Used vs New Smiths

[justakyguy]

Hey guys so I need some advice. I have a Charter Arms Bulldog which I got because I wanted a big bore snubbie, but although the gun works ok, it seems to be of low quality, and I've put like 20 rounds through it and I already see small cracks near the forcing cone. I don't like the grips either, I really hate rubber grips they just feel weird and I don't like the looks of them. Yea it has a warranty but I don't care, it just looks and feels too cheap to me. So I'm selling it. Only had it a couple months, but ever since I picked up a beautiful used Smith, I have the Smith bug and want another one. My instinct tells me to only stick to pinned barreled pre lock Smiths but should I give a new Smith a chance? I just can't get past the locks though. I handled a new one and it felt good but I'm afraid of getting a lemon and let's face it there's something about the older Smiths that I love plus I like knowing I'm the first owner of a firearm. My friend says to give new Smiths a chance, but I'm the type of guy if I see a nice pre lock one in the pawnshop or Bud's I have to have it right then and there lol. I personally feel that good used Smiths are worth 100 of a new one but maybe that's just me.

 

[Arik]

Old Smiths broke as often as new ones. No internet to cry on but it did happen.

The Bulldog is made the same way it's been made for a long time. It's a good functional tool

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Bobbysixkiller]

I have old S&Ws. I have new ones too. Some pinned. Some not. Some with locks. The biggest difference is who pays the bill if one needs work. Me or the factory. They're all great. I think they're the best revolvers made. I've had Taurus. Have several Ruger's. no colts but my smiths are top notch. Some don't like the new ones but a lot of upgrades have come with new ones too. Not too many pinned barrels on stainless guns. New or old I love em all.

 

[tipoc]

If you like older Smiths then get those. But be clear on why you want and like them...they appeal to you.

Depending on how old you are looking at, the fact is that the newer guns are in general stronger and more durable. Few P&R guns will be stronger than a modern one.

If you want guns without the lock then you can buy those used. The locks began to go in in late 2001-2002 just after Saf-T-Hammer (a company set up to place locks in revolvers and begun by officers of S&W) bought S&W from Tomkins. So buy guns without locks.

The locks have not proven to be a major problem. They can also be removed or ignored. I would not let them be a barrier for any reason other than that you don't like the idea of them.

tipoc

 

[chief38]

In my personal opinion I can't honestly say that Charter Arms ever made high quality guns. To me they were just cheaper price-point guns and did not hold a candle with the Vintage Smiths or Colts.

Without whining about and or bashing the newer Smiths, I much prefer the vintage Smiths made prior to 1994. They are just everything I expect in a Revolver with none of the manufacturing short cuts, lawyer features, or less stringent QC.

Some buy and really like the newer Smiths and that is certainly their prerogative. Me - - - I'll take a NIB, ANIB or gently used and properly cared for vintage model any day over the newer stuff. That's just my prerogative.

YMMV

 

[justakyguy]

Yea. I'm just drawn to the 1970s Smiths. My friend has an airweight new Smith and likes it. He swears by it. My Charter is good and has been fun to shoot, but I've decided to sell/trade it because I don't think it's made well enough to justify keeping it. It's extremely light, worryingly so, can't shake the feeling that it might bust or split or something. Just feels cheap to me the more I handle it. Doesn't come close to that slick, heavy, secure velvety feel of my smith. I'd consider a new one like a 586 maybe was what I was thinking. That's a nice gun. Probably the only one I'd consider buying new, otherwise, I'll stick to the nice used ones from the 70s-80s!

 

[Laketime]

Most of the time a good used older P&R gun will cost the same as a new version.In this case I believe most who have been around this brand would opt for the older.Nothing really wrong with the new ones , but just not made with as much soul as the older ones.Future value has to hands down be given to the older ones.

 

[amazingflapjack]

old is gold IMHO.

 

[one eye joe]

I'm the type of guy if I see a nice pre lock one in the pawnshop or Bud's I have to have it right then and there lol. I personally feel that good used Smiths are worth 100 of a new one but maybe that's just me.

NO, IT IS NOT JUST YOU......

I PREFER CLEAN USED S&W REVOLVERS OVER NEW ONES. THE INTERNAL LOCK IS A TURN OFF, RIGHT FROM THE GIT-GO. SMALL HANDLING MARKS AND BLEMS CAN BE EASILY POLISHED OUT OF USED STAINLESS REVOLVERS. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS OR TRIGGER WORK CAN BE DONE BY ANY NUMBER OF SKILLED 'SMITHS AROUND THE COUNTRY--OR THE FACTORY. I FIND NO NEED AT ALL TO PURCHASE A NEW S&W.......

 

[rwsmith]

When were changes made???

If you like older Smiths then get those. But be clear on why you want and like them...they appeal to you.

Depending on how old you are looking at, the fact is that the newer guns are in general stronger and more durable. Few P&R guns will be stronger than a modern one.

If you want guns without the lock then you can buy those used. The locks began to go in in late 2001-2002 just after Saf-T-Hammer (a company set up to place locks in revolvers and begun by officers of S&W) bought S&W from Tomkins. So buy guns without locks.

The locks have not proven to be a major problem. They can also be removed or ignored. I would not let them be a barrier for any reason other than that you don't like the idea of them.

tipoc

You mentioned new guns being stronger. About when was the date that this began to happen and what did they change?

I prefer 70's and 80's guns and I wouldn't turn away an early 90's gun. I have nothing at all against the newer (post 2000) guns but what I want is available on the used market. If somebody would buy me a new one I'll take it, IL and all.

 

[muddocktor]

As a person who owns 3 27-2's, a 27-5, a 629-3, a 627-5 Pro and a 60-15, I span across the 70's to the 90's and then the 2010+ age range. And while I think the looks of the 70's guns are a bit better than the newer ones since they have recessed cylinders (and pinned barrels), the newer ones stack up well against the older ones I have in trigger feel and accuracy. The 627-5 Pro and the 60-15 both are new guns and have the locks, but the triggers on them feel as good after breaking them in with several hundred rounds as my older revolvers. And the 27-5 and 629-3 both date to the early 90's, before MIM and locks and feel just as good as the older ones too. It's all what you want and are willing to pay for. You will pay bigger bucks for an older model in really good shape than a new one and that's pretty much a given.

As to the lock; well I think it might be ugly, but it doesn't affect either of the 2 new revolvers in my house. I never use or activate the locks and they've given me absolutely no problems. And the newer revolvers might bring something to the table the older ones won't too. For example, my 627-5 Pro is an 8 shot 357 revolver and you won't find that option back in the P&R wheelguns. And with the L frames, you have 7 shot revolvers nowadays too (686+). I don't know if you can find the 686+ without a lock as I don't collect L frames, but they are easily found with new production.

BTW, the 627 Pro I have is a real sweet shooter. I've been having a blast with it since I got it in May.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I have old ones and new ones. Some have locks and some don't. All the same to me - they're all top quality, highly functional revolvers that have yet to ever fail me. I ignore the internal lock; it's irrelevant to me. Pinned and recessed is not particularly important except in the world of collecting.

I wouldn't own a Charter Arms anything, ever, and I know that the modern era Bulldogs have gotten good reviews here and there but, still, I always thought of them as very second rate and I'm not changing my mind anytime soon.

If you want a snubbie you'll need to get an older gun because you'll really prefer a K frame 2" over any J frame, and it's my very humble opinion, but J frames are classically designed as up close and personal guns but you can't hit much with one at any kind of range plus all of them, including the solid steel ones, are nasty little recoil brats compared to a solid 2" K frame with, by the way, six rounds instead of five. But I'm VERY opinionated on the subject. YMMV and others will vehemently disagree with me.

Oh, and I do own J frames and used to routinely carry a M642. Sometimes I have to carry it; it's a great little pocket gun when clothing says a belt gun won't work but when I can it's IWB or OWB with a 2" K frame. You're not giving all that much away just because it's a .38 and your Bulldog was a .44. Again, my opinion and YMMV - I am VERY opinionated on this subject.

A short barreled L frame is great but way harder to conceal than an old, snubbie K frame. I have all of these guns and my decision to EDC a 2" K frame was carefully thought out. If you can find a 2" K frame grab it and be happy. Model 10, Model 64, Model 13, Model 65, Model 19 2.5" (I am soon going to own a Model 19 2" but good luck finding one of those!) - .38s or .357s - they are all superior to a Charter Arms Bulldog, I don't care what caliber it is.

Remember - I AM VERY opinionated on this subject. So be warned if others disagree with me - I have many years of experience with snubbies and I know what I'm talking about but, you know how it is, someone else has a different opinion! I don't mind; that's what makes great discussions and the world spins on varied opinions.

 

[patrickd]

The Smiths are more like a higher end watch that can't be used real hard without expecting something to go bad. If you're looking for a magnum that you can shoot all day everyday without busting then get a Ruger GP100, Redhawk or Super Redhawk. They're not nearly as pretty or refined as the Smith, but are like the old Timex, "takes a beating and keeps on ticking.

 

[jack the toad]

I like my older (early 70's) CA Bulldog for what it is, a light weight .44 snubby and would like to try the pitbull in 45 ACP. None I've ever seen are S&W quality and it's fairly obvious but it's the only game in town.
My biggest complaint on the S&W lock is it's just plain ugly (kinda like a zit or fever blister on this month's center fold) and serves no purpose for me as I would never use it. Hence the reason I lean toward pre-locks. I wish the factory would offer their entire lineup with locks as an option. I'd be much more inclined to buy a new one.

 

[sodacan]

As far as old versus new S&W revolvers go, at least for me, a pinned barrel gun will get my attention much quicker than one without it. This is not because of the pin itself, but because it represents an era of craftsmanship that no longer exists. Fit and finish is superior in the older guns, IMO. That being said, I do own a few early no dash "L" frames which are of nice quality, and are great shooters. None of them were bought new. Sure, there have been "improvements" in certain areas of manufacturing such as metallurgy and machining, but I suggest that you look at the fit of the sideplate and the yoke to frame on an older gun. They were fitted without the benefit of modern manufacturing techniques and are better than any on any CNC machined gun, almost without exception. As far as strength goes, the older ones, especially the "N" frames, will hold up a lot longer than me.

 

[walkin' trails]

If the Bulldog has a cracked forcing cone and it has a warranty, have them fix it and the sell it.

I would give a nod to the newer S&W revolvers having the advantage of newer metallurgy advances, but if you're not shooting hot loads constantly, it likely will make little or no difference. The newer guns' designs, while decried by some, may actually contribute to a more accurate shooting gun. I would give a nod to the earlier models as having better out of the box triggers, but would imagine that a good smith can tune up a new one as well as. I have no experience with the internal lock so I can't say if it's a detriment or an advantage.

For every day carry, I'd be inclined to go with a newer J-frame over the old due to the fact that S&W now rates even the alloy guns such as the 642 for +P. Also, while not a big bore, a 60 or 640 can be had in 357, which is a very versatile package.

 

[mazer]

For me it's "the look", I like different things about different models of Smiths. I have new and used, and I haven't had any issues with any of them except for one, which is at my gunsmiths now, he will determine if he can fix it, or if it needs to go back to S&W. This isn't a "crack" issue or anything like that, it's a "parts" issue.
Go with what you like the looks of. Caliber? Well, I have .38spl - 460XVR and I mostly shoot 44mags, have about 6 of those from varying years. But, bottom line, don't sweat the new S&W's, the only time it is an issue for me, is if I am buying something that was made "before" the lock and is still made today...in that case, I tend to lean towards finding something without the lock....if it isn't TOO much more than the model made today. For example, a S&W Competitor, ALMOST bought a new one, but then I took a chance on a 1992 Lew Horton and got it for a few hundred more than I would have paid for a new competitor...but then I saw another Competitor style with a 7.5"bbl, and got it too...for less than a new competitor.
Be careful, it's an addiction!!!
Here are a few of mine, the Lew Horton and the Big Rock included! Notice that the Big Rock has a lock it is a 2002 model, first year for the lock I believe.

 

[22hipower]

You should have seen the eyes roll on a young friend who is a Special Forces NCO when I bought a pre-15. I explained all the neat history and the quality of the S&Ws from the '50s. He was not impressed but then he spends his time breaching doors and clearing buildings in the ME so his Glock is his best friend. I think that over time he will also appreciate the special characteristics of the older S&Ws. Only point here is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; or the user of the tool. As to buying new or older S&Ws, I love the older ones. Much of that is the hunt though, knowing what I'm looking for, knowing there aren't many out there, and trying to find one at a great price. When it comes to actually using them I find the new ones as functional, and the stainless finish more resilient, than the old. Almost never buy a new one but when I do I've been pleased. Last one was a 617 Mountain Gun (new, but four years old by the time acquired) and it is everything I would want a K frame 22 to be. Always thought I'd like to have a CA 44 but the only one I ever had got away as soon as a friend saw it and had to have it. Enjoy them all.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

 

[IAM Rand]

I wouldn't say that I am a Smith and Wesson fan boy but, I do like Smiths. I own several older revolvers as well as a 6904 and several new M&Ps. I used a 627 for duty work until they nixed carrying revolvers on duty. I don't think you can go wrong with any Smith revolver. Older ones have been tried and tested and would be less likely to have any issues not that I think that a newer one is likely to have one. Let's face it, everything these days has a recall. Just look at the auto industry.

Having said that I would have no problem with a Colt or a Ruger revolver. For the most part you will do just fine with most firearms that are made today. Yes there are cheap guns and we all know who they are but, if you are a Ford guy then you will knock GM, Toyota, or who ever. Same for the GM guys.

Look at your options with the Smiths available to you then buy one. You won't regret the purchase.

 

[berik]

I agree with what sodacan wrote about the Smith's, and can add that I appreciate the beautiful deep bluing of the earlier models. Not sure what changed in the process, but the newer bluing appears to be not as rich.