Opinions on whether current manufactures could manufacture a revolver as well made as some of you old farts keep discussing. Also is possible do you think they would sell at the much higher price required?

I am an old fart too.

I am sure they "could" manufacture a quality to match the ones of the past. The technology to do so is not lost to time, it is lost to technology and bean counters. If they were to do so, the price would be likely be astronomical due to the human effort to make it happen. People would not pay the price.
For that reason, I buy vintage revolvers. They are readily available in any condition you wish to have, and the workmanship cannot be matched with reasonable costs.

__________________
NRA Endowment Member

It's a matter of your business plan and scale. Korth/Nighthawk makes excellent revolvers at what is likely a decent profit margin, but not with the sales numbers that would sustain a Smith & Wesson sized company.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Well, I’ll step boldly into a conversation on this subject. I worked my entire life in manufacturing. Worked for one of the largest aircraft companies and did subcontract work for one of the world’s largest and bluest computer companies. I worked as a machinist, manufacturing engineer, plant manager and sales engineer. Fifty years, man and boy.
I will say unequivocally, that properly applied, statically managed, modern manufacturing techniques will produce a higher quality, more consistent and better performing product than any so called hand fitted, hand lapped product of the past.
And it will be produced at a lower cost.
Please note that I said - that properly applied, statically managed, modern manufacturing techniques.

Look at the price of the new Python. $1500 and not the hand fittings of the old ones. Still a nice gun Modern technology allows precise parts manufacturing so parts drop in. But a redesign was necessary. Still a hand fitted Python today would be $2500 at least.

The new smiths that I have purchased haven’t the quality of the Kimber revolvers I’ve purchased. I’m quite impressed with the K6s line, I’m up to 4 of them now and am after more. Kimber seems to be producing excellent revolvers at good prices

__________________
Thanks,

Patrick

Could they? Yep!
Would they? Nope.

I am sure it could happen but the stockholders wouldnt be too happy about it

I started buying S&W revolvers back in the early eighties, and rejected way more than I bought, even if it was a model I wanted. New or used. (We saw lots of 'em, as I not only worked in a gun shop to pay for school but haunted other shops in the area.) About the only design change that I feel was detrimental is the thread relief cut at the front of the barrel threads which the pinned versions don't have. And that's not a bother if the assembler refrains from over torquing the barrel to get things to line up.

Buying any S&W revolver, new or used, as a shooter, (not a potential investment or "museum piece") without first being able to inspect it, is apt to lead to disappointment. But the good ones can't hardly be beat by any other double action revolver, regardless of price. If all you want is single action, then save your pennies and get a Freedom Arms.

When we get right down to the nitty-gritty, this matter of quality is entirely dependent upon the philosophy of the particular manufacturer.

One philosophy is we shall be successful if we build the best possible product for the price.

The other philosophy is we shall be successful if we build our product at the lowest possible cost.

There are no other philosophies. Some manufacturers try to hold to both. I submit S&W does this (now) with its Performance Center line. I say this without ever having held a PC product in my hand (so I must give S&W credit for effective advertising---or admit to being gullible).

Ralph Tremaine

Done right, CNC machining can produce very high quality products at an attractive price. Done wrong, it's just a faster way to make scrap. Which way it's done mostly depends on the company management's edicts that are handed down to the shop floor. From my experience, that usually sounds something like "hurry up, faster, faster!"

There are some notable aftermarket parts companies that are doing a stellar job with their parts. There are a few gun companies that are doing the same. Most gun companies seem to be running somewhere in the middle, trying to put out a "pretty good" product while keeping costs at a bare minimum.

I think more quality assurance at the factory would be a good investment, but it's all a balancing act. Everything in life is a compromise of some kind.

__________________
protocalldesign.com

Absolutely yes if you young snot noses would quit buying those cheap plastic guns.

__________________
Dave Ramsey Cultist

Hey, i resemble that statement. krs/kenny

__________________
Too good

All this pining for the good old days, without recognizing that memory can be very selective. Did S&W put out clinkers in the past? Certainly. Are they making great guns today? Same answer.

Case in point, even though many here would turn their noses up at them, I have a couple of Models 64-8 that are the equal of any vintage S&W in my safe. MIM? Yes. Internal lock? Yes. Two piece barrel? Yes.

But do they shoot? Yes, as well, if not better, than anything else that I own. The action on both is smooth, accuracy is superb, and quality is second to none.

Could S&W produce a better revolver now using old school techniques and hand fitting without MIM? Probably, but who would want to pay what they would need to get for it?

__________________
Only a cold warrior

Bill 86 post #4 gives a good overview.

Regarding S&W quality through the years.
I rember when people were complaining about quality in the late 70s and early 80s.

Even in the 60s some got turkeys. I do not remember earlier than that as I was born in 55.

Personal experience I found my 686-6 ( manuf 2007) and 60-14 ( manuf 2008) are veey good shooters and the mim trigger are better than dome custom 36 from the 60s and 70s compared at the range and the other guys opinion not mine.
Production guns;
Holding proper tolerance is the key to manufacture.

Also key to design is that the engineers need to know how to establish the best tolerance for the various parts. Closely monitor and control parts ( concept from statistical process control).

Simplifying the design is a good approach for manufacture and reliability.

Extra un-necessary features should be removed. That would be welcomed.

There could also be a custom shop for those who want that.

The short answer is no (at least as a production model). Mainly because most of the old time TRUE Gunsmiths are gone. The guys working in gun factories today are mainly parts assemblers and not Gunsmiths.

Not to say there aren't a few really talented guys still left - but in order to duplicate the quality, materials and attention to detail some of us talk about, it would cost more than most would be willing to pony up. There is also a moratorium on certain chemicals that were used yesteryear. While those chemicals might have been banned for health and environmental reasons, without them those finishes can not be duplicated or be as good IMHO. Since there are still vintage models available from time to time, one can always find what he/she is looking for given enough time and money.

I have always been able to find a vintage model I was seeking - although sometimes it cost me more than I wanted to originally spend.

"Could S&W produce a better revolver now using old school techniques and hand fitting without MIM? Probably, but who would want to pay what they would need to get for it?"

Definitely not probably. There are a lot of us that would gladly pay for it.

A revolver could be made not only as good, but better than the classic revolvers from the 60's-90's. There is better machinery than ever available and people can still be taught how to build a high quality gun. Large scale manufacturers simply will not go to the expense to build this type of a firearm when they can crank out a high number of fairly decent revolvers at a lower price point and still make a good money.

What this insightful member really is saying is, that with lots of care and concern for the end product, we can do better today than yesterday. I agree, of course, but finding management who direct their line staff to follow that rule is woefully absent.

Interestingly though, the new Pythons are no slouches in terms of "fit and finish."

Yes, it's all done by machine today, but the new design of the Python is mechanically better than the old design. They've blended the best aspects of S&W and Colt revolvers and have come up with a pretty nice package.

Internally the parts are super polished, not a burr to be seen anywhere, etc. It's smoother internally than my 1936 produced Officer's model Target, and that's saying something.

The new design is easier to get the mainspring out without tools, has fewer parts, bearing surfaces are larger, etc.

So the reason they are not hand fit today is because they don't NEED to be. Modern S&W revolvers could be argued the same...the new designs are "better" than the old designs.

Now, the finish? It's nowhere near as nice as the old Colt Royal blue or the charcoal blue that preceded it. Same with S&W although they at least still attempt bluing.

You may be over valuing historical guns. The internet is fairly new, so you don't have the reports of defects like you get now-and remember, people tend to not report when something works as expected. Also, many of the old guns just don't exist any more to complain about. They wore out or broke and were discarded. The ones left are probably the good ones.

Modern guns probably get more of a workout than the historical ones. I don't remember anybody in my family going to the range and running a couple of hundred rounds through for fun. Ammo was expensive, and parents and relatives had had lots of practice shooting while walking through Europe or the Pacific islands and Asia. Guns were for hunting, targets were for sighting in, and a box of 30-30 could last for several seasons. Pistols were for the bedroom drawer and maybe the car, not for everyday carry.

What is really the case in your question is quality of appearance, cosmetics.

New stuff is made to tighter tolerances and with superior materials, they simply don't have, in the case of blued guns, the deep, pretty blueing that comes with expensive and time consuming hand work.

Old stuff isn't superior when it comes to performance, it's in the imagination of the observer. Don

They can produce every bit as good or better FUNCTIONING gun today than in the past, Better metallurgy, better machinery, etc. There is less need for the true craftsmen, but they do need to do better on training and more care by those assembling and better QC for every gun to be top shelf.


The appearance and degree of polish and the quality of blue NOPE

Debatable, but S&W does still make as functionally good revolvers as the old ones. Final fit and finish is no longer always there.

No. They cannot do it. Manufacturers need lots of buyers in order to break even, let alone make an honest living. Today's buyers are spoiled by off-shore manufacturers cranking out ersatz goods with slave labor.

Quality costs.

Seems these days most firearm manufacturers really drop the ball when it comes to quality control.

By the way, I've seen small-shop bluing that is truly outstanding and have marveled at the quality and color of some of these handguns.

I don't understand why the large manufacturers do the same. Costs aside, the whole package is important.

Revolvers from "back in the day" weren't as well made as people's nostalgia would like to recall. They had to go back to the mother ship just as often back then as they do now.

Bingo.

Freedom Arms basically does the same thing with SAs.

I’m about to start cleaning out the safe to fund a Korth or Manurhin.

Some excellent replies above!

The short answer as to whether manufacturers "Could" produce better quality revolvers than yesteryear is Abso-freakin'-lutely!

The manufacturing capability is better than ever. In the case of revolvers, and most any tangible product, machines can do more of the work, and with a lot better precision than the average, and, luckily, above average, worker. The problem is in the quality of the labor (training, education, work ethic, etc.) that most manufactures are willing to pay for, in order to produce and sell their products at the prices buyers are willing to pay for. ***Note, in the specific case of revolvers, unfortunately, they’re obsolete technology, new products have proven to do the same or better job, at cheaper prices, and the general interest has shifted to those products. You might as well compare a S&W Model 66 to a 1970 Ford Mustang, in a world where people are more interested in Gucci Glocks and Honda Civic Type Rs.

Price-wise, skilled labor simply can't compete with automated manufacturing. Unfortunately, and historically, probably from mid '60's on, the US has, generally-speaking, looked down on manual labor, in comparison to white collar jobs, causing young people to look for office jobs, even if most of those don't pay much.

For those who don't know, there's a shortage of skilled manual labor in the US. I, myself, have difficulty finding good, reliable, HVAC technicians, electricians, remodeling contractors, and even unskilled day laborers, at times; and I always pay fair prices.

To make matters worse, the "average" worker these days is so unreliable, unmotivated (i.e. lazy), inconsiderate, and uneducated, that training one to do a half-decent job is a lot more costly, then training a person who is uneducated, but motivated enough to know how to respectfully speak to others, and considerate enough to show up on time and be ready and willing to at the very least attempt to perform a job.

It’s just a matter of time before regular, non-custom, revolvers fully disappear, unless they’re either from a “developing” country (i.e. Third World), in which case they’ll continue to be problematic, or they’re from the Nice, civilized, parts of the world, in which case they’ll continue to be awesome and beyond the reach of the average buyer. When that happens, we’ll all be missing the dreaded hole and 2-piece barrels, and kicking ourselves for not having bought more of them when they were around.

Now that Colt has been bought and moved to eastern Europe, I wonder what we will see in its future products. Could prove interesting - or not.

I'm in the possible, but not likely crowd.

Newer guns I have a 638-3, and a 625-9 that are perfectly serviceable. I've also got a 325 PC that is every bit as nice as my older ones.

Older guns I'm basing this opinion on are a 35-1, 586 and a 10-5. I do have a Model 13-2 and a 65-2 to remind me that not all the old ones were masterpieces, but it seems they were more easily attainable.

As far as manufacturing...I'm a small time hobbyist knifemaker, but I like Nd examine many knives. It never ceases to amaze me how often, small time, po-dunk, back country good ole boys as the norm are putting out far more symmetrical blades than the big boys. I mean like Microtech, Spyderco, etc. The last Microtech I had was ground worse than handground blades I've culled. And again, I ain't no Master Maker kinda dude, and I got no axes to grind with the industry folks. (No pun intended, but ya' gotts admit, it's pretty good)

Are the production blades good enough for the non-critical eye, that's happy to buy a reputation and a knife that simply works? Sure thing! But to someone with a critical eye that's been around a minute...maybe not so much? Perhaps the gun makers are in the same position with us as the critics?

I know they've got amazing machinery that's capable of tolerances half the width of a frog's hair and all, but I wonder how well the machines themselves are maintained, calibrated, or whatever throughout the years. Maybe they're spot on for the first year or two, and then just slip a bit farther with each advancing year that bearing, belts, chains, etc. Are used and fall further out of spec? Perhaps that's why so many Kimber revolvers seem so spot on? Just a curious thought, not a declarative statement.

Somewhere in my pile of old gun rags I have an article from the early 80's when Skeeter Skelton reviewed the new at the time S&W 586. I forget the exact numbers, but I was quite surprised to note, most groups documented were close to 1.5". I haven't seen a modern report like that, except.for the finest and most expensive of handguns. I do have in my hands a "Shooting Times" from 1982 in which Dick Metcalf reviewed and compared two 686s, a 586, and a 681. Trigger pulls were all within a half pound of each other for DA and SA. Just as we don't take well to change, he seems unimpressed with the non-recessed cylinders. Most pistols involved in the testing were about $200-$270.

Could they? Heck yeah! Would they? Not very likely, IMHO. The comsumer as a whole would have to be much more discriminating. And that's a far cry in an age.of loose, polymer autoloaders that simply work, and they work well.

What I don’t understand is why a company like Smith doesn’t produce a small number of revolvers with forged parts, no locks, etc. I believe there is a market and these could be made in the Performance Center with tuned action and sold at a premium. They sell high quality 1911s at a premium. Folks are paying a premium for boutique brands. I would pay a premium to have one. I am looking for a 66-3 and 629-3 and will pay a premium anyway and run the risk of getting a gun that is inaccurate or has problems. Buying a new one offers peace of mind.

I learned to shoot on Papaw's .38/44 Outdoorsman built in the 30's. I've never found another revolver with as smooth of an action and light of trigger pull.

The post war S&W's were built as well or better, but required smithing to reduce the trigger pull and to smooth out the action. They still wouldn't match up to the Pre-war S&W's.

I've had and had tuned M-28-2's (4" & 6"), multiple M27-2's (all 6"), M-29-2' (6"), M-29-3 (6") and M-629-4 (4")Mountain Gun. Some have come close being tuned, but none matching or bettering Papaw's Outdoorsman.

Those old gunsmiths at S&W knew their stuff and somewhere, their finest fitting and springing tricks have been lost