Old vs New

[Rick_A]

20160714_191348 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

1952 Chiefs Special vs 2013 649-5

1980 10-8 vs 2015 67-5

1954 357 vs 2009 22-4

The older guns have it (mostly) in exterior finish, fine details, and collector value, but these are all shooters. Anyone that believes the new guns give up anything in function can kiss my brass.

They're all excellent, with the 10-8 being the best shooting fixed sight handgun in the house, the 67-5 being the best shooter overall, with the 357 and 22-4 not far behind. If I had to pick a favorite it'd be the 22-4. It's a great balance of looks, practicality, shootability, and firepower. The Pre 27 is built like a tank and a sure keeper, making 357 shooting easy and entertaining.

The Chiefs Special is a fine old gun, though the fit/finish isn't as good as other guns of the era, and the 649-5 is a very practical carry that shoots quite well for a small gun, as most J frames do. Regular carry use has polished the cylinder quite brightly from the leather holster. If there was but one J frame to have, it'd probably be a Chiefs Special. As I have others, the J Magnum fits a good niche.

 

[AZretired]

Nice. If we're voting I prefer the OLD.

 

[Goblin]

Funny, my eyes were drawn to that 22 as well. Nice comparo, thanks for sharing.

 

[STCM(SW)]

Letters to 1923.
Does just as good as this one that cost 3 times as much and is from 2001.

 

[Old cop]

While I've never had a problem w/the lock the older guns have more of an appeal to me. There is some pride of ownership and the look of the lock makes an otherwise fine revolver ugly.

 

[DD357]

Nice. If we're voting I prefer the OLD.

Same here.

 

[rwt1405]

Very nice collection! But my vote would also go to the old!

 

[Jingles]

Anyone that believes the new guns give up anything in function can kiss my brass.

If your definition of function includes trigger I respectfully disagree that they are the same on new guns as old. There is just something about an older S&W revolver trigger pull that can't even be matched by a Python. To be fair some of that smoothness comes from decades of use, but even a NIB model 14 from the '60's would rival anything put out by the Performance Center today.

 

[Ashlander]

I'd be happy if any one of them fell into my lap.

 

[sodacan]

Yeah, as far as function goes they all shoot, but that's where it ends. The quality and craftsmanship goes to the old ones.

 

[BigBill]

Let's not forget the older ones were probably hand fitted plus there worn in too. I Luber my new n frames with ts70 moly. They feel much smoother.
The to roughness is gone. They feel really good now.

I tested moly fourty years ago in my rugers. If moly can smooth out my rugers back then they can smooth out any gun.

 

[medic15al]

If your definition of function includes trigger I respectfully disagree that they are the same on new guns as old. There is just something about an older S&W revolver trigger pull that can't even be matched by a Python. To be fair some of that smoothness comes from decades of use, but even a NIB model 14 from the '60's would rival anything put out by the Performance Center today.

Agree. The triggers of todays S&Ws are in no way equal to the classic older triggers. And in some cases the workmanship is far inferior and quality control is a sham.

 

[Rick_A]

Yeah, as far as function goes they all shoot, but that's where it ends. The quality and craftsmanship goes to the old ones.

Craftsmanship most definitely. Quality is debatable. My oldies have a lot of tooling marks and irregular surfaces on inside areas. The new guns are pretty cleanly machined inside and out, they just lack the high polish (with the exception of the 22-4).

As far as the triggers go, they're pretty comparable. Some of the new guns are bested in single action by about 1/2 lb. I rarely, if ever shoot SA, so I'm okay with that. The trigger in that Chiefs Special is a tough one, but one of my Airweights is fairly atrocious as well so I'll give those a pass.

The new guns all have easily stageable double actions, while the old guns are tuned to release the hammer precisely as the cylinder bolt locks in. In rapid fire there is no difference, but in slow fire double action the new guns can be fired as well as in single action mode.

The new guns are carried more often and fired with much higher frequency. There's less worry and guilt involved and there's certainly plenty of confidence in them.

Certainly there's more pride in ownership in the oldies as the new ones can be purchased easily anywhere. Again, the nickel 22-4 is an exception, though while rare it is not particularly valuable. The hard part in the true classics is finding a mechanically and cosmetically sound example at a reasonable price.

 

[sodacan]

I've never seen an accomplished revolver shooter "stage" a trigger, nor have I seen it taught by qualified instructors. It's a dangerous practice.

 

[Rick_A]

For informal shooting in slow fire it's just fine. It's obviously impractical for defensive pistol craft.

 

[retiredbadge8091]

I have a chance to buy a brand new Model 27-9 Classic with a 4" barrel. I don't know if I'll ever track down an older 27 with a 4" barrel that will be anywhere near as affordable in new/like new condition. I have a Model 29 Mountain Gun and wouldn't mind the new 27 if it was as good as the Mountain Gun. I might have to trust S&W's 21st century technology.

 

[TDC]

Here are a couple of side-by-side visuals to help draw your own conclusions with esthetics.

 

[Rick_A]

The new model 66 is definitely plain in comparison cosmetically, but is technically superior. It did address the weak point of the K magnums.
The 629 Classic is not bad at all.

The "Classics" version isn't bad, either.

The new wood stocks leave some to be desired, as they're rather poorly shaped up top and often don't match the frame as there's no hand fitting. The wood is also a "super laminate" that only resembles real hardwood.

 

[Rick_A]

I have a chance to buy a brand new Model 27-9 Classic with a 4" barrel. I don't know if I'll ever track down an older 27 with a 4" barrel that will be anywhere near as affordable in new/like new condition. I have a Model 29 Mountain Gun and wouldn't mind the new 27 if it was as good as the Mountain Gun. I might have to trust S&W's 21st century technology.

While people get a lemon now and then, that can be the case with anything. It depends on how anal you are. Personally the most perfect S&W I've had is my lowly 2012 442-1 purchased new for $350.
20150319_093037 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

The new model 27 will have the dreaded lock, the contour of the rear of the frame alongside the hammer is different, the bluing will be a bit flatter and is not tolerant of prolonged solvent exposure (Hoppes #9 has been known to do bad things), the MIM hammer and trigger will not have the lustrous case hardened look to it (they merely look blackened), the top strap will lack the cut checkering and instead appears to be a shallow laser cut pattern, and the stocks will be a laminated wood that are often not a perfect match with the frame. As a shooter they're just as good, and tend to be consistent in critical dimensions.

I got lucky and came across a pre model for less than a new model. One is a collectible that gets fired on occasion, and the new guns are work horses that can be used hard and carried daily without regret.

I've found the new guns to come with a dry lube in the internals along with a fair bit of grit. A little cleaning, a proper lube, and a few hundred rounds usually nets a decent trigger.