spad124
Member
I had a similar experience. A friend and I were shooting. He had his new 625, I had my 1988 25-5. We shot each other's guns. Both guns were virtually the same as far as fit, finish, and functioning. The trigger pulls were similar.
Are new guns better than old ones?
- Thread starter Cal44
- Start date
I had a similar experience. A friend and I were shooting. He had his new 625, I had my 1988 25-5. We shot each other's guns. Both guns were virtually the same as far as fit, finish, and functioning. The trigger pulls were similar.
Rick_A
Member
I've got a couple 2013's as well. They're both as perfect as can be. I must be the luckiest man alive.
20150109_135938 by Slick_Rick77, on FlickrPlan on getting a couple 2015's real soon, too...
Has everything changed since then, too?
jtcarm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,422
- Reaction score
- 4,315
Yep, I think I'd call it quits. For the cost of 10 new S&Ws, he could buy a Korth and probably have enough left over for a Freedom Arms. Or three or four Pythons.
DonD
Member
Same old same old. The “older is better” crowd simply won’t accept that newer is any good. Yes, older has nicer blueing and more hand fitting.
Newer is made of stronger materials held to tighter, repeatable tolerances.
Keep your older stuff, good guns but refusing to buy newer deprives you of a lot of fine firearms. Don
Newer is made of stronger materials held to tighter, repeatable tolerances.
Keep your older stuff, good guns but refusing to buy newer deprives you of a lot of fine firearms. Don
bigggbbruce
Member
New is much better than old.
You get a lifetime warranty that many will use several times early in your firearms acquisition.
Oh wait.. that doesn't quite answer the question does it..?
New is much better than old.
You get a lifetime warranty that many will use several times early in your firearms acquisition.
Oh wait.. that doesn't quite answer the question does it..?
Evening Bruce
I believe the new S&W's also come with a special glass of KoolAid.
minconrevo
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 924
- Reaction score
- 839
It all depends. During some eras of the "old" guns (Pre-lock) QC was slack. Some of the firing pin on hammer revolvers let out of the plant during that time would not fire more than a couple rounds due to poor assembly. I had a model 28 like that I had to fix. Back in the early 70's I bought a new M-17 with a front sight installed off to one side. That one went back for warranty service some 40+ years ago and was made right. Others produced in the "old" gun era were exceptionally well executed.
I've seen the "old" revolvers run many 10,000's rounds with no problems. The users of some of the modern era MIM and lock revolvers report to me they just won't run that long anymore.
I have had problems getting a specialty caliber S&W AR-15 to run as long as it should. Factory warranted it out and made it right. The replacement AR-15 they sent is a good one.
I've not had problems with the current crop of S&W semi-auto handguns as far as long term durability BUT I don't have anything near 10,000 rounds through them yet. The only "old" semi I have much experience with was a M-41; it had many rounds through it with minimal problems. The M-39 with the early round hump feed ramp won't count since I got rid of it due to functional and accuracy issues.
I've seen the "old" revolvers run many 10,000's rounds with no problems. The users of some of the modern era MIM and lock revolvers report to me they just won't run that long anymore.
I have had problems getting a specialty caliber S&W AR-15 to run as long as it should. Factory warranted it out and made it right. The replacement AR-15 they sent is a good one.
I've not had problems with the current crop of S&W semi-auto handguns as far as long term durability BUT I don't have anything near 10,000 rounds through them yet. The only "old" semi I have much experience with was a M-41; it had many rounds through it with minimal problems. The M-39 with the early round hump feed ramp won't count since I got rid of it due to functional and accuracy issues.
bigggbbruce
Member
That's called Performance Center.
Rick_A
Member
Most folks lamenting over the days of olde and admonishing the guns of new seem have little to no experience with them personally save for hearsay and Internet ramblings.
Unless the purpose was purely collecting, there's little reason not to go new.
I've had a bunch of guns come through my hands and what the internet naysayers are making a fuss over is just not what I'm seeing.
As always, YMMV.
In short, and what this thread is supposed to be about, I would not hesitate to buy a new S&W. Compared to the old guns they are a poor investment but a smart buy as shooters.
If I expected all my guns to be perfect I wouldn't have any or they'd all have been sent back for silly reasons. As it is they are all pretty damn good enough.
Unless the purpose was purely collecting, there's little reason not to go new.
I've had a bunch of guns come through my hands and what the internet naysayers are making a fuss over is just not what I'm seeing.
As always, YMMV.
In short, and what this thread is supposed to be about, I would not hesitate to buy a new S&W. Compared to the old guns they are a poor investment but a smart buy as shooters.
If I expected all my guns to be perfect I wouldn't have any or they'd all have been sent back for silly reasons. As it is they are all pretty damn good enough.
bigggbbruce
Member
New is much better than old.
You get a lifetime warranty that many will use several times early in your firearms acquisition.
Oh wait.. that doesn't quite answer the question does it..?
My comment is tongue in cheek truth for me.
I have a personal number to call my assigned CS rep. I'm on a first name basis.
robert1804
Member
If you're buying a shooter, new is better. Accuracy and durability are at least as good as older guns, probably better. And as prices rise on older guns, buying a new one for shooting increasingly makes sense.
If you're buying for aesthetics, or investment, older guns are obviously the choice, although their increasing prices will likely make them questionable investments sooner than is generally now believed.
Fast forward 30 or 40 years. Old style guns will have been very highly valued for at least 20 years by then and generally not used much because of the high value, scarcity of parts and lack of factory support. Given that desirability and nostalgia take about 30-40 years to come together, new style Smith revolvers will become sought after by then if not sooner. This scenario assumes S&W is still around and making revolvers in 30 or 40 years. What if only Ruger survives? Any scenario where S&W is not around in the future will make new style Smiths VERY desirable. .
If you're buying for aesthetics, or investment, older guns are obviously the choice, although their increasing prices will likely make them questionable investments sooner than is generally now believed.
Fast forward 30 or 40 years. Old style guns will have been very highly valued for at least 20 years by then and generally not used much because of the high value, scarcity of parts and lack of factory support. Given that desirability and nostalgia take about 30-40 years to come together, new style Smith revolvers will become sought after by then if not sooner. This scenario assumes S&W is still around and making revolvers in 30 or 40 years. What if only Ruger survives? Any scenario where S&W is not around in the future will make new style Smiths VERY desirable. .
Clark B
Member
I think by the second lemon I would have stopped buying said products. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" I've owned far more firearms than I can truthfully count at this point and had exactly one, a Rossi revolver my dad gave me, that was a lemon. I think if I was having 90% failure rate with my firearms I would find a new hobby or check my operator head space and timing.
LDThornton
Member
The short answer is "No".
Twiki357
Member
Out of my 31 S&W revolvers, only two have serial numbers that start with three letters.
So I guess that I prefer old.
So I guess that I prefer old.
Morning Clark B
By saying lemon you seem to be comparing to non repairable automobiles.
Would you quit buying cars just because you needed
to take it back for warranty repair?
Same with S&W guns-- A lemon refers to a non-repairable
-- all my sent-in S&W revolvers were repairable
(some took more than one send-in though)
The "not buying" only works IF a person can find what
they want in another brand of gun & that brand is better.
Same with buying older S&W's, --that ONLY works if S&W
made what you want in an older version.
I looked at 8 brand new S&W model 69's before finding
one that looked to be fitted close to correctly & without
major machine marks. Trigger pull on the one I bought
was horrendous & cylinder was very tight on the recoil
shield (could barely spin it) but cyl to barrel gap was decent
& barrel shroud was fairly well aligned. Hammer had .011"
side play & trigger was just about as loose on lateral play.
Cyl carry up was awful but all but one early
(that makes it an easy repair).
It was actually the worst trigger pull & worst carry up
on all the 69's that I looked at but (those are repairable).
But barrel shroud alignment & cyl lock up position
was good (those are harder to repair).
I bought that 69 & sent it back to Smith for carry up
warranty work. It came back with 4 positions OK & the
5th not right so back it went again. This time it came
back timed correctly so I shimmed the hammer, shimmed
the trigger, shimmed the crane & did a trigger job.
(very smooth action now)
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,627
- Reaction score
- 31,145
Just let me say my newest handgun was made in 1994.
IMHO (with FEW EXCEPTIONS) the new guns are not even close to the older ones in quality, fit & finish, smoothness of function, materials, design, durability, and sheer ruggedness.
I am sure there are younger members that will disagree and that's fine. One should own what he thinks is the best their money can buy. For me it's OLD!
IMHO (with FEW EXCEPTIONS) the new guns are not even close to the older ones in quality, fit & finish, smoothness of function, materials, design, durability, and sheer ruggedness.
I am sure there are younger members that will disagree and that's fine. One should own what he thinks is the best their money can buy. For me it's OLD!
DonD
Member
What a load. Material strengths have been improved significantly, that translates to greater durability and ruggedness.
S&W engineers disagree with you as do individuals like John Taffin who I strongly suspect has vastly more expertise with revolvers than you do.
Guess you think old cars are better because their sheetmetal is much thicker. Guess what? They loose badly in crash tests with new cars. Old is seldom better than new except for nostalgia.
I guess an old school .38 Special snubbie is the height of revolver technology? Don
I have four S&W revolvers and two autos in stainless. None have ever rusted. All my old steel pieces are gone and I'm OK with that. My only complaint is that the revolvers have to go back to get the action to be decent. All the revolvers but one have been swimming several times and been rained and snowed on and then left for dead for several days while out and about. Couldn't do that with the old ones. I also have a TC Predator in 308 that consistently shoots 3/4" groups. It used to cost a fortune to be able to do that. At 70 I've been doing this for a while and I like the new stuff. My 69 is my current favourite.
Similar threads
