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
- 181
- Reaction score
- 372
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
- 5,122
- Reaction score
- 8,837
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!!!!
Just came back from sighting in rifles at 100 yards. I left my target board (12"x 66") up and hit it 15 of 22 shots with my 45 Shield 3.3" off a sleeping bag on a folding table. Guess Smith's plastic fantastics are okay.
eclayton
Member
Ruger will not work at all on any Six series revolver. If you send them one, they will either send it back untouched, or (if they deem it unsafe) possibly keep it and offer to send you a GP-100 or SP-101.
I can't dispute much what the OP has said. It all depends on the shooter and how they intend to enjoy their revolvers. In my case I'm an older guy who spends much more time looking at and handling my revolvers rather than actually shooting them, so for me the older revolvers have more looking appeal so that's what I prefer to have. As others have said, I am just happy to have choices. 
The only new S&W I would consider buying is the 2 1/2" model 69, because I think it's a great idea. Maybe the new Mountain Gun series. But I can get an old one for the same price if I keep my eyes open.
Last year I bought a 686 4-inch. It has the lock on it - which doesn't matter a whit as far as I'm concerned. Trigger pull is decent, fit and finish are good, and it operates perfectly. I replaced a Model 28 with it, and the 686 is a better fit to my hand and a bit lighter. I will shoot it more because it's a better fit for me.
A couple of years ago I bought a S&W Shield (pre-dating the EZ model). Aside from the slide being pretty hard to rack, it has no discernable defects, has performed well and shoots accurately.
I have a Model 15 and a model 19 that came from a friend's estate. Both date from the 60s or early 70's. I don't detect any quality or fit differences between the newer models and these.
I think the current production is very functional, well made and perfectly serviceable. I'm good with it.
A couple of years ago I bought a S&W Shield (pre-dating the EZ model). Aside from the slide being pretty hard to rack, it has no discernable defects, has performed well and shoots accurately.
I have a Model 15 and a model 19 that came from a friend's estate. Both date from the 60s or early 70's. I don't detect any quality or fit differences between the newer models and these.
I think the current production is very functional, well made and perfectly serviceable. I'm good with it.
AveragEd
Member
I liken this topic to that of automobiles. In the mid-1970s, GM introduced electronic multiport fuel injection on Cadillacs. The ECM was what became termed "minimum-function" in that they lost all memory of codes when the ignition was switched off. Clients would call, make appointments and drop their cars off only to get them back unrepaired because we could not duplicate the condition and we had no stored codes with which to work. We hated electronic engine controls.
Then in the early 1980s, we had no choice - we saw our first new car with wires leading into the carburetor float bowl and started filling out retirement forms. But those ECMs had memory and we learned to accept that they actually helped us solve our client's problems. In the mid-1980s, automated assembly plants came online starting with the Baltimore, Maryland plant that assembled the then-new Astro and Safari vans. Wow - no more need to align bolt-on panels and and spot repair paint. PDIs could be done in the allowed time. Rattles and other unwanted noises became unheard of.
The same exists with firearm manufacturing. Some of us olde phartes might not like MIM and locks - I admit to belonging to that crowd but I'm willing to bet the new guns have a higher level of fitment than our good old ones. I think Smith & Wesson's biggest shortcoming is their apparent lack of good gunsmiths. I had a new Model 41 returned to me unrepaired because they couldn't duplicate the condition that my gunsmith found and corrected in ten minutes. But I also had very good experiences too.
It's the 21st century so I guess we have to adjust.
Ed
Then in the early 1980s, we had no choice - we saw our first new car with wires leading into the carburetor float bowl and started filling out retirement forms. But those ECMs had memory and we learned to accept that they actually helped us solve our client's problems. In the mid-1980s, automated assembly plants came online starting with the Baltimore, Maryland plant that assembled the then-new Astro and Safari vans. Wow - no more need to align bolt-on panels and and spot repair paint. PDIs could be done in the allowed time. Rattles and other unwanted noises became unheard of.
The same exists with firearm manufacturing. Some of us olde phartes might not like MIM and locks - I admit to belonging to that crowd but I'm willing to bet the new guns have a higher level of fitment than our good old ones. I think Smith & Wesson's biggest shortcoming is their apparent lack of good gunsmiths. I had a new Model 41 returned to me unrepaired because they couldn't duplicate the condition that my gunsmith found and corrected in ten minutes. But I also had very good experiences too.
It's the 21st century so I guess we have to adjust.
Ed
Wingmaster
Member
I have on many occasions shot my revolvers from the 1950's and 1960's 50 rounds or more (sometimes a lot more) without any problems whatsoever.
I only have one gun with the internal lock. It is reliable and shoots fine. I have a bunch of pre lock guns that shoot just as good and were built with a level of craftsmanship that doesn't exist today.
I will continue to buy and shoot guns built between 1945 and the late 80's. I don't have much interest in the newer guns.
I only have one gun with the internal lock. It is reliable and shoots fine. I have a bunch of pre lock guns that shoot just as good and were built with a level of craftsmanship that doesn't exist today.
I will continue to buy and shoot guns built between 1945 and the late 80's. I don't have much interest in the newer guns.
Are good gunsmiths required to manufacture guns? NO!
Look at today's automobile engines. While vastly more complex than those most of us grew up with, they are more efficient, more powerful (per cubic inch), get better mileage, require less maintenance and last much longer. Yet they are not put together by auto mechanics, they are assembled by machines and non-skilled labor. Note that the term non-skilled does not mean the workers lack skills, it instead refers to workers who do not have a trade background, such as Toolmaker, Machine Repair or Auto Mechanic.
So it should be self evident that if a extremely complex engine can be assembled without highly trained skilled labor, guns should be able to as well. What is missing is a proper inspection process. Many manufactures have turned this over to the workers preforming the assembly. Each worker is responsible for inspecting the product for flaws. More importantly is when a flaw is found, it is not only corrected but the source of the flaw sought out and corrected as well. While many manufacturers have embraced this method, many have not, including the firearms industry. As a side note, as bad as S&W seems in this regard, the recreational vehicle industry is far, far worse. I have toured one plant a couple of times. During one such tour, the guild proudly showed off a completed trailer with dozens of pieces of tape stuck to it. He explained this was proof of their commitment to quality, in every one of these items would be fixed before the trailer left the factory. When I asked him why they waited until the unit was finished to inspect it, I got the deer in the headlights look. I then asked why the workers who assembled those parts didn't fix the problems before letting the trailer move to the next stage of assembly, and address what caused the problem in the first place so it didn't happen again? I might as well been talking to a scarecrow.
If an assembler at S&W notices a barrel that isn't clocked to 12, they should not only fix it, but management should get involved and make it so it's not possible to make a firearm with a canted barrel. This is where S&W seems to missing the boat. The most common reason is not having the commitment to stop production to correct a problem.
Look at today's automobile engines. While vastly more complex than those most of us grew up with, they are more efficient, more powerful (per cubic inch), get better mileage, require less maintenance and last much longer. Yet they are not put together by auto mechanics, they are assembled by machines and non-skilled labor. Note that the term non-skilled does not mean the workers lack skills, it instead refers to workers who do not have a trade background, such as Toolmaker, Machine Repair or Auto Mechanic.
So it should be self evident that if a extremely complex engine can be assembled without highly trained skilled labor, guns should be able to as well. What is missing is a proper inspection process. Many manufactures have turned this over to the workers preforming the assembly. Each worker is responsible for inspecting the product for flaws. More importantly is when a flaw is found, it is not only corrected but the source of the flaw sought out and corrected as well. While many manufacturers have embraced this method, many have not, including the firearms industry. As a side note, as bad as S&W seems in this regard, the recreational vehicle industry is far, far worse. I have toured one plant a couple of times. During one such tour, the guild proudly showed off a completed trailer with dozens of pieces of tape stuck to it. He explained this was proof of their commitment to quality, in every one of these items would be fixed before the trailer left the factory. When I asked him why they waited until the unit was finished to inspect it, I got the deer in the headlights look. I then asked why the workers who assembled those parts didn't fix the problems before letting the trailer move to the next stage of assembly, and address what caused the problem in the first place so it didn't happen again? I might as well been talking to a scarecrow.
If an assembler at S&W notices a barrel that isn't clocked to 12, they should not only fix it, but management should get involved and make it so it's not possible to make a firearm with a canted barrel. This is where S&W seems to missing the boat. The most common reason is not having the commitment to stop production to correct a problem.
Yep, gots a hole in it (pretty big hole in the barrel too.). Shoots just like my Triple Locks and 2nd model. Fit and finish, pretty much like my 357 Magnum from the 50's.Quality issues have been slipping past manufacturers forever. I bought a new Model 63 in 1981. Got it home and realized that the barrel lug where the ejector rod locates was 1/16" from engaging. Took it back to the dealer and he was kind enough to swap it out for a different gun without the issue. I am sure guns from the 20s to the 50s went back for warranty work sometimes, some of us have seen the communication and repair records.
Time to get over the hole. Don't buy one if your don't like, but drop it for goodness sake.
walkin' trails
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,353
- Reaction score
- 792
The S&W revolvers from various periods during thr 70s and 80s also tended to have some QC issues at times. I bought a brand new 18-4 in 1984. The rear sight wouldn't adjust and the bluing wasn't that well done. Still have the gun today as I took it to a shop for the sight, and in the process had a trigger job performed. It's a shooter today for sure. My 19-5 doesn't have the"at great a finish, but shoots well. It also got an action job along the lines of a police "duty tune" in the early 90s. I've got a 34 and a 36 made in the mid 80s that showed good workmanship all around. All my M&P semis had to go back to warranty for mostly minor stuff. They date from the introductions to the mass hysteria eras. Then, there my 43c, bought at the end of last year, that is back at warranty for the third time…. The 70s and 80s was when S&W was under anti gun foreign ownership. Not sure of the problem today.
Similar threads
