New vs Old S&W Revolvers

[gmerkt]

The last two new revolvers I bought from S&W didn't impress me with their quality. In spite of being made by computer run machines. One had weird looking corrosion in the barrel. It was new in the box, I didn't think to look in the bore of a new piece. Did what I could to clean out the barrel, wasn't satisfied. Sent it back to the factory, they must've buffed it out or something, because they didn't change the barrel. Now it has weird looking rifling. Later I learned that many of their contemporary revolvers have the rifling electro-chemically etched, not done with actual machining.

Then there is the Model 610 I bought last year. Which has tiny tool marks left in the chambers. I sent pictures to customer service at the S&W factory, they replied that it wasn't a functional defect, wouldn't affect how it shot, it was okay by their standards. So I wasn't impressed with their level of customer service as I have been with Ruger.

S&W revolvers of the 1980's at one time were thought to be lower level of quality. Fit not as tight, etc. But now I'm thinking they aren't so bad.

So I'd say go for the older pieces but look them over carefully when you buy. They have the disadvantage of having been out and about for decades already.

 

[JRuby]

They do, I saw a guy pick up a new classic 586.

Might need to look into one of those. Good news

 

[solv3nt]

Might need to look into one of those. Good news

It has the Hillary hole though. Get the old one.

S & W MOD 568-1 - Z39178

357 Mag; 95% blue, excellent bore, like new grips, 6'' barrel, The metal finish has a very slight trace of muzzle wear. The front sight is a ramped blade, a...

simpsonltd.com

 

[Tony617]

The only thing I don't have anymore with my 686-1 is the original cardboard box it came in. I kept it for a long time and now regret throwing it out. I still have the cleaning rod and screw driver that came with it.

 

[David Wilson]

Old. Much better fit and finish, much better attention to detail, and, as mentioned, no hole. Bluing was far more attractive and durable than what passes as "bluing" today, as modern S&W bluing sucks. It is weak and easily worn, and I say that from experience. I like the trigger action better, as well. Now, in defense of modern Smiths, they do actually offer a couple improvements, the first of which is the placement of the firing pin in the frame, which is a stronger and more durable arrangement than the old hammer-mounted pins (then again, I get sentimental about the old hammer pins). Also, the steel and the heat treatment are improved over the older ones, which, in theory, allows modern guns to take higher stresses. However, if you don't run a lot of abusive loads through your guns, I'm not sure this makes much practical difference.

 

[Deckard]

The only thing I don't have anymore with my 686-1 is the original cardboard box it came in. I kept it for a long time and now regret throwing it out. I still have the cleaning rod and screw driver that came with it.

I bought a 686 new in 1985. Wish I still had that one. Beautiful piece.

 

[orygun]

For the most part I go along with the sentiment of an older gun.
I once had a gorgeous Combat Masterpiece (5 screw and pre model #). I bought it at Larry's and the thought was that it was unfired. I believed it and bought it.
I was even more of a believer when I took it out to shoot it. One of the ratchet teeth the pawl drives on the cylinder had a burr and the DA trigger pull on that cylinder had a terrible hitch in it. After I put a 100 or so rounds through it, all was good. It had never been shot to work out that "kink".
I now have a Model 69 44 Magnum. It's had none of the trouble that early 50's Smith did. It does have the lock and it's a two piece barrel, but there's no way you're going to get a medium frame, 44 Magnum revolver that's an older gun.

 

[orygun]

I bought a 686 new in 1985. Wish I still had that one. Beautiful piece.

I'd trade my Model 69 straight across for a 686+ like I had before. Great revolvers.

 

[RVTECH]

All this talk of Older Smiths makes me want to start looking for my 'bucket list ' Smith - a Mod 27-2 in 6" !

 

[orygun]

All this talk of Older Smiths makes me want to start looking for my 'bucket list ' Smith - a Mod 27-2 in 6" !

Yeah, I've had the problem recently with people reminiscing about other guns and I had to scratch the itch!

 

[RVTECH]

A while back I held a new model 66 at Sportsman's.

Ok I like some of the new innovations such as the ball detent lock for the cylinder but the two piece barrel and the overall 'modern' look to it was a buzz killer.

 

[KKG]

With the exception of the "Unnecessary" extra hole in the frame there are a number of differences between the New, the Older, the Much Older and the Earlier pre Model Number Handguns from Smith and Wesson. Personally, I prefer the Much Older Handguns which are the ones with Model Numbers and the BETTER Actions. It seems that every time I pick up one of the Post 1985 or so Guns it has an issue and LOTS of those are Not simple ones.

These are what I would call the difference in the Handguns.

 

[orygun]

The ball detent is a very innovative addition.

However there's no reason to try and compare my Mod 69 to a Triple Lock. Darn near apples and oranges.
This one will never show itself off like an old gun. The old bluing methods were gorgeous. This however, is a very good tool.

 

[RVTECH]

However there's no reason to try and compare my Mod 69 to a Triple Lock.

Or my 66 no dash to the new one like I held.

 

[orygun]

I had a 65. Another gun I'd have liked to have kept.

Disclaimer: I'm not, or have I ever been wealthy. I've had to let a lot of guns go just to be able to try out the next one. In all honesty, there's only a few I'd not want back.

 

[Papercidal]

My newest revolver was made in 1970 and nothing new even comes close to the old guns in fit and finish. If I where looking for a revolver as a tool the new ones are just fine however my revolvers are entirely for historical appreciation And I have plastic guns that are better suited for actual use.

 

[Pizza Bob]

This type of thread comes up in every gun forum in which there is a mention of revolvers. It makes me laugh because I've been a S&W guy for 50 years and it was the same back then. The current generation always opines what the last generation had as being superior to the current offerings, never once recognizing that the next generation would be lusting after the guns that were rejected by the previous generation, and on it goes.

The biggest objections surrounding the current crop of S&W's always seems to center on the internal lock (IL) or the use of MIM parts. If you object to the lock on functional grounds, it is a pretty easy matter to disable it. Takes about 15 minutes. If you object on aesthetic grounds, there are plugs to fill the keyhole.

As for MIM, it has allowed S&W to continue to manufacture high-quality firearms, but keep production costs in line. People that automatically equate more efficient production methods with a cheapening of the product are simply misinformed. Next time you fly, look out the window at the turbines in the jet engines, guess what....MIM. I've heard gunsmiths state that the current revolvers using MIM, have some of the best triggers of any Smith, and take less work to get them to competition grade, than the guns with all forged internals. MIM allows parts to be produced with far more consistent tolerances, requiring less hand-fitting, than any forged part ever. I'll also add that I have seen more forged parts fail than those made using MIM.

So for those of you that feel that the new Smiths are inferior to the old ones I say, don't buy them - just leaves more for me.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

 

[Dr_Lou]

I prefer Smiths made between 1935 to 1998. I don't care for the lock, aesthetics of the new roll larks, back of the frame or two-piece barrels and frame mounted firing pin. The new guns are made well enough, just prefer those made before 1998.

 

[KKG]

I prefer Smiths made between 1935 to 1998. I don't care for the lock, aesthetics of the new roll larks, back of the frame or two-piece barrels and frame mounted firing pin. The new guns are made well enough, just prefer those made before 1998.

You said it.

 

[Chaffee]

Pinned barrels only! Smith & Wesson hasn't made anything worth a sh*t since the turn of the century.