Quote:
Originally Posted by gr7070
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.