-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
S&W Vs. Dan Wesson
- Thread starter codyb65
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
opoefc
US Veteran
Why bother to make a choice? Take the S&W, any day. I don't know of anybody, that is a knowledgable gun collector, that would be in awe of a Dan Wesson. They were well made but were a marketing flop and have not been made for years. Some may think that makes them desirable and will pay a premium for one in the original case with all the different barrel lengths & extra grips, etc. Different stokes for different folks, I guess. Ed.
bmcgilvray
SWCA Member
Dan Wesson revolvers never seemed to serve the purpose for which one uses a revolver any better than comparable Smith & Wesson models. The Pistol Pacs with the different barrel lengths seemed a truly clever design and a good marketing gimmick that really wasn't all that worthwhile in my view.
The DW revolvers were said to be very accurate and many claims have been made about them. I don't shoot well enough to make use of their supposed accuracy. The DW was touted to have a shorter lock time. The only one I vaguely recall shooting may have had a shorter lock time but its single action trigger was inferior to the Smith & Wesson revolvers of which I was familiar.
I came of age and began acquiring handguns when DW revolvers were at the peak of their popularity but never felt the inclination to acquire one. At the time my main reason was their looks. They were like the ugly girl in school when compared to their Smith & Wesson and Colt counterparts. Of course I didn't think the Colts were all that attractive back then, even the Python so I may have had no taste.
Now, 35 years later, I'm more charitable in my assessment of the Colt revolvers but my opinion of DW revolvers hasn't changed.
The DW revolvers were said to be very accurate and many claims have been made about them. I don't shoot well enough to make use of their supposed accuracy. The DW was touted to have a shorter lock time. The only one I vaguely recall shooting may have had a shorter lock time but its single action trigger was inferior to the Smith & Wesson revolvers of which I was familiar.
I came of age and began acquiring handguns when DW revolvers were at the peak of their popularity but never felt the inclination to acquire one. At the time my main reason was their looks. They were like the ugly girl in school when compared to their Smith & Wesson and Colt counterparts. Of course I didn't think the Colts were all that attractive back then, even the Python so I may have had no taste.
Now, 35 years later, I'm more charitable in my assessment of the Colt revolvers but my opinion of DW revolvers hasn't changed.
DWalt
Member
Nothing wrong with a DW, but making such a choice requires answering the question as to what you want to use it for? And how much weight do you give to cost?
For home defense or general recreational use, I'd take whichever one was cheaper, other factors being equal (mainly condition and sights).
For home defense or general recreational use, I'd take whichever one was cheaper, other factors being equal (mainly condition and sights).
Welcome to the Forum.
Why choose. Buy Both.
I own several Dan Wessons, however I do not know anyone in "WOW" over them.
Dan Wesson had an idea for a multi-piece barrel assembly that tensioned the barrel from both ends. So it does not just hang from the frame side. I am not explaining it well.
Tensioned barrels make far more accurate firearms. The design also allowed the user to change barrels himself. They got a patent for this.
Towards the top left of this 41 Magnum group photo is my Dan Wesson model 41. It has an 8" Vent rib barrel mounted and a 6" Vent barrel sitting above it. These can be swapped in about 60 seconds.
DW enjoyed great success among Silhouette shooters back in the day. The patents have expired and S&W uses this same tensioned barrel design. This is part of what makes the 327s and the 620s such accurate revolvers.
BTW, Dan Wesson revolvers are still being produced. Just not vary many models and at fairly high prices now that CZ owns DW.
DWalt
Member
One of the attractions of the DW was the barrel design. As I think was earlier mentioned, one could change barrel lengths easily by swapping out barrels and shrouds, and kits with several different grip styles and barrel/shroud lengths were sold. One frame with a long barrel and target grips would work for competitive shooting, and with a shorter barrel and combat grips, it would be a good carry revolver - 2 in 1.
I did some handgun silhouette shooting back in the late 70s-early 80s, and some shooters liked them very well.
I neither liked nor disliked the DW and never even fired one, but for most any purpose, they would be fine and would serve as well as a Colt or S&W. What I didn't particularly like was the styling which struck me as somewhat crude. Sort of like choosing between a Ford or a Chevrolet as far as I am concerned.
I did some handgun silhouette shooting back in the late 70s-early 80s, and some shooters liked them very well.
I neither liked nor disliked the DW and never even fired one, but for most any purpose, they would be fine and would serve as well as a Colt or S&W. What I didn't particularly like was the styling which struck me as somewhat crude. Sort of like choosing between a Ford or a Chevrolet as far as I am concerned.
Bullzaye
US Veteran
I own 4 DW revolvers, all Monsons. I haven't gotten the chance to fire the 2 x .357s much yet, but I have put quite a few rounds through the 2 x .44s, and they are superb shooters, and quite attractive, as well.
I wouldn't want to say that one is definitely superior to the other. Certainly the ability to swap barrels is useful, and makes for easier cleaning. One could also argue that DW has closed their doors multiple times, while S&W has soldiered on, and that might say something about quality.
I like both my Smiths and DWs. Any would likely serve their purposes well. Buy whichever appeals to you more, and/or whichever one best fills your needs/wants.
Tim
I wouldn't want to say that one is definitely superior to the other. Certainly the ability to swap barrels is useful, and makes for easier cleaning. One could also argue that DW has closed their doors multiple times, while S&W has soldiered on, and that might say something about quality.
I like both my Smiths and DWs. Any would likely serve their purposes well. Buy whichever appeals to you more, and/or whichever one best fills your needs/wants.
Tim
Titegroups
Member
Actually owning one new since the 70's instead of relying on vague memories I can tell you they are a fine firearm. Without the ability to fire one from a ransom rest I cant give you facts on their inherent accuracy or lack of, now that it comes to mind it may see a Harry Reeves match at my next bullseye meet.
DWalt
Member
Yes, S&W has soldiered on, but under at least four different owners, one of which very nearly killed the reputation of the S&W brand forever. At least the current owners seem to have done a good job in rescuing it.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,097
- Reaction score
- 6,425
Given a choice I would actually take a DW Pistol Pac. A lot of DW's problem started when Old DWB IV departed this life and his heirs were unable to continue his legacy. I have both the M-12 and M-15, both are very accurate, one nice feature of the interchangeable barrels is that you can set the B/C gap yourself, keep it constant, their more "modern" design-1950s-is easier to work on, allows for more home gunsmithing. You can use the stainless steel barrels on a blued gun if you so desire.
And that "4 or 5 guns in one" makes a lot of sense-2.5' or 4" for CCW, 6" for targets, 8' or 10" for hunting or silhouettes or whatever. The "spike" grips allows for more customization of the grips.
And that "4 or 5 guns in one" makes a lot of sense-2.5' or 4" for CCW, 6" for targets, 8' or 10" for hunting or silhouettes or whatever. The "spike" grips allows for more customization of the grips.
DWalt
Member
As I remember, there was a sort of feeler gauge supplied which was used to set the gap distance between the cylinder and the rear of the barrel.
I think there was a DW revolver chambered in the short-lived .357 Maximum (as well as a Ruger), but that cartridge was so hot it caused damage to the top strap by gas cutting at the barrel-cylinder gap. I imagine one of those DWs in good condition would be very worthwhile to have, I've never seen one.
I think there was a DW revolver chambered in the short-lived .357 Maximum (as well as a Ruger), but that cartridge was so hot it caused damage to the top strap by gas cutting at the barrel-cylinder gap. I imagine one of those DWs in good condition would be very worthwhile to have, I've never seen one.
silentflyer
Member
I own both DW"s and SW's, and yes the DW's are more accurate, bought them for metal silhouette shooting and they consistently won the class "back in the day". You can adjust the point of impact and grouping by changing the tension on the barrel with the nut and the cylinder gap. My 10" .44 will deliver 3" groups at 100 yards,(off a rest) and my brother has a 8" .41 that's even better.
Yes the early ones are a bit ugly and don't have a nice finish, but the later ones are much better and the blued ones rival a Colt for the luster of the finish. The Monson guns are the best, the Palmer and Norwich guns the quality control left a lot to be desired, but some are OK. Give Dan Wesson and Karl Lewis credit they had the guts and foresight to try something different and mechanically it worked, but the marketing didn't quite make it. How many "new" homegrown gun manufactures have been able to make a long term go of it? It's kind of like the blondes/brunettes/redhead argument..I like them all, DW's SW's Colts and Rugers..I just can't afford them all...guns or women..
Yes the early ones are a bit ugly and don't have a nice finish, but the later ones are much better and the blued ones rival a Colt for the luster of the finish. The Monson guns are the best, the Palmer and Norwich guns the quality control left a lot to be desired, but some are OK. Give Dan Wesson and Karl Lewis credit they had the guts and foresight to try something different and mechanically it worked, but the marketing didn't quite make it. How many "new" homegrown gun manufactures have been able to make a long term go of it? It's kind of like the blondes/brunettes/redhead argument..I like them all, DW's SW's Colts and Rugers..I just can't afford them all...guns or women..
Badquaker
Member
My stainless DW 44 has some flame cutting in the top of the frame. It may have something to do with MANY MANY hot handloads.
rayb
US Veteran
Own a DW, 2 High Standards made by DW, and some Smiths.
They all shoot well and I like them all.
rayb
They all shoot well and I like them all.
rayb
Stu Honea
Member
I've never owned a DW,but have shot several and they are good revolvers. I have a friend who is a sergeant with the county police here who loves his with the interchangeable barrels.
Even though I know they are well made and strong guns,they just never appealed to me that much,so I'd always take an S&W if given a choice between the two.
Even though I know they are well made and strong guns,they just never appealed to me that much,so I'd always take an S&W if given a choice between the two.
silentflyer
Member
Picked up a 1978 Dan Wesson 15-2 .357 8" at the LGS on Sat. Got it home pulled the side plate, don't think it had ever been off, did a good cleaning/lube. Took it to the range Sunday shot it a bit played with different loads and sights last 18 rounds 15 in a 3" circle and 3 more just outside at 50 yards. A trigger job and work up a "favorite" load and it will do better. Whats not to like?
