What's the general consensus on the "Classics" models?

[Jim NNN]

My classic 586 from maybe a dozen years ago may not have quite the finish that some of the older guns have, but it's still nice in it's own way. There's only one apparent gaff on the gun - a machining inconsistency on the barrel rib.

Beyond that, it is equal to - and , in some ways, superior to - my old S&W's in terms of quality, from what I can tell. I had an old L frame from the 1980's (a 681 no dash) and it didn't have the solid feel of fit and action that the new gun has. Definitely not as accurate as the new gun, either. though it's barrel was 2" shorter. I've had a pinned barrelled revolver with it's own machining gaff, too , so that stuff happened in the old days, as well.

To be fair, I also had a post lock model 64, and my perception is that it wasn't made as well as my Classic 586, so maybe the Classic series are made to a higher level. But the folks at Buffalo Bore swear that they often get higher velocities from newer S&W revolver barrels than old S&W revo barrels of the same length.

I think that the New Classics and the old guns should be viewed as somewhat different things, however. As with the any other antique, they aren't making the old school revolvers anymore, so they have their own appeal. I've never bought into the "anti-lock" mentality, though. IMHO.

 

[Tom S.]

A point to consider, I had a "bare bones" 1964 GTO, bought new, and driven, over 250,000 miles, that would out do the 2013 Chyrsler 300, that I currently drive, in every respect, other than pure unadulterated aggravation, and has nothing at all to do with classic revolvers.
Chubbo

Run both of those vehicles head on into a tree at 35 mph and tell us which one is better. Just make sure to do the 300 first so you'll still be alive to do the Goat. And before you try either one, tell us how they compare on: fuel mileage, tire wear, braking and steering, and tune up intervals, (bet you didn't drive 100,000 miles on a set of spark plugs). For the record, I had a 1966 GTO, also new from the factory, so I already know the answers to these comparisons.

I do agree that it has nothing to do with revolvers with one minor point: both the auto industry and the firearm industry had greatly benefited from modern machining processes.

 

[jnichols2]

I like this analogy, because in spirit, I can respect it. But in fact, the ‘01 emissions restrictions would INHIBIT the natural performance of the ‘63 engine. There is no such performance loss in the new vs. old ‘classic’ revolver. You might not WANT the IL or the MIM etc, but the fact is, the package PERFORMS as good or better and I would argue with tighter tolerances in machining.

Be that as it may. But I have six S&W revolvers, five were bought new in the past year.

My 1978 Model 29 with 6 1/2" barrel outshoots all five of the new ones.

 

[DocB]

I consistently find the older Smiths for less than half the price of a Classics. . .all the J and K frames pre and post war. I can't figure out where the market is for the Classics line. Maybe the N frames, but I find older ones cheap too. Paying $250-$300 for really nice older Smiths. Why would I pay $700-$800 for a Classics? My Son says a newer gun is more dependable and less likely to break. If that is the case and a person is worried about dependability, just buy one of the newer Smith J frames for under $400. I bought my wife one. It's light and seems to be dependable. I have never seen the niche that the Classics fit into.

 

[American1776]

I consistently find the older Smiths for less than half the price of a Classics. . .all the J and K frames pre and post war. I can't figure out where the market is for the Classics line. Maybe the N frames, but I find older ones cheap too. Paying $250-$300 for really nice older Smiths. Why would I pay $700-$800 for a Classics? My Son says a newer gun is more dependable and less likely to break. If that is the case and a person is worried about dependability, just buy one of the newer Smith J frames for under $400. I bought my wife one. It's light and seems to be dependable. I have never seen the niche that the Classics fit into.

If you look at the prices of the pinned barrel guns, they are steadily creeping up. A pinned and recessed model 57 now goes for at least a grand. Model 58's go for 900 plus. A great condition 586 (no lock) will go for 800-900 or more. A model 27 Pinned barrel...well, we all know what they are commanding, especially the 4 inch barrels.

The classics all go for 650-800, brand new. You know they are new guns, with modern metallurgy.

I believe for what you get with a new Classics gun, it's as good, if not a better, value than a Pinned barrel in like condition.

 

[DocB]

Yeah, but those aren't the prices I pay for older Smiths. The only Classics I "might" consider is the 22 Magnum. They do not turn up around here. . .ever!

 

[Bill Raby]

I have one of the classics. Finish is great. I bought it because I just like the look of the old guns. Many of the old guns out there are worn out or have other issues. In 1960 everyone was probably saying that the new guns all suck and anything made after 1930 is junk.

 

[rogerwnuss]

250_300?? Alright, you are either in another decade, or you have some not very savvy gun sellers in your area......

 

[Krogen]

Run both of those vehicles head on into a tree at 35 mph and tell us which one is better. Just make sure to do the 300 first so you'll still be alive to do the Goat. And before you try either one, tell us how they compare on: fuel mileage, tire wear, braking and steering, and tune up intervals, (bet you didn't drive 100,000 miles on a set of spark plugs). For the record, I had a 1966 GTO, also new from the factory, so I already know the answers to these comparisons.

I do agree that it has nothing to do with revolvers with one minor point: both the auto industry and the firearm industry had greatly benefited from modern machining processes.

Another previous Goat owner here.... I had a '69 GTO back in the day. Great car then; now they're just old cars with big engines. These days, I have a '17 GT350 in the garage. It will run circles around that old Goat. IMNHO, new technology is usually better than old, but it's not a guarantee. With that said, the new Smiths may shoot as good or better than the old ones. But, I prefer the old ones.

 

[BuckeyeS&W]

I have both old and new Smith & Wesson revolvers and I appreciate the fit , finish,pinned barrels,and no IL of the old but I am really impressed with my new 6” 586 Classic. It looks great , shoots great and I don’t worry about beating it up I just enjoy shooting it. I bought the new 586 to retire my now to valuable Python that is no longer fun to shoot because I worry about breaking something or damage to finish of it . I still take the Colt out but not as often as I used to.

 

[CajunBass]

250_300?? Alright, you are either in another decade, or you have some not very savvy gun sellers in your area......

Those are what I call "Star Wars Prices." They're from a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

 

[Bakebfr480]

"NOT" what the name implies.

 

[Macinaw]

I consistently find the older Smiths for less than half the price of a Classics. . .all the J and K frames pre and post war. I can't figure out where the market is for the Classics line. Maybe the N frames, but I find older ones cheap too. Paying $250-$300 for really nice older Smiths. Why would I pay $700-$800 for a Classics? My Son says a newer gun is more dependable and less likely to break. If that is the case and a person is worried about dependability, just buy one of the newer Smith J frames for under $400. I bought my wife one. It's light and seems to be dependable. I have never seen the niche that the Classics fit into.

I would like to know where you are finding deals like that. Not where I live.

 

[Wee Hooker]

I recently picked up a (very) slightly used 586 classic. As mentioned, it doesn't have quite the deepness of bluing as the older S&W's but it's very nice in it's own way. Function and accuracy wise, it keeps up with any other of my dozen plus pre-lock/pinned models. Also, it's in better cosmetic shape than any other 586 I could have got for the same $600.
That said, it seems to me that the classics don't hold their value as much as an "original". Good if your buying used. Not so good if your buying new.

 

[DocB]

Here are pictures of last week's purchases. The little 32-1 is 38 S&W from 1970. Paid $250 for it. The Model 1902 in 38 Special dates around 1918. Paid $280 for it. Both are close to 95%. Since I am a collector, I gravitate toward the older Smiths. That doesn't mean I avoid the L and N frame guns. Can't begin to show pictures of all the guns I've picked up this past year. I did pay $450 for a beautiful 4 inch 686. Also, $300 for a really nice 1917 45. With the M19's in all barrel lengths in blue and nickel, I pay $360, and have so many I have cut back on buying them. Actually, I have recently paid $360 each for two really nice M28's. . .one in 4 inch and one in 6 inch. So, I don't keep all my purchases below $300. Pretty obvious why I am not in the market for Classics. Rule of thumb is if I can double my money (or come close to it) the next day, I buy. Too bad you all don't live in Georgia south of Atlanta. The further south you go, the cheaper the guns.

 

[DLWinner]

I love my 57 classic.

 

[DocB]

Actually some Smiths around here come for free. This is a 1948 pre-M10. It had worn a pair of Sambar Stag grips most of its life. Earlier this year I paid $200 for it, put the stags on a more worthy gun, popped on a pair of diamond magna grips, and use this one as my car gun. The grips are worth more than what I paid for the whole gun. So, the gun was free!

 

[shirojiro]

I have both vintage and new S&W revolvers.

I recently purchased a Model 10-14 new classic. It’s amazing. The machining is incredibly precise and the finish is a deep, dark blue that rivals my near mint 19-3. I love the 10-14. The trigger is also excellent, rivaling my 1948 K38. Love the 4 in heavy barrel and round butt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vulcan Bob]

I consistently find the older Smiths for less than half the price of a Classics. . .all the J and K frames pre and post war. I can't figure out where the market is for the Classics line. Maybe the N frames, but I find older ones cheap too. Paying $250-$300 for really nice older Smiths. Why would I pay $700-$800 for a Classics? My Son says a newer gun is more dependable and less likely to break. If that is the case and a person is worried about dependability, just buy one of the newer Smith J frames for under $400. I bought my wife one. It's light and seems to be dependable. I have never seen the niche that the Classics fit into.

The "niche" that the new classics fit into for me is, they were available. I do not buy at auction sites or other venues other than LGS's and that rather limits my finding and buying. I wanted a M-24 and a M-25 both in 6", got tired of never finding em so the classic models to the rescue. Same for the M-21 and M-22. The old "bird in hand" thing you know.

 

[DocB]

That makes sense. Here in Georgia we have had more guns than people for a century now. That results in lots of old guns on the market. In lots of other states people just didn't have guns for the most part. When I was a kid in New York, a man who owned a gun was rare. The only guns I ever saw were owned by LE. Right now we have slightly over 10 million people in Georgia. I would be willing to bet that we have over 30 million guns.