Not looking to bash the current production revolvers ,but I am curious about one particular change made to them.I can live with the IL and the hole in the frame,I could replace the new style cylinder latch if I had too.But the cylinder stop just looks out of place to me.Does anyone know why this change was made?
What I don't like about the new revolvers .
- Thread starter Laketime
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
With the people that then ran S&W it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Like many other things changed it is sometimes very hard to undue.
Like many other things changed it is sometimes very hard to undue.
Kernel Crittenden
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
The latch and frames were changed nearly 20 years ago. Is that still considered "new"? If they were your kid they'd be Sophomores in college.
S&W said the changes made the frames stronger. For example, in the case of the J-frames, the new frame was able to handle .357 Magnum pressure.
S&W said the changes made the frames stronger. For example, in the case of the J-frames, the new frame was able to handle .357 Magnum pressure.
Redlegvzv
Member
It is striking on how all of the gun forums, there is a nostalgia for the "old" guns and the way they were built. Personally I like the new S&Ws just the way they are. Couldn't care less about the lock; I simply ignore it.
mc5aw
Member
There's one consideration to new vs. old that continues to resonate with me. If I have a pre-IL model that is somewhat low production or desirable for whatever reason, it cannot be replaced with an identical model should it become damaged. I realize such reasoning could result in never shooting/carrying an older model for fear of hurting it, but it still nags at me on occasion. I've owned a few S&W oddballs (396, 242, 520) and I've used them sparingly simply because it would be near impossible to replace them. With a newer S&W, irrespective of MIM or IL, the Mothership will generally replace it no questions asked.
Aside from some cosmetic elements, and speaking strictly as to functionality, a new S&W revolver is a fine purchase.
Aside from some cosmetic elements, and speaking strictly as to functionality, a new S&W revolver is a fine purchase.
jrs70
US Veteran
I like the looks of the older revolvers better. I do own both and carry a 642. I just love my 625 JM.
DFrame
Member
the only complaint I've had is the kind of bizarre outside barrel contours. Kind of makes me think the designer also created the Pontiac Aztek
Rpg
Member
Look like something out if Star Wars.
I'm okay with the new S&Ws. Quality, fit, and finish are very high. I have learned to live with the IL, more or less. I put The Plug in my 642, and disabled the lock in my 640.
I continue to look for an older S&W Revolver in the occasional pawn shop, on Gun Broker.com, and on our local "gun trader" web page. A nice vintage .38 Special would be welcome. However, in general, the people on Gun Broker want too much for them...
Memo #1 to S&W -- I'd buy a new 686 Plus TODAY if you made one without the IL. I mean, I'd order it right now. Memo #2 to S&W -- I'd be more tempted by several Pro Series models if they didn't have that loopy "Pro Series" laser engraved script on them.
I continue to look for an older S&W Revolver in the occasional pawn shop, on Gun Broker.com, and on our local "gun trader" web page. A nice vintage .38 Special would be welcome. However, in general, the people on Gun Broker want too much for them...
Memo #1 to S&W -- I'd buy a new 686 Plus TODAY if you made one without the IL. I mean, I'd order it right now. Memo #2 to S&W -- I'd be more tempted by several Pro Series models if they didn't have that loopy "Pro Series" laser engraved script on them.
Last edited:
BigBill
Absent Comrade
When my lgs had the N Frames for $599/$699 NIB I regret not buying up them all. With the il and mim give me them all at that price. A tad of moly in the action makes them all feel the same.
Memo #3 to s&w bring back that world famous S&W nickel finish to all the revolvers. It's so freaking awesome.
Memo #3 to s&w bring back that world famous S&W nickel finish to all the revolvers. It's so freaking awesome.
Last edited:
SLT223
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 3,531
- Reaction score
- 5,578
Yeah, I solved this by purchasing duplicates, triplicates....quadruplicates...just to make sure I'm covered for the rest of my life
I have no problems whatsoever with the new guns. I've said it before, and I'll say again I'm huge fan of the new actions. I just don't want to have to re-buy any of the old guns ten years from now when they all have four figure price tags.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,020
- Reaction score
- 7,101
I do not know why the change was made to the cylinder retaining lug on the frame, but I actually like the feature.
THE PILGRIM
Member
Being as I a one of the 'senior' Smith shooter- collector,
I have a number of older guns.
And I may buy a few more!
I have a number of older guns.
And I may buy a few more!
In some ways, the new S&W revolvers look a little sleeker than the old S&W revolvers. With a few exceptions, the frames and the sleeved barrels make them essentially a different gun than the guns of 30 years ago and before (and pinned barrels and locks don't have much to do with it.) So maybe people should start viewing them as an altogether new gun rather than an "inferior" version of those old guns.
ginzo
Member
I have a 638-3 and a 649-3, love them both the same. No issues with either.
Just a good reason to buy an identical gun as a back up.
It might have helped if they didn't keep using the same model numbers . . .
Presume you mean the cylinder lug? I don't know why it changed, but would wager that with advances in the precision of CNC machining it became easier and more cost effective to include the lug as part of the machined frame itself rather than the press fit of the original lug style.
Yes the lug ,I couldn't think of the term for the life of me yesterday.
