S&W Classic Revolvers
- Thread starter flashhole
- Start date
I own both, new and pre 1982 S&W's, no issues. 29's, 19's, 642, 638, 10, etc. Yes, the new ones have a lock, which I both despise and try to ignore, but... it hasn't caused any issues either, with lots of hot loads. New ones are stronger, more durable and "almost" as pretty as the older ones. S&W backs their products, so buy and shoot hard without hesitation.
Don't use Hoppes 9 on those so called "classics". It will remove the " blue".
Not having purchased anything from the company posing as S&W in almost 19 years now, do the new guns come with a return shipping label?
And of course s&w has good customer service. They should! Look at how much practice they get. Regards 18DAI
Not having purchased anything from the company posing as S&W in almost 19 years now, do the new guns come with a return shipping label?
And of course s&w has good customer service. They should! Look at how much practice they get. Regards 18DAI
This is the twin to my revolver: https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/hiRes/415002426_1.jpg
Mine is a 1982/stainless/.357mag Security Six with 6" barrel!
Getting harder find and some of the prices are way outta wack at up to $600 bucks.
Should be able to get one in the $400-450 or less if you look really hard.
*like all Ruger's their built like tanks!
Mine is a 1982/stainless/.357mag Security Six with 6" barrel!
Getting harder find and some of the prices are way outta wack at up to $600 bucks.
Should be able to get one in the $400-450 or less if you look really hard.
*like all Ruger's their built like tanks!
Comparing the currently produced "Classic Line" (I hate that name) to the hand finished revolvers of the past is futile. I think everybody knows they are not classic like a registered magnum. 
A fairer comparison is to currently produced, similar priced models from other manufacturers. When you do this you will find they are as good as anything out there.
I wish they still made them like they used to, but those days are gone and never will return. If they did they would be priced out of my reach. I enjoy older revolvers and buy them when I get a chance.I also enjoy owning and shooting new ones.
A fairer comparison is to currently produced, similar priced models from other manufacturers. When you do this you will find they are as good as anything out there.
I wish they still made them like they used to, but those days are gone and never will return. If they did they would be priced out of my reach. I enjoy older revolvers and buy them when I get a chance.I also enjoy owning and shooting new ones.
"I do seriously doubt that the newer ones are stronger or more durable, though, as a broadly inclusive declaration.
Denis" (DPris).
You can doubt all you want. It's not a "broadly inclusive declaration", it's a matter of fact. Check with Smith and Wesson engineers. Although there are exceptions (I also dislike the sleeved barrels), "most" design enhancements and improvements make for a stronger and more durable weapon. My 4" bbl 29-10, is better built pertaining to strength and durability (not appearance; I prefer the old style blue, and the damn lock, which I hate!!!), than the original 29's and most subsequent models. As issues arose with the original models (well known to skip a chamber during heavy recoil and wear out with heavy use of magnum ammunition) S&W modified the design to build stronger and longer lasting guns. It's been an ongoing process. They try to improve the models over time, most often resulting in stronger, more durable weapons. Hence the model designation noting different variations and improvements... 29-2 through 29-10. My new 29-10 may not be as pretty as a 29-2, but she is built like an anchor, deadly accurate, and despite the lock, she is still a very attractive gun and I love her! And durability wise, I would put her up against a vintage S&W and she will outlast the older model in an endurance / magnum load contest, hands down. The fact is, the 29-10 is a better built weapon. Another example; The original model 39 9mm (built for US Military consideration back in the 50's) had ejection issues... S&W fixed the design issue by the early 70's and designated it as the model 39-2. Additional changes resulted in newer models being developed, like the 3913. I own numerous vintage S&W's, and cherish them. They are beautiful and superb weapons. But it would be naive to subject them to the same hot loads and extensive shooting as my modern S&W's and expect them to hold up as well. If you owned a vintage 1962 Cadillac with 100,000 miles on it, would you drive it as fast and hard as you could cross Country and expect it to last as long as a brand new 2019 Cadillac driven similarly? One could... but I wouldn't advise it if you cherish the classic car. Same goes for vintage S&W's.
Denis" (DPris).
You can doubt all you want. It's not a "broadly inclusive declaration", it's a matter of fact. Check with Smith and Wesson engineers. Although there are exceptions (I also dislike the sleeved barrels), "most" design enhancements and improvements make for a stronger and more durable weapon. My 4" bbl 29-10, is better built pertaining to strength and durability (not appearance; I prefer the old style blue, and the damn lock, which I hate!!!), than the original 29's and most subsequent models. As issues arose with the original models (well known to skip a chamber during heavy recoil and wear out with heavy use of magnum ammunition) S&W modified the design to build stronger and longer lasting guns. It's been an ongoing process. They try to improve the models over time, most often resulting in stronger, more durable weapons. Hence the model designation noting different variations and improvements... 29-2 through 29-10. My new 29-10 may not be as pretty as a 29-2, but she is built like an anchor, deadly accurate, and despite the lock, she is still a very attractive gun and I love her! And durability wise, I would put her up against a vintage S&W and she will outlast the older model in an endurance / magnum load contest, hands down. The fact is, the 29-10 is a better built weapon. Another example; The original model 39 9mm (built for US Military consideration back in the 50's) had ejection issues... S&W fixed the design issue by the early 70's and designated it as the model 39-2. Additional changes resulted in newer models being developed, like the 3913. I own numerous vintage S&W's, and cherish them. They are beautiful and superb weapons. But it would be naive to subject them to the same hot loads and extensive shooting as my modern S&W's and expect them to hold up as well. If you owned a vintage 1962 Cadillac with 100,000 miles on it, would you drive it as fast and hard as you could cross Country and expect it to last as long as a brand new 2019 Cadillac driven similarly? One could... but I wouldn't advise it if you cherish the classic car. Same goes for vintage S&W's.
Last edited:
HighValleyRanch
New member
I'm starting the paper work on a Ruger Police Service Six snubnose tomorrow that I got for 450.00! Blue and in good condition. Had been looking for snubbie Ruger Six for quite some time, and they don't come around too often.
Smith & Wesson’s current engineers are not the people to ask which guns are stronger. Sure, metallurgy has improved over the years, but S&W also uses MIM parts these days. I had a 29-10 years ago and I hated it.
I don’t find anything they build today even remotely interesting.
I don’t find anything they build today even remotely interesting.
Last edited:
Could not agree more with Bac, regarding Smith revolvers. 
I said I doubt S&W revolvers today are stronger or more durable as A BROAD STATEMENT.
The 29 did get some improvements, but that does not mean the entire lineup is stronger or more durable.
I'd pit my older 29-5 against a current 29-whichever for strength & longevity.
I would expect both to be about equally strong, but I'd also expect my 29-5 to be more durable.
As far as claiming ALL current Smith revolvers are "stronger and more durable" goes- no.
Denis
I said I doubt S&W revolvers today are stronger or more durable as A BROAD STATEMENT.
The 29 did get some improvements, but that does not mean the entire lineup is stronger or more durable.
I'd pit my older 29-5 against a current 29-whichever for strength & longevity.
I would expect both to be about equally strong, but I'd also expect my 29-5 to be more durable.
As far as claiming ALL current Smith revolvers are "stronger and more durable" goes- no.
Denis
S&W Classic Revolvers
I respect all of the opinions here as many are longtime contributors who know a very great deal about revolvers and have taught me a lot. DPris has written some very interesting publications and is very informed. Model12Win knows the topic well too, as does Mr. Borland, USSR, High Valley Ranch and others. So recognize that each of them comes to the table with a wealth of knowledge and experience and their opinions deserve your respect and consideration.
I have many revolvers and i shoot one weekly. I am a competitive revolver shooter and i have shot S&W, Rugers and even Dan Wessons in competition. I have one revolver that i personally have put about 17,000 rounds through since January of 2016 when i bought it new.
I can and do completely pull apart all my revolvers (of all brands) and do trigger work and other minor upgrades on them.
I also own several older pinned and recessed S&Ws and a new Classic line 586 4 inch. I have a couple new 627s that i use in ICORE.
With all that said the answer to your question, in my opinion, really depends on your intended use.
Do you want a jewel that you may admire the rest of your life and which you may shoot every couple of months at the range for the sheer enjoyment of it? Then by all means get an older pristine S&W.
Will you be carrying this in the field and need something rough and tumble? Consider a Ruger or a new S&W.
Planning on handloading some super extra powerhouse loads for some evening fireballs? Ruger.
Doing some long distance shooting or handgun hunting? Dan Wesson or Ruger.
Planning on shooting the living crap out of it doing speed shooting and competition? A brand new S&W for sure. (It’s true imho that a Ruger is tougher and will last longer but the DA pull of a Smith is really the best for rapid fire.)
So, given that you are weighing either a new classic or an older pinned and recessed, that suggests that you are looking for a jewel to some extent. If so, get the older Smith. If you are looking for a gun that you can tote around, wear out and beat on a little bit, but you still want that classic look on your hip, then get a new S&W from their classic series. That’s my two cents, for what it’s worth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I respect all of the opinions here as many are longtime contributors who know a very great deal about revolvers and have taught me a lot. DPris has written some very interesting publications and is very informed. Model12Win knows the topic well too, as does Mr. Borland, USSR, High Valley Ranch and others. So recognize that each of them comes to the table with a wealth of knowledge and experience and their opinions deserve your respect and consideration.
I have many revolvers and i shoot one weekly. I am a competitive revolver shooter and i have shot S&W, Rugers and even Dan Wessons in competition. I have one revolver that i personally have put about 17,000 rounds through since January of 2016 when i bought it new.
I can and do completely pull apart all my revolvers (of all brands) and do trigger work and other minor upgrades on them.
I also own several older pinned and recessed S&Ws and a new Classic line 586 4 inch. I have a couple new 627s that i use in ICORE.
With all that said the answer to your question, in my opinion, really depends on your intended use.
Do you want a jewel that you may admire the rest of your life and which you may shoot every couple of months at the range for the sheer enjoyment of it? Then by all means get an older pristine S&W.
Will you be carrying this in the field and need something rough and tumble? Consider a Ruger or a new S&W.
Planning on handloading some super extra powerhouse loads for some evening fireballs? Ruger.
Doing some long distance shooting or handgun hunting? Dan Wesson or Ruger.
Planning on shooting the living crap out of it doing speed shooting and competition? A brand new S&W for sure. (It’s true imho that a Ruger is tougher and will last longer but the DA pull of a Smith is really the best for rapid fire.)
So, given that you are weighing either a new classic or an older pinned and recessed, that suggests that you are looking for a jewel to some extent. If so, get the older Smith. If you are looking for a gun that you can tote around, wear out and beat on a little bit, but you still want that classic look on your hip, then get a new S&W from their classic series. That’s my two cents, for what it’s worth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
How can they call it a classic when it has the infamous Hillary hole?
Was looking for a pre-lock 686, couldn't find one. Glad I didn't, bought a Dan Wesson instead, interchangeable barrels, best DA trigger pull I've ever experienced and the single action is almost as good as my Colt Python. Plus it has no lock, what's not to like.
Was looking for a pre-lock 686, couldn't find one. Glad I didn't, bought a Dan Wesson instead, interchangeable barrels, best DA trigger pull I've ever experienced and the single action is almost as good as my Colt Python. Plus it has no lock, what's not to like.
Keep your eye out for an early 586 four inch. You will be very happy with it. All or at least most of my Smiths are 70s, 80s, 90s era, all bought new. I have in recent years picked up a few, and have had no problems. CS is excellent, and have been good folks to work with. You made a good move, now go do some hog hunting!
Yesterday picked up a new Model 27 loaner.
Crown is rough, forcing cone is oddly angled.
Top checkering is cheap-looking compared to older 27 checkering.
The project is to compare this new 4-incher with a 1962 3.5-incher.
We'll see how they both shoot.
And the thing with Jerry Miculek is that he's sorta backed into a corner.
He's a professional shooter.
Much of that is handgun oriented.
He's gone on record as saying that he's worked with other handguns & found he can run the Smith design faster.
That pretty much locks him into the brand.
If we wants to continue competing with handguns, he kinda has to stick to Smiths.
The actions are slightly different now than they were when he made his name with 'em, but he can still clean them up enough to stay competitive with them.
So- he'll continue to use the brand, and he's even more locked in since S&W started sponsoring him.
That's the foundation.
I'm not saying he lies, I've talked to him twice & came away with a good impression.
But, he may have a different view than I do, and it may be necessary to pin down exactly what he means when he says something like "Better than ever."
Denis
Crown is rough, forcing cone is oddly angled.
Top checkering is cheap-looking compared to older 27 checkering.
The project is to compare this new 4-incher with a 1962 3.5-incher.
We'll see how they both shoot.
And the thing with Jerry Miculek is that he's sorta backed into a corner.
He's a professional shooter.
Much of that is handgun oriented.
He's gone on record as saying that he's worked with other handguns & found he can run the Smith design faster.
That pretty much locks him into the brand.
If we wants to continue competing with handguns, he kinda has to stick to Smiths.
The actions are slightly different now than they were when he made his name with 'em, but he can still clean them up enough to stay competitive with them.
So- he'll continue to use the brand, and he's even more locked in since S&W started sponsoring him.
That's the foundation.
I'm not saying he lies, I've talked to him twice & came away with a good impression.
But, he may have a different view than I do, and it may be necessary to pin down exactly what he means when he says something like "Better than ever."
Denis