. Joe

[rdf009]

I like Smiths with pinned barrels, but I have (and love) several that are not pinned.

I would prefer not to have MIM parts, but I suppose I could deal with them (although none of my current Smiths have MIM parts).

BUT I (and others) will absolutely NEVER EVER buy a Smith that has a lawyer lock.

(unless it is for ten cents on the dollar, in which case I will snatch it up, resell it as fast as I can, and buy myself a decent gun without a lock ).

[Bajadoc]

january 1982

[Dream to Dream]

There are many changes that S&W has made over the years that seem at least understandable, or possibly sensible. It can be argued that MIM components and CNC machining produce a quality firearm at reduced cost. Round-butt frames can had stocks attached that make them feel pretty much identical to square-butts. Even the diamondwood grips look nice (especially compared to rubber stocks).

The lock, though... I still see no practical need for it. It won't stop me from buying a gun I like, but I can't rationalize and reason to have it.

[chief38]

I can deal with a lot of the changes up until they started installing the internal locks, sleeving barrels, using laminated and rubber grips, and using MIM parts. That was it for me. The only Smith's I buy now are pre 1994 guns.

Chief38

[MP1983]

for me, when they changed the thumb latch of the cylinder release...that's about when all the big changes chief38 & Photog mentioned began to snowball into what they call a S&W today....

[ladder13]

Sept 12, 1957

[Pef]

Back in the day.

[ar15ed]

i have a few non-pinned smiths, but my interest level really tapers off when the pin went away.

[kennyb]

they are still making fine guns..

[haggis]

It was 25 years ago. And that date keeps moving forward. 20 years from now, it will still be 25 years back from then.

Buck

[opr1945]

June 18, 1987 at 5:34 pm Eastern daylight savings time.

[G.T. Smith]

Every time there is a change in the manufacturing process one could say that they aren't made like they used to be. That doesn't have to mean that the new process affects the quality negatively. My "newest" Smith and Wesson is a 1990 65-4. I think they did something to the yoke retention screw at -4 but I'll bet it's as dependable as a -1,2 or 3. I agree with the poster that said that S&W is still making very nice guns. But then again, my knowledge is very limited compared to alot of the folks on this forum.
Peace,
gordon

[M29since14]

"After the war," if you listen to some people around here. (i.e., the Civil War ) Every generation has its own ideas on this. My thought is that S&W was still making things that interested me through the mid-'90s, but my main interest has always been in '50s and '60s guns. Every now and then, they will still kick out a new model that I think is useful and worthwhile.

[akfishguide]

Cutting through all the chafe, I think the biggest majority of collectors and admirerers agree that the engineering changes which included not pinning the barrels and not recessing the cylinders on the magnums and the .22"s started the true era of "How they used to be".

[PMRet]

I have found what I consider to be "good" examples and "bad" examples from almost every era...

[WrongWay]

Let's all get together and storm S&W headquarters and demand a remake of truely classic S&W's from the past without the lock.

[S&WOkie]

I feel like it was when they quit making the Pinned & Recessed revolvers, but I sure like the early L frames.

[Jack Flash]

It was all down hill after they quit making the Triple Lock. When was that, 1915?

Save the date in 2015 so we can all get together and have a big cry.

[fyimo]

Well for me it's when they dropped the P&R features although I own a few that aren't P&R but by far my favorite is those that are P&R.

Being a manufactuing engineer by trade there were guns made in every era that were a small percentage of lemons made as thats one of the side affects of a manufacturing process. I'm not era sensitive as there are cases where products are much better now then they were in that past and an example is the automobile. The cars today are light years ahead in every aspect over a 1960's car and the same can be true with other products out there. i believe S&W tried to build the same quality revolvers over the years while maintaining or cutting costs and that is very difficult to do over a sustained long period. I think they did a good job and they are still make excellent firearms. So I guess I'm sort of a product feature based sensitive guy.

[Garland]

My older ones that are pinned and recessed are my favorite revolvers, but I also love my newer M&P9 and M&P15. If trouble came my way I would be grabbing those new polymer high capacity guns and be leaving the nickeled and blued revolvers in the safe. Honestly, I have been very happy with the quality of all my Smiths, and have had no trouble with any of them.

[18DAI]

The year 2001, for me. Infested with MIM parts, ugly designs and finishes and other useless "features". Haven't purchased a new one since and have not missed a thing. Regards 18DAI

[Green Frog]

Personally, a "real S&W" is a pinned and recessed revolver. It isn't made of cast or MIM parts and it doesn't have a "Lawyer Lock." The grips, although not as important since they are easily changed but should be of real wood. JMHO, YMMV.

Froggie

[nipster]

You could say 1982 and not be absolutely wrong, but some good guns were made after 1982 like the early 627's and 625's, the 686/586/681/581-3 and -4's, the 629-4, the 29-6, but honestly around 1994-1998 when they stopped making round butt, started using MIM parts, changed to 2 piece barrels, used laser engraving instead of roll marks and discontinued a bunch of models. And that stupid lock was the last straw around 2001.

[rhmc24]

In the 1930s when I was a kid, adjustable sights on a revolver were a rarity, I never saw them --- and most S&Ws & Colts pretty much shot to the mark. In recent years adjustable sights becoming common allows manufacturing to relax tolerances, speed up production, raise prices, etc. I bought a new Mountain Gun when they first came out and it took about 1/8inch movement to the right of the rear sight to get it to group center at 25 yards. I traded it off. My only other new-purchase S&W my 1949 K22, no problem.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by opr1945

June 18, 1987 at 5:34 pm Eastern daylight savings time.

What was the temp?

[kudzu3]

Originally Posted by chief38

I can deal with a lot of the changes up until they started installing the internal locks, sleeving barrels, using laminated and rubber grips, and using MIM parts. That was it for me. The only Smith's I buy now are pre 1994 guns.

Chief38

My centiments exactly.

[bluegrassrules]

I appreciate everyone’s perspective; it will help me when I buy the older K frame I am looking for. I want it to be one of those, “They don’t build them like that anymore” Smiths.
Cheers

[44wheelman]

It's like asking, at what point are you old?

For me things seem to change in the mid- latter 60's.

I wonder if the guys with the top breaks sat around complaining about the "new" handejector models? Nope just don't make 'em like they used to...nope this swing out to the side cylinder will never catch on... I like to pluck my brass out from the top only.

[EarlFH]

When the present owners bought the company, to have a platform for selling their "lawyer locks". Before that, they couldn't give away their locks. Now they have a captive clientel to pawn them off on.

EarlFH

[Goony]

I wouldn't be surprised if that complaint wasn't first voiced in 1853.

[Texas Star]

I suspect that many said that the decline in the quality of finish of basic service revolvers after WW II was an issue. But you could pay extra and still get the added polish, and certain models still had that brilliant Bright Blue as standard.

For me, it was the mid to late 1960's when cylinder timing was USUALLY off and had to be fixed, and I had two M-19's with chambers bored so sloppily that they'd chamber FIRED .38 S&W (not Special) cases! (Those were fired in a pre-Victory Model .38-200 with six-inch bbl.) Extraction with .357 loads required force, and cases were bulged.

But blue jobs were okay by the early 60's, and some engineering changes were okay. Some models have been strengthened, via Endurance Packages that make them last longer.

I don't especially lament the lack of recessed cylinders, which were unnecessary with modern ammo, and which were probably more difficult to make right. I think the case heads may lie more evenly in non-recessed cylinders, if dimensions are a little off on a chamber or two in a recessed one. If the barrel is on there right, I also don't miss the pinned barrel too much. But initial problems in the new barrel fitting largely cost S&W the police handgun market. The L-frame recall over the firing pin bushing issue was a final nail in that coffin.

What I cannnot abide is the MIM parts and The L, uh, you know what we can't mention... that presumed fastening device, which ruins the shape of the frame on all but N-frames and which may engage at a bad time and get you killed.

I also cannot stand frosted finishes and generally poor workmanship. I will not buy a current S&W. I think my newest was made in 1992.

The Bangor-Punta era was bad, no question. That was when complaints began to be universal. But the company recovered largely, and once they figured out how to fix the new L-frame guns, things were okay for awhile. My 1990 M-66-3 and M60-4 (1992) are simply marvelous guns, very tightly fitted and accurate. Cylinder timing has been flawless. Improvements in the yoke and heat treating make these models endure longer, especially if many heavy loads are fired.

But the MIM and other vile changes made me buy Ruger for my last two revolvers. (I have simply never taken S&W's autos very seriously. They were just not competitive with the better foreign designs, and the Colt Govt. .45.)

I might accept MIM if the parts had the same shape as the old ones. But they don't. They are less graceful, and hollows allow oil and other crud to accumulate. And the spectre of Colt's sintered metal parts in their MK III guns haunts any powdered steel process, although Fallkniven makes some knives with powdered steel technology, and they seem okay. They sure cost enough!

[rdcl]

As some others may think.......when they stopped P&R.

Now, having said that......I don't consider P&R revolvers the ultimate mark of quality......not at all. For me personally it is more for sentimental reasons, and as far as recessed cylinder chambers go......it simply LOOKS better.


Consider this: The Colt Python is considered by a lot of folks (as in MOST) to be the double-action revolver by which all others are measured.....the ultimate mark of quality.

.....and the Python was NEVER pinned & recessed!

(As for me....I'll take a S&W model 27 over a Python any day.....p&R or not!)

Just my 2 cents.

Russ

[Doc61]

The model 66-4 was the last good Smith.

[BruceM]

Every year since the end of WWII, depending on who you speak with.

Bruce

[Nlmadog]

My S & W are -2's and a 559. The device that can not be mentioned will hold me back from a new /newer model.Just my opinion.

[MakeMyNight]

IMHO, it's when the lock was introduced.
Any handgun S&W built prior to introducing that fiasco, was all good.

[nipster]

Originally Posted by Nlmadog

My S & W are -2's and a 559. The device that can not be mentioned will hold me back from a new /newer model.Just my opinion.

Which is kind of unfortunate, as I would like to get a 620 and they only came after the lock.

[CAJUNLAWYER]

1956........

[TSQUARED]

It seems a lot of folks harken back to the day of yesteryear as being the ideal time for anything that was produced or used. I wonder how many of them would like to return to transportatrion with steam locomotives.
When labor was relatively inexpensive guns were made with a loyt of hand fitting. With current labor costs manufacturers would price themsewlves ouit of the market. Current S&W's are very functional - I have almost 20,000 ronds through some current 617 and 627's. How many times havbe you seen a posting for a reliable gun for $300 or $400. Those guns of yesteryear are great colectables and shooters but the S&W products of current manufacture are equaly good shooters.

[Magster]

When S&W did the big (sell-out), and put the locks in, I was furious. I swore off S&W for the next ten years. I went with Rugers and came to realize that their actually fine revolvers. Well this year I decided, what the hell, and bought a new 686. While it dosen't have the finish of my old Smiths, it is still definitely a S&W which in my eye's makes it the best revolver out there.

[Yurko]

It doesn't matter if that change is actually an improvement,

Since when is not pinning a barrel an "improvement"?

IMHO recessed cylinders had a better "fit".
The "item not to be named" is nothing but a law/lawyer additive.
Is it an "improvement"? Not as far as I'm concerned.

And believe me, I'm far from a minority.

S&W started down that long slippery stroke, when fit & finish became secondary.

What year? (that was the OP's question)
I think it started in about 1982-1983 & has gotten steadily worse.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by Green Frog

Personally, a "real S&W" is a pinned and recessed revolver.

That leaves out some of the best Smith's ever made, including Heavy Duties, Outdoorsman, K 32'S, M&P's, K 38's, 44 HE's, etc etc

[geneboy]

the second one they made, I am sure the guy that bought the first revolver complained the second one was not made as well. S&W revolvers soot better today than they did 100 years ago. AND that is a fact. boo hoo mim parts, boo hoo non pined barrels. They Shoot better. CNC beats hand made every day. computers never come to work hung over or get mad at the boss or goof off, and the metallurgy is better to day then ever

[TOM BECKWITH]

Wesson family thru 1964 when sold to Bangor Punta - then 1985 when Lear Seigler took over it really went down hill. If I pick one point 1978 when the 41 CI was dropped along with the 7 3/8 bbl. Similar to HS leaving Hamden.

[GyMac]

This question reminds me of the story when the first Marine reported aboard his ship and went below to stow his seabag. When he came back on deck, he encountered another Marine and proceeded to tell him about how tough it was "back when came aboard."