Are new guns better than old ones?

[Cal44]

I'm wondering if S&W has continues to improve products in recent decades.

For example, is my two year old 60-15 stronger than the first generation 357 magnum 60's?

I can think of a few reason's it might be:

1. Perhaps metallurgy has continued to improve with better steel used.

2. More advanced CNC manufacturing tooling may result in closer tolerances than a decade or two ago. I know on Buffalo Bore's site they show higher performance (faster) ballistic results for more modern S&W guns than older revolvers of the same barrel length. They comment on this and attribute it to more precisely fitted parts.

3. The second (or third) generation of most mechanical products can be better than the first as bugs and weaknesses are ironed out.

Or is older just always better?

 

[F75gunslinger]

It would depend, at least to me, on which facet of the gun in particular you're talking about.

Bluing..I think that the older bluing done by S&W years ago was far superior to what they use today. Better appearance and more durable, especially to cleaning solvents.

General quality control...I think in general the QC department was far better years ago than it currently is. This is due in part to a number of things. As the work force ages, many with particular skills retire, and new people are brought in to replace them with less skill, resulting in a lesser degree of quality. Also , as the bean counters have slowly taken over the industrial world, in the name of cost savings , tolerances have opened up so that they don't have to keep sending a gun back to " get it right " . As a result, quality declines further . MIM parts are used as a cost saving measure, but are generally toleranced more on the generous side as it takes less hand fitting, and so less time is spent on them, and more production is supposedly the goal.

Metallurgy...as this continues to advance, we all reap the benefits of it. Whether or not they really change the different alloys of stainless steel or carbon steel they use , I can't say for sure. But more expensive alloys would lead to more expensive guns. They do offer titanium and scandium alloy frames and cylinders at a premium, so you could say that yes, the products have improved as the metallurgy has gotten better.Use of different machining skills have also improved performance and longevity in some areas.

Fit and finish...back to a QC thing again. I think the use of CNC can be a great thing, but at the same time, if you don't keep your allowable tolerances to a minimum, you can't exact the real advantages of all that CNC has to offer. I have revolvers ranging from 1912 or so up to 2004. And honestly, the Military and Police that I have is superior fit and finish to my 460XVR.They're both great guns, and both built well, but you can see, if you look closely, the places where the older gun was very meticulously hand fitted. That is done as little as possible in todays world, as it drives costs up. But the fit and finish suffer as a result. How much depends on who the person was doing the work.

 

[Arik]

While metallurgy is better today the old guns chambered in 357 are every bit as strong, otherwise they wouldn't be chambered in 357.

 

[DocB]

The metallurgy is likely better. . .as if that really matters. Ammunition pressure standards have remained about the same for factory ammo. Beyond that, there's not much about a new Smith that even approaches the old ones. By old I mean pre-1992 give or take. On rare instance an older gun may have a failure to function problem. . .not likely and not often. Judging by the posts on this Forum, the new guns fail to function all the time. They like to call it breaking one in. I never had to break in an old Smith; and, I'm old. . .I grew up with them.

 

[one eye joe]

WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF QUALITY CONTROL (OR LACK THEREOF) AT S&W, I PREFER TO PURCHASE CLEAN, USED , PRE-LOCK MODELS. I AGREE THAT THERE MAY BE ADVANCES IN METALLURGY, AND THAT CNC PARTS ARE MORE PRECISE IN THEIR TOLERANCES, BUT PRIDE IN THEIR PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE LACKING. THERE ARE POSTS ON THIS FORUM REGULARLY, DESCRIBING PROBLEMS WITH NEW GUNS. SOME OF THEM HAVE TO BE SENT BACK REPEATEDLY. THAT WAS NEVER THE CASE A DECADE AGO. SO IMHO, WHILE THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS FOR S&W TO MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT, THE WEAK LINK IS ON THE HUMAN SIDE.

 

[Cal44]

While metallurgy is better today the old guns chambered in 357 are every bit as strong, otherwise they wouldn't be chambered in 357.

Are you sure? Didn't early M19's have problems with cracked forcing cones when used with full boat magnums?

Also, I think early L frame M696 44 specials had durability problems, but now days we have M69's which are L frame 44 magnums -- and I haven't heard of problems with the 69s.

 

[NYlakesider]

My personal opinion of "Better" says a S&W without a lock is better than one with. With the exclusion of some new items not coming with locks, I will stick with the older ones! I also find the fit and fish is normally much better than the newer offerings.

It seems today that there are a lot more guns coming though with canted barrels than I remember with the older ones.

Your results might vary, so goes life!

 

[Arik]

All K frames (19, 66, 13, 65) have forcing cone problem WHEN shot with a lot of 125gr 357. A lot! A box isn't going to effect it. Maybe 5k, maybe more. Some people never had problems.

 

[Voyager28]

My answer to your question:

NO

The combination of reduced QC and quest for cheaper product costs have taken their toll.

Peace Out.

Bob

 

[raljr1]

don't know as i agree that quality was always better on older guns. i bought a new model 63 in 1981. got it home and as i was cleaning it up, i noticed significant end shake at the crane. turns out that the barrel lug was out so far that the extractor rod was not engaging at all. I took it back and the LGS gave me another gun. the new guns i've seen looked to be of a slightly lower grade of finish, but fit and function seem to be very good.

i paid $263 for that model 63 that correlates to almost $700 today, or about what it sells for today.

 

[Arik]

I,don't think quality is worse today. The only difference is there was no Internet to complain on so you wouldn't know about any problems unless it was so bad that everyone had it

 

[Krell1]

In my opinion no. All my guns are over 40 years old and I see nothing new on the market that can compare with the specific guns I own. I'm not a fan of polymer and plastic. With me, it's all about accuracy since I was very active in bullseye shooting for over 40 years. I'm sure if I did enough research I could find something suitable for me today but I'd still be looking at older guns in good condition.

 

[austinjeane]

I think that in some ways newer rifles outperform older ones. It wasn't that many years ago that a 1 moa group required a custom rifle. Nowadays, I have had Savage rifles off the shelf that could easily accomplish this. Also look to the reliability of semi-auto pistols. If you bought a Colt Gold Cup back in the 60's and 70's, you usually had to take it to a gunsmith to ensure accuracy and reliability.

 

[petemacmahon]

Are you sure? Didn't early M19's have problems with cracked forcing cones when used with full boat magnums?

Also, I think early L frame M696 44 specials had durability problems, but now days we have M69's which are L frame 44 magnums -- and I haven't heard of problems with the 69s.

I have an early M696 that has had a boat load of 240 grain LSWCs over a max load of 2400, with nary an issue and it's still one of the sweetest shooting ponies in the stable.

That being said, I've felt so many lousy actions on the new MIM guns sitting on LGS shelves in the last few years that I'm not ever buying one of them. I'll stick to the older models now.

So, my answer to the original post is that there is definitely a difference between new and old, with the old being so much better in the quality department.

No locks or MIM for me, PERIOD!

 

[Twilight Onearmshooter]

I bought my first Smith & Wesson revolver this year , Talo 686plus 7" barrel. I have a 586 blue 6" barrel Combat revolver on order right now. I want to buy new S&W revolvers. I want to give a Yankee a job , so they do not relocate to South Carolina . Baw-ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha !

 

[BigBill]

Metallurgy has surely changed from many decades ago. I was part of a r&d test lab that was the only most modern one in the country(USA) funny our Japanese sister company pushed us to build it. They want to know why things failed to make a better reliable product. They also do testing for other companies.

Is the metal better today u bet as long as it's mixed correctly before it's casted. With the cnc controls today we can hold tolerances to the million the. Besides programming the measurements in the control we can also burn the offset into the control to eliminate any error in machining.

I'm saying your Mim parts are ok. My Rugers had them for eons and I shoot the shots out of them. Why should s&w firearms be any different? Come on guys/gals there ok.

These high tech multi axis controls do not leave our country.

Now my brand new S&W 29-10 44 magnum is suppose to be the best m29 that s&w has ever built to this day the strongest too. I like a mix of new and old.

My co-worker just moved to NC with part of my company. The rest is soon to follow the ct taxes are driving out all the manufacturing. Also some home owners too. It's a mass exit to go south were it's cheaper.

 

[bananaman]

Basically everything is about opinions. I have 2 IL lock guns 625JM, & 25-15. Both are from 2008. I tried to find a 45ACP revolver that was older for around a year. No luck. Gave up and bought 625JM instead. Like JM so much that I bought the 25, Colt unplanned at gun show.
My lowly opinion is that if I can get a CLEAN older gun at a reasonable price, will do it every time, over a new one. The rest of my Smith revolvers are 1957-1989. Old guys need to give older guns a good home! Both of the 45's (IL) function flawlessly! Bob

 

[jtcarm]

I think most of us have forgotten or are too young to remember that Bangor Punta and Lear Siegler quality were much-maligned back in the day. The major difference is there was no internet to broadcast every bad experience. IMO, aesthetic changes plus the lock have added to that perception.

Quality has to be measured statistically using consistent methods to mean anything. Anecdotes don't give a true picture.

The initial shipment of Model 58s to San Antonio PD reportedly needed considerable work by the department armorer before being issued, some just to fire. At least one was reported to have a .44 magnum cylinder.

The last factory new S&W I purchased was a 24-3 in 1985. Much as I love it, it's had repeated issues with end-shake every few thousand rounds of light to medium loads. It's been to a gunsmith twice . I shimmed it just the other day which pushed the cylinder back. The end shake is much better, but the BC gap is now .011. No way to fix that except have the barrel set back. S&W quoted me $90 an hour labor and 4-5 month turnaround. A local gunsmith said even at his $65 rate, it wouldn't be worth it. I keep it mostly for sentimental value plus the extremely sweet action job done by a local gunsmith right after bought it. I've read on the forum the bigger gap doesn't really affect accuracy or velocity, but I haven't tested it yet.

I bought a used 66-6 2 years ago and thus far it's proven much better quality than my beloved M-24. Yes I hate the lock and don't use it for SD due to the reported issues, just IDPA. Not nearly as aesthetically pleasing as the older guns. But I regard the frame-mounted firing pin as a major improvement. At least one gunsmith has told me the MIM parts are more consistent and easier to work with. They're just as durable and capable of at least as much smoothness as forged parts. Again for contrast, I just bought a very nice 13-1. It obviously has not been fired much but the cylinder has a bit of end-shake, not enough to worry over. And the DA pull is heavier than the 66-6 was when I first acquired it. I do love that beautiful finish and wood grips, though.

If it weren't for the goofy barrel length, I'd buy the new M-66. I consider the crane lock and 2-piece barrel improvements. I'd be all over a 3" version.

I'm impressed enough with the -6 that as soon as soon as the budget permits I'll be looking for a -5. Same features except the lock.

As I've said many times, lots hand-fitting means your tolerances are loose.

I'm undecided about the increased BC gap tolerances. My guess is S&W figured out the difference is insignificant and allows them to be produced for less.

Finally, before you blast the "cheaper" guns, ask yourself: would you really be willing to pay the price for a gun built today with the amount of labor required in the 1930s? Probably no. Probably a lot of us couldn't afford them. The .357 debuted in 1935 for $60. A simple inflation adjustment says that's just over $1,000 today. Reasonable, but nowhere near accurate. $60 worth of unskilled labor in 1935 costs $2,400 in 2015. Skilled labor would run $3,200.

Today's guns are bargains.

 

[Chuck24]

Boy, you've done it now.

 

[MJB]

I would not trade my 686 no dash (no idea how many rounds since I bought it used) for a brand new 686. The gun has a great trigger, no issues and is deadly accurate.