Smith & Wesson's best years?

[guitar1580]

Is there a reason that many of you are leaving out the pinned 1970s revolvers? I have several from the late 60s to mid 70s, and they seem to be pretty comparable to my 50s & early 60s models. My 10-7 from 1979 is one of my favorite Smiths.

Just wondering if something in particular went downhill during that period.

Josh P

 

[Doc44]

Josh...speaking for the 44 Magnum, the polish applied before finishing in bright blue or nickel was "best" from 1956 through early 1957, but was still exceptional through 1960. Revolvers made in the early 70s are fine examples, but the degree of polish applied to them is noticeably less.

Bill

 

[wraco]

Is there a reason that many of you are leaving out the pinned 1970s revolvers? I have several from the late 60s to mid 70s, and they seem to be pretty comparable to my 50s & early 60s models. My 10-7 from 1979 is one of my favorite Smiths.

Just wondering if something in particular went downhill during that period.

Josh P

Josh: I also have S&W revolvers from the 60's and 70's. . You're correct, they are pretty and they are of good quality. . never included these because the OP asked which were "Smith & Wesson's best years". . .

Rod

 

[guitar1580]

Thanks guys. Makes sense.

Josh

 

[lowhog]

FWIW, I wasn't a collector/accumulator until I found this community. I had a 640-1 for CC, a 29-6 Classic 6.5" for blastin', and a shooter grade pre-27 6.5" that was given to me when a dealer friend passed on ten years ago. After studying the SCSW, in 2008 I decided that prewar and transition period (1946-1949) N frames were my primary interest, the .44HE in particular. Why? Because they're big, classic revolvers and in some cases rare. Some of my S&W's are collectible with boxes and letters while others are worn and dinged but quite functional and enjoyable shooters.

Pre 1950
38/44 Outdoorsman prewar
38/44 HD prewar, transition
44HE 2nd Model
44HE 3rd Model prewar, transition

Along the way I broadened the scope to include pre models and certain models/features that just appeal to me. Apparently I really like tapered barrels and the Centennial:

Post 1950
Pre- 20 38/44 HD
Pre- 21 1950 Model 44 Military
Pre- 27 .357 Magnum 3.5" and 6.5"
Pre- 28 "Highway Patrolman 4"
24-3 "1950 .44 Target Reintroduction"
28-2 "Highway Patrolman" 4"
29-2 .44 Magnum Nickel 4"
29-5 .44 Magnum Blue 4"
29-6 "29 Classic" Blue 6.5"
624 "Model of 1985 .44 Target Stainless" 4"
629-2 "Mountain Revolver"
629-4 "Mountain Gun"
640-1 "Centennial" .357
642-1 "Centennial" .38

Admittedly there's not a lot of collecting discipline here but I do make an effort to look for N-frames 1935-1949 first, then pre-models, then interesting N-frames in top condition. I don't know which, if any, of the post-1960 production N frames are or will be deemed collectible, with the exception of rare "dash" engineering changes, reintroductions, and perhaps limited runs for Lew Horton, et. al. But it appears that at this moment the Model 27 and Model 28 are hot, pre-MIM is desirable. And, one should have a nickel 29-2 4" in a wooden display case, just 'cuz.

Attached pics are a few that have come my way.

Question about the Second picture.Is that a 44 3rd model or a hd?Did it ship with the humpback hammer?Mike

 

[bennettfam]

middle aged Smiths?

Is there a reason that many of you are leaving out the pinned 1970s revolvers? I have several from the late 60s to mid 70s, and they seem to be pretty comparable to my 50s & early 60s models. My 10-7 from 1979 is one of my favorite Smiths.

Just wondering if something in particular went downhill during that period.

Josh P

I'm with you Josh. Everyone here seems to be cutting off their "best year" eras at 1960 or 1961. So is my 1962 model 19-2 just chopped liver?

I have no real oldies to compare to so I will continue living with my P&R revolvers from the 60s and 70s in ignorant bliss.

 

[Dave T]

Thanks very much for the info guys. I didn't know if there were any years to avoid such as when Patrick Sweeny states in his book 1911 The first 100 years, that Colt's quality suffered through the 80s. I will definitely get some reading material and educate myself. I appreciate the replies and the forum.

As much as I like the few pre-War Smiths I have my favorites are The Model of 1950 (short action) before they introduced model numbers.

The years I avoid are the Bangor/Punta era. Those are when the dash 2 guns were being built. Yes there are some nice guns from that period but I had several friends in the gun business in the 1970s and early 1980s and they told many tales of poor quality control...like a M29-2 with a 41 Mag cylinder fitted. My department bought M66s in 1978 and some of them were an embarrassment to the gun making industry. Yea, Smith replaced them but how did a gun with the barrel so out of alignment the ejector wouldn't engage the front lock get shipped to a law enforcement agency?

Dave

 

[amazingflapjack]

not lately-that's for sure.

 

[lazcool]

DrFlintlock ,
I started with a Mod 19 2 inch snubby that was my first SW, and I was very happy with it, then got my first mod 10.... after that my mod 15, all of them just a high class S&W workmanship.

Now I have a thing for the older Heavy Duty and the Outdoorsman, going back to 1938 and 46 and all I can say is that they are amazing guns, I will not part from them.

Smith and Wesson means to me Heritage and Craftsman-shift.
Cheers!!!!

 

[The Gila Bender]

Question about the Second picture.Is that a 44 3rd model or a hd?Did it ship with the humpback hammer?Mike

Lowhog,
The second pic is a .44HE 3rd Model with 5" barrel, humpback hammer, and matching magnas. It letters as .38/44 HD shipped to a police officer in Bozeman, Montana on Aug 20 1940. The letter states that the original invoice could not be found to confirm that it was changed to a .44HE before shipment or that it shipped with the HB hammer. The SWHF doesn't have any additional information either.

 

[Oyeboteb]

There are many attributes or assigns which have to do with various orders or dimensions of 'Quality'.

All in all, my own opinion, would be that the pinnacle or plateau of S&W's integrated and harmonious height quality wise, was from their first Break-Open Large Frames in the early 1870s, up to about WWI or so.

From there, quality remained very high if very slighly less high in some ways than before...quality of Metalurgy is thought to have improved a little, so, some give and take...but, from say, WWI to the advent of WWII, 'quality' was still very high, just not globally quite as high as the 1870s - WWI time period.

After WWII, quality was high, but not as high as the sort of chapter before...and, it enjoyed it's plateau till the early 1960s, then went down a few nothches, and or was somewhere between okay-enough and not so good...and, has not come back up enough to speak of, since.

Yes, one can find early Model 10s or other which were fitted and assembled well and finished well in their way and so on, and, if you put them next to a Model 1899 K Frame, the difference in overall quality, becomes glaring or even painful.

True excellence, and, 'good enough' can both function well mechanically, be reliable, and satisfy... but one immediately elevated the regard of the informed onlooker, and, the other is accepted or is respected in a somewhat different way.


High, even unsurpassed Excellence, would characterise their offerings from the early 1870s through WWI.

Excellent, from WWI through WWII.

Pretty much excellent to at least very good, from WWII to the early '60s.

Merely "Good-enough" ( or sometimes not even merely good enough ) would characterise S&W's offerings since the early 1960s.

When they cared about excellence first, the money and reputation followed.

Once they cared about money first, mediocrity or worse, hyperbole and gimmicks and self referential advertising schtick followed.

Same with endless else of our culture and it's artifact exemplars.

 

[DrFlintlock]

Yes, I see that most of you share the same sentiment as me that the 1950s and before were the high water mark for American manufacturers from everything from firearms to musical equipment (i.e. fender). If I were the CEO of Winchester it would embarrass me every time I heard "pre '64 model 70". The reason that I collect guns is partly because I like shooting them and I want the highest quality piece of equipment available. We collect guns from these periods (and pay premiums for them) not only for the collectability but also for the quality. Their quality is probably why they are collectable in the first place IMHO. The following attachment are two Smiths in my collection that show what I am looking for in collecting.

 

[Snakeshift]

As much as I like the few pre-War Smiths I have my favorites are The Model of 1950 (short action) before they introduced model numbers.

The years I avoid are the Bangor/Punta era. Those are when the dash 2 guns were being built. Yes there are some nice guns from that period but I had several friends in the gun business in the 1970s and early 1980s and they told many tales of poor quality control...like a M29-2 with a 41 Mag cylinder fitted. My department bought M66s in 1978 and some of them were an embarrassment to the gun making industry. Yea, Smith replaced them but how did a gun with the barrel so out of alignment the ejector wouldn't engage the front lock get shipped to a law enforcement agency?

Dave

Luckily time has done what QC did not at Bangor-Punta. Most of the "Ugly Ducklings" of those years have either been remedied via factory repair or lost in the morass of time.

If you were to come across a 70's-81'ish P&R Smith today (as opposed to the actual 70's) it has a pretty good chance of being a great revolver instead of a Bangor "Lemon".

That being said; my "Golden Age" is anything Pre-Lock. I know there are some better and some worse years in-between over a century of production; but anything without the lock is fair game for me .

 

[PALADIN85020]

The only generality I would make is that pretty much coincidental with the introduction of the lock in the ugly hole and MIM parts, S&W elegance tanked big time. Because MIM parts were pretty close, fit-wise, these parts were just assembled into guns with no regard for fitting. It was an economy move that worked after a fashion, but pride in manufacture was no more. The craftsmen of old were replaced by CNC machinery. Some really sloppy stuff started to come out, even through the custom shop, where they had some craftsmen who should know better.

For me, the "Golden Age" of S&W craftsmanship was in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. The 80s products were mostly OK, but starting in the 90s - well forget about it. The modern Smith guns are generally functional, but just can't compare esthetically, and there is no careful fitting of parts. The old-time blue that you could swim in is no more, and nickel plating is not done on the scale or with the care that it once was.

The modern "classic" series sought to revive the look and feel of the older guns, but has for the most part failed miserably; the first thing I look at is that awful ugly hole above the cylinder release. It's like looking at an otherwise beautiful woman who has a big mole on her nose - the whole aura is spoiled irretrievably. I did get a classic Model 40-1, but ONLY because they omitted the lock. Classic ain't classic if you mess up the design with that damnable lock.

Look for something in excellent or better condition from the '20s through the '80s, and you won't go far wrong. I predict values on these guns will continue to escalate as more and more people begin to realize that unless something is turned around, the era of S&W elegance is no more.

John

 

[colt_saa]

My favorite years were 1965, 1997, 2000 and 2006/7

 

[Elroy]

I like the craftmanship of the 1930's.

I am going to put my hat in this ring.

I'm blessed to have a mint M&P from around 1930. The blue was all done in one shot and it all matches perfectly.

We also have several from the 50's and 60's that are as mint as the M&P. One little difference. These pieces were done in batches. Get it in bright day light and each of the major components has just a bit different shade of blue. The blue on the M&P on the other hand is all the same, front to back, top to bottom.

As far as the stock fitting is concerned, there is simply no comparison. The M&P fit, finish and match is miles ahead.

The 1930's production was built in age of craftsmanship !!!

Look at a mint 80 year old example and you'll see what I mean. The quality is simply stunning.

That's my vote

 

[CptCurl]

I am going to put my hat in this ring.

I'm blessed to have a mint M&P from around 1930. The blue was all done in one shot and it all matches perfectly.

We also have several from the 50's and 60's that are as mint as the M&P. One little difference. These pieces were done in batches. Get it in bright day light and each of the major components has just a bit different shade of blue. The blue on the M&P on the other hand is all the same, front to back, top to bottom.

As far as the stock fitting is concerned, there is simply no comparison. The M&P fit, finish and match is miles ahead.

The 1930's production was built in age of craftsmanship !!!

Look at a mint 80 year old example and you'll see what I mean. The quality is simply stunning.

That's my vote

I agree. The 1930's are hard to beat for fit and finish.

I must say, however, that the late 1940's and early to mid-1950's guns are really good. When properly cleaned and oiled their actions are almost as smooth. The Magna grip, followed by the target grips give better advantage to the shooter. They arguably are more "shootable" than the pre-WW2 guns (not to include pre-WW2 Magnas, which are divine).

So it boils down to a question of your criteria in making the judgment. Aesthetics, fit and finish, and shootability come together in different proportions for different collectors/shooters.

 

[Hammerdown]

Hello
I see you got many different opinions of what was the best years of guns S&W Made. We all have our own area of collecting and mine changed a few years ago. I used to collect Model stamped revolver's... That was until I added a 1936 K-22 Outdoorsman and my 1935 Registered Magnum. Once I had these two gun's in my collection and had the time to look them over and shoot them, I was sold on S&W's made in the 1930's time span. To me, the Bluing was a Mile deep on these 1930's guns as well as the Fit & Finish. These gun's were made in the Original Plant in a Time span when Hurry was Not an option as they employed Old World Craftsman that had Pride in their work and it sure showed. These gun's were hand fitted from start to finish unlike later one's with retro fit parts these all were of their own Character.. I feel this time span of the 1930's was the Height of S&W quality and worker's Pride...








The 1936 K-22 Outdoorsman Revolver

The S&W Registered Magnum shown with Walter Roper Custom shooting stock's

 

[sunday bill]

Admitted, I'm way more of a shooter/accumulator than a collector, but I agree with most of what has been said here ref. aesthetics, quality of bluing, smoothness of action, etc.....However, I'll be darned if I can make my good-bored pre-WWII S&W .44s and .45s group as well as some of my more-or-less recently manufactured S&W big bores. A 24-3, 624, and a 625-8 and 629-6 Mtn. Gun, both with the infamous hole, spring immediately to mind. Neither new nor old S&W .45 (ACP or LC) will consistently shoot tighter off-hand groups than my 1940-made Colt New Service, chambered in .45 Colt.

Truthfully, I like the aesthetics of the old grips and refuse to replace'em on my relics. Sometimes, I can feel the gun move in my hand a tad about the time the shot breaks, so I guess they don't fit me as well as some of the add-on grips on my more recent guns, and that may explain it.

I'm no fan of the hole, but, "Purty is as purty does?"

 

[H.Callahan]

Ownership of the company passed from the Wesson family control in 1964. I think that was the start of the decline of quality at S&W. The Bangor-Punta and the Saf-T-Hammer eras being among the worst. The ONLY saving grace during the B-P era was that S&W still had a number of people working that remembered how to build a gun, and there were still some good examples from that time, but things started to decline.

In MY mind the real down turn occurred during the time period they eliminated the pinned barrels and the recessed chambers on the magnums. The even deeper downturn occurred around the time of the IL. This is not to say that those specific items were in my mind the reason, but just an identifiable way to pinpoint the time frame.

Smith did (and still does) make fine guns. But the just ain't like they used to be.