Old vs new?

[sailor723]

I'm fairly new to Smith and Wesson (i have a 586 no dash and have just bought a K 38). I 've heard a lot about quality changes over the years and whether or not the guns built today are a reliable and long lasting as those of the past.

What's your opinion?

If you think that older is better pre what date should one look for? IE When did things start to slip?

I'm a bit of a conservative and a history buff so I'm predisposed to prefer older things but am willing to be convinced otherwise

... a second question.....I now have a K frame and a L frame so is a N the next logical step? Is one model of a 27 better than another? I'd prefer to stay with .38/.357 for now.

 

[rwsmith]

The new guns are worth having....

They still make great guns though they have experienced problems due to scrambling to get product out the door. There are some design changes from the old guns such as frame mounted firing pins but there is nothing wrong with them. Many of us old timers just like the older guns. It shouldn't make a lot of difference to new timers.

 

[Rpg]

I have no reason to think a new S&W would wear out faster, or have a shorter useful life than an older one.

The quality difference between older and newer largely has to do with fit, finish and esthetic design features such as the dreaded lock and MIM parts.

To me, new S&W's seem rough and cobbled together compared to older ones: just rough finished with poor attention to detail, less care in manufacture, and a 'that's good enough' quality.

I suspect you are likely to find factory defects more frequently in new as compared to old if for no other reason than any defects in the old have already been dealt with.

In my experience, old is more likely to have better triggers than new.

Many of the new seem less svelt. Some of that has to do with frame changes to accommodate the lock, some due to manufacturing economies. The full length underlugs on S&W's are unlovely as compared to Colts.

I prefer the older, pre lock and pre MIM era products, so my cut off is around 1989.

All that said, both old and new will work and either will probably still be working just much longer than ether of us.

Don't hunt with a gun that will embarrass your dog.

 

[rburg]

You will receive a range of opinions on this. Everyone else is wrong and only my opinions, or those that agree with me are right!

OK, the best 357s were the first ones, those made before WWII. Then after the war, they were kind of OK. Then they ruined all that was sacred and began stamping model numbers. Then the bottom fell out and the British bought the company. They did their best to ruin it, often speculated because they were anti-gun. Things continued to go down hill and they stopped pinning the barrel and recessing the cylinders. Things got even worse and they stopped making the hammers and triggers out of steel, instead using a plastic like process. If that wasn't bad enough, they made barrels out of multiple parts. And they even stopped putting the firing pin on the hammer and stuck it on the frame. There is just no justice.

And I only use the N frame guns as an example. Oh, and the PC 357 8 shots are darn good guns, if I must lower myself to admit it.

There are maybe some other exceptions to my rules, guns that are darn good. And all this from a collector. I do like my early M60, the one without a stupid letter at the front of the serial number. I even like my AirLites. I guess the old timers didn't have the good metal they use today.

What we're really talking about is my refusal to accept the cheapening steps they've been using along with some of the good. The company is run to make a profit, not to produce great guns. I hope the profits keep them happy, because they sure aren't making a lot of great guns these days. But compare them with the other biggies of the past. I don't even know if Colts still makes guns. Remington and Marlins are junk. Winchesters aren't even made by them. This country's fine tradition of making wonderful firearms is in the dumpster. The guns being made today might last as long as the earlier ones. But they won't ever be as elegant.

 

[Cal44]

I think it depends on the particular gun.

I have a new 627pc, 625jm, and a no lock 642 that are just as nice as the older ones.

 

[george_lehr]

You asked for opinions and you've gotten some good comments already.
I'm not a collector, but like you, I prefer older things.
One of my K38s is a pre model 14. I bought it because it appealed to me, which I'd guess is why you bought your K38. I have new S&W revolvers as well and they function flawlessly, as expected. But there's something special to me about a revolver more than 50 years old that functions just as well and is more handsome to my eye. Also, realizing that with proper care, it will continue to function and appeal long after I'm gone.
I don't quite get the same feelings about the newer ones and if I needed to downsize for some reason, they would be the first to go.
I'd also mention that some here say the hunt for a gun is half the fun and that certainly isn't the case with buying new.
George

 

[sailor723]

Thanks for the replies. I do prefer something that is more finely fitted and finished (or as an earlier poster said "more elegant"). From a purely esthetic point or view i prefer the blued and wood grips look of earlier guns to the stainless/rubber offerings i mostly see today. Although, a friend has a 6" 686 (Talo I think?) with lovely reddish wood grips that looks pretty nice.

I have read several accounts of newer guns (including PC stuff) having to be returned for work right out of the box.Perhaps QC issues from when demand spiked so sharply a year or two ago and production was running flat out?

All in all it sounds like maybe I should be on the lookout for an older 27 or a pre 27 N frame next.

 

[Iggy]

I think probably today's guns are as good or better than the older ones, but they aren't finished as well and they don't have soul.
I'll take the old ones any day.

 

[Rick_A]

New guns make better working guns due to factory support and a general lack of collector value.

Old guns make better keepsakes and collectables. Those that weren't made in vast numbers and/or are sought after only go up in value.

People have various complaints about the new ones (most unfounded). Probably the biggest gripes are MIM, IL's, and the current bluing process. MIM works perfectly in most cases (just doesn't look as good), the IL is easily dealt with if it irks you, and there's just nothing that can be done about the bluing. The cosmetics of the frame mounted firing pin bothers a few, too.

While there's plenty of folks that shoot and carry valuable vintage guns regularly, that's the exception rather than the norm. Those with the "pre lock" guns in new production styles and forged parts have a bit of an eletist view towards current guns which is largely unfounded. S&W has had its ups and downs and to consider all past production guns better than the current is simply unfair.

A fancy gun that sits in a factory shoebox in the safe doesn't have a lot of practicality.

I have one fine 1950's example and a few new guns. They're all just fine to me. Some folks like to put the old guns on a pedestal due to what is perceived as superior old world production methods and techniques.

I personally have no gripes owning, carrying, and shooting the new guns. My vintage gun was a chance purchase at a reasonable price and is used just like any other, it's just not carried often.

 

[Rhetorician]

Rhetorician Response

I'm fairly new to Smith and Wesson (i have a 586 no dash and have just bought a K 38). I 've heard a lot about quality changes over the years and whether or not the guns built today are a reliable and long lasting as those of the past.

What's your opinion?

If you think that older is better pre what date should one look for? IE When did things start to slip?

I'm a bit of a conservative and a history buff so I'm predisposed to prefer older things but am willing to be convinced otherwise

... a second question.....I now have a K frame and a L frame so is a N the next logical step? Is one model of a 27 better than another? I'd prefer to stay with .38/.357 for now.

Hello all:

I too love the old stuff, you can even call me "old skool!" I purchased a 38 special, Military and Police, 6 shoot, 1905 Fourth Change, that was shipped in March 1924; according to my certification letter from Smith.

I bought it at my local pawn emporium for $199. It is almost a safe queen, not because I am trying to save it just because I do not get to the range as much as I would like. But I can testify to one thing, the trigger on it is a smooth as my newly bought Ruger LCR 357. Shoots to point of aim. It is a better weapon than I am marksman!!! LOL!!!

The other half of my story is not so nice. I have a recently minted snubbie, Model 360PD, Scandium / Titanium, 357, that weights in at a scant 12 oz. It is DA / SA with external hammer. My dad had a "Chief's Special" back in the day when he served warrants and it just brings back memories and traditions I guess.

My problem with it is this--the SA trigger pull is horrendous. I am having to learn to shoot all over again it seems. Many on the board have told me to have a "trigger job" done. My response has consistently been, who wants to purchase a $1019.00 (retail on Smith's web page) gun then have to do a trigger job right out of the box. (But for the record I did only pay $399 otd for the little gun!!!).

So my inference is, the old Smiths may be the better Smiths. And with all of the discussion on this thread alone I may opt for the older, if and when, I buy any more Smiths.

I will testify that this little J has brought more consternation and pondering about the Smith mystique and traditions than I would have thought based on the extremely good views I have come to appreciate about my older 38.

My thoughts!

Yours?

 

[Rick_A]

My problem with it is this--the SA trigger pull is horrendous.

Should have tried before buying. My 2013 649 that cost me $390 OTD has the best SA pull of all of them.

 

[Arik]

I like both but what really draws me in is the price.

I don't see a problem with reliability and longevity. People in the 70s were crying that S&W has slipped and gone down hill during the Bangor Punta era. 40 years later those guns are alive and well today and bringing in some nice money.

I honestly don't believe there was ever a better or worse time. I believe that the amount of lemons put out were always about the same. The only thing is back in the day you couldn't log onto the Internet and read all the bad reviews. The only sample you had was what your local area shooters experienced. Also the only time you hear crying is when there is a problem. No one posts "today nothing broke"

People always hate change. It's the nature of the beast. So every time there is change people cry foul

 

[bmcgilvray]

I know I'm willing to own and use the older ones.

 

[regalsc]

I like the old & the new ones. There can be issues with the old ones & the new ones. The new ones have a lifetime warranty.

 

[muddocktor]

As to your first question, I just prefer the looks of the older, recessed cylinder models to the newer ones, as the cylinder/recoil shield gap is smaller and the lines of the pistol flow together better to me. And I like a hammer mounted firing pin and forged hammer and trigger over MIM parts and a frame mounted firing pin. In that I'm a traditionalist. But as far as lockup and trigger pull on the new ones, that is as variable as the models that S&W makes. I recently was at the LGS buying some 44 bullets to reload and looked at a couple of 29's in the showcase. One was just terribly built with a slightly canted barrel and horrible endshake, loose lockup and gritty trigger pull and the other one was tight as a bank vault and had a nice trigger. So as to the newer guns I would say it's a bit of a crapshoot and would be best to actually handle before buying.

As to your second question; since you have a K and an L, you definitely need an N frame 357. I personally like the 27-2 and earlier the best as they have the recessed cylinder, but a 27-3 to 27-5 aren't anything to turn your nose up at either if they are in good shape. And the 27-4 and later models have the advantage of the radiused stud package developed for the 29s, so that they are probably even stronger internally than the older models (not that the 357 actually needs this).

 

[Blackbarry]

I. too, try to keep my arsenal in the .38/.357 caliber. Yeah, I have .22 , 9mm, .45 ACP , and .45 Colt as well. But ALL my wheel guns are .38/.357. Therefore, in the "N" frame, I suggest you look into a 627. And no collection, however meager, is complete without a "J" frame as well. I went for the Model 36 (Chiefs Special) in nickel. My "N" frame is off to S&W getting the cylinder gap fixed, but here is my beautiful "J" frame:

 

[Tom_R]

Thanks for the replies. I do prefer something that is more finely fitted and finished (or as an earlier poster said "more elegant"). From a purely esthetic point or view i prefer the blued and wood grips look of earlier guns to the stainless/rubber offerings i mostly see today. Although, a friend has a 6" 686 (Talo I think?) with lovely reddish wood grips that looks pretty nice.

I have read several accounts of newer guns (including PC stuff) having to be returned for work right out of the box.Perhaps QC issues from when demand spiked so sharply a year or two ago and production was running flat out?

All in all it sounds like maybe I should be on the lookout for an older 27 or a pre 27 N frame next.

If you are looking for refined and elegant then Look for one of the following:
- A 27-2 in any length or finish, I am partial to the 4" and 5" barreled ones myself
- A model 19, specifically a 19, 19-1, 19-2, 19-3, or a 19-4

Those are very finely finished and come with beautiful wood stocks, and are pinned/recessed.

My nickel 4" 27-2:

My blued 4" 19-4:

This one is also pinned and recessed, but is the work horse of group. It is a model 28-2, the Highway Partolman. Not as snazzy as the model 27, it has it where it counts though.

These truly are works of art, in my opinion.

 

[Tom_R]

Double Tap, by accident

 

[Bill A]

Fit and finish on the old ones is incomparably better than recent production.

Bill

 

[ky wonder]

this is a great question, but like automobiles there are preferences that have nothing to do with quality.

I love the old 57 chevy truck, and it is a classic, however I would much prefer a long trip in a more modern pickup

the early magnum model k frames are reliable but the milled ,thin forcing cones were subject to damage due to the high pressures that the 357 loads create

the newer l frame guns have a thicker barrel at the forcing cones and I like the spring locking detent at the front of the cylinder

the newer guns have a pressed barrel with a what is basically a shroud that surrounds the barrel, not as nice as the old pinned one piece barrels
but just as accurate

jerry M. has a great video on his sight where he compares the mid size frame guns from colt ruger and smith, I would suggest you watch the entire video and learn from the master

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cbVl3cDMTY

as far as the n frame don't bypass a good 28 lokking for the 27, same gun just different level of finish