bmcgilvray
Member
I'm gonna have to haunt the Forum with the other old guys. It seems that there is more of a division between the pre lock and post lock categories than there is in pre war and post war categories. Maybe even more difference than between revolvers and automatics! No matter. I care not for how the topic categories are divided.
While I applaud Smith & Wesson for making the effort with the new "classic" revolvers, especially the fixed sight models chambered in .44 Special and .45 ACP, the lock kills it for me.
I'm not keen on frame mounted firing pins, two-piece barrels, MIM parts, and the great, hulking, ugly cylinder stop on the left side of the frame. I'd have still been willing to try one though except for the lock.
Never cared much for made for the manufactured collectibles whether they be Smith & Wesson, Winchester or Colt commemoratives, coins, cars, or Beanie Babies.
These "new crop" Smith & Wesson "classics" are about the same as if General Motors reincarnated the '57 Chevrolet Bel Air. I'm certain that in many respects it'd be superior to the original. Suspension advances would make it handle better, computerization would make the engine more reliable and more responsive. Then by the time all the government mandated safety standards were applied to it the car would be far safer.
It wouldn't be hard to start on cold mornings due to a dodgy choke. No vapor locking on a 105F Texas July afternoon in heavy traffic. No sluggish cornering, no brake fad, no points, plugs, and condenser to replace every 12K-15K miles.
It'd have a different and safer steering wheel and dash. It'd feature seat belts and shoulder harnesses It'd have a 12 volt alternator to power that cold A/C and all the power goodies the auto buying public has to have.
The finished product would indeed look "'57 Chevy-ish". Due to government regulations it probably couldn't have the exact appearance and stance of the 1957 model. It would be no '57 Chevy and the driver couldn't own the experience of driving a '57 Chevy with it. It would only be a retro marketing ploy.
Both Chevrolet and Smith & Wesson have moved on. The only difference is that there have been some genuine bona fide advancements on the automotive scene since 1957. Perhaps, saving for the idiot lock, Smith & Wesson has taken advantages of modern manufacturing advances. Perhaps it was necessary to hold down the cost of manufacturing. If it is then I'd hate to see the price tag of a new one made like the "traditional" models I love.
I've got five Smith & Wesson revolvers that I've had for over a quarter of a century now. Bought four of them new. I would say they've had extensive use. No modern gun can ever catch up to them on smoothness or reliability. And to think that they are all from the dreaded Bangor Punta era! We won't even talk about the pleasures of handling and using a pre-war Hand Ejector. The Smith & Wesson revolver has treated me better than any other brand of firearm.
I've handled and fired some new Smith & Wesson revolvers. They were...ok. And yeah, I was prejudiced in my evaluation. They were not better than a more "traditional" model.
Unlike the differences in the '57 Chevy and the '08 Chevy I fail to see where the manufacturing changes in the Smith & Wesson revolver are of benefit to me. Can't see how they will be more accurate, more durable, slicker and smoother. I've already experienced the best there is.
There are so many pre-war and post war "traditional" models of Smith & Wesson guns that I would like to own that I don't see a new purchase Smith & Wesson revolver in my future. If they were to lose the lock however, I will celebrate by adding some sort of fixed sight, N-Frame, big bore to the collection.
I have to abide change in most aspects of my life. A lot of change! Politically, sociality, in the work place, and with conventional morals. Change for the better, change for nothing more than the sake of change, mandated change, and change for the worse. I don't have to embrace it in my chosen hobby and am free to indulge myself in whatever prejudices I want.
While I applaud Smith & Wesson for making the effort with the new "classic" revolvers, especially the fixed sight models chambered in .44 Special and .45 ACP, the lock kills it for me.
I'm not keen on frame mounted firing pins, two-piece barrels, MIM parts, and the great, hulking, ugly cylinder stop on the left side of the frame. I'd have still been willing to try one though except for the lock.
Never cared much for made for the manufactured collectibles whether they be Smith & Wesson, Winchester or Colt commemoratives, coins, cars, or Beanie Babies.
These "new crop" Smith & Wesson "classics" are about the same as if General Motors reincarnated the '57 Chevrolet Bel Air. I'm certain that in many respects it'd be superior to the original. Suspension advances would make it handle better, computerization would make the engine more reliable and more responsive. Then by the time all the government mandated safety standards were applied to it the car would be far safer.
It wouldn't be hard to start on cold mornings due to a dodgy choke. No vapor locking on a 105F Texas July afternoon in heavy traffic. No sluggish cornering, no brake fad, no points, plugs, and condenser to replace every 12K-15K miles.
It'd have a different and safer steering wheel and dash. It'd feature seat belts and shoulder harnesses It'd have a 12 volt alternator to power that cold A/C and all the power goodies the auto buying public has to have.
The finished product would indeed look "'57 Chevy-ish". Due to government regulations it probably couldn't have the exact appearance and stance of the 1957 model. It would be no '57 Chevy and the driver couldn't own the experience of driving a '57 Chevy with it. It would only be a retro marketing ploy.
Both Chevrolet and Smith & Wesson have moved on. The only difference is that there have been some genuine bona fide advancements on the automotive scene since 1957. Perhaps, saving for the idiot lock, Smith & Wesson has taken advantages of modern manufacturing advances. Perhaps it was necessary to hold down the cost of manufacturing. If it is then I'd hate to see the price tag of a new one made like the "traditional" models I love.
I've got five Smith & Wesson revolvers that I've had for over a quarter of a century now. Bought four of them new. I would say they've had extensive use. No modern gun can ever catch up to them on smoothness or reliability. And to think that they are all from the dreaded Bangor Punta era! We won't even talk about the pleasures of handling and using a pre-war Hand Ejector. The Smith & Wesson revolver has treated me better than any other brand of firearm.
I've handled and fired some new Smith & Wesson revolvers. They were...ok. And yeah, I was prejudiced in my evaluation. They were not better than a more "traditional" model.
Unlike the differences in the '57 Chevy and the '08 Chevy I fail to see where the manufacturing changes in the Smith & Wesson revolver are of benefit to me. Can't see how they will be more accurate, more durable, slicker and smoother. I've already experienced the best there is.
There are so many pre-war and post war "traditional" models of Smith & Wesson guns that I would like to own that I don't see a new purchase Smith & Wesson revolver in my future. If they were to lose the lock however, I will celebrate by adding some sort of fixed sight, N-Frame, big bore to the collection.
I have to abide change in most aspects of my life. A lot of change! Politically, sociality, in the work place, and with conventional morals. Change for the better, change for nothing more than the sake of change, mandated change, and change for the worse. I don't have to embrace it in my chosen hobby and am free to indulge myself in whatever prejudices I want.
