People say that about guitars and amps on those forums, and about guns on the gun forums. Is it really true? Are the new guns really so bad compared to the older ones? People complain about the IL and MIM (which I was relieved to find out doesn't mean Made In Mexico), but what about SS cylinders on Night Guards or endurance packages on newer 629s, etc.

People say that about guitars and amps on those forums, and about guns on the gun forums. Is it really true? Are the new guns really so bad compared to the older ones? People complain about the IL and MIM (which I was relieved to find out doesn't mean Made In Mexico), but what about SS cylinders on Night Guards or endurance packages on newer 629s, etc.

They aren't bad; I have a new 642 from the lock-free run and it has been fantastic...the MIM parts are consistant and the gun is pretty smooth out of the box...

The problem with the new guns is mostly that the lock is a moral/political issue. S&W put in the lock to appease clinton/lawyers, and that rubs some of us the wrong way. We see it that S&W peed on our intelligence, the history of the company, and they did it with an ugly and potentially un-relaible device.

Some old ones were perfect, some were junk...some new ones are perfect, some are junk.

Well, this one surely will open the usual can of worms. So, rather than get all long-winded I'll just say this. I have two favorite revolvers. One is my 686-6, manufactured in 2006. It has MIM parts and a lock. It is made from stainless steel, came with rubber grips, has a frame mounted firing pin, and doesn't have recessed cylinders or a pinned barrel. But, it is deadly accurate and has a wonderful trigger action. My second favorite is my 66, manufactured in 1970. It has forged parts, wooden grips, a pinned barrel, a hammer mounted firing pin, and recessed cylinders. It also doesn't have a lock. But, like the 686, it is deadly accurate and has a wonderful trigger action. Both guns are rugged. I've put thousands of rounds through the 686, including some pretty stout magnum loads, without so much as a hiccup. I've had the 66 for only a few months but it's holding up its end nicely. Neither gun has needed so much as a penny's worth of service. Your free to draw your own conclusions from my experience and those of others. As for me, I see no difference between new and old Smiths (although I'll admit that some of those old blued guns sure are pretty).

Its a choice to me. Like some people thimk that some car makers havn't made a good car since the 60's They don't like new and improved. As a rule the newer should have better metal in the frames and barrels and tolarences should be closer (on non-handfitted) guns with the use of CNC machining.If the mfg didn't use this prosses and hand- fitted every gun the cost would be 2 to 3 times the outrages orices we are paying now days

Yeah, this may open a can of worms, but I hope it doesn't become a thread about the merits/demerits of the IL. I really am curious about whether the older guns really are better than the newer ones other than for collection purposes.

The problem, or one problem anyway, is how do you define better? A lot of the new manufacturing processes were developed to reduce labor and hand fitting. IMHO, hand fitting is better. The gun may function fine but to me an old gun that also works but is hand fit and hand polished is "better". I have never seen an old S&W with a gap between the frame and the back of the ejector rod housing, yet I handled a new 627 pro in a gun shop that I could have slid a business card into. To me that gun just wasn't right and I would not have bought it. I wanted a new S&W about a year ago. I don't buy a lot of guns, I have a daughter in college and some debt left over from helping her older sister so my money gets parceled out pretty carefully. I wanted a new S&W but I just couldn't buy one and the perception on my part of the fit and finish was a big part of why. If I am going to spend $700-800 on a revolver it is not going to have gaps where things should be flush, it is not going to ooze black greasy crud out of the frame/sideplate junction, it is not going to have a deep muzzle crown that looks awfull.

I’m a Toolmaker, and yes I believe the older guns are made better. The fit and finish is better and QA inspections were better.
As far as MIM… it depends on what the part is, but as far as I’m concerned it has no place in firearm parts as it is susceptible to fracturing and failing under the shock of a firearm firing.

I like old winchesters, colts and smith & wessons. I imanage the guns now days WILL do the job just as well. But without "soul".
In rifles, the good wood and finish just isnt there unless you pay in the nose. Rugers always looked "clubby" to me espeacialy in double action revolvers. I hate, hate, hate plastic!
I am not into the black guns. I dont claim I am right, thats just me.
Stainless has been out for 50 years now and because of seniority, they still have the mark of a "newby" to me!

Some of my smoothest guns are my newer ones. My roughest action belongs to a beautiful pre-35 and the rib sides on my 34 were over polished so badly the edges are wavy. I think good and poor examples of handguns exist in both old and new models. Hand fitting and finishing is great if the guy doing it is up to task that day (didn't fight with his/her spouse and drink heavily the night before).

I think the older forged triggers and hammers looked better than the newer MIM ones, but I have had zero problems with the MIM parts. I do like the looks over my older blued guns over my newer stainless ones. My newer ones are more USEFUL to me because they are the ones I grab to take afield.

I loved the old cars with fenders and running boards and maybe external spares and headlights. They had class and distinction and "soul" but they don't perform and ride like the new ones.I like the new guns and would not hesitate to buy one. I have had them in the past but don't own any at present time with the IL. I never see any bargains with the IL for sale. I might be interested in some at a good price.

Older S&W revolvers were fitted. Much of the hand fitting done by folks who had done it for many years.

"Fitted" is not a word in use by the company these days. The miracle of MIM enabling the revolvers to simply be assembled and pushed out the door.

Buy what appeals to you. Make mine all pre 2000 S&W revolvers. Regards 18DAI.

__________________
7 +1 Rounds of hope & change

There was a time when guns had to be "fitted" simply because the manufacturing techniques in use were not capable of holding the exact specification required for proper function.

This is no longer true today, CnC machining centers capable of holding a workpiece within 5/10,000 inch are no longer the province of NASA with it's unlimited budget, they are now common and relatively cheap.

Personally, I don't care when a gun was made, I just care if it functions properly. To that end, I always examine any gun that I purchase pretty closly before I put my money on the counter. Yesterday, I was looking at a brand new model 620 and the action was every bit as smooth as my model 67. Basically, right out of the box it's as smooth as butter. Which means that it was made well enough to not require any hand fitting.

So, in my opinion, todays guns can be made with better fit and quality than any gun of the past. However, meeting that standard requires commitment from the manufacturer. Cutting tools do get dull and require replacement at timely intervals or quality will suffer. You can use the most sophisticated and expensive maching centers and produce nothing but junk if you don't maintain the tools. What that means is that if Smith is doing well and making a profit, they will produce great guns. But, it also means that if they start losing money they will try and shave costs and the quality will be the first victim of the cost cutting.

So, IMO today's S&W's are probably as good as any they have ever made. However, it's hard to predict what will happen in 5 or 10 years and we may be at a peak in quality.

I like the old along with the new. If I was going to shoot a action match, I would use like the new SSR because I would be scared that I would hurt one of my old guns. The old ones are just like old timers - to learn from and to look at.

Theoretically, the majority of today's S&W revolvers should outlast and outshoot the majority of the old ones. CNC machined and MIM parts can be held to much tighter tolerances, and such things as two-piece barrels have been tried and proven in other guns in the past. I have had extensive experience with only one S&W of recent manufacture, a Model 37-2, and it is in all respects a fine gun. Ironically, of course, it is "old school", using the old-style frame, casehardened trigger and bobbed hammer, and lacking the external keyed safety.

Unfortunately, most of the new examples I've seen have been a bit disappointing. They're undoubtedly the nicest mass-produced revolvers being made today, and I'd love to have one of their new retro .44s or .45s, but they're just copying the style of the old ones, and something about an old one is just more satisfying. I love my Model 28 and 1917!

__________________
Pisgah