Newer smiths - Better In Some Ways?

[Shrek Of The Arctic]

As much as I would love to take comfort in a hard core opinion one way or the other, I generally see the matter in a fairly nuanced perception. In short, the new revolvers ain't as bad as you'll often hear, and the old revolvers ain't as great. I think that often times scarcity somehow gets confused with quality. Back when I was a young 'un in the mid eighties, I remember being in the gun shops and hearing a lot of grown ups debate which was better: The S&W 686 or the Colt Python. For a time before the internet, when knowledge was mainly disbursed through books and magazines without the help of the internet and a bajillion gun tubers, they had pretty objective and reasonable discussions. They compared actions, lock up, finishes, accuracy, etc. Then when they quit making the Colt Python, it became this untouchable holy grail that would never be seen again, or matched in future production, even as we enter the age of flying cars and robots.

I do like the feel of the older S&W revolvers more. They just have a smoother, more solid action. As an unqualified kitchen table goon smith, I have little trouble getting the older actions down to 8 or 9 lbs. DA. It ain't complex. I keep a service strength hammer spring, 12 lb trigger return spring, and do a bit of polishing here and there. With the newer revolvers, I can't ever, ever get them out of the double digits. I also dislike that any time I buy a newer S&W I basically have to set money aside for a spring kit, an extended firing pin, and a decent set of stocks.

I think that we get so hung up in nostalgia that we forget how nice modern stuff can be. the scandium models, the .357 J frames that came along, the 8 shot cylinders, 9mm revolver, the 1913 light rails, red dot ready revolvers are really nice to have, and I feel that we take them for granted. the MIM that everyone gnashes their teeth in woe and misery about is a huge step up from the electro hardening process that made any polishing or customization a sketchy proposition.

I've got a 1917, a Victory, a Model 10, 64, 586, 625, and the TRR8. They're all happy occupying space on the same table. I seem to shoot my 1917 with a peculiar accuracy that is surprising for an old war horse. It still puts big holes reliably where I tell it to. When something goes bump in the night, I take alot of comfort in eight shots and an attached flashlight with my 327.

I've only had to use the modern warranty once. It was a tedious process, but well honored by them.

 

[TAROMAN]

I ‘m skeptical that these will be covered for “life”.

Life of the company...

 

[biku324]

The lifetime guarantee on my Montgomery Wards Power Kraft tools is kinda hard to access.

 

[Dave Haynes]

The comparison between cars and guns is notable. I saw a wreck between a beautiful '58 Chevy convertible and a new MB sedan. The Chevy looked like a wad of tin foil and the MB looked untouched. Cars are infinitely better considering that seat belts were not even mandatory until the late 70's. The gun situation is different. When a 60 year old Model 41 still works perfectly and a modern one cannot be fixed by S&W's best people, something is seriously wrong. Especially when the modern one was built using CNC equipment and MIM precision parts. I firmly believe that it is the modern culture that is at fault. Knowledge and experience are not rewarded and respected, a good try is all that is required. Every aspect of business is in play, medicines that make people sick, fast food that kills customers, Cars that fail quickly, lawyers and recalls are cheaper than doing something right. So a gun doesn't work or breaks, at least we got it out there and let the customers tell us what we should already know...hedge funds have killed almost everything they touch..

 

[Rock185]

I was working in Alaska, and bought my first revolver, a new model 57, in the summer of '65. Since then, I've owned I don't know how many S&W revolvers, most purchased new. Most were good looking, adequately functional guns. But some had timing issues, B/C gap issues, one new 29-2 had the crudest, roughest forcing cone I've ever seen on a revolver. S&W rebarreled that one for me, then refinished the whole gun to make new barrel and frame match. I've needed to send back other S&Ws, and S&W always took care of me, even though some of those guns were acquired used. I certainly understand that just about any high condition pre MIM S&W has become at least somewhat collectable. I get it, but admit that as much as I like S&W revolvers, I am just a shooter, not a collector.

So now we've had S&Ws, for about 25 years I think, with MIM lockwork. I was as skeptical as anyone about this cost saving change to traditional S&W manufacture. But the few S&Ws I've owned with MIM lockwork all carried up/timed up solidly, had smooth double actions as received, clean single actions, etc. Only one, a 686-6 SSR required warranty work; nothing to do with the lockwork though. Just a muzzle crowned so crudely, that the gun would not produce anything that might be called a group, even shooting over a rest. S&W promptly redid the muzzle and all was well. Now days, two of my favorite S&Ws are a 686-5 and -7, both with the dreaded MIM lockwork. The only trigger work on either, was replacing the very heavy factory mainspring of the -5 with a reduced power spring.

I wonder, has trashing the newer S&Ws become the new Kool thing to do on the internet, like the fun sport of trashing Kimbers

 

[Clayguy]

Bought a 27 and 25 with the Hillary Hole and MIM, both are excellent shooters and the craftsmanship is equal to all the pre 1990's Smiths I own. I told myself I would NEVER buy a Smith with the HH, but wanted a .45 Colt caliber and couldn't find an early model that wasn't ridiculously priced. Bought the 27 because I thought someone had stolen mine. Found it a few weeks after I bought the new one. Don't ask. No regrets.

 

[usmcsgt]

Not a fan with new smiths with holes in them, but that said we run thousands of rounds through new SW 22 cal revolvers in the rental fleet/pistol classes with no issues. From customers I hear the occasional complaint about the new autos, but hear just as many who love their new autos. The triggers on the old smiths always seem to be smoother in single and double action in my opinion.

Course it like the old adage “what don’t cops like? They way things are and change”.

 

[b737lvr]

I know I'm the one who made the OP but I do need to say something. There is definitely a shocking amount of Smith & Wesson revolvers that are being shipped to retailers with obvious defects. I bought a 442 last year to ride with me in my travels across the US. It had to go in for service due to highly excessive endshake. I bought a 637 to pair with the 442. It had to go back due to a severely misaligned hammer that was eating the frame. It also apparently had an issue with the yoke as it was listed in the service slip. I got a 36-11 and the side plate is slightly recessed around the yoke screw. Smith offered to repair it but 400 rounds in it's working flawlessly so it doesn't entirely bother me. My grandmothers 351C has a short cylinder latch plunger and doesn't fully depress the center pin making it hard to open. I've heard from probably hundreds of new owners about problems like these with their new smith revolvers.

I will often times inspect random smith revolvers at stores just to see if I can find problems. The most common problems I find is endshake. The second most common problem I find are obvious blemishes in the finish. But with that said when one is made right they are really really good. When they're made with errors it's just disheartening. I really hope that Smith & Wesson can put an end to this teething issue they have with quality control. My only real possible theory as to why this happens so often is that assembly is under a lot of pressure to ship revolvers to maintain a constant supply stream. So assemblers just overlook things under the direction that shipping a flawed revolver to be later sent back for service is somehow preferred by plant management than shipping a revolver that likely won't have to come back.