Used vs New Smiths

[Grayfox]

Lemme just put it this way. I own a bunch of S&W revolvers. The newest was made in 1996.

 

[SLT223]

I like the new Smith's just fine, but they have made so many guns over the years it really isn't challenging to find a good used one at fair price.

 

[justakyguy]

I think a great compromise for S&W would be to make their "classics" line lock-free, take the locks off them, and leave them on their regular production revolvers (if they must). I wouldn't mind the locks so much on a blued new one, because it's less visible, like a 586 for instance. Really either a new or older you can't go wrong with. My dad literally has only had Smiths his whole life, he won't even consider others! Guess I'm a chip off the old block now ha.

 

[BB57]

.../

/...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. :roll eyes:

I'll throw this out here for arguments sake:

A 2.5" Model 66 and a 2.5" 686+:

The differences are:

- 36 oz loaded for the 66 and 40 oz loaded for the 686+
- Slightly heavier full under lug barrel on the 686+, the outer barrel diameter at the threads is .540" for the 66 and .562" for the 686+
- Frame thickness at the barrel .820" for the 66, and .838" for the 686+
- Frame thickness at the latch .656" for the 66, and .658" for the 686+;
- Cylinder diameter 1.446" for the 66 and 1.559" for the 686+; and
- the same .11" difference is also found in the frame height between the the 66 and 686+.

Personally, I just don't notice the .1" greater frame height or cylinder diameter, nor do I notice the 4 oz increase in weight. The heavier, full underdog barrel makes no difference in conceal-ability either.

Both conceal equally well, and in the same IWB holster.

 

[tipoc]

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

This is a short answer but it involves three things-changes in the way and the amount that people shoot and S&Ws response to that, competition from other makers, advances in heat treatment and manufacturing based on S&Ws experience. This is in general of course.

The changes took place over time and were not uniform all at once.

Start with the Model 29 in 44 Magnum. After many years of shooters enjoying the M29 complaints about it's durability came in increasingly. This was from various shooters but particularly IHMSA competitive shooters who in training and competition shoot many more powerful loads of the 44 Magnum than other shooters tend to do. S&W began to loose ground to the Ruger Super Blackhack in this sport and other areas. So beginning in 1987 or so S&W began placing the "endurance package" in the M29-4 and the 629-2E. The "package" has regularly been in all 44 Magnum guns since then. I believe elements of it were used and have made their way to other guns as well over the years. You can use search in this forum to learn more about the endurance package and IHMSA.

The entire L frame line was introduced in response to changes in how often and what ways people shoot. The K frame .357s were perfectly fine guns if kept maintained and used in the way originally intended: a steady diet of 38 Spl. and occasional use of .357. When the diet was mostly powerful loads of the .357, rapid shooting and lots of it, and less than exceptional maintenance...well the guns often could not take it, in various ways. Within 20 years competitive shooting grew massively and how much and the manner that shooters shot changed. The L frames were a response to that as well as to competition from Colt and Ruger. The L frames were heavier, stronger guns than the K frames.

When the 7 shot L frames were introduced this introduced a change in the location of the bolt notches on the cylinder which added to the strength of the cylinders.

I personally have damaged the cylinders of two separate M28-2s by firing too many 180 gr. loads rounds down range at 1200 fps or so. the rounds were within pressure but over time the IDs of the cylinders expanded causing even new factory brass to rupture the length of the cases. The cylinders had to be replaced. This never occurred with newer 627s or any of the L frame guns that I have shot extensively.

When I say that shooting habits changed look at the evolution of revolver competition in the post war period. Consider the career of Jerry Miculek which began in 1989 or so. The speed and amount that he shoots is almost without precedent. But so is the speed and amount of shooting of the people who come in second, third and tenth at modern combat oriented matches. We shoot revolver more with more powerful rounds than was the case even 30 years ago. Guns had to be there for that. I believe that a modern 625 is a more durable sidearm than an N frame Model of 1950 in 45 acp. The older guns were not made for the type and volume of shooting done today.

tipoc

 

[BB57]

The entire L frame line was introduced in response to changes in how often and what ways people shoot. The K frame .357s were perfectly fine guns if kept maintained and used in the way originally intended: a steady diet of 38 Spl. and occasional use of .357. When the diet was mostly powerful loads of the .357, rapid shooting and lots of it, and less than exceptional maintenance...well the guns often could not take it, in various ways. Within 20 years competitive shooting grew massively and how much and the manner that shooters shot changed. The L frames were a response to that as well as to competition from Colt and Ruger. The L frames were heavier, stronger guns than the K frames.

When the 7 shot L frames were introduced this introduced a change in the location of the bolt notches on the cylinder which added to the strength of the cylinders.

Ruger did something very similar with their Service/Security/Speed Six series revolvers. The L frames have the notch dead center between the cylinders, while Ruger was less dramatic but still offset it far enough that it is no longer the thin spot in the cylinder. And they did it in 1972 before S&W was even addressing the problem. S&W being slow to adapt cost them some sales and some market share.

I bought a 686+ because I shoot a lot and it didn't bode well for the future of my Model 66 carry gun.

However, I also opted to buy a 17 year old 686-5, rather than a new 686+, partly because the older 686+ was in excellent condition, but was about $250 less than a new one, and partly because the trigger on the old one was far better than any of the new ones I've tried.

 

[Brian in Oregon]

Given a choice between a new S&W with a safety lock and MIM parts, vs an older S&W in VG or better condition that is mechanically sound, I'll go with the latter almost every time.

On top of that, I prefer traditional cylinder flutes and traditional barrels. Not slab sided barrel, skeletonized ejector rod housings, an 1875 Remington style "sail" under the barrel, or someone else's initials on the gun ("JM"). There are several new S&W guns that I've given a thumbs down to because they are trying to make them look like modern autos. So NO SALE.

Having said that, my search for a 25-5 45 Colt with proper charge hole diameters has been coming up empty handed. I might get the Classic next year, because reports from owners say they are quite accurate.

And, I might order one of the M&P 640 No Lock models with the tritium front sight. Not that I really care much for J frames as they are small for my hand, but it is small and light, and I'm not finding much in the way of .380's that's blowing wind up my skirts other than a PPK. This would be the one exception to slab sided barrels.

So bottom line is, with such a wide variety, it really depends on preferences, the individual gun and the circumstances.

 

[justakyguy]

Hicock45 shows off his original Model 29 in some of his vids, and said he's put 70,000 rounds through it and still going strong! For me I just feel better getting the used Smiths because of their better workmanship and well call me sentimental but I just like them better. I saw a stainless 686 from the 80s recently at a pawnshop and had the original box, talk about a magnum eater! I'd take that in a heartbeat over a new one if given the choice, because I just can't abide by MIM parts and the keylock. I prefer the earlier p&r ones. To each their own!

 

[tipoc]

I should add that I haven't followed every change S&W has made to the bolt stop location on the cylinder in all models. So there is that qualification to what I said above.

The change in location doesn't make the cylinder stronger, it just means that in the event of a blowout there is more material in the cylinder wall to help contain the blown case in the area where the notch would otherwise be.

I have a pre-Model 27 from 1955 which I've had for a good while. It's been tuned up a couple of times, which is normal, and is as tight today and as accurate as when it left the factory, I assume.



But I've never stressed it. I've shot it good deal and hunted with it. But I've never tried to take it to a match and shoot 200 rounds a day thorough it or used it as a run and gun piece, or shot 500 to 1000 rounds through it a month in training. It's not the proper gun for that in the first place and second, no need to stress an older piece. There are also better guns made today for that purpose.

Here's a pre M 25 from 1956 or so. It was carried daily on the job by a California peace officer. It was also used in bullseye competition. The latter being it's natural home. But neither he nor I would try to use this gun, even when new, to compete in many of the combat oriented matches of today. You could modify them to do it, but why when new pieces are available. They are perfectly good for self defense, hunting, bullseye, etc.



tipoc

 

[Qc Pistolero]

First thought that came to my mind when I read all these comments is that,when I really got bitten by the handgun bug in the mid 70's,one comment I ran across often was''they don't make them like they used to''.Of course,commentators(either fellow shooters or gun magazine script)were relating how better made and finished were guns in the '50s.I guess that so it goes that we remember only the nice things of past and kinda forget some of the less good!
I admit that the fit and finish of oldies was probably better than what we have today but I must also say that metallurgy in today's guns has improved a lot,making them stronger.
I buy both new and used guns;just bought a 629-1,probably the worst ''dash''629 to buy;doesn't have the pinned barrel and doesn't have the ''endurance''package.But the SA and DA were so nice...couldn't pass it up!And don't tell me that it is not logical 'cause I know!
Qc

 

[Mr.Harry]

Dude, I TOOL on my 629-6 Classic. It's never seen a single .44 special. It isn't 5,000 rounds deep yet either, but I have absolutely no reason or concern to think it might not outlive me and a diet of full house magnums without getting loose. Things a beast.

 

[les.b]

Hey guys so I need some advice.

Well, this sure is the place to come for that!! I greatly dislike the IL (Internal Lock). Not so much because I'm afraid that it will accidentally lock up, I which case I would be in trouble, because I would have probably lost the little key thingy, but I just think it is ugly, and detracts from the appearance of the classic lines of a wonderfully designed piece of machinery. Smith and Wesson does make several brand new models available without the lock, though... The only new Smiths I own are a 640-1, a 340 PD, and an M&P 340. All are centennial style J frame .357 magnums. And none have an IL. All work wonderfully well, and I frequently carry them. The 340 PD gets carried almost every day for the last year. I carry the Speer 135 gr Short Barrel Gold Dot Magnum load in it, and carry it in a Galco horsehide pocket holster, and you don't even know it's there. But it has fairly stout recoil, and whatever gun you decide to carry should be shot frequently to maintain proficiency.

I have many other Smiths, and all of the others predate the IL, and most are P&R (Pinned and Recessed). Those are the ones that I really like the best.

Best Regards, Les

 

[lrrifleman]

Let me muddy the waters, and add my two cents.

I have a number of older Smiths, that just can't be easily replaced. Almost all have some personal, memorable history ... such as the K22 I bought new, partially by digging a well for my 'smith. I thought I was done purchasing handguns, until I got my first non-resident CFP. I have a number of handguns which currently fit in my rotation for when I travel out of state, but I started thinking after reading another thread on this forum about potentially losing my weapon if I have to use it. Three of the ones in my rotation just can't be reasonably replaced:
- my first handgun, a MkIV Series 70 ... irreplaceable since my dad taught me how to make this 1911 "talk".
- my Model 36-6, a 3" Chief's Target Special, one of just over 600 made.
- my Model 439, the one and only 9mm that I want to own.

This led me to look at a S&W Model 686+. I don't like the IL, but for a carry gun, it will be deactivated. I don't like the new style trigger and hammer, I love the old, case hardened half inch wide target triggers and hammers. The advantages to the 686+ are that I can fire +P or Magnums, if required, and they could be easily replaced, there is no sentimental attachment.

My handguns are purchased for specific missions. Most of the handguns that I have, really aren't appropriate for concealed carry. I am not overly concerned about size or weight, never have, and hopefully never will. My handguns are tools, designed for pleasure, and ultimately to ensure that I make it home to my family. I hope that the money spent on my carry guns ends up being wasted money, because I don't look forward to taking a human life. But in the long run, being there for my children IS my justification for "wasting" my money.

 

[fyimo]

I believe that current S&W revolvers are great handguns and they have a great warranty. That said of the five I own my most current one was made in 1982.

 

[The Gila Bender]

Most of my S&W's are shooters, and most are pre-owned. Typically I avoid police trade-ins unless they've been back to the factory for an overhaul. All of them go to my gunsmith for service and inspection.

The only failure I've experienced is on a 29-6 Classic .44 Magnum after years of service. One day the hammer bound up as I was cocking the gun. I don't recall what the problem was but it was an easy fix by the gunsmith.

Somewhere else in this forum someone was asking about buying older guns. My suggestion was to hunt around for an N-frame 28-2 .357 or a 29-2 .44. In K-frame look for an older Model 10, 13, 15, 19, 65, or 66. There's plenty out there in just about any condition to fit your wallet. Learn what to look for when inspecting a used revolver. As stated above, my shooters always make a trip to the gunsmith. Then I go shootin'!

Pics are a 13-2 3" .357 gunbroker special and a 640-1 that's gone swimming in the creek more than a few times while fishing; a "rescue" 629-2 .44 Mag Mountain Revolver that got a full overhaul and refinish; and a good old pinned and recessed S-prefix 28-2 built in 1967 that is just a plain reliable shooter.

 

[Cruiser RN]

You are very correct in your assessment.I have just stopped back here after a 2 + year absence because some took great exception to my documentation of revolver failure. I was sent a new "Classic Chief's Special " as a replacement. The barrel canted to the right 3 times and on its 4th trip back they finally replaced a defective barrel solving the problem. If a pinned barrel it would never have happened. This gun should have never left the factory with test firing because the barrel canted after 5 rounds. When I teach my Pistol Safety Course I advise if you like a Smith Revolver get a pinned barrel model and do not think about a new one. If you want a new revolver stay far away from S+W .

 

[justakyguy]

Thanks for all the helpful comments! I sold the Charter Bulldog the other day. I don't regret it one bit. Because I turned around and bought the blued Model 19 I had my eye on. I think the older ones are certainly made better, there's a workmanship and attention to detail and quality that the new ones can't touch in my opinion. The only revolvers I own now are pinned barreled Smiths

 

[Cruiser RN]

That is a very smart decision.You do not need having to deal with repeated half done repairs, multiple trips and cost sending it back or having to deal with looking at a gun with the "Lock Hole." I can say in the past that let us say this is not the kindest place if you have S+W revolvers fail on you, document the same,show it is through no fault of your own, then have this situation happen . Stick with the pinned barrels. and you will never go wrong. I did not begin to have any trouble until I delved into the post 1980's revolvers. If I had any clue how bad things would get I would have never bought one of them. You live and learn

 

[cbhsgh]

I've owned .357 revolvers by Taurus and Dan Wesson but am looking for a stainless Smith with a 4 inch barrel. I am not familiar with the new models but I figure you folks do. I want an eight shot model. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BB57]

I've owned .357 revolvers by Taurus and Dan Wesson but am looking for a stainless Smith with a 4 inch barrel. I am not familiar with the new models but I figure you folks do. I want an eight shot model. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

There are some options:

S&W 929 - an 8 shot 9mm revolver

S&W 327 - a scandium framed 8 shot .357 Mag revolver

S&W 627 - an 8 shot .357 Magnum revolver

-----

Personally, I prefer the 7 shot 686+.

One extra round just isn't worth the extra bulk of an 8 round revolver.