I dunno - my wife and I have had 2.0 Shields in 40 and 45 since fall '22 and they are utterly dependable, accurate, fun to shoot machines ... my 625-8 same-same.
Newer smiths - Better In Some Ways?
- Thread starter b737lvr
- Start date
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 169
- Reaction score
- 340
I don't think it is a slam dunk that the older Smith revolvers were "better" across the board. We just got used to traditional looks and design features, and devoted fans of products are typically resistant to change. Yes, I do think the external finishes were better. I do think a hammer nose requires a bit less mainspring force to reliably ignite primers than frame mounted firing pins. And I hate the internal lock just as most people do, so no argument that it was a step backwards. The J, K, and L frame guns have a less elegant sweep to the curve in the frame adjacent to the hammer as a result of the lock. But really, I think that's the extent of the old guns' advantages over the new.
The new guns have better metallurgy, better yoke retention, better rear sight mounting design, better front sight system (DX), better extractor design and orientation, frame and yoke mounted ball detents on some models, and less chance of getting misaligned barrel/front sight due to the 2 piece shroud/barrel design. I personally do not believe the MIM parts have caused lesser trigger pull quality, and I've not found the MIM guns to be any more difficult to tune for excellent trigger quality. Nor have the MIM parts proven to be "problematic" or any less durable. The MIM trigger and hammer have enabled design changes that eliminated the need for pins to contain the hammer stirrup, DA sear, and trigger rebound connector. The sear surfaces on the MIM parts are as smooth or smoother than the old case hardened parts because they don't have the tool marks from broaching that must be stoned out.
It is human tendency to always look at the past as the "good old days" of manufacturing. Was there really better QC and fewer problems in the past, or did people just not hear about quality issues in the past because we didn't have the internet then and now we do? Who knows?
I have old Smiths, new Smiths and in between. I've taken all of them apart. I haven't seen any evidence of the old ones being superior to the new ones in any way except for the presence of the hated IL on the new ones and a bit nicer external finishes on the old ones. I think we have just traded for different sets of "problems." I've never understood the arguments for why the 1 piece barrels were unquestionably "better" than the new 2-piece barrels, as there are advantages to both designs.
The new guns have better metallurgy, better yoke retention, better rear sight mounting design, better front sight system (DX), better extractor design and orientation, frame and yoke mounted ball detents on some models, and less chance of getting misaligned barrel/front sight due to the 2 piece shroud/barrel design. I personally do not believe the MIM parts have caused lesser trigger pull quality, and I've not found the MIM guns to be any more difficult to tune for excellent trigger quality. Nor have the MIM parts proven to be "problematic" or any less durable. The MIM trigger and hammer have enabled design changes that eliminated the need for pins to contain the hammer stirrup, DA sear, and trigger rebound connector. The sear surfaces on the MIM parts are as smooth or smoother than the old case hardened parts because they don't have the tool marks from broaching that must be stoned out.
It is human tendency to always look at the past as the "good old days" of manufacturing. Was there really better QC and fewer problems in the past, or did people just not hear about quality issues in the past because we didn't have the internet then and now we do? Who knows?
I have old Smiths, new Smiths and in between. I've taken all of them apart. I haven't seen any evidence of the old ones being superior to the new ones in any way except for the presence of the hated IL on the new ones and a bit nicer external finishes on the old ones. I think we have just traded for different sets of "problems." I've never understood the arguments for why the 1 piece barrels were unquestionably "better" than the new 2-piece barrels, as there are advantages to both designs.
GunBlue490 is a YouTuber who claims to have been an armorer for Smith claims the new ones are in many ways better due to advances in metallurgy and machining.
Smyth Buster's of Brownells seems to concur in their short video: Smyth Busters
While I believe a lot of the knocks on newer revolvers are overblown, like anything they have a granule of truth to them. The things I noticed most on newer Smiths is the roll marks just look worse to me lasered on.
The only Smith I own is a 1989 686-3 not sure if that counts as new, old, or in between but it's pre-Mim flash chromed hammer/trigger with a hammer nose rather than frame mounted firing pin, which is something I really wanted. Whether that makes a huge difference or not, who knows...
All I know is that it is great we have freedom of choice to own whichever we prefer.
Smyth Buster's of Brownells seems to concur in their short video: Smyth Busters
While I believe a lot of the knocks on newer revolvers are overblown, like anything they have a granule of truth to them. The things I noticed most on newer Smiths is the roll marks just look worse to me lasered on.
The only Smith I own is a 1989 686-3 not sure if that counts as new, old, or in between but it's pre-Mim flash chromed hammer/trigger with a hammer nose rather than frame mounted firing pin, which is something I really wanted. Whether that makes a huge difference or not, who knows...
All I know is that it is great we have freedom of choice to own whichever we prefer.
Attachments
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2021
- Messages
- 4,969
- Reaction score
- 8,499
SWFan27
Member
Yes. I agree with the OP.
Alton
Member
I have 2 - 29-3 and 2 - 29-10 along with a newer 617. As far as the lock hole its only on one side of the revolver, so I only see it half of the time and it doesn't bother me. On three of the four the trigger pulls are identical. The one 29-3 10 5/8" barrel trigger pull is better than the rest. All are very accurate. 29-3's grips are larger than the 29-10's. No complaints from me.
DBrainard
Member
I’m going to claim ignorance and hope there’s no backlash for my stupidity. I’ve been collecting Smiths since I was old enough to buy one. I own everything from a No.1 tip up to a U.S. Army Schofield to a ported 8.5” 629, and darn near everything in between.
Please, somebody, tell me what is so wrong with “post lock guns”?
Please, somebody, tell me what is so wrong with “post lock guns”?
javbike
Member
I have two newer models with locks they are great guns no issues model 10 and a model 27
grip frame
Member
I'll take the Smith's made in the 90's please
Norton 750
Member
The thing about new Smiths are some of the offerings simply were not available pre lock. Like the S&W 60-15 Pro Series. Three inch BBL with vastly superior sights, night sights at that. The ability to handle .357 Magnum. (ouch, but if modern alloys make it possible, why not?) To me, it is a .38 Special, but it will handle all the Plus P .38 Specials my hand can take. Round butt for concealment, but it comes with larger grips if that is your preference. Heck, I had to have one if only to replace my beloved Nickel Plated 36 three inch! I have not carried the 36 since I finished the shakedown shoot with the 60-15. And if it gets scuffed up a bit, it does not hurt my heart quite so much. But in 50 years I am sure a future collector will curse me for actually carrying/using a 60-15, just like we do today about a guy that had the gall back in the day to use his .44 Triple Lock!!!!
