Originally posted by 44 AMP
10+ years of wear on a duty gun that is carried daily and shot seldom is one thing. 10+ years of wear on a match gun shot often in practice and in matches is another thing.
And 10+ years of wear on a gun owned by an average person who fires a few hundred (0r less) rounds per year is, essentially, nothing.
But unless you personally know all the previous owners of a said gun, you don't really have any way to tell exactly how the gun was used in the last 10+ years. For example, a gun which was fired with a few hundred rounds of .38 Special wadcutters per year would have less strain put on its parts than one fired with the same number of maximum .357 Magnum handloads and thus be at least somewhat more likely to give a future owner issues. However, with only a few hundred rounds fired, it would likely be difficult for the casual observer to tell the difference between the gun fed exclusively target wadcutters and the one fed exclusively magnums.
On the other hand, you will have a tough time convincing me that a new production gun is significantly superior to a 1970s production gun. It may be that the improvements are quantifiable, I can even agree with some of it. But in practical terms, not only do I not see a difference, I see the modern guns as actually being lesser "quality", and that is leaving the lock completely out of the picture.
It depends on the model, vintage, and which improvement we're talking about. For example, prior to 1999, .38 Special J-Frames were not rated for +P ammunition. Current .38 Special J-Frames are, however, rated and warrantied for unlimited use of +P ammunition. That tells me that newer J-Frames are most likely made of superior materials which allow them to be more durable even if fired with higher-pressure ammunition.
Likewise, S&W introduced the Endurance Package to their .44 Magnums in the late 80's. Thus, a M29 or 629 wouldn't have to be all that old, or even P&R, to predate this particular improvement.
Now, I will give you that the
majority of design changes that S&W has made to their revolvers in the last 50-60 years have been relatively minor. I would even go so far as to agree that for most of their models used under normal circumstances, the engineering changes are minor enough that a vintage gun probably doesn't have a
substantially higher risk of parts breakage or excessive wear than a new one does. Then again, however, you yourself have already admitted that the lock represents only a very small chance of failure.
The way I see it, the small, though non-zero, chance of lock-induced malfunction is offset by the small, though non-zero, chance of malfunctions induced by worn parts or the lack of engineering enhancements on vintage guns. Both of these sets of potential problems are so unlikely that I really don't feel like they're worth my time to worry about and neither has ever stopped me from buying a S&W revolver be it new or vintage.
Sure, its just my opinion, but its also my money, and compared to what I was buying 30 years ago from S&W, what they sell today does not impress me as much.
I would not presume to tell you what to like or buy, so if you like the old ones better, by all means buy those. I will say, however, that I've owned S&W revolvers ranging in dates of production from the early 70's to the present and, while I can certainly see the differences in manufacturing technique between the old and new ones, I cannot see any appreciable difference in the overall quality or functionality of the gun. I will, however, add that because of the increasing scarcity and price of vintage S&W's, I am increasingly reluctant to carry my vintage revolvers. If it were damaged beyond repair or confiscated as evidence, I have the financial means to replace my 4" 629-6 tomorrow if need be, but I may never find another 5" M27-2 even remotely close to the price that I paid for the one I own.
I agree with you. Regards 18DAI