S&W Classic Revolvers
- Thread starter flashhole
- Start date
I have many Smith revolvers from many different generations and I think the classic I have is put together really well and is tighter than many of my older revolvers from the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The classics also have the endurance package. Collectability and nostalgia aside, for a shooter, you cannot go wrong with a new classic. The lock sucks by I am past that now.
My model 14-8 Classic is one of my favorite guns. The lock time on it is faster than any other Smith I own. A tribute to it's accuracy I'm sure. The MIM is not the prettiest thing on this earth nor the Hilary Hole but I never even think about it until one of these threads come around.
I agree with Mr. Borland. I shot centerfire revolver competitions for a long time and lock time, respectively length of hammerfall make no practical difference for off-hand shooting. Grip and proper length of trigger, as well as trigger characteristics, including overtravel have a more significant impact on practical accuracy.
As to the two piece barrel design; Korth is using that since decades and it makes it easier to adjust barrel to cylinder gap.
buck460XVR
New member
IMHO, it comes down to the intended purpose of the gun.
Hunting is best dome with longer barrels and EDC better with short. Anything else is done well with medium length barrels.
I have old smiths and new. My new 686s are more accurate than the older ones, but are not a nicely finished. I have the dreaded lock on my .38 snub and my .460 X-Frame. Thousands of full throttle loads and never a lock failure. I have several models and a caliber that were never available 40 years ago. Iffin I were a young guy and wanted a nice Smith, I'd buy new knowing the lifetime warranty to the original owner meant I would never pay monies to replace the gun due to failure. I suggest to anyone not familiar with revolvers, to research the threads on how to judge a used revolver before purchasing used.
Welcome to the world of wheelguns........
Using Korth and Dan Wesson as examples of a two-piece barrel success is irrelevant to the S&W discussion.
I can't discuss a foreign situation regarding product & after-buy service, since I'm not there.
Here in the US, though, I can.
It's not the two-piece barrel idea in itself that's the concern.
Done CORRECTLY, as in both design & serviceability, there's no problem.
The concerns with the Smith approach is the breakage at both ends that I've seen photos of, and the inability of either the owner or the average local gunsmith to service if barrel service is needed.
Barrel breakage is pretty much unheard-of in the DW design.
It IS rare in the Smiths, but it has happened.
The company appears to have altered the front flange, at least on the last 66 I had here.
If so, that may eliminate that potential weakness.
And I freely admits the odds of your new two-piece S&W barrel breaking ARE not high.
But, again- it's happened.
On the serviceability issue- the vast majority of two-piece barrel buyers will never need or want after-buy service on those guns.
S&W is playing the odds there, for both them AND you.
But- if a forcing cone wears out with heavy use & needs work, your local guy can't do it because he doesn't have the special tool to remove the barrel.
If you should decide you want a barrel swap, same deal.
ANY work involving barrel removal has to be sent back to the factory, including the most simple stuff like cleaning up a worn cone & setting the barrel back slightly.
That ain't covered by warrantee, and S&W isn't going to pay shipping.
Again- this involves a very low percentage of buyers, and the company banks on it.
One other issue in passing: If you think the shroud makes a canted front sight impossible, think again.
And if yours is, your local guy can't just do a simple barrel turn to correct it.
These are the concerns some of us have on the Smith two-piecers.
None of those apply to the DWs.
A DW owner can R&R his or her own barrel on the kitchen table, and any competent gunsmith can do barrel work on one.
For most Smith buyers, they neither know nor care.
Denis
I can't discuss a foreign situation regarding product & after-buy service, since I'm not there.
Here in the US, though, I can.
It's not the two-piece barrel idea in itself that's the concern.
Done CORRECTLY, as in both design & serviceability, there's no problem.
The concerns with the Smith approach is the breakage at both ends that I've seen photos of, and the inability of either the owner or the average local gunsmith to service if barrel service is needed.
Barrel breakage is pretty much unheard-of in the DW design.
It IS rare in the Smiths, but it has happened.
The company appears to have altered the front flange, at least on the last 66 I had here.
If so, that may eliminate that potential weakness.
And I freely admits the odds of your new two-piece S&W barrel breaking ARE not high.
But, again- it's happened.
On the serviceability issue- the vast majority of two-piece barrel buyers will never need or want after-buy service on those guns.
S&W is playing the odds there, for both them AND you.
But- if a forcing cone wears out with heavy use & needs work, your local guy can't do it because he doesn't have the special tool to remove the barrel.
If you should decide you want a barrel swap, same deal.
ANY work involving barrel removal has to be sent back to the factory, including the most simple stuff like cleaning up a worn cone & setting the barrel back slightly.
That ain't covered by warrantee, and S&W isn't going to pay shipping.
Again- this involves a very low percentage of buyers, and the company banks on it.
One other issue in passing: If you think the shroud makes a canted front sight impossible, think again.
And if yours is, your local guy can't just do a simple barrel turn to correct it.
These are the concerns some of us have on the Smith two-piecers.
None of those apply to the DWs.
A DW owner can R&R his or her own barrel on the kitchen table, and any competent gunsmith can do barrel work on one.
For most Smith buyers, they neither know nor care.
Denis
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks you should be taking notes when your "counter guy" talks. He gave you an opinion that I certainly agree with. A gun described as being the "best compromise for all-purpose use" (and I think the Ruger GP 100 configured with a 4" barrel is certainly a candidate for such a title) is probably not going to be a gun that does any one thing best-by definition.
As I'm sure you're aware, bac1023, you are fortunate enough to have what looks to be one of the finest revolvers ever made, not excepting Colt's almost as nice Python. I can't imagine how much it would cost for any factory in America to make a revolver as superbly finished as the Smith & Wesson "Registered Magnum" was; a couple of grand for sure and likely much more.
I have a '51 pre-27 re-finished by S&W and just acquired a 90% '61 Model 27.
You may have to look, or pin your hopes on your lucky star, but fine examples of older originals are still out there.
And current production does not compare favorably.
Progress, however, marches on.
Denis
You may have to look, or pin your hopes on your lucky star, but fine examples of older originals are still out there.
And current production does not compare favorably.
Progress, however, marches on.
Denis
Yes I’m aware. I’ve got a couple RM’s. I’d like to have a couple more, but selling prices are insane these days. While they are certainly a cut above, I’ve got a lot of “lesser” classic S&W’s and they are very well built. You don’t need an RM to experience a high quality S&W revolver.
Last edited:
t4terrific
New member
If it weren’t for the stupid frame locks, I’d buy modern modern Smith revolvers. The rest of the changes I can handle, but the lock on a revolver is just stupid, ugly, and a constant reminder of a company that tried to satisfy the gun control tide.
No doubt. The RM had a lot of extra hand honing and attention to detail that Smith didn’t do before or since. To me, it’s definitely the finest handgun they ever created by a good margin.
I have quite a few 50’s era Smith revolvers, to include a couple N Frames in a Pre-27 and Pre-29. I also own several early 20th century Smiths. While none of them are as smooth or as fine as an RM, they are extremely well made wheelguns, with beautiful bluing and a ton of detail work.