Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what happened in 1980 at S&W?

Why are there 2 sections of the forum for the modern revolvers, and why split them at 1980?

Thanks Ed.

Around 1980, S&W stopped pinning barrels and recessing cylinders.

That was also around the time they introduced the 581/681 and 586/686. A new frame size that ended up opening many more caliber/frame combinations. I guess it just seemed like a good time period to divide the forum by with the changes.

The late 70's and early 80's were difficult years for S&W, due to their management/owners, changing consumer market, etc......the handgun industry was about to be turned on it's head in the 80's & 90's as law enforcement agencies shifted from the time honored revolver to the high cap pistols. S&W elected to cut production costs in the late 70's by making changes to some of their manufacturing steps, such as pinning the barrel to the frame and recessing chambers in cylinders on those models that featured that.
Most folk's do not like change. There was a huge hue and cry among those of us who liked our Smith's as they were, and many of us vowed never to buy any more of their product etc.
I saw this same response with Colt when they introduced the 80 series with the reviled firing pin safety that many of us still object to.
But to those of us who collect Smith's, the P&R guns (pre 79-80) era guns represent how Smith "used to make them", although the mid & late 70's was not their peak. IMO.
In that same context, you will notice that there are other divisions in the forum, these represent other generations of Smith's and if you handle any of the 30's, 40's, 50's & 60's era guns you will see what I am referring to as far as fit and finish and craftsmanship.
Smith simply made a decision to cut production costs with the exclusion of the P&R guns.

If the changes were flipped, i.e. P&R was added in 1980, the same people would be complaining about the unsightly pin and the recessed chambers that are completely unnecessary and a PITA to use with speed loaders.

Oh, and they'd also complain about how much more the guns cost.

That's probably true!

I love the P&Rs, but I'd have to admit that it is probably as much due to nostalgia as anything else. Those were the guns that were in display cases when I was growing up and didn't have the money to buy them. Collecting them now may provide some connection to the past for me. I honestly can't feel any difference between the smoothness of my P&R guns vs those made a few years later. They are both great. Truth be told, the current production ones are pretty dang smooth as well.

Yeah, same here. Nothing looks as elegant to me as mirror blue finishes dressed in wood. The P&R adds to it.

Thanks for the responses. Makes sense now.

I have a no dash model 60 and I don't find it to be any better than my newer j frames. Ed.

I don't know if you are trying to be funny or controversial, but I couldn't disagree with you more. First the premiss is silly as everything Smith has done in the last 30+ years to cut production costs has cheapened their revolvers, rather than add improvements.

Second, Those features are historically significant in S&W history. If they hadn't been there from the start S&W revolvers wouldn't be what they are to the majority of us.

And finally, I've never had a problem with recessed chambers and speed loaders. Maybe you need to just practice more…or learn how to clean a revolver.

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

Exactly!!! If the internal lock was a feature on the older models, the same complaints would be made about them deleting it to save costs!

I really really like P&R revolvers, and much prefer the frame filling appearance of them. Some models were P&R till around 1982 (two of my model 28s, and one of my 57s, actually). All this being said, I have found that the later revolvers I have owned have been a bit more accurate, and definitely more affordable (try to find a reasonably priced 5" P&R .44 magnum!).

__________________
Even older, even crankier....