Setting the record straight on New Classic S&W M27 & M29 (a futile attempt)...

[chrisdobz]

Setting the record straight on New Classic S&W M27 & M29 (a futile attempt)...

Background info so you better understand where my mind is at:
I'm an electrical engineer working in the automotive industry specializing in automation. Specifically with powertrain OEM's that make machines/machining centers using CNC's and the latest state of the art servo motion/drive systems.

S&W 27-9 and 29-10 perceived assumptions according to forums and observations:
From reading everything possible I could find on both the model 27 and 29, every forum thread and conversations decrees the original "classic" 27-2 or 29-(1-5) to be superior to the new issue classic line aka 27-9 and 29-10.

To this point 99.9% are suggesting the older models are better based purely on aesthetics and nostalgic feelings of the good old days. "When I was a kid we had vacuum tubes and my radio was bigger and sounded better than my new 4K Ultra HD TV we just got black Friday"....I digress...point is older isn't better...PERIOD! This fact is specifically and especially true with regards to electronics and manufacturing in the 21st century.

Everyone can agree that older is often perceived to be of higher value and if there is a market for that older product then people will drive that perception. However, older isn't better in any other paradigm other than collect ability and nostalgic/monetary value. I mention this not to cause a debate but to clarify the new v old argument as it pertains to the new classic line of S&W revolvers and the "classics".

Why newer is better and my point:
I am working with a company that make machines (essentially 3D printers) that produce an aircraft grade aluminum part for the new Boeing Dreamliner that shoots a laser into a pile of aluminum dust and creates completely finished product (totally dumbed that down but it's awesome!).

My point is technology improves manufacturing and specifically improves the quality by eliminating human error. Robots, precision motors/controls and advances in metallurgy have advanced just as fast as the computer. To suggest that an older model handgun would be of better quality than a newer model handgun using state of the art CNC machining and tools would be a straight lie used to perpetuate the above myth/perception. Having a 100 highly skilled craftsmen make one handgun back in the day is not even close to the quality a robot can provide given the same task...by the way I'm using the term robot to me literally robot as well as automated machining center.

1. MIM parts vs machined - stupid argument other than aesthetics. Everything bad you think you read about MIM parts is a myth.
2. Lock vs no lock - again just aesthetics
3. Blued finish is darker than the original - Yes even the process to blue the finish of a handgun has improved exponentially

I could go on but I'd like to ask if someone could present me with a valid scientific reason to consider an older S&W 27 and or 29 over the brand new S&W Classic versions other than it nostalgia and collect ability? I buy guns to shoot and shoot often. I don't collect guns and I don't ever resell them so could someone please make a legitimate case against the newer classic line of S&W other than aesthetics?

Note: I'm pulling the trigger on a M29 for me and a M27 for the girlfriend for x-mass.

Thanks in advance but please don't provide links to the same old arguments from past threads. I get it everyone wants to make love to a 27-2 and burry a 29-3 in the backyard like a brick of gold.

Quick example (maybe apples and oranges but whatever): I collect Rolex watches and know everything there is to know about them, however, the older Rolex Submariner's are not better than the newer ones made today. Everything in the new watches from the steel that is used to make them to the machining process used to cut the parts of the precision movement cannot compare to the same exact watch manufactured just 7 years ago in terms of quality.

Thanks,
Chris

 

[Feel Lucky Punk?]

I'm new to the forum, I have to agree with you that the newer guns are going to be much better built than old. The new 29s come with the endurance package. I am also a shooter. I was a cop in NC for years. I look for durability not flash. I did buy my 29-10 for its "classic" looks (wanted a Dirty Harry gun since I saw the movie in the theater in 1971) but not for its classic performance. I wanted something that would hold up for years of use. After reading numerous posts about the older 29s, it seems that to much shooting with magnum loads will eventually wear out the gun, I like that they have taken this information and improved on it. I do have to say that the bluing on mine was not top notch, but they are fixing that, and I did order a set of older style grips. I look forward to getting it to the range!

 

[jbull380]

uh oh, interesting first post. May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Fishinfool]

Well, I will say my recent production 4 inch 629, with its tight lock up, and consistent and properly sized throats is the most accurate 4 inch N frame I have owned, out of five.

Larry

 

[nedlate]

Futile!
Ed

 

[reddog81]

I'm no expert but I'll point out a huge assumption you are making. What makes you think S&W uses the latest and greatest technology to make their new revolvers. Just because it would be possible to utilize new technologies doesn't mean that is what is happening.
The machinery used would only be as good as the person who programs it and what the tolerances are set to. Quality control would also have an impact on the product that leaves the factory. Is QC better now?
Is MIM better than machined?
Are guns with locks better than ones with no locks?
I know my S&W's from the 70's shoot more accurately than the gp100 I purchased new last year. I know that's not the comparison you are looking for but it's the sample I have...
I'm not trying to be rude, just making a couple observations.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

Zero divided by any real number equals infinity.

Does that answer the question?

At least my old pre-MIM S&W revolvers have never spontaneously combusted, like the Dreamliner.

 

[Culina]

Just don't get any Hoppe's #9 on your new blued S&W

 

[chrisdobz]

Just don't get any Hoppe's #9 on your new blued S&W

Explain please!

 

[chrisdobz]

Zero divided by any real number equals infinity.

Does that answer the question?

At least my old pre-MIM S&W revolvers have never spontaneously combusted, like the Dreamliner.

Unless you meant that my post could cause a debate that wouldn't end then no it doesn't answer anything. Infinity is when there is no known limit. Infinity might as well be the singularity. Neither have any meaning or purpose to be mentioned on a forum about S&W classic revolver handguns! I don't want a debate I just want facts sans nostalgic opinions.

FYI - The batteries used to store power while on the ground at the gate were to blame for those fires on the Dreamliner. We are a good 50 years away from perfecting the battery.

 

[BigBill]

My new S&W m29-10 6 1/2" barreled 44 mag is suppose to be the best one that Smith and Wesson has ever built it and offered to this day. It has all the ten upgrades plus the endurance package. I don't personally think the m29 can get any better, or more advanced than the m29-10.

With the capability of cnc matching of today the parts can be manufactured to very close tolerances. The Bullard machines I built some were cnc and had accuracy to the millionths. Due to the fact the numerical cnc controls had off sets and we could actually burn the errors into the control to make up for the error when the ram that did the cutting was extended and it's weight was more out of the saddle we put a compisation in the cnc control to make up for the error.
My point is today cnc machines are even farther advanced. Parts can be manufactured to even closer tolerances. Even the molds used for casting are even sized closer. There is no fitting or very little fitting. Machining processes has come a long way since the manual machines.

Now out of my four brand new S&W classics I noticed one had a tad rougher action. If I didn't due a side by side comparison I'd a never noticed it that's how slight it was. Lubing the action with moly made it equal. I like all my trigger pulls and actions to be equal or as close as possible. When switching to the same model in another caliber I like the action to be as close as possible.
I'm very happy with my brand new classics.

Now I find it hard to compare an older S&W n frame action wise to a new classic because the older gun is well used and broken in.

 

[Snapping Twig]

Interesting post.

I believe it underlines a basic truth - the world's history starts for most of us when we were born.

What I mean by that is the difference between paper statistics and the rubber actually hitting the road.

To a person that doesn't know, how are they going to know?

I'll give you the modern manufacturing methods for efficiency. Modern changes... not so much on any level. Two part barrel, no thank you. At least the way S&W does it. DW did it right IMO, but this set-up, not so much.

The lock... what more can be said? Not a fan of nanny over my shoulder. Springfield and Ruger did it discreetly, not S&W AND there are numerous documented failures with it.

MIM... I understand it is hardened on the exterior and any stoning isn't recommended. I prefer forged.

The rifling by electro deposition isn't as good for cast bullets. Button rifling is superior here.

Bluing with EPA mandates and cost cutting is inferior to old fashioned bluing. It just is. Look at side by side old and new, then get back to us.

So, on paper and without an appreciation through use, the new appears to be better.

To someone that knows the how's and why's of the old processes and reasons for them understands and appreciates the subtle differences.

The old hand assembled revolvers were not perfect, I sent several back to the mothership to align clocked barrels, as did others. Once aligned, they were fine.

If everyone liked the same thing, the world would be boring. The reason I post this is as a counter point and is in no way meant to be hostile.

 

[chrisdobz]

My new S&W m29-10 6 1/2" barreled 44 mag is suppose to be the best one that Smith and Wesson has ever built it and offered to this day. It has all the ten upgrades plus the endurance package. I don't personally think the m29 can get any better, or more advanced than the m29-10.

With the capability of cnc matching of today the parts can be manufactured to very close tolerances. The Bullard machines I built some were cnc and had accuracy to the millionths. Due to the fact the numerical cnc controls had off sets and we could actually burn the errors into the control to make up for the error when the ram that did the cutting was extended and it's weight was more out of the saddle we put a compisation in the cnc control to make up for the error.
My point is today cnc machines are even farther advanced. Parts can be manufactured to even closer tolerances. Even the molds used for casting are even sized closer. There is no fitting or very little fitting. Machining processes has come a long way since the manual machines.

Now out of my four brand new S&W classics I noticed one had a tad rougher action. If I didn't due a side by side comparison I'd a never noticed it that's how slight it was. Lubing the action with moly made it equal. I like all my trigger pulls and actions to be equal or as close as possible. When switching to the same model in another caliber I like the action to be as close as possible.
I'm very happy with my brand new classics.

Now I find it hard to compare an older S&W n frame action wise to a new classic because the older gun is well used and broken in.

YES!!! Exactly true!!! More true than anyone even realizes.

Quick Point:
To say that we were better off without CNC using the naked eye is like saying cars built in the 70's were built better than they are today.

- How many cars from the 70's are on the road today?
- Whats the manufacturers recommend time between oil changes when you buy a new car these days?

Go ahead open the owners manual that came with your new car (my example 2014 Fusion) and watch your jaws drop.

Can't find it no worries - It's now 10,000 miles between oil changes! Yep 10K and that's the new standard these days. This isn't because oil is so much better than it was before because it isn't but because tolerances and manufacturing quality has increased using...yep, you guessed it high quality machining centers, CNC's and robots.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

Unless you meant that my post could cause a debate that wouldn't end then no it doesn't answer anything.

It was a test, and you passed. You're probably a very sincere guy. Engineers are a different breed. I hope you get an answer, and closure, what ever your question is.

 

[chrisdobz]

Interesting post.

I believe it underlines a basic truth - the world's history starts for most of us when we were born.

What I mean by that is the difference between paper statistics and the rubber actually hitting the road.

To a person that doesn't know, how are they going to know?

I'll give you the modern manufacturing methods for efficiency. Modern changes... not so much on any level. Two part barrel, no thank you. At least the way S&W does it. DW did it right IMO, but this set-up, not so much.

The lock... what more can be said? Not a fan of nanny over my shoulder. Springfield and Ruger did it discreetly, not S&W AND there are numerous documented failures with it.

MIM... I understand it is hardened on the exterior and any stoning isn't recommended. I prefer forged.

The rifling by electro deposition isn't as good for cast bullets. Button rifling is superior here.

Bluing with EPA mandates and cost cutting is inferior to old fashioned bluing. It just is. Look at side by side old and new, then get back to us.

So, on paper and without an appreciation through use, the new appears to be better.

To someone that knows the how's and why's of the old processes and reasons for them understands and appreciates the subtle differences.

The old hand assembled revolvers were not perfect, I sent several back to the mothership to align clocked barrels, as did others. Once aligned, they were fine.

If everyone liked the same thing, the world would be boring. The reason I post this is as a counter point and is in no way meant to be hostile.

No absolutely the opposite as I think you provided some real credible insight and feedback. The blueing is probably of lesser quality due to regulation but eventually with enough use every handgun will need to be refinished so it's a nominal point yet a valid one.

Yes, the rest of the classics is appreciation which I have a healthy respect for and will continue to appreciate throughout my years. However, I wanted to create a post for those millennials looking to buy a classic gun who would otherwise conclude the newer S&W's to be **** compared to the older ones simply based on all the negative feedback presented on all the forums and internet.

S&W seems to be producing the newer classic versions to appeal to the newer customer who knows technology isn't a crutch.

Thanks,
Chris

 

[chrisdobz]

It was a test, and you passed. You're probably a very sincere guy. Engineers are a different breed. I hope you get an answer, and closure, what ever your question is.

Much appreciated. I'd totally get an old school S&W but I need to examine the facts before I decide to pay more for an older product such as total cost of ownership not resale or perceived or assumed appreciating value.

 

[chrisdobz]

WELCOME TO THE FORUM--THAT'S A HELLUVA 2ND POST, CHRISDOBZ. I HOPE YOU DON'T INTEND TO HANG AROUND HERE, AND PISS ALL OF US OLD GUYS OFF WITH FACTS. YOUR ARGUMENT, WHILE TRUE, FLIES IN THE FACE OF DETERIORATING QUALITY IN MOST CONSUMER PRODUCTS IN THE MARKETPLACE. THAT MAY BE DRIVEN BY OFFSHORE MANUFACTURING SOURCES--I DON'T KNOW. WE ARE SIMPLY NOT USED TO THE CONCEPT OF NEW THINGS BEING BETTER---CHEAPER TO MANUFACTURE, BUT NOT BETTER. AESTHETICS AND IMAGERY DOES PLAY A GOOD PART IN THE ATTRACTION TO OLDER FIREARMS. I'M NOT WHINING (THAT'S FORBIDDEN), JUST MAKING AN OBSERVATION---THE IL HAS TO BE THE BIGGEST TURNOFF FOR BUYING A NEW S&W. I HAVE BUT ONE IN MY COLLECTION, A 4" M617 THAT HAS NOT GIVEN ME ONE BIT OF TROUBLE. I RELUCTANTLY PURCHASED IT BECAUSE I COULD NOT FIND A CLEAN USED ONE---BASED ON AESTHETICS……..

No not at all...everyone needs to realize that back in the day employing 100 skilled workers to make a handgun wasn't more expensive than it is to manufacture with modern technology today given inflation. Just because the technology is more advanced and extremely accurate to with in nano meters doesn't mean its "cheap" let alone even close to being "cheaper" than it was to manufacture the same product back in the day. My customer makes one grinding machine that sole purpose is to grind a single part used in the new 9 and 10 speed transmission for Ford and GM. This machine used to grind a single part was sold to GM and Ford for $1million. Technology is by no means cheap and there is an arms race for all the companies to keep up with the latest trends and state of the art technology.

To your point of "Deteriorating Quality" in the marketplace I'm afraid you will have to provide more specific examples. I was speaking manufacturing or CNC'd parts/components to which it is quite the opposite and only getting better.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

.....based on all the negative feedback presented on all the forums and internet.

Chris, as a rule, we don't bash the new Smiths here. All are welcomed. If it gets out of hand, the mods are quick to shut it down. What they do on other sites.... that's their deal.

Personally, I prefer Smiths from the mid-'80's to late '90's into the early 2000's. This was known as the Tompkins LLC period, an international conglomerate that owned S&W for a time. But I appreciate the older Smiths and the newer ones too.

I'm just glad S&W does what it has to do to stay in business. If they made the same revolver they made in 1966, the same way, they would of been bankrupt by 1976. Many fine old gun companies didn't make it out of the '60's and '70's. S&W had hard times, but they're still here. Partially, because they adopted new manufacturing processes and designs when others didn't. Hopefully, they continue to do so.

 

[Gunhacker]

There is no arguing that todays manufacturing technology and materials are superior to yesteryear.

There are some aspects of the new S&W's that if done differently, and Snapping Twig pretty much nailed it, I do not think there would be as much of a disagreement about which is better if S&W did some things smarter than what they did.

S&W is not the only firearm manufacturer that being knocked for the difference in their blued guns... the new EPA regs are hitting everyone.

 

[chrisdobz]

Chris, as a rule, we don't bash the new Smiths here. All are welcomed. If it gets out of hand, the mods are quick to shut it down. What they do on other sites.... that's their deal.

Personally, I prefer Smiths from the mid-'80's to late '90's into the early 2000's. This was known as the Tompkins LLC period, an international conglomerate that owned S&W for a time. But I appreciate the older Smiths and the newer ones too.

I'm just glad S&W does what it has to do to stay in business. If they made the same revolver they made in 1966, the same way, they would of been bankrupt by 1976. Many fine old gun companies didn't make it out of the '60's and '70's. S&W had hard times, but they're still here. Partially, because they adopted new manufacturing processes and designs when others didn't. Hopefully, they continue to do so.

Good point. I didn't mean to imply this particular forum was bashing. In general on the internet there's a lot of negativity for newer S&W 27 and 29's on the internet. This thread should be viewed as a safe haven on the non nostalgic conversation regarding older classic revolvers vs new issue classics from S&W. I don't think it's fair to favor a particular model/year without explaining the other side of the coin in a factual manner.