OK, folks, the bottom line here is that I want some input from all you highly knowledgeable folks about the current revolvers that S&W is offering. I know that not many care for the lock and I don't either but that notwithstanding, what else is wrong with them? I know that most products have deteriorated over the years but are the current Smiths just a piece of junk? Will they fall apart? Are they just not as accurate? Do they hang up? I've got one current production Smith which is my wife's 642-2 complete with Crimson Trace laser which I paid a handsome price for. Hasn't had but about 300 rounds fired through it. It seems OK. Bottom line is this. Nostalgia is fine and I'm all for it but if I knew I could buy something new that was as good as something old I'd opt for the new in some cases. What are some of your thoughts? I still want a 27 or a 28 vintage. I just hate to see something as American as S&W turning out junk, if in fact that's what they're doing. Are they?

I think you would be better off with any good condition 27-2 or any model 28. The older guns had forged parts, nice bluing, broach rifleing and more handfitting and attention to detail.

The current production incorporate all the cost cutting measures and......non optional undesireable features. The classic frame lines around the hammer are gone. The triggers I've squeezed on new 686's at the LGS were uniformly lousy. There also now seems to be some difficulty in putting a barrel on strait. Over priced for what they are too.

You can get a nice 27-2 for less than you will pay for a current production revolver. You wil be getting more gun for your money too, IMO. Good luck with your decision! Regards 18DAI.

My most recent personal experience is that the current production firearms are not junk, but you may get a lemon that needs to go back once or twice, to make it right.

Mine came looking like someone finished the stainless steel, with a wire brush, and did their best to make it look ugly. It was also a "spitter" since the forcing cone was chamfered.

1st time round trip was less than 3 weeks and they completely refinished the gun and recut the forcing cone. Unfortunately it was now a beautiful "flame thrower", with a gap just under .010.

2nd return trip took about 3 weeks, a new barrel was put on, the gap is just under .003, and I paid for the factory action job while it was there. The $155 action job is really worth it.

I'm a real happy owner now. S&W will make it right, but you need to be patient.

If Smith was currently all the things that you allude to,they would have folded already.
I have an assortment of older and newer guns.All are good guns;reliable, and fun.
The only thing that I take exception with on the current products,is that some are truly ugly.

Well, I'm listening to all of you and paying attention to what you say. Some of my thoughts are. You shouldn't have to send a brand new pistol back to the factory, Smith or not, for them to make it right. And you shouldn't have to worry about whether you're going to get a lemon or not. Hey, this is Smith & Wesson, not some Saturday night special manufacturer. I'm not completely opposed to purchasing a new Smith. I did with the 642. But what really p***** me off is feeling that there is absolutely nothing you can buy in today's world that still is made with the same care and quality as it used to be.

I have never had to return a vintage Smith&Wesson revolver. The handcuff hole in the side, and the two piece barrels, are a complete turn-off for me, not to mention that the workmanship is terrible. I would pay more for a vintage S&W, rather than buy a new one.

EarlFH

I recently purchased a 686. Of course it has the IL. I agree about the change of the lines around the hammer, but,....this is the smoothest double action trigger I've ever gotten from a factory Smith. Bar none. It is a very accurate revolver. I couple of years ago, a bought a Model 67. This gun was one of the ones with the out of spec firing pin (it miked .003" shorter than standard), and it would fire only 4 or 5 rounds out of every 6. I ordered a Power Custom firing pin, and replaced the faulty one. Now, it fires every time. This revolver is very accurate with my wadcutters, and I would not hesitate to carry it for SD. As far as durability, the 67 is holding up quite well, and the jury is still out of the 686.

The point to me right now is that Smith & Wesson has the best revolvers out there right now, I know Rugers are quite good, but in this day and time, revolvers are becoming a limited commodity. Most everybody today wants a high grade 1911, M & P, or Glock. It's my understanding that Glock doesn't make revolvers, and I'm sure glad Smith & Wesson still does.

I'm by no means an authority on the subject, but from the couple of Smiths I have, I can say the internals on the newer ones are nowhere near as smooth as the older models.

They have some kind of gritty black oxide finish on the internals that inhibits smooth metal to metal contact of the hammer, trigger, and rebound slide. Stoning that stuff off and getting a mirror like engagement surface is not nearly as easy as on the older guns I have.

And the MIM seems to take more time with the stones to get the surfaces smooth.

Otherwise, the new ones seem fine to me (other than the lock). And most customers probably wouldn't notice stuff like that anyways.

No doubts to this. S&W makes hundreds of thousands of guns each year. They are the #1 manufacturer by volume. For 2010 S&W produced just under half a million handguns according to BATFE records. That does not include rifles, shotguns, handcuffs, accessories, magazines, etc.

Today's S&W revolvers are quality products. Still amongst the best that can be purchased anywhere. They are accurate and reliable. They have features and strength that we could not even dream of a few short decades ago.

Is there a lemon now and then.....Of course there is. It does not matter what you pay for something, it is not possible for any company to produce 100% perfect products 100% of the time.

No they are not the way they used to be. Well neither are french fries or popcorn at the moves. Nothing is the way it used to be.

Someone is going to get that lemon and the first thing they are going to do is come here and let everyone know how S&W is going to the dogs because a $1000 revolver should not be bad from the factory.

That is the line you hear. OK is it acceptable for an $847 gun to have a failure? How about a $516 gun? What is price that it is OK for the company to not be 100% perfect?

For the buyer it does not matter, he wants a good gun. I don't blame him, so do I.

There are going to be bad ones and that is why there are warranties. Buy with confidence. Most folks never have problems.

The following is my opinion and only my opinion. I remember when in the 70's there were complaints about S&W revolvers not being up to snuff. Some complaints were warranted. I remember some complaints on through the years. Some of those complaints were also warranted. Some people complain now about S&W revolvers. Doubtless some of those complaints are warranted. In each era those complaints have been atypical exceptions to the norm. At my local gunshop there are seven new S&W L frame revolvers in stock along with a couple of N-Frames. In every respect they look like very well made revolvers. If I didn't already own plenty of .38 and .357 revolvers, I would probably be figuring a way to buy one. As to the lock, so what? Doubtless someone didn't like it when S&W changed the lock-work to prevent discharge of a round if the revolver was dropped in such a way that the hammer was struck. As well there were those who were less than excited when S&W started producing revolvers in stainless steel as they were not the traditional blued steel. Nowadays there are those who look with askance at the new S&W X-Frame revolvers that look like they've been given a dose of steroids.

Now... are new S&W revolvers the equal of those produced in earlier years? If the answer is predicated on quality of design and materials, they are better. If the answer is predicated on the amount of handwork involved in their production, no. If the determination is based on strength/endurance, etc., then the new revolvers are better. Currently I own several S&W revolvers. Most happen to be older S&W's made in the late 60's to 70's, because when I bought them, such revolvers were in my price range. Recently I bought 21-4 Thunder Ranch .44 Special. It is a outstanding example of S&W craftsmanship in design and execution, fit and finish, handling and on target accuracy. The DA and SA trigger pulls are very nice, equal to those I've had using older S&W revolvers with the more traditional forged trigger/hammer. The sights are perfectly regulated using 200 gr. JHP ammunition. I would have preferred a square-butt frame. But I deal with that by just putting on a different set of grips.

__________________
<><

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.

Unfortunately, volume does not equate to quality. If the S&W's are the best revolvers made today, then that is a sorry comment on the current quality of the guns manufactured in the U.S. Lucky for S&W, there are plenty of gun buyers today, who have no memory of the days when S&W really DID make the best revolvers, and just assume that it is normal to have to send a new gun back, time after time, to get it right. Fortunately there are plenty of the originals available for the people who still want a fine revolver.

EarlFH

Excellent post, it reflects my attitudes.

I've had 5 Model 500s, won't go into why but I now only have two which are keepers. All have had uniformly excellent triggers, zero or next to zero end shake. All have been very accurate, none have had finish problems. My PC model had no issues that I was aware of other than that the "Performance Center" marking on the barrel didn't match the other markings. S&W paid to send it back, fixed the marking and replaced the barrel for reasons I never learned as I didn't think anything was wrong with it.

Handled a 686 in a Sports Authority a while back, as good a trigger as I could ever expect.

All the "they don't make them like they used to" are entitled to their opinions but the old stuff wasn't made of materials as strong as today's guns and that comes straight from S&W engineers, not internet hype. Choose what to believe but I'll believe S&W long before all the internet experts.

Older is better? If so, why did S&W have to rework the 29s so they wouldn't shoot loose? You don't buy a 29 if you want to load the really big stuff or you get a Model 500 or 460, they CAN take it.

MIM parts??? If done well and I'm sure S&W's are, are just as good as forged. ILS??? I don't use it, would prefer to do without it but it hasn't caused any issues.

S&W's only real competition is Ruger. Both of my Ruger revolvers are excellent guns. Want to pay $4K for a Korth and have nothing north of a .357, go right ahead.

If S&W's QA and product engineering were so shoddy, they wouldn't be the dominant revolver manufacturer in the world, someone would have run them out of business but that hasn't happened. Don

Interesting opinions. Sometimes I think we do get caught up in "older is better". I won't rule out a new Smith and I will continue to try to have an open mind. Great bunch of comments. I'm just glad we can still purchase old or new. Come November and all that might cease to exist. God bless America, again.

I have alot of Smiths. Some 30 plus years old, some I bought this week. Good guns. New ones I think in most ways are as good as old. What has changed is quality control. I have a 686,purchased last month, I posted with a crooked barrel. Yesterday I picked up a new 60, same problem. Both guns now have to go to the factory to be fixed. That is not good business. This problem has been around for some time. Why don't they fix it? I am not an old ways were best kinda guy. I am sympathetic to business realities, but this is not the way a good company with a wonderful heritage should produce products. Some say it is because they don't pin barrels anymore. i just bought 3 old 64 police tradeins, all 3 barrels are dead center! Anybody have to send a gun in for this? How did it go? I want it fixed, but I am a little apprehensive. Any info would be appreciated. I have my prepaid label for the 686.

Attached Images

686 009.jpg (69.3 KB, 188 views)

You see, this is just the kind of thing I don't want to go through. I bought a little Diamondback .380 and if there was a failure to be had, it had it. All I could get from the Diamondback forum was that they had great customer service. That's BS in my department. Great customer service? It was a brand new pistol. Shouldn't have had to go anywhere but to the range. That's my take. Now should I buy a new N frame Smith and it immediately had to be sent back to them for anything, I'd be very disappointed. Leaves you wondering what to do, doesn't it?

IMHO; All of my S&W's happen to be older - but that's because they were less expensive, and of at least equal quality, as the new ones. I've shot many new ones and they are fine too. I would by either based on price.

I laugh when I hear people complain about MIM parts - at least it's still metal. Try finding anything other than a plastic trigger on a polymer pistol.

Some people actually PREFER the lock. So that's totally a personal preference.

My LGS experts, and some of them are gunsmiths that work on S&Ws, say that they've never seen a single issue with MIM parts. The only problem they've seen with the locks is that a few people have locked them, then forgotten to bring their key with them. But they've never actually seen a case where the gun locked itself.

Buy whichever you prefer - but don't let the naysayers get you down. They're made in America and are fine guns with a lifetime warranty. What more do you want?

Just my .02.

__________________
But then, what do I know?

I have several older Smiths and several newer ones. Other than my preference for the COLOR of my older ones (blued steel and beautiful case hardening), I have had just as much luck with the workmanship and quality of my newer stainless ones. The gun I have with the worst trigger was made in the 50's.

You are overthinking this. Just go buy one and enjoy.

Amen, Amen and Amen again.

I don't think there is any one answer for this. I choose guns that are going to be shot a lot and have been used, very carefully, almost always in person, which greatly reduces choices, but ...

I usually go with new in PD guns, so far no problems, but I read these stories of trouble and feel lucky. I don't want to miss shooting a new gun and the technology involved, so I take my chances.

In the thought of your quote its sad, but with any product today it just seem like a way of life. Imagine what it will be like in 20 years.


Guns for my collection

I think that the current ones are at least as good as the old ones, but certain features have been eliminated to reduce costs. Things like recessed charge holes, ribbing on the backstraps (revolvers), pinned barrels. But in no way do these things make the guns less good. There were old guns made with quality problems too, especially in the 1970s under Bangor Punta. The older blued guns probably had nicer polishing than the new ones, which makes for nicer blueing. But look at the M28 as compared to the M27. It was a lower cost model that had less polishing and a fuzz blued finsih as compared to the M27's ocean deep blueing. It also lacked checkered topstrap.
The 'classic' line of revolvers probably comes closer to the old guns in terms of finish.

I own nothing but Smiths...old and new, revolvers and autos. Every one of 'em has made me happy! My son-in-law has Rugers and I have shot them plenty (along with most everything else over the years) but I keep buying Smiths.

I agree with Inthewoods...don't over think it, if you like the look and feel of a Smith then BUY IT! They are quality made American guns.

dwpmusic, The barrel problem I have is the only problem i've had. If you are buying in a store, check out the gun prior to buying it. If it looks good and passes the tests, I'm sure you will have a good gun.

Well, here is my 2 cents. I am a revolver user since way back (1980). I have been using a Dan Wesson 8" model 15-2 in .357 mag for varmint control and small game hunting around the farm. I recently acquired my concealed carry permit and wanted a lighter, more compact, revolver to carry in a shoulder rig. I had always admired Smith and Wesson revolvers so I ended up purchasing a new 386 XL Hunter in .357 with a 6" barrel.

So far I am disappointed. I suspect the barrel is off center in the frame. I had to adjust the sights to their maximum up and to the right settings to zero at 10 yards. Groups are much larger then with my Dan Wesson. SA trigger pull, after a spring kit and honing, is 5-5.5 pounds. Barrel cylinder gap is .009". The finish on the barrel showed sines of wear after a couple dozen test fittings in a leather Bianchi X-15 holster.

The gun is back with S&W at the moment. I hope that they will send it back good to go. I have my doubts at this point. In the meantime I am scanning the internet classifieds for clean used pythons and older Smiths. Some gun makers do still make them like they used to - Anschütz comes to mind. Someone else in this thread mentioned that you could always go out and buy a Korth for $4000. If I knew of a gun shop where I could actually examine a Korth in person and puchase it for only $4000, I would be there in a flash with my checkbook in hand!

Yeah I had a bad experience with a brand new one too. I'm glad I ordered a different one hopefully it's not crooked and shatty looking too. It's sad to pay thais kinda money and get boned.

S&W's only real competition is Ruger. Both of my Ruger revolvers are excellent guns. Want to pay $4K for a Korth and have nothing north of a .357, go right ahead.

If S&W's QA and product engineering were so shoddy, they wouldn't be the dominant revolver manufacturer in the world, someone would have run them out of business but that hasn't happened. Don[/QUOTE]

So, a company can not stay in business selling shoddy products? How then do you explain the success of Wall-Mart?

Also, where can I find one of those $4000 Korths?

Smith owes quality products to its brand and the consumers. They need to employ people who are able and realize the importance of their responsibility to an icon.

So, a company can not stay in business selling shoddy products? How then do you explain the success of Wall-Mart?

Also, where can I find one of those $4000 Korths?[/QUOTE]

Shoddy products?? Perhaps some cheap products to go along with the same stuff you get the privilege of paying 50% more for elsewhere.

I love the opportunity to pay so much more for the same product at other stores. Don

I'm coming at this issue fromn a little different perspective. I have two Model 27-2 revolvers with the 8 3/8" barrel. One is a shooter, though I have probably put less than 1000 rounds through it, with maybe 150 max .357 Magnum. I was thinking of selling my other 27-2 which is unfired, bought new in the mid 70's as a spare. I'm going to keep it. I don't consider myself a collector, but if my shooter 27-2 were to be stolen from the trunk of my car, for example, I would hate to replace it with a new gun after some of the things I've read on this forum.

Ive had zero problems with my new smiths, can't say that about all my old ones or my rugers. Just my two cents but ill take the new ones

I have not and never will own a smith with a lock. I have shot recent 686 and model 60 with the lock and other new models.

Things I hate:

1. the lock
2. 2 piece barrels where applicable
3. moving the firing pin from the hammer to an internal firing pin
4. removal of the recess on the cylinder
5. general other cost cutting like MIM molded pieces instead of forged
6. obviously poor quality control in some cases (crooked barrels, etc)

I also dont like the fact that they have discontinued most of the blue guns and entire models like the 19, 66, 13, 586, etc

I've owned S&Ws made between 1922 and about 2005. My newest production gun is a Thunder Ranch .44 Special. It's one of the most accurate, nicest action revolvers I've ever owned. Fit, finish, bluing are VERY nice.

That being said, I have noticed a steep decline in the fit and finish of the new guns I've examined in the last 5 years or so. The gritty actions, barrels being canted to the side, poorly fitted sideplates, the cheap laser engraved logos and barrel markings, etc scream CHEAP!! They don't look or handle any better than the Taurus revolvers do.

I don't care for the lock and MIM parts but it hasn't prevented me from buying guns that have them. I do have a problem shelling out good money for something that looks like it was finished & slapped together by a 16 year old stoner in High School shop class, then praying I don't have to send it back for work.

I have recently sold some NIB unfired S&W revolvers, and in the process of emailing prospective buyers, after seeing that my description of the gun was accurate, some of them said that they thought it was a "real nice gun" but that they wanted one to shoot. "Well, here is a brand new one to shoot," was my thought. Obviously, some bought the gun as soon as they saw the condition. Some wanted them for specific gun competitions, etc, and I understand that, but why would anyone pass on a brand new gun made 30+- years ago, and then go throw down a hand full of a new holer?! I guess some of them just didn't want to pay what I was asking, or whatever, or maybe they just couldn't get past the "that's an old gun" Thang? Flapjack.

Keep in mind that we have the Internet today. This means that anyone who has a problem can put it on the net where it can be seen by anyone who looks.

Personally I've purchase 3 new revolvers since 2008 and really can't complain about any of them. Yeah, my 625 JM needed a bit of work due to a cocked barrel but I had already planned on doing a custom crown on the barrel so it was simply a matter of paying attention when I re-installed it. As for my 620, just wish I'd purchased 2 when they were being made, it's the most accurate handgun I've ever shot.

Gee, pushing the state of science aren't you?:
1. Lock- doesn't hurt anything, don't like it, remove it
2. 2 piece barrels- reduce stress on the frame, particularly with high intensity cartridges. That's bad right? Geeze
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?
4. Recessed cylinder bores, accomplish absolutely nothing with rimmed cases.
5. MIM, just as strong as forged.
6. Poor QA as if that never happened in the past.
Don

Because an unfired used gun would likely command a premium that the same fired model would not. No reason for them to eat that loss in value.

And fwiw those aren't NIB or brand new guns you're selling.

Somewhat similarly, an older used gun has likely had all its warts removed now. Therefore there's less opportunity to see complaints here.

Although some would have you believe those old guns were always perfect. Maybe that's why they didn't have a warranty. Of course if that were the case they would have had a warranty as it would have cost S&W nothing to warrant.

There are things to like about buying an old gun. Most of the things people dislike about the new ones are irrational and the outrage is disproportionate to the actual issue.

I own 7 S&W revolvers, w/ born on dates from 1959 to 2010.
Of the collection, 3 have the Frame Mounted Firing Pin (686+Mtn Gun, 686SSR, 386NG) 2 have MIM parts (a 686+ Mtn Gun and 386NG, whereas the 686SSR has a forged TRGR & HMR) two have the IL (the 686SSR & 386NG) and one has the 2-piece bbl (the 386NG).
The above mentioned revolvers have some or all the dreaded modern manufacturing techniques applied to them, yet they have been excellent products w/ excellent QC and workmanship.
I have fired hundreds of rounds through each w/ 0 problems. One day, I fired 200 full power .357Mag 125grJHPs and the same number of 158gr JSPs through the lightweight 386NG in an effort to make the IL malfunction and my hand wore out before I could get the IL to magically shift to the locked position.
Do I like the IL? Hell no, I just don't use it. I think the customer should have the choice, as they do on the M&P auto line of products.
I have liked all the periods of S&W revolvers that I own, but the periods that I've noticed the most QC problems and the most shoddy workmanship is definitely the revolvers of the early 1980's.
Today's S&W product is at least as good as any period preceeding, in some cases perhaps even better.
Let me put it this way, I carry the 386NG, everyday, as my off-duty piece, I trust it that much.

Old Smiths never had a problem, it was a miracle, if you dropped them on water they would walk across it, not sink......lol.

There is nothing wrong with the new guns, they have issues and some are lemons, just like any mass manufactured product in history has had. I own old and new guns, all are high quality. If you want to be an illogical curmudgeon knock yourself out, just don't expect thinking people to support you. Are they put together by hand anymore? No. Are they pieces of junk, no again. We have gained innovation, but lost a little craftsmanship, this is how it goes in life.

Well stated.

True, but hand finish & pride in workmanship did have it's place.

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.

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

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

Aesthetics if nothing else, this is kind of nit picky I guess

Definetly not. Just ask current gen 4 glock owners who have guns with a defective, poorly designed extractor.

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

Just buy one of these and your problem is solved. Everything you need and nothing you don't. Only problem is once you have one, you'll need another.

S&W 28-2

__________________
SFC, US Army, Retired

I own two modern (current production) S&W's.

One is the .500 Magnum. This gun is obviously a halo product for S&W. Mine is the 8-3/8" version with the non-removable compensator. I bought it used for $825. Like a lot of these guns, it had one cylinder full of ammo shot through it before it was sold. This gun is solid, smooth, and exquisitely crafted. I believe that this gun is to S&W what the Viper is to Chrysler, the ZR-1 Corvette is to GM, and the M5 is to BMW. They don't make very many, they're made well, they carry a big price tag, and there's probably very little profit in them. They're built as a showcase of what the maker is capable of.

My other modern S&W is a Performance Center 625 (the one with the red, white, and blue grips). This one was smooth and good looking, but turned in groups of about 8" off a rest at 25 yards regardless of who was holding it or what type ammo was used. I called S&W and described the issues I was seeing, and the customer service rep told me (without being prodded) that the gun was NOT performing as it should and insisted that I send it in immediately for service and repair. I had it back 6 days after I dropped it off at FedEx. They reworked the forcing cone. Now, it'll shoot a cylinder full into a ragged hole at 25 yards if I do my part. Once I got it back and sighted it in, I replaced the grips with S&W round butt finger groove Combat Grips. (I have the utmost respect for Mr. Jerry and his shooting ability, but his preferred pattern for grips just hurts my hand.)

My sample size is only two (current production) guns. One was great, one was made great by S&W's warranty service. I think the initial accuracy issues with my new 625 are the exception, not the norm.

I believe that the new guns are well made and high quality. I prefer the older guns because of their asthetics, history, and finish, but I can't say that the older guns are "superior" in any objective functional sense.

I don't like flat black finishes, I don't like rubber grips, etc. I like the older guns, but I don't think they're "better" than the new ones.

Some people don't like the guns with model numbers, some like only 5 screw guns, some like 4 screw guns, some like it as long as it has a pinned barrel, some only like the ones made before the MIM era, and some like only "pre-lock" versions.

Some of the same folks who didn't like the 586/686 back in the mid eighties because of "poor quality new gun syndrome", "cheap knockoff of a Python" or other similar issues now are seeking them out....

Read through the whole thread. For those of you who like your new guns, more power to you. For myself, the new guns are ugly. Sorry but that's just how I see it. If I want ugly guns I can buy Rugers. At least they don't have the stupid hole in the side or two piece barrels.

YMMV,
Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

This is my M21.
[IMG][/IMG]
Great looking and shoots that way too.
Still don't like that hole in the side, too bad I can't do anything about it...

Last year I purchased a Model 619. It was still posted on S&Ws website when I bought it, and shortly afterwards it disappeared along with the excellent 620 from S&Ws lineup, which is a shame. I liked the 619 because it's basically an L-Frame M65. I've always really liked the K-Frame 4" HB square butt configurations. Sadly, S&W seems to prefer RBs these days, but it's not so much of a big deal to me, that can easily be remedied with the myriads of grip choices.

After I had purchased this 619 and was still waiting for the paperwork to clear (several weeks before I could take possession of it), I read posts about all the issues so many seem to have with the L-Frame IL, MIM, two-piece barrels, etc, etc, etc, and I thought I must have made a huge mistake. After I recieved it and fired it with both .38 spl and .357 magnum loads, I was puzzled by so many of the comments I had read. Scooter123 had given a really good report of the two-piece barrel and I was interested to test the accuracy claim he was making. His assessment was correct, it is the most accurate revolver I have ever owned.

I have to laugh at all the complaining about IL and MIM. It simply has no impact on the quality of the revolver that I can see, and as a matter of fact, the IL is useful to me. If you don't have use for it, then you don't have to use it. When I was a soldier, we always used to say "Better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it". I am required to lock weapons when I transport them here in Germany, so it definately has it's use. I can think of a lot of other instances where it could be useful too, and not just in Germany. The whole MIM thing has no issue as far as I can tell unless one wants to say "it doesn't look good" which is a very subjective basis to judge something on. I haven't experienced any of the issues claimed by some, and always disregard third party stories of events.

I have read about issues with barrels and have experienced none of them. I've seen some third party stories of two-piece barrels flying off. All I can say is that my 619 seems to digest .38/.357 magnum loads routinely with no issues. I rather like the heavy barrel on my 619, but then I've always liked the 4" HB in J, K and N frames. As mentioned, it produces more than satisfactory accuracy, and I don't know for sure why, but this is the tamest recoiling .357 magnum of any barrel length (and yes, I've owned an 8 3/8" model 27 in the past) I've ever owned. I even changed out the goodyear's for Ahrends finger grooved combat grips and have no recoil issues at all.

That's all the good, now here's the bad. After I got my 619, I noticed on the sideplate a strange thing that looked a bit like a dent or a warp. The polish and finish on the the revolver overall was excellent, except for this strange indentation. When I queried the S&W service department about it, they sent back a one line email that stated they could not replace the sideplate since they were polished to the finished revolver. That was it; no offer to do anything else, no suggestion of a fix. The "dent" is not such a big deal to me and isn't painfully obvious and does not impact on balance or operation at all, but it was not much of a customer service solution to me. Two more slight issues; around the edge of the forcing cone, there were really sharpe edges, enough so it could cut a fingertip while cleaning (that's how I discovered it). It was easy to polish up, but a bit strange I thought. The other issue is that the extractor has a bit of a rough side to it; when extracting, if the cylinder is turned to a certain degree, there is a very slight "rough" spot I have yet to figure out how to polish out. I have given up on doing that so that I don't damage anything, but it's really only annoying and does not impair on functioning at all.

So, my assessment in the end is a little mixed, but leans decidedly to the thumbs up category. I feel this new 619 had some literal rough edges and some slight QA faults, but not enough to really give it a bad review. I love this revolver, it balances extremely well, is accurate and looks good even with the little blemish. In those Ahrend's grips it really looks good (to me, anyway), and has that classic 4" HB look that the K-Frames are so well known for; looks a lot like a model 65, which I have always liked. If I had it to do over again, I'd buy one just like it, and may even do that anyway since it's looking like 619s and 620s may even gain a little collectors status. There are plenty of older models that I want (I just purchased a NIB Model 547 for instance), but I would not hesitate to purchase a new model of anything from S&W after my experience with this 619.

It's really a shame S&W isn't making the 619/620 anymore since so many really like the M65 and 66, it was a good modern L-Frame version of an older and popular K-Frame design. I guess sales just weren't there.

I have owned both, and while I prefer the vintage guns, the locks are disabled in my newer revolvers and I have had zero issues with them.

They are not pinned or recessed, and they are ugly, but my M&P 360 for example is hard to compete with for a 13oz 357 Mag in your pocket.

__________________
M66, M&P 360, 642, M85 UL/Ti

In the earlier years of manufacturer, producing anything including firearms, handwork was just a part of the process. There was no other way to produce the items. Machine processes were simply not sufficiently refined. CNC as well as casting as currently developed and practice have changed everything. Respectfully. brucev.

__________________
<><

When I started this post I had no idea that it would generate the interest and debate that it has. Seems we're already up to 46 posts. This is a great forum of which I'm proud to be a member of.

Now, when I got interested in S&W revolvers I didn't know beans, hardly, about the old vs the new. Then I started reading. The only other Smith that I had at the time was my Dad's old M&P made in 1923 or '24 according to someone on this forum. So I figured a Smith is a Smith is a Smith. Now why would a 65 year old dude such as myself believe that S&W revolvers would remain the same as they always were and not change the way everything else has? So, I go and buy my wife a new 642 w/ Crimson Trace laser included. It's had about 300 rounds fired through it between she and I. Seems OK although I can't hit squat with it. My resident pistolero at my gun range (he's good) has got it grouping 1" or less at 10 yds. using the laser. I know it's right on. So that's that.

I really never gave it to much more thought, old vs new, until I started reading. Hmmmm, then comes along my M66-2 4" which I got for $400. Immediate love and infatuation set in. It's not scratch free but it is in great shape as far as I'm concerned and I never thought I would love shooting a revolver as much as I'm loving this one.

Hope I'm not boring anyone.

So the "N" frame fever hits me and I settle on a 27 or 28. No go, or at least not yet. Here comes a guy with a 629-2 for $500. Didn't want a .44 Mag but I'll take it for that price. We've not been able to get together yet, logistics not price. But I'm still hoping.

Boils down to this. After reading all the discussion on old vs new and the varied opinions, it is I who will have to decide for myself. I see on Smith's site this morning that a new 27 lists for $989 and a new 629 for $949. Most probably will be able to buy either for somewhat less. Anyway that will be the only thing that will tell the tale. I'll have to decide for myself.

I think I just might have to have both, a new and an old. Now it brings me down to this. If Gunny4053 will just go ahead and sell me his 28-2 I'll have at least half of the intrigue solved. After all Gunny, I'm a retired SFC from the Army also. From one NCO to another I know you could spare that 28-2 out of your vast collection.

In all seriousness, guys, I appreciate having this forum to come to and discuss things. I've been made to feel welcome numerous times and for that I thank you. All this is coming from someone who thought they'd only be a Glock shooter. I still love my Glocks but I feel like I'm holding America in my hands when I'm holding a Smith.

Anyone else that has a 27 or a 28 they want to dispose of please just give me a shout. Won't hurt to talk.

I'd bet if a million people were asked the question that the OP asked, you would probably end up with a half million different opinions. Personally, I've been buying and shooting S&W revolvers since 1972 and here's how I see it ~ Long gone are the days of old when S&W guns (or any product for that matter) were carefully manufactured and tuned by individual skilled craftsmen. The arguments that there is no difference between the looks and operation of the older guns versus the newer guns will never hold water because it simply isn't true. I have revolvers made back in the early 70s and older that look and operate as well as they did the day they left the factory - smooth as silk! Change began to take place for many, many reasons and here we are today.

I also own a few of the "newer generation" revolvers and I can say three things honestly about them as far as "problems" go - (1) Many of the new guns come directly from the factory with very poor finishes, (2) There are an increasing number of NIB S&Ws with canted barrels (2 of mine are canted) and (3) I've never had a functional problem with any of them. Removing the IL to me is senseless because you still have a gun that was manufactured with the IL, it voids the warranty, and then you have a gun that has a plug in the side of it that's uglier than it was if just left alone. I believe they should be made with or without the IL and allow the buyer to make the choice with one or the other being a premium. Furthermore, I believe S&W's lock design was a poor choice and could have been made less undesirable looking by installing it in the same fashion other manufacturers did / do.

So, new versus old? I love my older Smiths but I would have no problem buying a new one knowing full well it won't be as smooth or good looking as they used to be. In answer to the OP's original question, current S&W's are not "junk", they won't "fall apart", and they are very accurate. I believe no other manufacturer comes close to S&W's product even though S&W has problems (QC) that they need to fix to stay at the top of their game. So, armed with knowledge learned from experience and reading this forum, I will continue to purchase S&Ws, both new and old, without worry - its all about what you want!