Are any of the new revolver an improvement?

[gr8]

I am thinking of the sleeved barrel being used now. Are they an improvement over the traditional barrels. Has technology been able to improve on older P&R revolvers?

I have seen some comments online that the newest techniques for manufacturing is producing the best revolvers S&W has ever produced. Of course I have not seen more than one or two comments like that on any Smith forum.

 

[white cloud]

I think this depends on what you are looking for in a revolver. It also depends on the gun. My wife bought a M-67 last year. It has a hole in the side. It is also a great shooting revolver. Is it as nice as the M-15 I had that was produced in the 60s? Absolutely not. Is it as good a gun as my M-27 from the early 80s? Actually it is much better.

 

[cowboy325]

I have been very pleased with my 686+ 3" and 66-8 2.75". Both are great shooters. IMHO, once you have gone past the P&R guns, today's S&W revolvers might be better (as in the case of the 66-8 with the more robust forcing cone). YMMV

 

[Old cop]

I have a real problem with the athestics of the internal lock and have not purchased a single new revolver b/c of this ugly thing. Realizing the lock no longer impacts function I still cannot bring myself to buy one. I currently have a line on a vintage 4” Model 66 and am tryingd to work out the logistics of the transfer from FL to VA. Failing that I’ll keep looking for a 4” Model 19 or 66 b/c shopping is half the fun.

 

[357-RevolverGuy]

From what I understand the newer K frames (model 19 & 66) do not have the thin barrel throat that suffered from flame cutting. This is a big improvement if you ask me.

 

[Rpg]

I find the guns with locks ugly.

I’m sure the shrouded barrel works fine, but I suspect it’s real benefit is cost savings. I also find the shrouded barrel to be ugly as sin.

I’m sure a gun with lock and shrouded barrel will last longer than it’s purchaser, but I won’t buy one.

I won’t hunt with a gun that embarrasses the dog.

 

[Laketime]

I would say metallurgy is stronger today.

 

[6string]

Here's my take. The S&W design has changed over the years to rely less upon hand fitting and finishing. Over the years, actually over the decades, S&W has seen their QC go up and down. You can spend a good bit of time to identify those eras.
That being said, the current approach used by S&W means their revolvers are more or less "assembled" rather than "made", if those terms don't offend anyone.
The hand fitted Smiths, built when things were right, are unmatched. But, an improperly fitted S&W is a real headache.
If you're gonna buy an old one, make sure you get it in your hands for a personal inspection first. If you prefer to buy sight unseen, maybe just settle for a new one with the warranty, etc.

Just a thought,
Jim

 

[Lostaro]

I've got a M36 that was made in the "good ole days" and it is an absolute work of art. Smooth, accurate and just darn pretty.

Also have a new 686 with the stupid lock and all the modern manufacturing short cuts. You know what...I hate the lock. It makes the whole gun ugly...but....the gun shoots great. It puts holes right where my shaky hands hold the sights.

I'm no expert on any of this but I say enjoy the old guns for what they are...classic firearms made when the world cared enough to do things right, even if no one was looking.

And enjoy the new guns...functional REPLACABLE guns that you can put to work without worrying too much about them.

 

[Wee Hooker]

Everything else aside, I can tell you that the internal fit , finish and tolerances of new production revolvers are considerably better than those made 20 years ago. You can thank the evolution of CNC machinery for that.
p.s It's not just in revolvers either, most all metal firearms I've handled/tinkered with in recent years ( that would be dozens) have better fit, finish and tollerance control.

 

[twodog max]

I have a Model 69 with the sleeved barrel and it is the best shooting revolver I have ever owned. It has sold me on the concept. As far as aesthetics of the newer S&W models well they are not the classic beauties made years ago but IMO the function as a whole is better. The days of the great looking revolvers like the Model 27 are gone and I have gotten over it. I admit to be more interested in function than the other aspects.

 

[OLDSTER]

I agree with several other posts. Even though I only own one revolver newer than the early '90s, IMO ( having handled and shot numerous examples) the "newer" guns are very good. And if you decide on a newer S&W revolver look past the IL and don't let any negative talk about MIM parts concern you as those comments are completely unfounded. Good luck

 

[MetalMan]

I only have one S&W with the IL, a model 60-15. I purchased this with the intended purpose to carry, and not worry about the wear and tear that daily EDC implies.

It shoots POA and is more accurate that I can ever hope to be. It has also proven 100% reliable during my 3 years of ownership.

This allows for my other “vintage” 36’s, 60’s, 19’s and 66’s to be preserved and enjoyed at the range and the occasional BBQ.

 

[white cloud]

I have a shooting buddy who has a year old 686+ 3". You can say what you want but it is a very nice looking revolver that shoots as well as it looks. I would want to look at any revolver before I purchased it.

 

[dogdoc]

I own many revolversfrom thr 60s,70s80s,and 90s and I think the newer ones are put together better in many respects than the old ones. They are definitely more durable. I am over the lock and do not let it deter me. A new 69 is on my list. I got one for my son and I am jealous !

 

[stykshooter]

I own several dozen Smith revolvers from the 60's to present. I agree that some of the older 27's and 19's were some of the best looking firearms ever produced, but also feel that some of the newer models are better "working" guns. I had problems with some of the guns from the 80's and had to send a 17 and a 657 back to Smith for work that should have been done before they left the factory. I don't care for the internal lock, but don't let it bother me either. I have had some incredibly accurate revolvers over the years but my new model 69 is the most accurate revolver I have ever shot. With the proper handload, I will put it up against my old model 10 PPC gun from back when I used to shoot leagues. My brand new model 63 is also surprisingly accurate.

 

[Tom S.]

One of the reasons I love this board is I don't feel like the "old man" here when I reference stuff that was nearly 50 years ago!



I bought my first new S&W, a Model 28 Highway Patrolman when I turned 21, back in 1971. It's been a great gun that I still own. In the years since, I've bought more than a few S&W's including many of the new ones that some 'aficionados' disdain. Without reservation, I will state that the S&W of today is not only equal to, but in many ways superior to those of the past in terms of materials used, assembly and accuracy. Looks are subjective, and if having a hole in the side of your revolver bothers you, plug it. Unlike many who grouse about the new guns, I've spent a fair amount of time working inside S&W revolvers. As a sideline, I used to be a dealer and gunsmith. I've watched the evolution of parts and machining not just in the firearm arena, but in manufacturing as a whole. Tolerances today are held much tighter, which eliminated the hand fitting so many seem to hang their preferential hat on. I'll take a part that fits perfectly over one that needs to hand fitted any day. Hand fitting is subjective to the person doing said fitting, and everyone has an off day. Most of the parts today require no hand fitting, even when being replaced in a "Bubba" gun. Try that with an older model!



Yes, somethings have gotten 'cheaper' in quality, such as the use of laminated wood (not to mention rubber) for stocks over solid blocks of wood, but for the most part, advances in machining and materials have made the S&W of today superior to the one of yesterday. The one thing lacking today that creates an issue for end users is the seemingly poor job of inspection S&W is doing. There can be several reasons for this, which I chose not to discuss at this time, but if there is anything that S&W is falling down on, it is this. Other than that, those who say the S&W of old is better than today's S&W remind me of those who say the cars of 60 years ago are superior to today's product - which hands down proven to be wrong. While I'll concede that cars back then have more appealing design, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I knew guys who felt cars of the 30's left everything subsequent to those years in the dust.

 

[Practical]

I handled a 986+ and it felt fantastic in the hand. I think for competition the 986 and 927(?) are great options.

The current generation 686+ looks fine to me but Ruger's might be an option today if you want 7 shots.

 

[sjs]

Excuse me, but what is a "P&R revolver"?

 

[rifmon]

That would be Pinned and Recessed.