I am wondering if anyone prefers the newer J frames to the older ones. I recently purchased a beautiful blue no dash M38 bodyguard with nice S&W grips. I took it out and I realized I prefer the newer guns. The M38 is a beautiful gun but I think I would rather have a 642/442. This isnt a preference between bodyguard and centennial. I think that topic has been covered and can be argued forever. This isnt about lock no lock that too has been covered once or twice. What I find is the newer grips (actually the uncle mike boots) fit my hand better. I prefer the wider front sight blade. To me the triggers even seem smoother. Am I crazy and alone in this?

I have no preference as far as the guns themselves go. My preferences are only in options or lack of. For example, if pocket carry I prefer internal hammer. Otherwise as long as they are reliable....

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

If only you were a Michigan resident I would offer you a trade of my 342pd if your model 38 is minty and a pinned barrel that should tell you how I feel twards the new guns

I tend to like the older J (and even I Frames) as smoother. But I have been marveling at two recent ones I have bought, 431PD and a 432PD. The side plate fit is so precise I couldn't find it at first glance on either. The carry up on both new guns is the same, solid lock up before hammer begins to fall, so solid you can stage the trigger with practice. Perhaps with enough rounds fired they will smooth up as nice as my older J's.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I have some of each. I recently got back one of my old .38 Special Model 60s from back in the 80's when I sold it to a buddy of mine. I still love that little gun. It did a lot of on-duty back-up and off-duty carry back then. I also have a 340 M&P and a 640-2. The 340 is my primary pocket gun. The 640 gets carried with .357 magnum on the hip. Each serves a purpose, but the older and more nostalgic I get, the more I like the simple beauty of the older models.

__________________
Dave Frost

Pre 357MAG 'J' frames are preferred here. Blue or stainless steel.

As long as it is a no lock I don't care much. I do like the wider front sight on the newer guns.

__________________
Two Handguns every day

I like the new Model 60/640 in .357. A bit heavier, but that seems to help the feel and balance.

I like my M 638 and my M 49, so I didn't vote.

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

Both. I like the new centennials without the lock.

I like the current boot grips. I even put them on a early 640. I would do it to my 36, but it's square.

Sights don't matter to me, as I point-shoot my snubs.

I have two vintage revolvers that time late (lock up as the trigger breaks) my 40 and [not a J] my 10-5. The only new revolver I've bought, a 442-1, had to be sent back to S&W as the cylinder would not release after firing. The star was binding against the frame.

All shoot well. I'd like to fit some oversized hands to fix the couple I mentioned, though. I think my favorites are the 36 (late 60s), 640 (early 90s) and the 442 (current).

So, long story short, I didn't vote in the poll.

__________________
an actual conservative

Nope! Once you hit around 1995. . .I'm done. The ones from 1990-1995 are about as new as I will purchase. I have discovered there are many models in that time period that are considered the "best" that Smith & Wesson ever produced. . .endurance package, rosewood grips (M60), drilled and tapped.

__________________
Dr. B

My ALL TIME FAV J Frame is the 60-7. Heat treated specifically for +P's, wider front and rear sight, wider smooth trigger, traditional wooden S&W grips, traditional thumb piece, NOT in .357 Mag., Firing Pin still mounted on hammer nose, and STILL has all the traditional S&W hand fit and forged parts. What is does NOT have - it does NOT need IMO. To me the 60-7 is the best they ever made.

NO
MIM internal parts
Finishes the drop off within six months
Cracked frames
Broken hammer studs
Cheap grips
Thankfully they have a lifetime warranty to the original owner because they need it It. Yes I do own a 442 but still prefer the old.

Yeah, the 60-7. A real surprise for me after I bought it for $325. It is truly a "narrow window" production Smith. You just can't buy a gun like this for close to three bills.

Attached Images

M60-7 Ladysmith.jpg (94.6 KB, 104 views)

__________________
Dr. B

I don't think I could really chime in on this one. The oldest J-frame I've handled and shot was a no-dash 642, so mid-90s-ish? It had a trigger job so I don't think a trigger comparison would be fair.

For a carry gun I do like having the ability to have it repaired or replaced fairly easily, which is one of the reasons I like the current 642-1/442-1 guns. I don't know how difficult that would be with an older J-frame.

I'm a little on the fence regarding the older vs. current thumbpiece, but I think I like the newer thumbpiece better, but they can be replaced fairly easily.

I think I might like the thinner front sight better, depending on how big the rear sight notches were on the older guns. I really only have two complaints regarding the current J-frame fixed sights: 1) I would prefer a modified ramp profile over the ramp profile for reduced glare, and 2) I would like more daylight on either side of the front sight when lined up in the rear sight notch.

I don't consider grips an issue because they're easily replaced, like the thumbpiece.

I think I would be less likely to get an older airweight than an older steel frame, though. I would also be more likely to get a current airweight than an older airweight.

These are just some thoughts I had on the matter. Like I said, I don't think I can really make a comparison, which is why I didn't vote in the poll.

Back in the late 1980s I was a lieutenant with the NYPD Firearms & Tactics Section. We went to stainless revolvers and, as part of the transition, I specified full width front sights on our "new" J frame revolvers, not the 1/10th inch hard to pick up ones S&W had been using for decades!

S&W J frame revolvers have had those larger front sights ever since!

I can prove it if I have to! :-)

Rich

The new J's are almost to the old J's what the L's are to the K's. Not quite that must difference but significant. With the pinky finger Uncle Mike's on my M60-9 I can shoot 50 rnds of 158gr Mag with no major discomfort. Seems like they "almost" needed a new frame letter designation. I hope I don't get blasted too hard for this line of thinking, but just to be safe - I am sitting down. PEN

I voted for the 'new'.

The M&P 340 is a work of art. (price however was a little steep) I owned two 642 (w/lock and without) only thing I could ask for is if they covered the ejection rod up like the 340.
What smooth draws though from the front pocket in a nice soft holster like the Sticky Holster.

__________________
Mulebuk Sam and the Governor

I prefer the newer J's to the older ones, primarily because newer editions have the wider smooth trigger (what we used to call a "double-action trigger back in the late 70's). And the actions seem smoother.

I especially like the action on the Centennials (I have had four different Centennials). Someone explained it here on the list as the Centennials having one fewer part in their action.

The so-called "boot grip" does offer a superior grip over wood Magnas although I prefer the Hogue grip because it stretches the trigger finger out a little long (what you would call "length of pull" in a shotgun).

__________________
"Sacramento" Bruce Conklin

My experience is totally opposite of Slabside, none of those problems happened to me. And I do not baby my guns.

As to MIM parts, they are superior to hand-machined. More consistent in matching specs, less manufacturing variation. Used in numerous high stress aviation applications.

__________________
"Sacramento" Bruce Conklin

The old ones have been good to me. The 32s:
sw32_1.jpg SW32_2.jpg
_______________________
I don't have Alzheimer's- My wife had me tested.

I have the blued and stainless 38s also:

SW36_2.jpg SW36_4.jpg SW60_1.jpg SW60_3.jpg

_______________________
I don't have Alzheimer's- My wife had me tested.

And don't forget the nines:
SW940_1.jpgSW940_2.jpg

If I need a small magnum, I'll grab one of the Rugers. My hand bones are too old for a small alloy 357.
_______________________
I don't have Alzheimer's- My wife had me tested.

Pen, I have that same revolver. I swapped the Uncle Mike's for Hogue's as the Hogue's fit my big paws better and now you couldn't pry that gun away from me. Like you, I can shoot magnum rounds until the cows come home and feel like I've been shooting Bluebonnet's SD9VE. They're just a great revolver, period!

__________________
Get off my lawn!

I voted for the older J frames. I have a S&W 36-6, which I am very happy with. I can hit a 6" paper pie plate consistently with it. I really abhor the idea of putting a 357 in a J frame, I see it comparable to firing a patriot missile off of a J frame launcher!

With the Hogue Monogrip on my 36-6, it shoots as well as my 4 screw K38!

Attached Images

IMAG0093.jpg (1.5 KB, 434 views)

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

My carry J-frame is twenty-six years old, a 1990 M640. There wasn't a choice in the poll for anything in the middle.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

I prefer the newer magnum framed J frames like the 638/642 to the older non-+P frames. But I prefer the older M-60/36 to the newer IL models and the 640 +P 38 to the newer 357 version. Just don't see the the need for the .357 J frames.

__________________
Support your Police, & NRA

My idea of a "newer" J frame is this '90s Model 36.

I enjoy shooting my j frames and find the large front sight easier for me to focus on

I bought a newish M638 about ten years ago to replace an early nineties M36 that was no longer around. The trigger pull was atrocious, the IL irritated me no end, and I didn't care for the rubber grips. The gun sat in my safe for about seven years till I decided to do something about. I installed some nice wooden boot grips, I did a little trigger work, and replaced my IL with a nice stainless plug. Problem solved...the DA is now 9# and smooth, my hand self-centers on that gorgeous grip, and the lock has gone the way of the Dodo. Now that I can safely and comfortably shoot +P ammo, I hardly miss my M36 at all.

I bought a new 642 in 2012. It was okay. I loved the light pocket carry, but I ended up selling it to a friend. Just last year, I picked up a lightly used 60 snubby circa 1982 at a local gun show. The heft difference is noticable, but the 60 has noticably less recoil and muzzle flip shooting strings of practice fire. The double action is a harder pull, but I adjusted pretty quick by dry firing on a regular basis. I did paint the ramp front sight to make it easier to pick out, but since I mostly point shoot with it, I don't consider the front sight to be much of an issue. My take is that both models are good defensive handguns, but I prefer a little more weight and the ease of maintenance of the older Model 60.

Simply can't beat the look of a bright blue snubbie.

The only one I still have is a Mod 31 flat latch, but I still have fond memories of all the others I've owned and shot. And I'm such a sucker for them there's a good probability I'll have more in the future, especially another baby chief and a Mod 40 with flat latches.

But what do I carry? 640 Pro and/or M&P 340. Go figure.

__________________
Wrangler of stray Chiefs
Bob

The model 36 should be more available, other than the limited runs of "classics" line guns.

Other than that, they're utilitarian pieces to me. Why get a pretty collectible with little factory support to make ugly?

So far it's three to one with a shooter grade baby chief with push off issues purchased inexpensively.
20160127_093304 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

The current Airweights are so inexpensive it's hard not to get one or two.

I have two "J"s - a R prefix M60 from about forty years ago and a 2013 442-2 with the ILS. Much prefer the newer gun with the improved sights, +P rating, and enclosed hammer.
May buy a no lock 442 for carry only and relegate the ILS one to a training gun only, especially if my work authorizes revolvers again for off duty carry.

I can't say because I have no experience with J frames, or any other S&W, newer than my 1983 vintage Model 38 in nickel.

I commented I like the newer guns wider front sight. I just realized that I like how the shape of the new triggers fit and feel also. The older guns get the plus for classic Blue finish and looks. I guess I couldn't have too many of either.

__________________
Two Handguns every day

Never had one of the olderones, but sure like the new ones.

That is one of the things I liked about mine from a few posts back. It has the 1/8 inch sight blade and a good smooth target style trigger. Best J frame trigger, both DA and SA, that I have felt.

I don't prefer the new "anythings" to the older ones.

__________________
'Merica!

I Love my M640. Stainless, takes full .357 loads, less recoil, and carries nicely.

I guess I have cast my vote for the newer. I am trading my no dash M38 for a 360J today to join my 60-14. The front sight blade is better for me. I hope the lighter weight 360 is shootable. I hope to pocket carry it. I also hope the finish is more durable than the beautiful blue of the M38.

I don't really care for the newer J-frame models. I had an old 36 square butt years ago and it was a decent shooter and I've got a 442 now, but I don't use or carry it much.

I love all my older J Frames, but the two newer ones (431PD & 432PD) are great. Well built, a side plate seam so tight I had to look very close to even see it. Accurate, tough finish, time up perfectly, I can find nothing to complain about with either one.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244