Kernel Crittenden
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
"If these new fangled internal combustion engines catch on, what are we gonna do with all the horses?"
From the Buggy Whip Blog circa 1901.
From the Buggy Whip Blog circa 1901.
Setting the record straight on New Classic S&W M27 & M29 (a futile attempt)...
- Thread starter chrisdobz
- Start date
Pef
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,516
I have a Rolex, too. Love it. But it can't keep time as well as a cheap quartz Timex.
It's all just about what makes us tick, Chris.
Best,
Pef
I have a Rolex, too. Love it. But it can't keep time as well as a cheap quartz Timex.
It's all just about what makes us tick, Chris.
Best,
Pef
Excellent point! Yes, modern technology is better at what it is designed to do vs the older technology.
"got a broke a clock, Rollies don't tick tock"
Last edited:
Dog food and suitcase leather, probably.
There were something on the order of 26 million horses in the US in 1915, which was about one horse for every 3.8 people. I would guess that most of them were working critters. Now there is about 9 million (up from less than a million after WW2), or one horse for every 35.7 people.
I dare say that most of those nine million horse are pets of one kind or another.
So what's going to happen to us when robots are doing most of the jobs?
Rhetorical question...? I'm done. I hope the point was made at some point in this thread regarding newer manufactured S&W revolvers vs the older models.
one eye joe
US Veteran
NICE TRY, BUT I ACTUALLY DOUBT IT CHRISDOBZ……….
Georgia1911
Member
Thanks to the internet, I have now met yet another man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
I am no expert for sure all I know is I've never seen a canted barrel on an older smith ,I have on a newer one, I've never seen pitted steel at the bottom of a trigger guard on an older smith I have on a new one, and as for MIM parts I sure like the beauty of a old style TT and TH as well as the old cokes again no expert but this is how my world looks I will go back to my rock now have a good day!
girvin02
Member
I'm sorry, but this statement (and some of your earlier ones) are laughable. It is obvious that you know very little about machining capabilities. A human hair is typically .003"-.005". Forgive me if I don't believe that you can make me a part, holding a tolerance of .000003"-.000005".
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,669
- Reaction score
- 21,360
Chris;
Your points bring up the eternal conflict/debate between the subjective and the objective. In your line of work the objective dominates - is this more precisely machined and can you hold tighter tolerances than before. There is a place for this, and your argument seems to center around the fact that modern production techniques are "better".
Where you stray off this path is asking us to show you why an older model 27 or 29 is "better"...and that is where our human, subjective brains start to object to your assertions. Your new 27-9 and 29-10 will almost certainly work perfectly well, but to make a blanket assertion that because of modern production methods and tighter tolerances that this make them superior to (as one example) a 1930 decade Registered Magnum is a major stretch. Besides, if guns are supposed to be all function and no form, why even bother with a nearly 200 year old engineering dinosaur if all you seek is a bullet launcher? There are plenty of other guns designed to have no worries about fit, finish (or function).
You didn't state where you live, but I bet someone in your area has an older N frame .357 or .44 they would let you examine and try out to compare to your new guns. Perhaps after this you can let us know if your 'subjective' opinion about the the older guns has changed. I hope you stick around in any case.
Your points bring up the eternal conflict/debate between the subjective and the objective. In your line of work the objective dominates - is this more precisely machined and can you hold tighter tolerances than before. There is a place for this, and your argument seems to center around the fact that modern production techniques are "better".
Where you stray off this path is asking us to show you why an older model 27 or 29 is "better"...and that is where our human, subjective brains start to object to your assertions. Your new 27-9 and 29-10 will almost certainly work perfectly well, but to make a blanket assertion that because of modern production methods and tighter tolerances that this make them superior to (as one example) a 1930 decade Registered Magnum is a major stretch. Besides, if guns are supposed to be all function and no form, why even bother with a nearly 200 year old engineering dinosaur if all you seek is a bullet launcher? There are plenty of other guns designed to have no worries about fit, finish (or function).
You didn't state where you live, but I bet someone in your area has an older N frame .357 or .44 they would let you examine and try out to compare to your new guns. Perhaps after this you can let us know if your 'subjective' opinion about the the older guns has changed. I hope you stick around in any case.
Chris,
You need to hold a Glock in one hand and pinned and recessed pre-model 27 in the other to learn about the feel of a hand gun.
I'm not talking quality, accuracy, or reliability here, I'm talking about soul.
I too, hope you stick around, you have opened up a very interesting and informative conversation about our favorite subject, fine handguns.
Besides that, it has been fun pecking at you.
You need to hold a Glock in one hand and pinned and recessed pre-model 27 in the other to learn about the feel of a hand gun.
I'm not talking quality, accuracy, or reliability here, I'm talking about soul.
I too, hope you stick around, you have opened up a very interesting and informative conversation about our favorite subject, fine handguns.
Besides that, it has been fun pecking at you.
Last edited:
Chris,
I hope you stick around too. You made your point, others responded, we wandered off-topic, you took a little ribbing, and we are joined by our interest in all things Smith & Wesson. I, and most others, would be more than happy to show you our favorite S&W's - old and new. As I said earlier, enjoy your 27 and 29; they are the direct descendants of the Triplelock. Do take time to explore the sub-forums where you will find a vast amount of knowledge, experience, fact, opinion, history, tall tales, and....pictures!
Gila's oldest Smith & Wesson, a Triplelock .44 Target, shipped 1911. Refinished in the 1950's but looking real good.
625-6 Mountain Gun .45 Colt
Model 24-3 .44 Target Reintroduction (1984) "pre-Classic"
Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum, 1954 first year production
Gila's Browning 1919 .30 cal. machine gun. Still chugging away!
I hope you stick around too. You made your point, others responded, we wandered off-topic, you took a little ribbing, and we are joined by our interest in all things Smith & Wesson. I, and most others, would be more than happy to show you our favorite S&W's - old and new. As I said earlier, enjoy your 27 and 29; they are the direct descendants of the Triplelock. Do take time to explore the sub-forums where you will find a vast amount of knowledge, experience, fact, opinion, history, tall tales, and....pictures!
Gila's oldest Smith & Wesson, a Triplelock .44 Target, shipped 1911. Refinished in the 1950's but looking real good.
625-6 Mountain Gun .45 Colt
Model 24-3 .44 Target Reintroduction (1984) "pre-Classic"
Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum, 1954 first year production
Gila's Browning 1919 .30 cal. machine gun. Still chugging away!
Last edited:
Well, perhaps the author intended it to be, but the subject is anything but. The great thing is that we here don't have to deal with it here. At least there isn't much we can do about it on the S&W Forum, but someone(s) had better be thinking about it. (Hopefully someone other than certain Ivy-league economists.)
Chris, we need you to come back and tell us more about your new guns. That's really why most of us are here. Speculating about manufacturing techniques and process that we aren't going to change whether we like them or not, and about various socio-economic matters (some of which might get us into hot-water with the Boss) is, well ...
Dennis The B
US Veteran
As is always the case, the conflict between design, engineering, manufacturing, and those associated costs, is decided by the market.
All manufacturers are in the business of bringing products to the market at a price which will be competitive, and acceptable to the largest number of customers. They also have to hold specifications so that their product is superior to others within that market; thus insuring a returning consumer. S&W, and others are not competing against surgical robots.
Discussions of tolerances holding at +/- .000001" is largely an "angels on the head of a pin" discussion. It has absolutely no bearing on the production of firearms, which operating tolerances for accuracy and reliability are far less.
As was found out in the early twentieth century, the tight tolerances on battle pistols (e.g. the 1911) were useless when those pistols were dropped in the dust or mud. They had to work every time. When that same pistol was used for target shooting, everyone wanted a pistol that locked up tight, insuring higher accuracy. The need for consumers needing an everyday gun lie somewhere in the middle.
Yes, those who collect revolvers were from the "P&R" era, love those revolvers. However the barrel pin was largely unneeded after the mid-1950's. Recessed cylinders were a feature from an era where brass cases were a bit suspect as to strength. When S&W dropped the features in the early '80's, the revolvers produced were no less safe, or accurate.
Tastes change in handguns. Where folks loved the deep blue of a Model 27 or a Colt Python, or the nickel finish of similar models; by the time the late '80's rolled around, tastes had changed to finishes of more utility. Folks now wanted guns which were duller in finishes, making them more acceptable to a market which wanted guns for daily carry. Stainless steel, which has none of the cachet of blued or nickeled steel, is far more utilitarian. It can even be polished to give the quasi-appearance of nickel.
S&W answered the nostalgic clarion call for "classic" revolvers. However, S&W couldn't go back to "P&R" guns, either the same blue or nickel finishes. Those manufacturing methods were long gone. So S&W did the next best thing. They produced revolvers around modern methods, and they looked like the classics. Whether they actually fit the bill is another story. Internal locks were a matter of S&W protecting itself from governmental intrusion, like them or not.
And the revolvers themselves are not the only issue. The very stocks attached are a constant source of argument. No one wants to spend a couple of hours shooting a Model 1917 with original stocks. No one wants to shoot full house magnum loads, even in an N frame with standard Magna stocks. There are also those folks who detest the target stocks, because they believe the model was a gorilla's hand. However, S&W, Colt, and others, are in the business of selling guns to the "average" shooter. Therefore stocks are an average of who knows what. The same goes for rifles. Does any rifle really fit everyone? And would any customer pay an additional $100 per gun, to get custom fitted stocks by the manufacturer, and if they could, would they? Just how many folks are 5"10", and weigh 160 pounds?
The solution to the problem of ill-fitting stocks has become a secondary industry. Folks stand in line to get custom stocks, whether by Brown, H-S, Herrett's, etc. Pick your fit, wood, other materials, etc. The manufacturers can allocate resources to the masses.
And think of the scope of the market. We're not talking about the volumes of televisions, automobiles, or even cell phones. While a lot of guns are produced, they simply don't generate the same volumes as Motorola, Apple, or others.
All manufacturers are in the business of bringing products to the market at a price which will be competitive, and acceptable to the largest number of customers. They also have to hold specifications so that their product is superior to others within that market; thus insuring a returning consumer. S&W, and others are not competing against surgical robots.
Discussions of tolerances holding at +/- .000001" is largely an "angels on the head of a pin" discussion. It has absolutely no bearing on the production of firearms, which operating tolerances for accuracy and reliability are far less.
As was found out in the early twentieth century, the tight tolerances on battle pistols (e.g. the 1911) were useless when those pistols were dropped in the dust or mud. They had to work every time. When that same pistol was used for target shooting, everyone wanted a pistol that locked up tight, insuring higher accuracy. The need for consumers needing an everyday gun lie somewhere in the middle.
Yes, those who collect revolvers were from the "P&R" era, love those revolvers. However the barrel pin was largely unneeded after the mid-1950's. Recessed cylinders were a feature from an era where brass cases were a bit suspect as to strength. When S&W dropped the features in the early '80's, the revolvers produced were no less safe, or accurate.
Tastes change in handguns. Where folks loved the deep blue of a Model 27 or a Colt Python, or the nickel finish of similar models; by the time the late '80's rolled around, tastes had changed to finishes of more utility. Folks now wanted guns which were duller in finishes, making them more acceptable to a market which wanted guns for daily carry. Stainless steel, which has none of the cachet of blued or nickeled steel, is far more utilitarian. It can even be polished to give the quasi-appearance of nickel.
S&W answered the nostalgic clarion call for "classic" revolvers. However, S&W couldn't go back to "P&R" guns, either the same blue or nickel finishes. Those manufacturing methods were long gone. So S&W did the next best thing. They produced revolvers around modern methods, and they looked like the classics. Whether they actually fit the bill is another story. Internal locks were a matter of S&W protecting itself from governmental intrusion, like them or not.
And the revolvers themselves are not the only issue. The very stocks attached are a constant source of argument. No one wants to spend a couple of hours shooting a Model 1917 with original stocks. No one wants to shoot full house magnum loads, even in an N frame with standard Magna stocks. There are also those folks who detest the target stocks, because they believe the model was a gorilla's hand. However, S&W, Colt, and others, are in the business of selling guns to the "average" shooter. Therefore stocks are an average of who knows what. The same goes for rifles. Does any rifle really fit everyone? And would any customer pay an additional $100 per gun, to get custom fitted stocks by the manufacturer, and if they could, would they? Just how many folks are 5"10", and weigh 160 pounds?
The solution to the problem of ill-fitting stocks has become a secondary industry. Folks stand in line to get custom stocks, whether by Brown, H-S, Herrett's, etc. Pick your fit, wood, other materials, etc. The manufacturers can allocate resources to the masses.
And think of the scope of the market. We're not talking about the volumes of televisions, automobiles, or even cell phones. While a lot of guns are produced, they simply don't generate the same volumes as Motorola, Apple, or others.
Bajadoc
US Veteran
No amount of rationalization will make me like the new stuff as much as I like the old stuff. New cars are a marvel of engineering and technology but I would rather have a '57 Chevy than a brand new Toyota Corolla. People should get what they like and not worry about what others think. Buy and enjoy the new guns if you like or enjoy the older ones if you like. To each his own.
Last edited:
Cal44
Member
One of the effects of the constant mantra the "new s&w guns are **** and I'll never own one" will be to eventually put Smith and Wesson out of business -- then, some day, all we will ever have are old guns.
Plus, it discourages newcomers to the shooting sports. They figure they are too late to get the great weapons of yesteryear.
I know I was discouraged when I bought my first S&W guns a couple years ago -- a 3" M60 and a M625 JM. I thought I'd made a mistake based on what I read.
But, I liked the guns and they shoot great, so I decide most of what I read about new guns being bad was BS.
I have since bought several older guns -- including P&R versions, and while I like them they don't shoot any better than the new ones.
The trigger on my M60 is better than any of my old J frames, and it's hard to beat a modern 625 JM for accuracy.
Plus, it discourages newcomers to the shooting sports. They figure they are too late to get the great weapons of yesteryear.
I know I was discouraged when I bought my first S&W guns a couple years ago -- a 3" M60 and a M625 JM. I thought I'd made a mistake based on what I read.
But, I liked the guns and they shoot great, so I decide most of what I read about new guns being bad was BS.
I have since bought several older guns -- including P&R versions, and while I like them they don't shoot any better than the new ones.
The trigger on my M60 is better than any of my old J frames, and it's hard to beat a modern 625 JM for accuracy.
one eye joe
US Veteran
THANKS FOR POSTING THIS REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE, STEPHANIE B. IMHO, ALL THE TECHNOLOGY IS AIMED AT MAKING THE PRODUCT FOR LESS MONEY, NOT NECESSARILY BETTER. IF THE PRODUCT TURNS OUT BETTER, IT'S JUST A PLEASANT SIDE EFFECT………….One-eye, I have a stacked washer/dryer from the `80s. I burned out the drive be a couple of years back. The service guy told me to do whatever it takes to keep it running, because they don't make them like that anymore.
Nor do they make the parts anymore. Once the stock that's out there is gone..... planned obsolescence.....bah, humbug. Humbug, I say!
Chrisdobz,
You are obviously a smart guy, and you certainly make valid arguments, but being an engineer and "just" a shooter, your point of view is more scientific than one might find from a collector/shooter such as myself. Without arguing any of your points, I would suggest you do a side by side comparison of some older models (dash two's and earlier) and compare the fit and finish to your newer models. Look at the seams where the side plate fits, and where the yoke meets the frame. The fit and finish is amazing for being hand done. Look at the earlier carbona blue finishes compared to the current bluing. After comparing, draw your own conclusions. These older guns were virtually handmade, with engineering standards that were only as good as the hand and brain could make them, and to remarkably high tolerances. As an engineer you should probably be able to appreciate this more than a non-engineer. The quality (and beauty) is in the art and the craft of the gunsmith. To my way of thinking, that is why these guns are "better." New production guns are decent enough, but they are built by computers, cost accountants, and lawyers. Older guns were built to a standard, not to a price. If you're satisfied with what you shoot, it would be a "futile attempt" on my part to convince you otherwise, so whatever you're shooting, enjoy it. If I could offer you one piece of advice, it would be for you to lighten up. This forum is generally pretty friendly. You can make a point without being pedantic and seeming to believe yourself as being the ultimate authority on an issue. You should go back and read your post out loud. Good luck and happy holidays.
You are obviously a smart guy, and you certainly make valid arguments, but being an engineer and "just" a shooter, your point of view is more scientific than one might find from a collector/shooter such as myself. Without arguing any of your points, I would suggest you do a side by side comparison of some older models (dash two's and earlier) and compare the fit and finish to your newer models. Look at the seams where the side plate fits, and where the yoke meets the frame. The fit and finish is amazing for being hand done. Look at the earlier carbona blue finishes compared to the current bluing. After comparing, draw your own conclusions. These older guns were virtually handmade, with engineering standards that were only as good as the hand and brain could make them, and to remarkably high tolerances. As an engineer you should probably be able to appreciate this more than a non-engineer. The quality (and beauty) is in the art and the craft of the gunsmith. To my way of thinking, that is why these guns are "better." New production guns are decent enough, but they are built by computers, cost accountants, and lawyers. Older guns were built to a standard, not to a price. If you're satisfied with what you shoot, it would be a "futile attempt" on my part to convince you otherwise, so whatever you're shooting, enjoy it. If I could offer you one piece of advice, it would be for you to lighten up. This forum is generally pretty friendly. You can make a point without being pedantic and seeming to believe yourself as being the ultimate authority on an issue. You should go back and read your post out loud. Good luck and happy holidays.
Last edited:
Our house is 27 years old.......
just replaced the water-heater for the second time.....the first one lasted 15 years, the second 12.... the new on only has a 6 year warranty.....
Microwave.... first one about 15 years, second one only 10 years.
Why are "old" S&Ws better than the new ones...... because I was able to accumulate mine in the late 80s to mid 2000s..... most were anib having spent most of the prior decades in someone's sock drawer...... and I got them at half the price or less of a new one...LOL
On a serious note......... I'm with Iggy on this thread!!!!
just replaced the water-heater for the second time.....the first one lasted 15 years, the second 12.... the new on only has a 6 year warranty.....
Microwave.... first one about 15 years, second one only 10 years.
Why are "old" S&Ws better than the new ones...... because I was able to accumulate mine in the late 80s to mid 2000s..... most were anib having spent most of the prior decades in someone's sock drawer...... and I got them at half the price or less of a new one...LOL
On a serious note......... I'm with Iggy on this thread!!!!
I started accumulating new smiths about ten years ago remembering the guns from my youth.Bought a 629 and a new 586.They were nice and shot accurately,but then I came across this forum [emoji33].Those were the guns I remembered.The new ones are long gone and have been replaced for the most part with guns from the 50s.No pre wars yet....The old guns just look so much better [emoji1]
Similar threads
- Locked
