Are new guns better than old ones?

[GF]

All pistols should be Glocks...
All Glocks should be a 19.



Those old guns are just for old men.

GF

 

[Ahab]

I'm wondering if S&W has continues to improve products in recent decades.

For example, is my two year old 60-15 stronger than the first generation 357 magnum 60's?

I can think of a few reason's it might be:

1. Perhaps metallurgy has continued to improve with better steel used.

2. More advanced CNC manufacturing tooling may result in closer tolerances than a decade or two ago. I know on Buffalo Bore's site they show higher performance (faster) ballistic results for more modern S&W guns than older revolvers of the same barrel length. They comment on this and attribute it to more precisely fitted parts.

3. The second (or third) generation of most mechanical products can be better than the first as bugs and weaknesses are ironed out.

Or is older just always better?

Older is not better. My recent S&W purchases have all been outstanding.

 

[counter-clockwise]

I bought my first Smith & Wesson revolver this year , Talo 686plus 7" barrel. I have a 586 blue 6" barrel Combat revolver on order right now. I want to buy new S&W revolvers. I want to give a Yankee a job , so they do not relocate to South Carolina . Baw-ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha !

I'm sure I could find them a place here in tn!

 

[spad124]

To start with, the last new S&W revolver I bought was in 1988. I buy used ones because of cost. I can still buy a mechanically good M10 for far less than a new one.

Even the older Smiths weren't perfect. 25-2s are known for oversized throats. My 25-5, which I bought in 1988, shoots high, even with the rear sight all the way down. S&W made a run of 25-5s using M29 barrel blanks with an integral front sight at a height intended for the 44 mag. The sight is simply too low for .45 Colt. My M1917 has the heaviest trigger pull I've felt on a Smith. And the 669 I just inherited is not nearly as refined as it could be. In contrast my model 10s and 14-3 have the best SA triggers and wonderful balance.

In spite of the fact that the older guns aren't perfect, I enjoy searching our good examples at reasonable prices.

 

[629shooter]

I think it depends on the shooter, and what they want out of the gun. If you just want something to beat on then buy a new one. If you want something that is going to "gain value" then buy older ones.

Then there is the "happy middle" (like a 629-5) No ILS to worry about but, you have MIM parts.
All of them are good for something.

S&W still can make a good revolver. But, their current QC needs improvement IMO. A buyer needs to know what they are looking at now days, and watch for over-clocked barrels, check timing, cylinder gap, burs, etc.

A very good friend of mine, just picked up a 2.5" 686+ that has no issues whatsoever. So, the "good ones" are out there guys.

 

[regalsc]

My only first hand comparison of old vs new is my range where I was speaking with a guy that has a 625jm & we were comparing my 625-2 1988. I felt not much difference in trigger pull of course his is 4" mine is 5" there was the il, frame mounted firing pin & his has no backstrap lines. I think a lot of my preference toward mine is because of the old way they were made which is what I grew up with. I would like to know what the cost to produce mine now compared to the one produced now would be. I'm guessing something like the cost difference in Springfield 1911's vs Nighthawk Custom. I can't afford a NC.

 

[steelslaver]

I think that today's guns are fine from a metallurgy stand point including MIM, but the hand fit and finish is long gone and isn't coming back. That fit and finish is what puts the older ones above the new one.

 

[Grayfox]

The short answer - No.

 

[Rick_A]

I have a mix of old and new. The new ones may be better in some respects...they are cleaner inside and out as far as machined surfaces. SOME of the old guns are better finished on the exterior surfaces...that's not always true. All of the features done away with don't improve performance or function (P&R, etc).

Old guns are nostalgic and collectible. New guns are affordable and practical. The lemon rolls out every now and then as it always has. Instead of sending a letter to the factory and telling your neighbor folks step up on their soap box and complain to the interwebs about every little thing.

 

[ankona]

I currently have a 66-2, 640 PRO, and 686-6. No issues with any of them. I had several other S&W revos in the past that i follishly sold. Got the 1911 bug what can I say but have been getting back into revos. I regret those past sales.

 

[BigBill]

I did notice a difference between the new m58 & new m57 I purchased with the action. One was smooth while the other was a tad rough. I lubed it with moly now there the same feel. I lube all my revolvers with moly so each action has the same feel.

 

[wolverine]

Morning Cal 44

That really depends on the definition of BETTER, better at what?

I have some older Smith revolvers & some new Smith revolvers.

Almost across the board the older Smiths have better fit & finish,
and, in most cases my older Smiths came from the factory with
smoother actions & smoother trigger pulls.

Of the last 10 S&W revolvers I have bought 9 have had to back
to Smith for some sort of warranty repair (some have had to go
back more than once).


Back when S&W almost went out of business most of their talented
workers left for more stable positions with a brighter future in
different companies, so, like the auto companies, Smith was
left with the least talented, or least caring, workers.

I guess I can't blame Smith for pushing guns out the door as
fast as they can hammer them together now. Even their blatant
junk sells fast at my local gun shops. Most new gun owners just
don't know any better, or have that "want-it-right-now" attitude,
so buy Smith's wares even with their blatant & glaring flaws.

I guess I'm no better as I will look at 5 new Smiths then buy
the one that looks the easiest to make right, not the one with
no flaws but the one that looks easiest to make it into a decent shooter.

The few of us that look for (& expect) some quality in new
guns-- Smith either addresses that in their rather decent customer
service department or hopes the customer will get tired of
complaining & just go away. (it seems to be working for them
as they (Smith) seems to be selling all they can ship out as fast
as the shops receive them).

I know in a few of the local gun shops that I frequent I will look
at 2 or 3 new Smith Revolvers that just came in that morning
& find major flaws like lock-up issues, or very large cyl to
barrel gaps, or canted barrel/barrel shrouds, or horrendous
trigger pulls, or very rough machining, or poor fits & finishes
but next time I go into that shop ALL are sold out. SO, Smith
must be doing something right to get all their new offering
sold out so fast at a pretty high premium price at that.

It's just modern America-- buy the best you can find then
hopefully work it out so all the blatant defects can be ironed
out over time.


I guess the upside on the newer Smith revolvers is: they do
seem to work OK as received they just don't show the quality
& care in assembly of the older hand fitted Smith's.

Same reason the Colt Python bit the dust-- just cost too much
to put the required quality into for the selling price so Colt
discontinued in favor of cheaper to assemble higher profit
mass produced products.

In my eyes the thing that Smith currently has going for it is
offering new models that just are not available in older higher
quality hand fitted revolvers. You want a 5 shot "L" frame .44
mag you must buy current.

So it seems that Smith's bean counters have worked it out
to offer JUST ENOUGH quality to stay in business but make
the new offerings MIM, CNC machined, & loosely assembled
to sell everything they make with not enough warranty returns
to kill their bottom line profits.

 

[shawn mccarver]

I'm wondering if S&W has continues to improve products in recent decades.

. . . .

Or is older just always better?

I think it depends on why you want the revolver or pistol. For example, if you want a non-shooter to add to a collection, then usually, older is better.

If you want one to use hard and shoot thousands of rounds, then there is nothing much wrong with an older weapon, as long as you understand parts are a problem, service may be a problem, and it may not be capable of repair if it breaks, depending on the problem encountered.

So, one way that I can think of that new guns are better is for hard use. At least there are parts available and the factory has parts and can either do repairs or make replacements.

 

[CaptRon956]

Are new guns better than old ones?

Yeah, I'll pick a M&P shield over a flintlock any day.

 

[murphydog]

Objectively, with advances in metallurgy and machining tolerances, you can argue that modern S & W products are "better". If technology could eliminate all the human factors involved in the final product (assembly, metal finish, fitting) it would be a close call.

However, subjectively older guns (nicer finish, evidence of hand fitting - the human touches) just seem better to many. I've had a few older NIB S & W products that were not up to par, but by now they have been fixed or scrapped for the most part, so they are not around to cloud our happy memories . It's nice to have a choice between old and new.

 

[walkin' trails]

S&W's quality since the 70s has had its lows, always corresponding with foreign ownership. My 18-4 out of the box had a rear sight that wouldn't adjust no matter which way or how long you turned the screw.

Now, if they were to combine modern metallurgy and cnc with QC and finishes from the 50s....

 

[Muss Muggins]

I'm wondering if S&W has continues to improve products in recent decades.

For example, is my two year old 60-15 stronger than the first generation 357 magnum 60's?

I can think of a few reason's it might be:

1. Perhaps metallurgy has continued to improve with better steel used.

2. More advanced CNC manufacturing tooling may result in closer tolerances than a decade or two ago. I know on Buffalo Bore's site they show higher performance (faster) ballistic results for more modern S&W guns than older revolvers of the same barrel length. They comment on this and attribute it to more precisely fitted parts.

3. The second (or third) generation of most mechanical products can be better than the first as bugs and weaknesses are ironed out.

Or is older just always better?

Like most products, some new guns are better, some old guns are still the bomb. Some innovations made a good gun great, some made a great gun average.

 

[Rick_A]

I like to use this as an example of new vs old, a 1954 357 and 2009 22-4. Neither one is perfect but they're both functionally exceptional in all respects. The 357 has an unpolished trigger guard. The 22-4 had a proud side plate. The 357 has an uneven barrel-cylinder gap. The 22-4 has a rough outside edge on the rear of the barrel inside the frame. The double action on both pull the same. The 357 breaks as the cylinder locks up. The 22-4 locks up early and can be staged. The single action on the 357 is 1/2lb lighter. It should be with a 60 year head start. The hardening on the hammer and trigger of the 357 looks prettier, as does the hardwood vs the laminate on the newer.
20140707_133632 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

Folks love to elevate their vintage guns to a high plateau and look at the new ones with a critical eye. Nothing made by man is perfect whether made by hand or by CNC. For those that claim all their vintage guns are pinnacles of perfection and the new ones are functional but fundamentally flawed I tend to find that the truth is somewhere in between. They are surely made quite differently though are functionally the same. Which is better is largely a matter of opinion. I base mine on the example before me.

The guy that sent back 90% of the guns needs better luck, lower standards, or should stop breaking them. That's unbelievable.

 

[wolverine]

Morning Rick_A

I guess I'm not sure what you are comparing there. The newest gun in your comparison review is 6 years old. (LOTS of changes at S&W over the last 6 years)

 

[mg357]

I think the new guns are better the metallurgy is better.

In terms of construction the new guns are stronger.

The new guns are easier to find and purchase because so many people are buying the older guns.