S&W Classic Revolvers
- Thread starter flashhole
- Start date
I have a bunch of S&W revolvers from m34 through m29s only 3 that are not
P&Rs. Two 24-3s and a 25-5. They are all adj sight models. In my estimation
they are best DA revolvers ever been built. Having said that I would own one
of the newer S&Ws or Classic line. They don't hold a candle to the earlier models.
I was a big Ruger fan in SA department until New Models came out and I tried
all their DAs. The main trouble with them was weight and I don't like safety
model. If I was in market for a new revolver I would have to rethink this and
go back to Ruger for their DAs. Mean while I am satisfied nailing the occasional
old S&W.
P&Rs. Two 24-3s and a 25-5. They are all adj sight models. In my estimation
they are best DA revolvers ever been built. Having said that I would own one
of the newer S&Ws or Classic line. They don't hold a candle to the earlier models.
I was a big Ruger fan in SA department until New Models came out and I tried
all their DAs. The main trouble with them was weight and I don't like safety
model. If I was in market for a new revolver I would have to rethink this and
go back to Ruger for their DAs. Mean while I am satisfied nailing the occasional
old S&W.
Model12Win
Moderator
S&W is making the best revolvers it ever has. BUY ONE. Those complaining about any changers need to understand they are minor at best. The guns still have the same look and feel as the originals, and they shoot even better.
Plus, S&W customer service is second to none. I'd get one right away!!
Plus, S&W customer service is second to none. I'd get one right away!!
Model12Win
Moderator
Perhaps, but there is something to be said for being the first owner of a gun. And the outstanding quality today is every bit as good as the old guns, and you're getting a brand new, never fired let alone handled revolver to call your own.
I have a few older model S&W wheelguns. I treasure those . My favs.
They are made well, and have been made better by a terrific gunsmith.
Perfect fit, function & timing. Tack drivers & clearly more accurate than my shooting capabilities.
Pre- 1981 (Bangor-Punta years) ( I was built a lot better in the 70's too .)
They are made well, and have been made better by a terrific gunsmith.
Perfect fit, function & timing. Tack drivers & clearly more accurate than my shooting capabilities.
Pre- 1981 (Bangor-Punta years) ( I was built a lot better in the 70's too .)
Two piece barrel ? My old BHP had one of those !
some of the newer manufacturing methods are better than the old ones . Check out things like Laser welding . Poor application and QC can ruin the reputation of a manufacturing method . Like letting bean counters pick everything done by MIM for example .
some of the newer manufacturing methods are better than the old ones . Check out things like Laser welding . Poor application and QC can ruin the reputation of a manufacturing method . Like letting bean counters pick everything done by MIM for example .
Model12Win , Playing the Devil's Advocate on comparing the Originals vs. the Classics does not hold much water or suit you well. Especially a person, who apparently likes one of the better every man's shotguns ever made.
I am sure there are some newer revolver owners who might go along with the idea of having a brand spanking new revolver that looks similar to the great ones.
I am sure there are some newer revolver owners who might go along with the idea of having a brand spanking new revolver that looks similar to the great ones.
Smith and Wesson's new "two piece" barrel is more akin to the two piece barrel on the old Dan Wesson revolvers (maybe the new Dan Wesson's too for all I know). There is a barrel, then a sleeve that slips over it, and a nut at the muzzle to secure everything in place. In theory, the two piece barrel is supposed to be more accurate, at least that's what Dan Wesson fans tell us. I can't shoot near well enough to tell.
I happen to have one of the "classic" Model 19's. It's the first "brand new" Smith & Wesson I've owned in forty years I guess. Now, I'm not smart enough, nor do I shoot enough to tell you if it's "better" than the old ones or not, but it's a darn fine gun. The blue is different, but it's still a nice blue. The stocks are really nice. The trigger out of the box was, well, IMHO very good. I did run fifty rounds of full power 357 factory loads through it and it shot as well, maybe better than I can normally shoot anything.
Yes, it's got the lock and MIM parts. No big deal to me, but if it is to you, I'm not going to try to change your mind.
The new gun has some improvements. The flat spot at the forcing cone has been eliminated. That flat spot is supposed to be the weak spot that causes forcing cone cracking. Now it's a full diameter FC. Also the front lock is now a ball detente on the front lug that should be stronger than the one of the front of the ejector rod.
The pictures don't show it well, but it's that little silver thing just below the barrel (the picture also shows the "no flat" barrel).
It's spring loaded so when you close the cylinder, it pops into place and fits into the machined slot on the crane shown in this picture (just ahead of the cylinder).
I love the "old guns" but I won't hesitate to buy a "new" one if I want it.
Oh, price. The price was less than I'd expect to pay for a NOS, unfired Model 19, with box and papers. More than I would have expected to pay for a run of the mill Model 19 on the used market.
I happen to have one of the "classic" Model 19's. It's the first "brand new" Smith & Wesson I've owned in forty years I guess. Now, I'm not smart enough, nor do I shoot enough to tell you if it's "better" than the old ones or not, but it's a darn fine gun. The blue is different, but it's still a nice blue. The stocks are really nice. The trigger out of the box was, well, IMHO very good. I did run fifty rounds of full power 357 factory loads through it and it shot as well, maybe better than I can normally shoot anything.
Yes, it's got the lock and MIM parts. No big deal to me, but if it is to you, I'm not going to try to change your mind.
The new gun has some improvements. The flat spot at the forcing cone has been eliminated. That flat spot is supposed to be the weak spot that causes forcing cone cracking. Now it's a full diameter FC. Also the front lock is now a ball detente on the front lug that should be stronger than the one of the front of the ejector rod.
The pictures don't show it well, but it's that little silver thing just below the barrel (the picture also shows the "no flat" barrel).
It's spring loaded so when you close the cylinder, it pops into place and fits into the machined slot on the crane shown in this picture (just ahead of the cylinder).
I love the "old guns" but I won't hesitate to buy a "new" one if I want it.
Oh, price. The price was less than I'd expect to pay for a NOS, unfired Model 19, with box and papers. More than I would have expected to pay for a run of the mill Model 19 on the used market.
Last edited:
I have a number of both older and newer Smiths, and they all work and shoot well.
Never had any issue with the sleeved barrels, or the dreaded lock.
If I was going to bitch about anything, it would be the "round butt only" frame thing they have going on, and the new style wood grips. Some models are meant to be a square butt, and I prefer the old style Magna grips. The new grips just look cheap to me.
Never had any issue with the sleeved barrels, or the dreaded lock.
If I was going to bitch about anything, it would be the "round butt only" frame thing they have going on, and the new style wood grips. Some models are meant to be a square butt, and I prefer the old style Magna grips. The new grips just look cheap to me.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
Far be it for me to bad mouth changes in technology. I understand the need to drive the cost out of manufacturing in order to remain competitive.
The frame mounted plunger in some of the newer Smiths is just that. A way to drive cost out of manufacturing. It is simply less time consuming to drill a hole in the frame and mount a plunger than to build the spring loaded extractor rod and angled face plunger under the barrel. Time has always equalled money in manufacturing.
Regarding the elimination of the flat spot on the underside of the forcing cone, good for them. Yes, that has always been a weak spot in the K frame 357 magnums. Not a problem with 38 Special, but a problem with high velocity light bullets in 357 Magnum.
I can understand a neophyte revolver shooter wanting to own brand-spanky new. Personally, I have been around the block a few times and don't mind buying used revolvers. I can tell before I buy them if they have a problem or not, and I don't mind a little bit of honest wear.
I too had not bought a brand new S&W revolver in over 40 years. I bought a brand-spanky new 686 a couple of years ago. I was disappointed. I will not be buying any more brand new Smiths.
603Country
New member
I bought a new 686 Plus some months ago. Had a gunsmith smooth out the SA trigger, and brother that gun will shoot. Not as pretty as my Python, but what is?
The "outstanding quality" today is most certainly not as good as the older guns.
The two-piece barrel does not have the easy switch ability of the Dan Wessons. Removing the barrel requires a special "inside" tool that S&W has not made available to gunsmiths, meaning that if you need barrel work on one of the two-piecers you pretty much have to send the gun to S&W, can't get it done locally.
I have seen photos of the barrel tube broken off at the threads, and broken off at the front retaining flange.
As far as the front plunger being "stronger" goes, on the one new sample with it I've had here, a 66-8 snub, I could push the cylinder sideways while closed & that ball would fairly easily pop out of it's recess.
On a corresponding earlier 66 snub with the conventional front lockup, I could not get the ejector rod to move out of lockup.
I don't know which part of the gun is supposed to be stronger with the ball detent, but it sure wasn't front end lockup on the sample I had here.
And we don't need to mention the confirmed reports of locks activating on their own.
If you want to buy a new Smith revolver, by all means go for it.
Just understand they are NOT the equal of the older guns.
Denis
The two-piece barrel does not have the easy switch ability of the Dan Wessons. Removing the barrel requires a special "inside" tool that S&W has not made available to gunsmiths, meaning that if you need barrel work on one of the two-piecers you pretty much have to send the gun to S&W, can't get it done locally.
I have seen photos of the barrel tube broken off at the threads, and broken off at the front retaining flange.
As far as the front plunger being "stronger" goes, on the one new sample with it I've had here, a 66-8 snub, I could push the cylinder sideways while closed & that ball would fairly easily pop out of it's recess.
On a corresponding earlier 66 snub with the conventional front lockup, I could not get the ejector rod to move out of lockup.
I don't know which part of the gun is supposed to be stronger with the ball detent, but it sure wasn't front end lockup on the sample I had here.
And we don't need to mention the confirmed reports of locks activating on their own.
If you want to buy a new Smith revolver, by all means go for it.
Just understand they are NOT the equal of the older guns.
Denis
I buy classic S&W revolvers, not the new ones designated as "Classic". Two years from now I guarantee your new Classic marked revolver will be worth less than you paid for it, while an older classic S&W revolver will be worth more, considering you take care of it. Shooting a gun and having it appreciate in value appeals to me. Just MHO.
Don
Don
The new ones are nice but I prefer the older ones when possible. There are a lot of older guns out there that have only had a couple of boxes of ammo through them and they can be had for less money then the new ones. However they are making a lot of models today that haven't ever exsisted before. You can't buy an old model 929, 325, 69, 460 XVR or 500.
I wouldn't hesitate to buy a new one but I also wouldn't hesitate to buy an old one in good condition.
I wouldn't hesitate to buy a new one but I also wouldn't hesitate to buy an old one in good condition.