Guys-
Not sure if this was posted here previously, nonetheless a good read and some eye-opening information. See link.

Evolutionary Improvements in S&W Revolvers – RevolverGuy.Com

Well now, There are some troubling statements made in the article. First of all, the barrel pin, at least on the revolvers I have worked on, does indeed touch the barrel groove; I have removed and replaced several barrels and without exception the barrel pins have scraped the bluing off the barrel groove.
Secondly, I have never witnessed a frame stud loosening or separating from the frame. They are well staked in. In my opinion, the integral frame ridge now used is butt-ugly.
The addition of the lock has changed the silhouette of the rear of the frame. Not attractive. If a lock was warranted, it could have been placed under the grips locking the mainspring and no change to the frame would have been needed.
Saying that S&W only wanted to make better guns, not cheapening them, is
suspect, and that people would not pay more for traditionally made revolvers is belied by the fact that folks are lining up to buy the new Colt Pythons at $1500 a pop.
OK, this is just this old guy's opinion, and worth just what you paid for it! No question that the new S&Ws are fine guns, but to me, they have no soul.
Tim

I see a lot of used "New" manufacture Pythons for sale. Like S&W, the Pythons are not made in the same manner as their predecessors and the fact that so many are available, both new and used tells me they aren't exactly selling like hot cakes once people realized they weren't like the old units. Gun Deals has 12 pages of dealers listing them in stock and for sale. So anyone 'lining up to buy one' must be in the wrong line.

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

Did anyone really not realize the new Pythons weren’t exactly the old ones?
They never read a magazine article, nor saw a YouTube video? I need to find these people. I have a bridge for sale.

The new Colts are made better, to tighter tolerances, simpler more robust mechanism, better steels than the old ones. They are extremely accurate. I’ll admit the single action trigger is not as good as it should be, but my gunsmith has rectified that on my guns. No goofy barrel shrouds, no ugly safety. Smith has not made a revolver I’m interested in since the -4s.

There are a whole lot of used smiths for sale, the last time I looked.

Tom, Yes, many shooters are wary of the new design internally and the etched code on the right side. I think that interest may be stimulated by the introduction of shorter barreled and blued guns. I applaud Colt for reintroducing these guns, and I realize that the older models might be available for around the same price. I imagine one factor in making "old model" Smiths is that many old finishers and assemblers have retired and those skills are gone forever, forcing the Factory to find more efficient ways to produce a quality product. I also think that we collectors are small part of their demographic and that the average purchaser would be very happy with the newer models. Again, just my opinion.
Tim

Didn’t watch the video. No need as my opinion of S&W revolvers is like a rock. That being said, I own 4 new CZ/Colt Pythons. After shooting the first one (3”) I knew they were quality units. The “drop test” compliant SA trigger pull is easily adjusted. Stupid test restriction anyway. I’ve owned old Pythons but never kept them, with no regrets. Smiths were better.
However these new Colts are as nice as the forged S&W revolvers use to build. Maybe better.
The only current build S&W I own is a 642.
I handled a new 686 the other day. Made me shake my head..
S&W is chasing the lever action market and PC craze. I don’t think one person that works there knows how great the forged revolvers were, or care.
I’m glad CZ bought Colt and built the new Python and are committed to continuing a fine tradition of building superior revolvers.

__________________
My Daddy was a pistol..

Tim is right. Plus every darn new S&W revolver I've bought during the last several years has had something wrong with it. To say they've made improvements is a laugh. Every one!!!!

New Smiths suck til you correct the defects and tune them a little. Most can be made into good shooters after repairs are made.. Don't ever plan on buying another new one.

You have to wonder if there are true passionate gun people running and working the organization, people that have the ear of the shooting community. Sad.

I'm curious - at what point in time did new S&W revolvers become unworthy? I have not bought one in years but I do have three with the IL, a Model 27 Classic, and a M686+ 3" and 4". I have never had a problem with any of them so when I hear about these revolver issues I always wonder if I got lucky or.....what?

__________________
Come and take it!!

If you ever visit the Colt Forum you will find guys who have the first run Pythons and still gobble up the new ones as soon as they hit the street. One of each barrel length in every finish offered. (I think they are up to 4 each now). Then there are the gents who bought a 4" thinking that was the best carry length and sold them when the 2.5" came out and switched again once the 3" was introduced (I may have the sequence backwards on the last two). Well heeled collectors vs. less so.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

From the article, under the "Sacred Cows" header: "A recessed chamber simply hides the head of the cartridge, they explained. Since the cartridge headspaces off the extractor, not the counterbore...."

Well, that's just wrong. Every "current" extractor I've seen sits lower than the surrounding cylinder by at least a few thousandths. Therefore the rear cylinder face (or counterbore) would be the reference surface.

Maybe he means that the extractor sets the distance between the recoil shield and the rear of the cylinder which is how the headspace is measured.