Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present
o

Notices

S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present All NON-PINNED Barrels, the L-Frames, and the New Era Revolvers


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-09-2012, 07:28 PM
scooter123 scooter123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 6,919
Likes: 179
Liked 4,294 Times in 2,106 Posts
Default

Quote:
1. Lock- doesn't hurt anything, don't like it, remove it

Shouldnt have to. If you want a lock, buy a real lock, or keep the gun in a safe. 90% of us dont want or need it, dont force it all on us. There are lots of videos on youtube showing the lock is problematic. I dont want to take that chance.
Not a fan of the lock however IMO the whole lock debate is WAY WAY overblown. Seriously, it takes far longer to properly clean a revolver than it does to remove that stupid lock.

Quote:
2. 2 piece barrels- reduce stress on the frame, particularly with high intensity cartridges. That's bad right? Geeze

your conclusion is debatable, it may help certain k frame 357's which always had a bad forcing cone area flaw due to the crane clearance.
You've also neglected to consider the effect of a Tensioned Barrel on Accuracy. My 620 features a Tensioned Barrel and I'll stack it up against any one piece barrel. Really don't understand why all the resistance to the tensioned barrels, Dan Wesson proved it greatly improved accuracy and after 30 years and the expiration of the patents S&W finally did what they should have done back in the late 60's and stick in the muds non thinkers did nothing but complain it was a cost cutting move. Personally, I've always felt that Bangor Punta dropped the ball BIG time when they didn't promote Dan Wesson to Chairman and incorporate all of his BETTER ideas.


Quote:
3. firing pin in frame-an engineering and safety improvement, another bad idea right? You'd rather see someone's toes blown off or worse if they dropped a loaded gun?

Somehow hundreds of thousands of people made it through without getting their foots blown off. Also complicates design and adds one more part to fail.
Actually I consider the pin in frame design an IMPROVEMENT. Make it much easier to obtain reliable ignition with a lightened trigger because you can purchase extended firing pins on the aftermarket. As for the safety aspect, IMO pin on hammer or pin in frame are equal as long as it's a post WWII hammer block lockwork.


Quote:
4. Recessed cylinder bores, accomplish absolutely nothing with rimmed cases.

Aesthetics if nothing else, this is kind of nit picky I guess
Guess that you've never purchased a Non Magnum revolver, because the ONLY Non Magnums to feature recessed cylinders are the 22 calibers.


Quote:
5. MIM, just as strong as forged.

Definetly not. Just ask current gen 4 glock owners who have guns with a defective, poorly designed extractor.
Your reply would only make sense if S&W produced Glock's MIM components. This process is HUGELY dependent on the process being CORRECT. Since I have seen EXACTLY 2 posts about MIM parts on S&W revolvers failing since joining this forum in 2008 IMO it's safe to assume that S&W does MIM CORRECTLY.

Quote:
6. Poor QA as if that never happened in the past.
Don

Could have happened, but there seems to be a rash of poorly constructed guns lately coming of out Smith. Seemingly simple things like the barrel not being lined up correctly, internal locks not working, etc
Have you EVER installed a barrel on a frame? I have and it isn't nearly as simple as you describe it. Between the barrel clamp and the frame wrench there is very little of the barrel/frame junction that is visible. In addition when you get it close your trying to eyeball it in while using an 18 inch long pipe on the frame wrench to give you enough mechanical advantage to inch the frame in place.

As for the internal locks not working, in about 4 years I've seen a TOTAL of perhaps 3 or 4 lock failures on the K, L, N, and X frames. Considering the total number of guns sold in the larger frame sizes that is actually a very LOW failure rate.

As for the problem with the J frames, see number 1.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-08-2012, 10:31 AM
Anchor Anchor is offline
Member
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Whidbey Id, Washington
Posts: 30
Likes: 82
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Default

I am not an expert on firearms by any means but I know what I like. I have many S&W products and each of them functions as intended and appear to be well made. Among others I have a 642, two M&P 15-22's, .380 Bodyguard, Model 41,Model 22A and have just ordered a Model 29 Classic. All great at their intended purpose and I find fit and finish to be very good. Best of all, Made in America.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-08-2012, 12:47 PM
stantheman86 stantheman86 is offline
US Veteran
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,468
Likes: 6
Liked 473 Times in 236 Posts
Default

I won't repeat what's already been said.......my opinion is......

If S&W still had to handfit every single revolver, a new 686 for example, would cost double, if not more than it does now.

People poo poo the MIM process and many think that if it's not forged, it's junk. Ruger started casting frames and other parts in the early 1950's and still does to this day and those are some of the strongest and most durable revolvers in the world.

Colt used Sintered parts in their Mark III series and Colt collectors are still inhaling these guns for thousands of dollars, like the blued King Cobras.

There is nothing wrong with new S&W's, just that the internet allows every buyer of a new gun that's not perfect to instantly gripe on 20 different forums, and then 5 unsatisfied customers blow a small problem out of proportion to the point where it becomes "fact". It's a fact of modern production, even car makers turn out lemons that need warranty work, ask me how I know...............my $35,000 Dodge that I bought new off the lot had a faulty transmission mount from the factory, the dealer made it right for free, and I wasn't all over the Dodge forum saying what junk new Dodge cars are, I had it fixed and moved on............$35k vs. a $600 revolver is a pretty big difference

I have plenty of older S&W's with problems..........tight forcing cones, hitches in the action, etc. Some as old as the 1920's had issues that clearly came from the factory.Most were just fine, but no company is perfect 100% of the time, except maybe Korth where you pay $20,000 for a handbuilt, custom gun............ S&W was not a "golden palace" that turned out perfect guns all the time, and "now" they are junk..........the Bangor Punta era yeilded some real lemons. I own a few.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #54  
Old 05-08-2012, 01:16 PM
71firebird400's Avatar
71firebird400 71firebird400 is offline
Member
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Lynden, WA
Posts: 535
Likes: 204
Liked 400 Times in 149 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter123 View Post

Have you EVER installed a barrel on a frame? I have and it isn't nearly as simple as you describe it. Between the barrel clamp and the frame wrench there is very little of the barrel/frame junction that is visible. In addition when you get it close your trying to eyeball it in while using an 18 inch long pipe on the frame wrench to give you enough mechanical advantage to inch the frame in place.
I guess putting barrels on has gotten harder with time. Seems the old guys had no issues getting them on straight.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #55  
Old 05-08-2012, 01:28 PM
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,689
Likes: 57,536
Liked 52,812 Times in 16,465 Posts
Default

My guns are better than your guns
__________________
GOA/SAF

Last edited by ladder13; 05-08-2012 at 01:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #56  
Old 05-08-2012, 01:47 PM
M3Stuart's Avatar
M3Stuart M3Stuart is offline
Member
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northeast Texas
Posts: 2,861
Likes: 921
Liked 1,326 Times in 723 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18DAI View Post
You wil be getting more gun for your money too, IMO. 18DAI.
What he said!

If I forget all the stories and hyperbole, and just look at what I'm getting for the price - including reliability - then the pre-owned ones are just a better deal IMHO.
__________________
But then, what do I know?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-16-2013, 05:17 PM
Kilibreaux Kilibreaux is offline
Banned
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 501
Likes: 21
Liked 274 Times in 137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gr7070 View Post
I've seen posts on this board with folks waxing poetically about their old S&Ws and the quality of old cars compared to today. That says a lot about that person's objectivity.

The cost savings changes often times end in a better product, take recessed revolvers. The recess provides no benefit other than to foster one's nostalgic feelings. The lack of recess makes for an easier cleaning gun.

MIM is similar. I have not heard of a legitimate negative to the MIM, but it saves plenty of cost to build which is likely passed on to the consumer so they can better compete with Ruger, et al. Contrary to a post above, the people I know who have done hundreds of trigger jobs on revolvers much prefer the MIM. It's much easier and faster for them to create a tremendous trigger.

Way, way too many folks believe "back in the day" is better merely for that sake and not from any objective reasoning. The fact is people haven't changed significantly in hundreds of years, that includes morals, work ethic, etc. If anything the sociologic evidence points to man becoming better people. Technology has improved by leaps and bounds.

This statement isn't coming from a teenager or 20- or 30-something, either. Just someone who prefers facts and objective analysis over stories.

I'd buy whatever you like, old or new, and ignore the little anecdotal evidence. *If* you happen to get a specimen not to your liking S&W will make it right if it has a warranty. If it doesn't have a warranty, then caveat emptor.
I remember when the traditionalists claimed the Ruger Blackhawk revolver was inherently flawed because the frame is an investment casting, yet the Ruger Blackhawk is the strongest production single action revolver on the market. It was Ruger's investment cast technology that laid the foundation for today's "magnumized" .45 Colt. The came the transfer bar system...when Ruger incorporated that they changed from a "traditional 3 screw" frame to 2 pins...they made the gun BETTER by any unbiased standard but oh how the "traditionalists" howled and pontificated to the innocents to avoid the "New Model" revolvers like the plague and seek out the earlier models.
I too remember the "old" Smiths with the rich, deep, polished blue finishes, the case-hardened triggers and hammers...firing pin in hammer (which never was and never can be superior to frame mounted designs)...the hugh Goncalo Alves "stocks" on the massive N frames with a trigger reach the size of Regan International's main runway...WONDERFUL guns..."Man" guns and to own a M29 was to have arrived as a serious, knowledgable Smith & Wesson afficionado! I remember when stainless appeared and was never as beautiful as blued - mainly because the molecular nature of stainless makes it look BEST in a brushed satin or matte finish because unlike nickel or chrome it scratches easily and costs bazillions of dollars more to polish out anyway. Personally I LIKE the new Smiths...mainly the X frame models. It's clear the engineers at Smith & Wesson put a lot of thought into the design....resulting in a cartoonishly oversized blaster that still fits within a normal sized hand...has a very smooth DA pull and a SA pull that seems too light for a generation raised on semi-auto pistol ham-fist triggers. I LOVE the two piece barrel because it shows Smith has finally embraced a technology LONG KNOWN to be superior to barrel screwed into frame...greater strength, FAR greater rigidity, and superior accuracy. As for MIM parts....that's OLD NEWS...again, Dan Wesson was using MIM technology to produce it's triggers and hammers 30 years ago, and the technology goes back much farther...it's a proven technology to be sure dating back to World War ONE when the German's developed it.
I often read comments from people about the "low quality" of materials and construction used in modern guns with statements such as: If you face a charging bear with a gun with MIM parts the only question you have to ask is: Do I feel lucky?" Well, let's turn that around...to all who think modern guns are so inherently unreliable and prone to burst into shards in response to a harsh word I say: Are they so confident that THEY would face down some poor deluded sap with a gun containing MIM parts - confident that the gun would fail without being able to fire? I suspect not.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #58  
Old 05-16-2013, 07:54 PM
deanodog deanodog is offline
US Veteran
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 3,568
Likes: 4,479
Liked 1,189 Times in 509 Posts
Default

I have bought 7 new current production guns and I have no complaints with any of them. I also own several older ones and they have been trouble free except for a broken hammer nose on a model 10. I am 75 years old and I still like the new ones.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #59  
Old 05-23-2013, 01:18 PM
dwpmusic dwpmusic is offline
US Veteran
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 603
Likes: 77
Liked 190 Times in 91 Posts
Default

I had no idea this thread would still be active 14 months after I started it. Just goes to show that there are quite a number of opinions. After reading through the thread I think there are as many for as there are against the new Smiths. Possibly leaning more toward the new productions guns. I didn't and I still don't have anything against the new guns. I'll just hang on to this as I said in one of my posts. I do not expect to have to send a brand new gun back to the manufacturer the very minute you get it home. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. And yes, I'll buy another new one if it suits my fancy.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-09-2013, 12:43 AM
Jalopiejoe's Avatar
Jalopiejoe Jalopiejoe is offline
Member
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 181
Likes: 571
Liked 137 Times in 63 Posts
Default

I bought a new 686 a few weeks ago and sent it back because
of .012 cylinder gap, poor sideplate fit and unfinished casting
marks. I guess I got one of the lemons! I don't know why, but
I don't have a good feeling for what they will send back to me.
I asked for a replacement but I don't think they will do that till it's been "fixed" a couple of times. Still waiting to hear from S&W.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 07-09-2013, 01:38 AM
Newbs Newbs is offline
Member
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Recently purchased a 460 Performance Center. I have to say, the finest revolver I own. No trigger job, nothing, just go and shoot. On the other hand, I ordered a rear sight for my 29 over 2 months ago, doesn't show backorder, and still have no clue after inquiring twice, when I will get the part. IMO, just like everyone else in this industry, they are scrambling to attempt to keep up with demand and some things are slipping through the cracks. Other than a PC gun, at this time, I don't think I would buy a pistol from them. I'll wait it out.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-09-2013, 01:49 AM
Cal44 Cal44 is online now
Member
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,568
Likes: 5,473
Liked 6,418 Times in 1,861 Posts
Default

Back in the mid 1980's I bought a couple of S&W revolvers.

One a M29-3, and the other a 686 no dash.

Both great guns and I still have them both.

But the 29-3's (and earlier) proved to not be strong enough for continuous use of hot magnum loads, and soon after my gun was made S&W had to come up with an endurance package to correct this problem.

And a few years later, the 686 had to be recalled to fix a jamming problem with certain types of ammo.

My point is, there were problems in the old days too.

Some day people will look back on 2013 as the good old days.

Dave
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #63  
Old 07-09-2013, 02:45 AM
jaymoore's Avatar
jaymoore jaymoore is offline
Member
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: US of A
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 6,980
Liked 2,474 Times in 1,144 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jalopiejoe View Post
I bought a new 686 a few weeks ago and sent it back because
of .012 cylinder gap, poor sideplate fit and unfinished casting
marks...
Perhaps the obvious question would be: Well, why did you buy it in the first place? All these dramas should be readily detectible on a pre-purchase inspection. So should most of the other ills described in these posts. I've rejected purchase of untold numbers of firearms, including S&Ws, new and used, since the 1980s for all sorts of reasons. Bad timing, poor actions, bent sights, you name it. Some S&Ws were purchased with known dramas but have still served admirably for many years... Or is most of this griping caused more by a failure to achieve immediate gratification and by a lack of discrimination?

Last edited by jaymoore; 07-09-2013 at 05:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-09-2013, 03:48 AM
DAinTX DAinTX is offline
Member
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Family ranch in Texas
Posts: 470
Likes: 6
Liked 167 Times in 119 Posts
Default

No, I don't think the new production guns are 'junk'. Nor do I think they will 'fall apart'. I do think you are more likely to have QC related problems with the new ones. And I don't think the new guns have the panache, the soul, the character, the indefinable 'feel' of the old S&W classics. Do the new ones work well? Yes...with perhaps a few more exceptions than during the "glory years". And if one doesn't, S&W stands behind their warranty very well. Personally, I'll always take the old classics over the post '80s guns. Always. But that's just me.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-09-2013, 08:58 AM
Jalopiejoe's Avatar
Jalopiejoe Jalopiejoe is offline
Member
Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths Current Production Smiths  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 181
Likes: 571
Liked 137 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymoore View Post
Perhaps the obvious question would be: Well, why did you buy it in the first place? All these dramas should be readily detectible on a pre-purchase inspection. So should most of the other ills described in these posts. I've rejected purchase of untold numbers of firearms, including S&Ws, new and used, since the 1980s for all sorts of reasons. Bad timing, poor actions, bent sights, you name it. Some S&Ws were purchased with known dramas but have still served admirably for many years... Or is most of this griping caused more by a failure to achieve immediate gratification and by a lack of discrimination?
To be very brief, the answer is "yes"!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
Reply

Tags
1911, 380, 642, 686, bianchi, colt, crimson, endurance, glock, hardening, heritage, korth, l frame, lock, model 27, model 28, performance center, polymer, punta, recessed, ruger, s&w, saa, smith & wesson, smith and wesson

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Current Production 3914TSW 0849 Smith & Wesson - The Wish List 1 09-21-2016 09:49 PM
Just eyeballed a whole bunch of current production Smiths Mr.Harry S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 26 07-02-2016 08:39 PM
Current production similar to 342? dhtwalden S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 3 02-08-2014 03:29 PM
Current production S&W M&P's (Update) C4IGrant Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 10 10-07-2013 06:46 PM
Which 357 in current production? ArmyCop S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 12 05-22-2013 12:15 PM

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 08:20 AM.


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