The "new" S&W Model 19

[cmj8591]

All the S&W's I own were made in the Bangor Punta era, and they are still of the older, hand-fitted, high quality finish era. Some of the most desirable S&W models come from those years, the culmination of the "pre-model number" guns from before BP bought controlling interest in the company in 1965.

I think Tompkins plc and Saf-T-Hammer did more to change the spirit and quality of S&W than anything else has.

Early BP, yes, they continued the post war quality. As time went by, they went down hill fast. Just before LS acquired them, quality was non existent. I think LS was more interested in S&W for their metallurgy abilities than as a gun manufacturer. Tompkins almost ended S&W as a viable business. CS not withstanding, had it not been for Saf-T-Hammer, the S&W we know would not exist today.

 

[shocker]

So you would not trade a new 29 Classic for a vintage S- prefix 29 in good condition?

Sure, I'd trade, sell it, buy a new one, and have money to spend on other stuff.
Actually I'd get a 629 because I like stainless.

 

[Endshake]

I watched the gentleman's video. He is obviously knowledgeable as an armorer of S&W revolvers.
However, in regards to modern manufacturing, I've heard these same arguments countless times and I think they are misleading.
I have been a machinist in a manufacturing environment for 33 years, starting with old manual machines and transitioning to the most cutting edge equipment in existence. Not for firearm manufacturing, but steam and gas turbines. Something that certainly requires quality of raw materials and manufacturing.

I can tell you with complete confidence that no company paid for this kind of equipment for quality increases in their product. They did it for cost. Period. Just because an NC machining center is capable of holding .0002 consistent accuracy, does NOT mean that is how it is utilized. If they can speed up a process 25% and keep the margin of error and stacking tolerance where it was, while touting the equipments mean accuracy, profits just grew.
The state of profitability of manufacturing in this country depends on speed and cost.

Example?
The Marlin Firearms Co made their leverguns for generations in the same way. I personally knew the gentleman that calibrated the surface plates for Marlin, Colt, and Winchester. He said walking into the Marlin factory was like going back in time. Old, worn out bed mills and racks upon racks of jigs and fixtures that were who knows how old.
Remington bought them, immediately closed this facility, and made Marlins in a "state of the art" facility on modern NC equipment.
How'd that work out?
It guarantees nothing, and from a business standpoint product quality is only important as an image.
I also work in inspection, and see this every day.
A manufacturing process is a living thing. Quality products do not necessarily depend solely on equipment. Quality comes from human skill and knowledge, combined with repetition, sometimes for generations.
And most importantly, pride in work and company.

I will stick with the old ones.

 

[Gearhead Jim]

Here's my report on the new revolvers.

Last Fall I bought a new 19-9 "Classic". It's beautiful. It also had these problems right out of the box:
DA and SA trigger pulls were slightly rough and MUCH heavier than any S&W I've ever handled.
Rear sight windage screw would make the sight blade tilt (!) but didn't change windage.
Flash gap was over .010" and the gun would spit so badly even with jacketed bullets that .38 loads were uncomfortable with glasses and Magnums were downright dangerous.
Blueing on the right side of frame above the trigger is slightly "off", like that area didn't get polished properly, but not readily noticeable.
Side plate screws screws must have been installed with an impact wrench- I broke two Chapman bits and twisted one Brownell's bit just getting them out.

To say that I was p!ssed with these problems would be an understatement.

After two months back at the factory, I now have:
DA and SA trigger pulls came back definitely smoother but not much lighter. I then installed a Wolf spring kit with the "Type I - Full Power" hammer spring and 15 lb rebound. Had a 50% misfire rate. Noticed that the stock strain screw was slightly shorter than old ones in my collection, so I installed an old K-frame strain screw that's maybe 1/16" longer, no more misfires and DA pull is now reasonable.
SA pull is still about twice as heavy as any other S&W SA I've fired.
Flash gap is now .007, forcing cone also recut. No spitting with .38 loads but didn't get to try Magnums yet.

Rear sight windage seems to work ok but was properly adjusted so I didn't mess with it much.
The side plate screws now came out with normal force.

All in all, the machining is nicely done, the finish is outstanding even with that one area by the trigger. But the poor functioning and awful trigger pulls, suggest that the target audience for these guns is people who look at them but don't shoot them.
Me, I'll try to wear mine out over my remaining years.

 

[charlie sherrill]

I'm not gonna knock the new stuff. Everybody I know that has purchased one loves them. I'm happy they're happy. I won't buy one of the new ones (except the M&P and Shield series) simply because I don't need one. I've got one or more of just about every caliber S&W has made. Most of my older revolvers have a pinned barrel. The K 22's and the magnums also have recessed cylinders. I bought most of them for far lower prices than what is being sold now. It's hard for me to go to a show or shop and find something I want because I usually already have it and it's usually in better shape than the one being sold. The last S&W I bought I found in a pawn shop. I got it to replace one I shouldn't have sold. I paid $250.00 NIB for the one I sold for $500.00. I paid $600.00 for this one because I shouldn't have sold the first one. The latest is really nice. It's a "S" serial number 28 no dash four screw that was sent back to S&W in 1974 for a white front sight insert, .400 smooth trigger, and an action job. Whoever sent it back was obviously a gun guy and tricked it out old school exactly like I did several of mine. I get questions from non gun ladies frequently asking what they should get for a purse or home protection. I usually recommend a S&W revolver unless they know how to shoot and break down an auto.

 

[M29since14]

I'm curious about the new Model 19s and would like to try one but everything Charlie Sherrill has said seems to apply to me. I'm not going to bad-mouth the new guns, but I'm also perfectly happy with my old ones. Maybe someday I'll see one at a price I can't refuse.

 

[raygixxer89]

After years with my 66-1, i honestly coudlnt even recognize the current 66 on the shelf. I thought it was a Taurus at first glance. No offense but the old ones are very different.

I've handled the new ones and will say that they FEEL like a Taurus revolver. I will never buy a new S&W. Sorry, but you wax silly all you want and you'll never convince me that the new ones are built better. All these new "improvements " were not done to enhance reliability or accuracy. They were done to save money. Not your money, the stockholder's money.

 

[raygixxer89]

Old guns are like old cars or girlfriends. Nostalgia (sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations).Who would not trade a 30 year old "normal used car" for a new one unless you want to live in the past. Older is not better and memories can be molded to ones own use. Also you may not want to admit you are/were wrong.

I completely disagree with this post. I'm only 52 and didn't get into the revolver scene until about 10 years ago. Before that it was, and still is, military autos.
I can see and feel the difference in quality between the old and new revolvers. Anyone who can't is either too young, hasn't handled or shot an older Smith, or is blinded by purchase fever.

 

[raygixxer89]

Nope. It wouldn't be mint condition after I shot it a bunch.
Saying gun technology hasn't changed is like saying cars haven't changed because they still have four wheels.

The only major thing that has changed in firearms tech is the ability to make them cheaper, not better.

 

[raygixxer89]

The tired old adage that is; "They sure don't make 'em like they used to..." Will prevail indefinitely thanks to a potent combination of nostalgia and ignorance. From older folks waxing poetic about how everything was better back in the day despite any number of wars, socio-political issues, and disasters which may have been going on in the faded background of an otherwise treasured memory, to the younger generation who doesn't know any better and is basing their opinion of superiority purely on the aesthetics, which was frankly the only legitimate part which was actually indisputably better in the past.
Ignorance is the larger problem though, because anyone can buy an old gun that has been broken in or otherwise been tuned by a gunsmith somewhere down the line, then assume none the wiser that they were all just like that out of the box.

That being said, they are the minority, otherwise I wouldn't be having so much trouble finding a Smith & Wesson 629 for a decent price because everyone would shun modern examples over "That dern lock" or "Dem Goodyear grips" or because "They ain't got no pinned barrel n' recessed cylinders on 'em, dagnabbit!"

You're having trouble finding a new gun because our hobby is growing every day. Thousands of young shooters are buying their first guns.
What a young, inexperienced Facebook, twitter, tic-toc user is going to think is this: "Well, like, I can buy this new S&W or glock for much less than these older guns! <insert Beavis laugh> And they're, like, better because they're newer! Huh-huh-huh, huh-huh-huh!
THAT'S why you can't find a new revolver.

 

[dsf]

I'm a regular on his YouTube channel and always look forward to his videos. I will usually put him on the background when I'm cleaning my guns.

He is a former NH police captain, competitive target shooter, and instructor for law enforcement....now retired. You can see he's a no-nonsense individual who speaks from years of experience.

The first of his videos I came across on YouTube a few years back was invaluable in teaching me how to properly disassemble a S&W revolver.

I particularly liked his detailed presentation on how to disassemble and clean the S&W revolver and the little tricks the gunsmiths at S&W taught him to avoid damaging the revolver's finishing. Little things like how to use your opposite hand's thumb to cradle a screwdriver and all the "hand gymnastics" used to remove the hammer and cylinder.

Here is that video:

Disassembly and Care of the S&W Revolver ~ Learn how to from a Factory Trained Armorer! - YouTube

Cheers,
686PC

A caveat that I didn't listen to the entire video. But I fairly much agree with him regarding quality control, execution, etc. I've been buying guns since about 1972 and probably in the same stores as him (Rileys, Kittery Trading Post and that little store off the Rte 28 bypass in Derry) and I recall the "old timers" then advising that the Smith "was so full of shavings the hammer couldn't be cocked" and that they weren't made as well as they were in the 50's. A bit of truth to those statements, although exaggerated by a bit regarding the actions. No shavings that I saw but darn they were rough. I suppose I should be thankful because cleaning them up was a terrific learning experience.

It seems to me any honest assessment must acknowledge that yes, the modern Smith revolver is made to closer tolerances, the guns of the 70's and 80's were sometime not up to snuff. However people buy guns for different reasons and cold rolled pins on a front sight blade, laser "checkering" really isn't even if it's made necessary by laminated stocks. I think MIM provides an excellent illustration of the different between old and new in that it functions fine but darn, that mottled grey finish just doesn't do it for me.

My usual carry revolver is a newly made Model 442 with no lock. I have absolute confidence in it. But you'll not find me sitting on the edge of the bed at 2:00 am watching Mannix in my skivvies (don't criticize, I know you all do the same thing ) and fondling the darn thing. That attention goes to an old Model 42 Centennial.

Different guns, different purposes and different reasons for buying.

 

[stansdds]

Most of my purchases have been used firearms, but the few new ones I have purchased seem to have trigger pulls that were heavier and even grittier than those of similar used firearms. New firearms are just that, new, and there may be sharp edges, rough areas, and even machining debris in the action. Those old, well used firearms have better triggers because they are broken in. In my opinion, a new firearm needs a thorough cleaning, followed by proper lubrication, then plenty of trigger pulls to smooth down any rough spots. The triggers on my new firearms have all gotten better with use.

 

[Gearhead Jim]

From my review in post #44, you might think that I hate the new S&W guns, but that's not true.

I started buying S&W revolvers in the mid-1970's, mostly for duty and backup use, but some just because I liked them. The guns back then showed evidence of nice hand work, and the trigger pulls were smoother. But a significant number had timing problems right out of the box, and I got tired of replacing my Airweights because my +P loads would shake things loose after a few thousand rds.

The new guns are often stronger, my 340PD is rated .357 and is tight as a drum after probably 5k rds of +P. After some work, it's still fully reliable and has the nicest (reliable) trigger I've ever experienced on a J-frame. My 66-6 came back from a factory trigger job with a business card from the Performance Center that said "Sir- carry .357, practice with .38"; my new 19-9 is said to be good to go with a steady diet of .357
I would have bought a LNIB 19 but they will always have that potential forcing cone problem with Magnums, and no replacement barrels available.

Some things are better, some things are worse.

 

[theprincipal]

Received my 19-9, put some VZ g10 grips on it, and put about 150 rounds down range. It's a keeper!

 

[Andy J.]

Kunhausen's manual for S&W revolvers has a delightfully snarky rant about MIM parts starting on page 185. (One of my favorite bits: "S&W triggers and hammers look like cheap cast cap gun parts." And then the whole section dealing with models that use MIM is titled "Non Traditional MIM Parts Models."

I'm not really fierce about my preference for old-style parts, and have owned four snubnoses from recent years with the thought that they're mostly carried often but not shot that much. If I want to spend a day making sure I can shoot a snubnose, I drag out the '57 Chiefs.

I'm not about to disagree with my old buddy Jerry, so I'll stick with my current '75 19-3, thank you.

(I have experienced an MIM failure, though not on a revolver-- was at the range with a Ruger 1911 and the front sight snapped off while shooting. Ruger would have been happy to replace it with another MIM, but I went a different way, since I follow the don't-fool-me-twice rule.)

 

[Markmontana]

While I have had a few S&W revolvers obtained decades ago (19, 29, 37, 36) I am more recently getting into revolvers in a big way. I have been buying pre-lock Smiths with low round count and some of the new colts and have some personal observations on the subject of new vs. old. I am just a shooter who likes to collect, not a gunsmith.
1) I bought my M19 and M29 new back in the 80's. They have been shot very little. As new, the fit and finish was excellent and the triggers were far superior to what Ihavefound on new models. Round count for both can't be more than 100 rounds, not thousands.
2) I dislike the lock system being put on most S&W revolvers of recent vintage. Asa collector, aesthetics are important to me. I know the lock can be disabled and presents few practical concerns, but it is a reminder of how lawyers have impacted the industry and, to me, the lock just spoils the aesthetics. There are plenty of non-lock options so why go there.
3) I acquired a new production Colt King Cobra last year and it has a trigger superior to any new production S&W I have handled. BUT, I looked at four King Cobras with not as good triggers before bought this one. So, quality control is also an issue. Guns of same model and configuration are not necessarily the same from one to the next.
4) Recently, I did buy a used S&W 640 Pro that had the Apex carry trigger mod and it is excellent for a carry pistol. It does not have the lock system and thatfluted barrel looks pretty cool. I can shoot this revolver as well as any of my other carry semi-automatics at 7 yds and have begun carrying it IWB in low threat situations. So, there are aftermarket parts than can compensate for shortcomings in production guns. ( heavier trigger pull weights in more recent Revolvers are also the result of contemporary legal issues.)

Firearm evaluation is a highly personal, and therefore, subjective thing. I will continue to look for older S&W and Colt revolvers for my collection and have recently bought a few off this forum. I check it usually twice a day because the guns of interest priced well go fast. Just like love, sex, and nuclear warfare, "timing is everything."

 

[dmar]

I ran across 2 of the new Model 19s recently at my LGS. One was a NIB and the other was a very lightly used gun. Both were 4" guns, and were very nice. The triggers on both of them were excellent, and the action was also smooth. Nice guns.

On the downside, the blueing was good, but nowhere near the finish/polish of the original 19s. Also, don't love the look of the 2 piece barrel (although I hear they shoot well), and the wood grips/stocks on the new Smiths just never look "right" to me. They're decent grips, but again, just don't look as good as the original. And, of course, there's the blasted hole in the frame...

That all said, they look like nice revolvers, and seemed to be good quality, I wouldn't rule out buying one. I really like that Smith brought it back. If they ditched the hole, id definitely buy one. .

 

[malph]

The new designs might have some advantages. Average accuracy might be better. Average durability might be better. Like it or not the metallurgy used today, including MIM might be more consistent and stronger.

But the new guns, built using modern manufacturing methods are assembled. They are not really built by craftsman as the old guns were.

I think what's missing is some strong QA and strong oversight from knowledgeable and motivated people to make sure everything is "right" with the gun before it leaves the factory.

These guns feel like they are assembled by people that were working at Ikea the week before.

Sometimes it works out but too often there are annoying and obvious issues with the guns shipped.

I've resigned myself that the days of beautiful blued finishes are over. I get that most parts nolonger need to be custom fit. I get that the looks of the new guns are shocking to us long time fans.

But geez...at least ship guns that work and function correctly.

 

[Vanderbilt]

Don't kid yourselves that the old S&W's were always better than any new offerings. I had a few back in the 80's with canted barrels and cylinder carry up issues. One friend's model 19 shot out of time, badly, after an estimated 20k round count of low power 38's. The list goes on.

There are numerous modern 686's with 20-30k round counts, or higher, with perfect timing etc., as I would expect. Mind you, I always thought the 686/586 family held up best, right from day one. Don't forget a few thousand rounds smooths triggers efficiently, so old S&W's will often have nice triggers.

I'm not saying new is necessarily better than old, only that old did have their share of issues too. The old 67's, 19's & 66's look fantastic compared to the new models but are not necessarily better in function. I like 'em all.