Current Production Smiths

[dwpmusic]

OK, folks, the bottom line here is that I want some input from all you highly knowledgeable folks about the current revolvers that S&W is offering. I know that not many care for the lock and I don't either but that notwithstanding, what else is wrong with them? I know that most products have deteriorated over the years but are the current Smiths just a piece of junk? Will they fall apart? Are they just not as accurate? Do they hang up? I've got one current production Smith which is my wife's 642-2 complete with Crimson Trace laser which I paid a handsome price for. Hasn't had but about 300 rounds fired through it. It seems OK. Bottom line is this. Nostalgia is fine and I'm all for it but if I knew I could buy something new that was as good as something old I'd opt for the new in some cases. What are some of your thoughts? I still want a 27 or a 28 vintage. I just hate to see something as American as S&W turning out junk, if in fact that's what they're doing. Are they?

 

[18DAI]

I think you would be better off with any good condition 27-2 or any model 28. The older guns had forged parts, nice bluing, broach rifleing and more handfitting and attention to detail.

The current production incorporate all the cost cutting measures and......non optional undesireable features. The classic frame lines around the hammer are gone. The triggers I've squeezed on new 686's at the LGS were uniformly lousy. There also now seems to be some difficulty in putting a barrel on strait. Over priced for what they are too.

You can get a nice 27-2 for less than you will pay for a current production revolver. You wil be getting more gun for your money too, IMO. Good luck with your decision! Regards 18DAI.

 

[jdad]

My most recent personal experience is that the current production firearms are not junk, but you may get a lemon that needs to go back once or twice, to make it right.

Mine came looking like someone finished the stainless steel, with a wire brush, and did their best to make it look ugly. It was also a "spitter" since the forcing cone was chamfered.

1st time round trip was less than 3 weeks and they completely refinished the gun and recut the forcing cone. Unfortunately it was now a beautiful "flame thrower", with a gap just under .010.

2nd return trip took about 3 weeks, a new barrel was put on, the gap is just under .003, and I paid for the factory action job while it was there. The $155 action job is really worth it.

I'm a real happy owner now. S&W will make it right, but you need to be patient.

 

[Camster]

If Smith was currently all the things that you allude to,they would have folded already.
I have an assortment of older and newer guns.All are good guns;reliable, and fun.
The only thing that I take exception with on the current products,is that some are truly ugly.

 

[dwpmusic]

Well, I'm listening to all of you and paying attention to what you say. Some of my thoughts are. You shouldn't have to send a brand new pistol back to the factory, Smith or not, for them to make it right. And you shouldn't have to worry about whether you're going to get a lemon or not. Hey, this is Smith & Wesson, not some Saturday night special manufacturer. I'm not completely opposed to purchasing a new Smith. I did with the 642. But what really p***** me off is feeling that there is absolutely nothing you can buy in today's world that still is made with the same care and quality as it used to be.

 

[EarlFH]

S&W guns

I have never had to return a vintage Smith&Wesson revolver. The handcuff hole in the side, and the two piece barrels, are a complete turn-off for me, not to mention that the workmanship is terrible. I would pay more for a vintage S&W, rather than buy a new one.

EarlFH

 

[L Pete]

I recently purchased a 686. Of course it has the IL. I agree about the change of the lines around the hammer, but,....this is the smoothest double action trigger I've ever gotten from a factory Smith. Bar none. It is a very accurate revolver. I couple of years ago, a bought a Model 67. This gun was one of the ones with the out of spec firing pin (it miked .003" shorter than standard), and it would fire only 4 or 5 rounds out of every 6. I ordered a Power Custom firing pin, and replaced the faulty one. Now, it fires every time. This revolver is very accurate with my wadcutters, and I would not hesitate to carry it for SD. As far as durability, the 67 is holding up quite well, and the jury is still out of the 686.

The point to me right now is that Smith & Wesson has the best revolvers out there right now, I know Rugers are quite good, but in this day and time, revolvers are becoming a limited commodity. Most everybody today wants a high grade 1911, M & P, or Glock. It's my understanding that Glock doesn't make revolvers, and I'm sure glad Smith & Wesson still does.

 

[SoulLessGinger]

I'm by no means an authority on the subject, but from the couple of Smiths I have, I can say the internals on the newer ones are nowhere near as smooth as the older models.

They have some kind of gritty black oxide finish on the internals that inhibits smooth metal to metal contact of the hammer, trigger, and rebound slide. Stoning that stuff off and getting a mirror like engagement surface is not nearly as easy as on the older guns I have.

And the MIM seems to take more time with the stones to get the surfaces smooth.

Otherwise, the new ones seem fine to me (other than the lock). And most customers probably wouldn't notice stuff like that anyways.

 

[colt_saa]

If Smith was currently all the things that you allude to,they would have folded already.
I have an assortment of older and newer guns.All are good guns;reliable, and fun.
The only thing that I take exception with on the current products,is that some are truly ugly.

No doubts to this. S&W makes hundreds of thousands of guns each year. They are the #1 manufacturer by volume. For 2010 S&W produced just under half a million handguns according to BATFE records. That does not include rifles, shotguns, handcuffs, accessories, magazines, etc.

Today's S&W revolvers are quality products. Still amongst the best that can be purchased anywhere. They are accurate and reliable. They have features and strength that we could not even dream of a few short decades ago.

Is there a lemon now and then.....Of course there is. It does not matter what you pay for something, it is not possible for any company to produce 100% perfect products 100% of the time.

No they are not the way they used to be. Well neither are french fries or popcorn at the moves. Nothing is the way it used to be.

Someone is going to get that lemon and the first thing they are going to do is come here and let everyone know how S&W is going to the dogs because a $1000 revolver should not be bad from the factory.

That is the line you hear. OK is it acceptable for an $847 gun to have a failure? How about a $516 gun? What is price that it is OK for the company to not be 100% perfect?

For the buyer it does not matter, he wants a good gun. I don't blame him, so do I.

There are going to be bad ones and that is why there are warranties. Buy with confidence. Most folks never have problems.

 

[brucev]

OK, folks, the bottom line here is that I want some input from all you highly knowledgeable folks about the current revolvers that S&W is offering. I know that not many care for the lock and I don't either but that notwithstanding, what else is wrong with them? I know that most products have deteriorated over the years but are the current Smiths just a piece of junk? Will they fall apart? Are they just not as accurate? Do they hang up? I've got one current production Smith which is my wife's 642-2 complete with Crimson Trace laser which I paid a handsome price for. Hasn't had but about 300 rounds fired through it. It seems OK. Bottom line is this. Nostalgia is fine and I'm all for it but if I knew I could buy something new that was as good as something old I'd opt for the new in some cases. What are some of your thoughts? I still want a 27 or a 28 vintage. I just hate to see something as American as S&W turning out junk, if in fact that's what they're doing. Are they?

The following is my opinion and only my opinion. I remember when in the 70's there were complaints about S&W revolvers not being up to snuff. Some complaints were warranted. I remember some complaints on through the years. Some of those complaints were also warranted. Some people complain now about S&W revolvers. Doubtless some of those complaints are warranted. In each era those complaints have been atypical exceptions to the norm. At my local gunshop there are seven new S&W L frame revolvers in stock along with a couple of N-Frames. In every respect they look like very well made revolvers. If I didn't already own plenty of .38 and .357 revolvers, I would probably be figuring a way to buy one. As to the lock, so what? Doubtless someone didn't like it when S&W changed the lock-work to prevent discharge of a round if the revolver was dropped in such a way that the hammer was struck. As well there were those who were less than excited when S&W started producing revolvers in stainless steel as they were not the traditional blued steel. Nowadays there are those who look with askance at the new S&W X-Frame revolvers that look like they've been given a dose of steroids.

Now... are new S&W revolvers the equal of those produced in earlier years? If the answer is predicated on quality of design and materials, they are better. If the answer is predicated on the amount of handwork involved in their production, no. If the determination is based on strength/endurance, etc., then the new revolvers are better. Currently I own several S&W revolvers. Most happen to be older S&W's made in the late 60's to 70's, because when I bought them, such revolvers were in my price range. Recently I bought 21-4 Thunder Ranch .44 Special. It is a outstanding example of S&W craftsmanship in design and execution, fit and finish, handling and on target accuracy. The DA and SA trigger pulls are very nice, equal to those I've had using older S&W revolvers with the more traditional forged trigger/hammer. The sights are perfectly regulated using 200 gr. JHP ammunition. I would have preferred a square-butt frame. But I deal with that by just putting on a different set of grips.

 

[gr7070]

I've seen posts on this board with folks waxing poetically about their old S&Ws and the quality of old cars compared to today. That says a lot about that person's objectivity.

The cost savings changes often times end in a better product, take recessed revolvers. The recess provides no benefit other than to foster one's nostalgic feelings. The lack of recess makes for an easier cleaning gun.

MIM is similar. I have not heard of a legitimate negative to the MIM, but it saves plenty of cost to build which is likely passed on to the consumer so they can better compete with Ruger, et al. Contrary to a post above, the people I know who have done hundreds of trigger jobs on revolvers much prefer the MIM. It's much easier and faster for them to create a tremendous trigger.

Way, way too many folks believe "back in the day" is better merely for that sake and not from any objective reasoning. The fact is people haven't changed significantly in hundreds of years, that includes morals, work ethic, etc. If anything the sociologic evidence points to man becoming better people. Technology has improved by leaps and bounds.

This statement isn't coming from a teenager or 20- or 30-something, either. Just someone who prefers facts and objective analysis over stories.

I'd buy whatever you like, old or new, and ignore the little anecdotal evidence. *If* you happen to get a specimen not to your liking S&W will make it right if it has a warranty. If it doesn't have a warranty, then caveat emptor.

 

[EarlFH]

Unfortunately, volume does not equate to quality. If the S&W's are the best revolvers made today, then that is a sorry comment on the current quality of the guns manufactured in the U.S. Lucky for S&W, there are plenty of gun buyers today, who have no memory of the days when S&W really DID make the best revolvers, and just assume that it is normal to have to send a new gun back, time after time, to get it right. Fortunately there are plenty of the originals available for the people who still want a fine revolver.

EarlFH

 

[DonD]

No doubts to this. S&W makes hundreds of thousands of guns each year. They are the #1 manufacturer by volume. For 2010 S&W produced just under half a million handguns according to BATFE records. That does not include rifles, shotguns, handcuffs, accessories, magazines, etc.

Today's S&W revolvers are quality products. Still amongst the best that can be purchased anywhere. They are accurate and reliable. They have features and strength that we could not even dream of a few short decades ago.

Is there a lemon now and then.....Of course there is. It does not matter what you pay for something, it is not possible for any company to produce 100% perfect products 100% of the time.

No they are not the way they used to be. Well neither are french fries or popcorn at the moves. Nothing is the way it used to be.

Someone is going to get that lemon and the first thing they are going to do is come here and let everyone know how S&W is going to the dogs because a $1000 revolver should not be bad from the factory.

That is the line you hear. OK is it acceptable for an $847 gun to have a failure? How about a $516 gun? What is price that it is OK for the company to not be 100% perfect?

For the buyer it does not matter, he wants a good gun. I don't blame him, so do I.

There are going to be bad ones and that is why there are warranties. Buy with confidence. Most folks never have problems.

Excellent post, it reflects my attitudes.

I've had 5 Model 500s, won't go into why but I now only have two which are keepers. All have had uniformly excellent triggers, zero or next to zero end shake. All have been very accurate, none have had finish problems. My PC model had no issues that I was aware of other than that the "Performance Center" marking on the barrel didn't match the other markings. S&W paid to send it back, fixed the marking and replaced the barrel for reasons I never learned as I didn't think anything was wrong with it.

Handled a 686 in a Sports Authority a while back, as good a trigger as I could ever expect.

All the "they don't make them like they used to" are entitled to their opinions but the old stuff wasn't made of materials as strong as today's guns and that comes straight from S&W engineers, not internet hype. Choose what to believe but I'll believe S&W long before all the internet experts.

Older is better? If so, why did S&W have to rework the 29s so they wouldn't shoot loose? You don't buy a 29 if you want to load the really big stuff or you get a Model 500 or 460, they CAN take it.

MIM parts??? If done well and I'm sure S&W's are, are just as good as forged. ILS??? I don't use it, would prefer to do without it but it hasn't caused any issues.

S&W's only real competition is Ruger. Both of my Ruger revolvers are excellent guns. Want to pay $4K for a Korth and have nothing north of a .357, go right ahead.

If S&W's QA and product engineering were so shoddy, they wouldn't be the dominant revolver manufacturer in the world, someone would have run them out of business but that hasn't happened. Don

 

[dwpmusic]

Interesting opinions. Sometimes I think we do get caught up in "older is better". I won't rule out a new Smith and I will continue to try to have an open mind. Great bunch of comments. I'm just glad we can still purchase old or new. Come November and all that might cease to exist. God bless America, again.

 

[OldBlood]

I have alot of Smiths. Some 30 plus years old, some I bought this week. Good guns. New ones I think in most ways are as good as old. What has changed is quality control. I have a 686,purchased last month, I posted with a crooked barrel. Yesterday I picked up a new 60, same problem. Both guns now have to go to the factory to be fixed. That is not good business. This problem has been around for some time. Why don't they fix it? I am not an old ways were best kinda guy. I am sympathetic to business realities, but this is not the way a good company with a wonderful heritage should produce products. Some say it is because they don't pin barrels anymore. i just bought 3 old 64 police tradeins, all 3 barrels are dead center! Anybody have to send a gun in for this? How did it go? I want it fixed, but I am a little apprehensive. Any info would be appreciated. I have my prepaid label for the 686.

 

[dwpmusic]

You see, this is just the kind of thing I don't want to go through. I bought a little Diamondback .380 and if there was a failure to be had, it had it. All I could get from the Diamondback forum was that they had great customer service. That's BS in my department. Great customer service? It was a brand new pistol. Shouldn't have had to go anywhere but to the range. That's my take. Now should I buy a new N frame Smith and it immediately had to be sent back to them for anything, I'd be very disappointed. Leaves you wondering what to do, doesn't it?

 

[M3Stuart]

IMHO; All of my S&W's happen to be older - but that's because they were less expensive, and of at least equal quality, as the new ones. I've shot many new ones and they are fine too. I would by either based on price.

I laugh when I hear people complain about MIM parts - at least it's still metal. Try finding anything other than a plastic trigger on a polymer pistol.

Some people actually PREFER the lock. So that's totally a personal preference.

My LGS experts, and some of them are gunsmiths that work on S&Ws, say that they've never seen a single issue with MIM parts. The only problem they've seen with the locks is that a few people have locked them, then forgotten to bring their key with them. But they've never actually seen a case where the gun locked itself.

Buy whichever you prefer - but don't let the naysayers get you down. They're made in America and are fine guns with a lifetime warranty. What more do you want?

Just my .02.

 

[InTheWoods]

I have several older Smiths and several newer ones. Other than my preference for the COLOR of my older ones (blued steel and beautiful case hardening), I have had just as much luck with the workmanship and quality of my newer stainless ones. The gun I have with the worst trigger was made in the 50's.

You are overthinking this. Just go buy one and enjoy.

 

[everReady Rob]

there is absolutely nothing you can buy in today's world that still is made with the same care and quality as it used to be.

Amen, Amen and Amen again.

I don't think there is any one answer for this. I choose guns that are going to be shot a lot and have been used, very carefully, almost always in person, which greatly reduces choices, but ...

I usually go with new in PD guns, so far no problems, but I read these stories of trouble and feel lucky. I don't want to miss shooting a new gun and the technology involved, so I take my chances.

In the thought of your quote its sad, but with any product today it just seem like a way of life. Imagine what it will be like in 20 years.


Guns for my collection

 

[andyo5]

I think that the current ones are at least as good as the old ones, but certain features have been eliminated to reduce costs. Things like recessed charge holes, ribbing on the backstraps (revolvers), pinned barrels. But in no way do these things make the guns less good. There were old guns made with quality problems too, especially in the 1970s under Bangor Punta. The older blued guns probably had nicer polishing than the new ones, which makes for nicer blueing. But look at the M28 as compared to the M27. It was a lower cost model that had less polishing and a fuzz blued finsih as compared to the M27's ocean deep blueing. It also lacked checkered topstrap.
The 'classic' line of revolvers probably comes closer to the old guns in terms of finish.