S&W Classic Revolvers
- Thread starter flashhole
- Start date
I like classic pistols, but am not sold on CLASSIC pistols.
I have a 5 screw K38 and a 4 screw K22, as well as a 1972 Model 10. [and 5 Colt revolvers from before 1961- but that is a different thread
].
I really like the history of them, and they balance/shoot VERY well.
As such, I didn't really think about the 'Classic' line from S&W, until I found a S&W 586 Classic, w/ 6" barrel, for sale for $600 at my LGS. It was a 'grandma's gun- family bought it for grandma [in her early 60s], and she promptly traded it for a 4" 686+, as she wanted a better 'all purpose' gun.
So, $600 for an almost unused gun. Allegedly she never even fired it.
Now I have a S&W .357mag that is similar in look to my others.
It feels muzzle heavy by comparison- but that is nice with full power 357 rounds.
After I went over the trigger parts, it is now as smooth, crisp and light as my K22 and K38. [about 15% of my handguns had trigger good enough that I didn't work them over- one of which is a classic 1959 BHP made for Austria's police.]
HOWEVER, my Classic 586 has a 1 piece barrel- not two piece. As far as I can tell. I don't see ANY signs that it is a 2 piece barrel, and I've seen dan wessons, I've seen the 2 piece barrels on the competition model S&W at my LGS, and I have BHPs so I know chamber/barrel sleeve 2 piece design also.
It IS nice to be the first owner of a firearm. I really cared about that about 20 years ago. Now, I just want a good piece that I can afford and that makes me happy.
Used is fine, as long as it is reliable- and I think I am decent at examining firearms for warning signs. I now prefer used. Most new stuff doesn't interest me.
as far as barrel length- they are all compromises. And, all are a compromise compared to shotguns/rifles.
I have a 5 screw K38 and a 4 screw K22, as well as a 1972 Model 10. [and 5 Colt revolvers from before 1961- but that is a different thread
].I really like the history of them, and they balance/shoot VERY well.
As such, I didn't really think about the 'Classic' line from S&W, until I found a S&W 586 Classic, w/ 6" barrel, for sale for $600 at my LGS. It was a 'grandma's gun- family bought it for grandma [in her early 60s], and she promptly traded it for a 4" 686+, as she wanted a better 'all purpose' gun.
So, $600 for an almost unused gun. Allegedly she never even fired it.
Now I have a S&W .357mag that is similar in look to my others.
It feels muzzle heavy by comparison- but that is nice with full power 357 rounds.
After I went over the trigger parts, it is now as smooth, crisp and light as my K22 and K38. [about 15% of my handguns had trigger good enough that I didn't work them over- one of which is a classic 1959 BHP made for Austria's police.]
HOWEVER, my Classic 586 has a 1 piece barrel- not two piece. As far as I can tell. I don't see ANY signs that it is a 2 piece barrel, and I've seen dan wessons, I've seen the 2 piece barrels on the competition model S&W at my LGS, and I have BHPs so I know chamber/barrel sleeve 2 piece design also.
It IS nice to be the first owner of a firearm. I really cared about that about 20 years ago. Now, I just want a good piece that I can afford and that makes me happy.
Used is fine, as long as it is reliable- and I think I am decent at examining firearms for warning signs. I now prefer used. Most new stuff doesn't interest me.
as far as barrel length- they are all compromises. And, all are a compromise compared to shotguns/rifles.
disseminator
New member
That is correct. My bud has the 586 and it's a 1 piece barrel as is my Classic 29-10.
I agree that the two piece barrels don't look awesome. The machining on my 625JM with one piece barrel was so bad the sight was leaning and it looked like a wet noodle looking down the barrel. There seem to be "issues" making the one piece barrels as it's a common issue with newer Smith's.
Good thing they have amazing customer service, they made it right and I had my gun back in just a few weeks.
I think the Classics are great, you just have to realize they are "New Model" Smith's in spite of the Classic moniker.
Cosmodragoon
New member
Flash, if you can find an actual classic S&W in good shape, go for it. They are nice guns and a real piece of American history. The new ones, including the remakes, are not the same thing. As someone else in this thread already called it, they have the "dreaded lock hole". I understand that malfunction is rare but it can happen. My gunsmith claims to have seen it once. You can see isolated stories on the web. That isn't it though. For me, it breaks up the form of an otherwise beautiful revolver like a marker mustache crudely drawn on the Mona Lisa. It is also a psychological reminder of the forces that work tirelessly to take away our rights.
Speaking of, watch out. Gun Owners of America is warning that Texas has a well-funded anti-gun candidate poised to become your next Senator. Places we thought were safe are sometimes the most vulnerable. Vermont was recently hit with its first gun control despite the "it could never happen here" sentiment.
Speaking of, watch out. Gun Owners of America is warning that Texas has a well-funded anti-gun candidate poised to become your next Senator. Places we thought were safe are sometimes the most vulnerable. Vermont was recently hit with its first gun control despite the "it could never happen here" sentiment.
disseminator
New member
For those who REALLY can't stand the "hillary hole", the locks can be removed and the hole plugged.
https://www.originalprecision.com/
https://www.originalprecision.com/
I have a bunch of S&W revolvers with the lock, mostly 357MAG and a couple of 44mags, and never once had an issue with the locks with any of them, and they have all been shot a good bit. Truthfully, Ive never once engaged the lock on any of them, and couldnt tell you if the keys were even in the box.
Its there, and the looks really doesnt bother me. I guess Im lucky there too, cause for what that boy is getting for the plug, Id have another gun for what it would cost me to plug them all. Ill take the gun.
Its there, and the looks really doesnt bother me. I guess Im lucky there too, cause for what that boy is getting for the plug, Id have another gun for what it would cost me to plug them all. Ill take the gun.
Cosmodragoon
New member
I'm really glad to see this product on the market. The next time I get some spare cash, I'll try one out.
So after reading this thread, I get the impression that these new Classics are sup par revolvers. Or is it just a case of not liking change? I have had my m15-3 forever now and want to add another revolver to it. But seeing all these people here hating on them for the cost saving measures makes me think twice.
Not really a fan of the looks of the Gp101 from Ruger.
Why would Smith and Wesson release these revolvers if they overwhelming majority of the people who buy them hate them with such passion? Just by this thread you would think they should be melted into scrap.
So that puts me in an odd place. I want a new revolver preferably with a 4" barrel. So which of Smith and Wesson's current new line up meets the critical eyes of this forums revolver aficionados?
Not really a fan of the looks of the Gp101 from Ruger.
Why would Smith and Wesson release these revolvers if they overwhelming majority of the people who buy them hate them with such passion? Just by this thread you would think they should be melted into scrap.
So that puts me in an odd place. I want a new revolver preferably with a 4" barrel. So which of Smith and Wesson's current new line up meets the critical eyes of this forums revolver aficionados?
The thing with Smith's current line of revolvers is that many of us simply don't like what the company's done to them.
If all you care about is end function, they do function.
But I have found a degradation in overall quality over the years that goes along with the lock.
We don't like the cheaper MIM parts, or the other shortcuts involved.
In the two classic examples here at the moment, the brand new Model 27 exhibits chintzy "checkering" on top, a dual-angle forcing cone cut, and a burr ring around the poorly cut crown.
It also has the mainspring seat re-positioned in the gripframe & the shorter firing pin, done to address a "possible" drop test failure that was never an issue to begin with.
That affects trigger pull and can affect ignition.
Compared right next to the 1962 Model 27, it suffers.
The grips were fit TO the older gun
The grips are fit ON the newer gun.
The lock is a true annoyance, and even though it can be removed it's something that S&W has forced on a market that never wanted it.
It also HAS accidentally activated itself with several owners. A minor annoyance at the range, a major problem if used for defense. I personally know two people who experienced it themselves, and another who witnessed it at a law enforcement agency training session.
Change is acceptable when it brings a marked benefit or improvement to the product.
None of the production changes to reduce manufacturing costs have demonstrably done this, quite the opposite.
S&W releases these guns to try to hook those who have, or had, some interest in true classic Smith models, into buying them.
The original models in their heyday were truly masterpieces in the world of working revolvers.
S&W is trying to capitalize on that, but only with lookalikes that do not equal those originals in quality.
The current crop of Smith revolvers is generally functional, and they can look nice.
They can also shoot well.
If you want one, you'll be getting a serviceable firearm.
You just won't be getting what you would have gotten 25 years ago.
Pick one & run with it.
Your other alternative might be to haunt Gunbroker & look for an as-new older Smith.
They do show up, and may not cost a lot more than a new one.
In fairness to S&W, I don't reject the entire company.
I daily carry one of their autos by choice, and I own four more of their current auto line bought for defensive uses.
Those I trust.
I just don't like the deterioration in quality I see in Smith revolvers today.
Denis
If all you care about is end function, they do function.
But I have found a degradation in overall quality over the years that goes along with the lock.
We don't like the cheaper MIM parts, or the other shortcuts involved.
In the two classic examples here at the moment, the brand new Model 27 exhibits chintzy "checkering" on top, a dual-angle forcing cone cut, and a burr ring around the poorly cut crown.
It also has the mainspring seat re-positioned in the gripframe & the shorter firing pin, done to address a "possible" drop test failure that was never an issue to begin with.
That affects trigger pull and can affect ignition.
Compared right next to the 1962 Model 27, it suffers.
The grips were fit TO the older gun
The grips are fit ON the newer gun.
The lock is a true annoyance, and even though it can be removed it's something that S&W has forced on a market that never wanted it.
It also HAS accidentally activated itself with several owners. A minor annoyance at the range, a major problem if used for defense. I personally know two people who experienced it themselves, and another who witnessed it at a law enforcement agency training session.
Change is acceptable when it brings a marked benefit or improvement to the product.
None of the production changes to reduce manufacturing costs have demonstrably done this, quite the opposite.
S&W releases these guns to try to hook those who have, or had, some interest in true classic Smith models, into buying them.
The original models in their heyday were truly masterpieces in the world of working revolvers.
S&W is trying to capitalize on that, but only with lookalikes that do not equal those originals in quality.
The current crop of Smith revolvers is generally functional, and they can look nice.
They can also shoot well.
If you want one, you'll be getting a serviceable firearm.
You just won't be getting what you would have gotten 25 years ago.
Pick one & run with it.
Your other alternative might be to haunt Gunbroker & look for an as-new older Smith.
They do show up, and may not cost a lot more than a new one.
In fairness to S&W, I don't reject the entire company.
I daily carry one of their autos by choice, and I own four more of their current auto line bought for defensive uses.
Those I trust.
I just don't like the deterioration in quality I see in Smith revolvers today.
Denis
Because I want a new one. I have a older one and decided I want to get something new for once instead of someone else's hand me downs like I have since I started this hobby. Also I have no idea how to get the FFL thing set up. It isn't like Amazon where i can burn my credit card and poof it ends up on my doorstep. I heard it is a pain in the butt process with lots of mailing crap back and forth between myself, GB and an FFL.
Not picking a fight with you but your comment is what I am talking about. it is as if Smith and Wesson should just close shop and scrap everything cause it isn't made in the extra expensive old hand made ways. Is hand made classics so important that people are ready to see them cease being in production? Making them the old way would drastically increase the cost and that would spell the doom of them, IMHO.
Not picking a fight with you but your comment is what I am talking about. it is as if Smith and Wesson should just close shop and scrap everything cause it isn't made in the extra expensive old hand made ways. Is hand made classics so important that people are ready to see them cease being in production? Making them the old way would drastically increase the cost and that would spell the doom of them, IMHO.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, I think you're right about this. I don't think there's nearly enough of us who appreciate the difference and who are willing to pay the price for yesteryear's labor-intensive fine workmanship and quality for Smith & Wesson (or any other company) to profit from resurrecting the past. If they could, they likely would.
@DPris Has anyone talked to any Smith and Wesson reps about these complaints? Are they going to address them or are the complaints a minority of public opinion? I ask as when i do a google search the first page of Gun Rag/blog articles/reviews that I find do not in any way mention the complaints I see in this thread. Which is what prompted my posting.
I don't want you guys to think I am arguing for the specific changes that were made and you hate. I merely am ok with cost savings in manufacturing. Which is important to me as i want to continue to see guns like my M15-3 continue into the future. But that wont happen if people talk potential new buyers out of getting them.
I have seen this MIM hate on the 1911 gun boards. Why hate mim? Has their been a rash of revolvers with mim having those parts break? MIM is used in a lot of non gun things to great effect so why shouldn't a proven and affordable tech be used?
I want to like Ruger, as they have a great reputation but i don't like their looks. Nor do they have a 8 shot revolver that is tickling my fancy like the TRR8 does.
But generally i am concerned with function first and looks close second. Not a fan on the Hilary hole, but i am more concerned with the thoughts behind it. Namely Smith and Wesson caving politically. That should matter more to people then the lock, it what the lock represents.
Look. I will be honest. I want a new one, partly because i want something new. But also because i can get new ones at the Gun shop. Ordering online is a hassle. If it were not a hassle then i would consider getting a couple 19's, or more M15's. (Love me some. 38)
ON the forcing cone complaint. IS that complaint specific to the 27? Didn't they improve them on the 19 which had some issues with them failing after being used with light but super fast loads??
I don't want you guys to think I am arguing for the specific changes that were made and you hate. I merely am ok with cost savings in manufacturing. Which is important to me as i want to continue to see guns like my M15-3 continue into the future. But that wont happen if people talk potential new buyers out of getting them.
I have seen this MIM hate on the 1911 gun boards. Why hate mim? Has their been a rash of revolvers with mim having those parts break? MIM is used in a lot of non gun things to great effect so why shouldn't a proven and affordable tech be used?
I want to like Ruger, as they have a great reputation but i don't like their looks. Nor do they have a 8 shot revolver that is tickling my fancy like the TRR8 does.
But generally i am concerned with function first and looks close second. Not a fan on the Hilary hole, but i am more concerned with the thoughts behind it. Namely Smith and Wesson caving politically. That should matter more to people then the lock, it what the lock represents.
Look. I will be honest. I want a new one, partly because i want something new. But also because i can get new ones at the Gun shop. Ordering online is a hassle. If it were not a hassle then i would consider getting a couple 19's, or more M15's. (Love me some. 38)
ON the forcing cone complaint. IS that complaint specific to the 27? Didn't they improve them on the 19 which had some issues with them failing after being used with light but super fast loads??
It's an unfortunate situation, where S&W has created this.
Part of the equation is people who view guns as a "hobby", as you put it.
In my generation's youth, very few people owned more than a small handful of guns.
A hunting rifle, a .22 rifle, maybe a .22 pistol or revolver, a .38 or .357 for a "serious" handgun, and maybe a shotgun.
Those were all working guns, and the percentage of people who bought multiple guns to play with was small.
Quality guns were ALWAYS expensive, relatively speaking.
You could walk into a hardware store or a good gunshop & buy pretty much a once in a lifetime gun, and figure on it having a certain level of quality.
Smiths & Colts were good stuff, lower-priced brands were mediocre, but functional, if that's all you could afford.
With the progressive increase in disposable income that occurred through the 1970s, and the expansion of gunmakers & models of the 1980s, your Hobby Set grew.
It was no longer taking the time to assemble a battery of working guns & then moving on, it became a culture of buying many guns just because.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that reason for wanting many guns, but the net effect was to cause the industry to increase offerings to gain more share of the expanding market, and then through the past 10-15 years to progressively cheapen the quality of both manufacturing AND alternative designs to get more people to spend more money on more guns.
That's put us where we are today.
Those of us older guys who know what used to be there will tend to stick with the better stuff, even if it means being able to buy fewer guns in paying more to get that higher quality.
You new "hobbiests" don't know or care what they used to be, or what they are now.
The gunmakers cater to those who don't know the difference & don't want to spend the money on true quality.
I'm not really a hobbiest, I work with guns professionally & most of what I have are working guns, if they need to be.
I'd cheerfully spend another hundred bucks over purchase price on a new Smith revolver today, if it had forged guts, a correct firing pin, no lock, and real attention to detail.
But, as long as there are people willing to buy at current quality levels, S&W will continue to put those quality levels out.
And as far as S&W goes- if you want a new Smith, as you do, there's only one game in town, so that's the game you play.
Otherwise, you do as many of us have done- you look for an older Smith in great shape.
I've been able to acquire two unfired NOS Smiths without much effort.
They're out there, and to us they're worth the FFL trip & "hassle".
But, you go whichever way you want.
As far as your assertion about S&W closing shop goes, I would PREFER they return to better guns, but failing that if they shut the revolver section down tomorrow it wouldn't affect my life at all.
I've got my good stuff.
Denis
Part of the equation is people who view guns as a "hobby", as you put it.
In my generation's youth, very few people owned more than a small handful of guns.
A hunting rifle, a .22 rifle, maybe a .22 pistol or revolver, a .38 or .357 for a "serious" handgun, and maybe a shotgun.
Those were all working guns, and the percentage of people who bought multiple guns to play with was small.
Quality guns were ALWAYS expensive, relatively speaking.
You could walk into a hardware store or a good gunshop & buy pretty much a once in a lifetime gun, and figure on it having a certain level of quality.
Smiths & Colts were good stuff, lower-priced brands were mediocre, but functional, if that's all you could afford.
With the progressive increase in disposable income that occurred through the 1970s, and the expansion of gunmakers & models of the 1980s, your Hobby Set grew.
It was no longer taking the time to assemble a battery of working guns & then moving on, it became a culture of buying many guns just because.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that reason for wanting many guns, but the net effect was to cause the industry to increase offerings to gain more share of the expanding market, and then through the past 10-15 years to progressively cheapen the quality of both manufacturing AND alternative designs to get more people to spend more money on more guns.
That's put us where we are today.
Those of us older guys who know what used to be there will tend to stick with the better stuff, even if it means being able to buy fewer guns in paying more to get that higher quality.
You new "hobbiests" don't know or care what they used to be, or what they are now.
The gunmakers cater to those who don't know the difference & don't want to spend the money on true quality.
I'm not really a hobbiest, I work with guns professionally & most of what I have are working guns, if they need to be.
I'd cheerfully spend another hundred bucks over purchase price on a new Smith revolver today, if it had forged guts, a correct firing pin, no lock, and real attention to detail.
But, as long as there are people willing to buy at current quality levels, S&W will continue to put those quality levels out.
And as far as S&W goes- if you want a new Smith, as you do, there's only one game in town, so that's the game you play.
Otherwise, you do as many of us have done- you look for an older Smith in great shape.
I've been able to acquire two unfired NOS Smiths without much effort.
They're out there, and to us they're worth the FFL trip & "hassle".
But, you go whichever way you want.
As far as your assertion about S&W closing shop goes, I would PREFER they return to better guns, but failing that if they shut the revolver section down tomorrow it wouldn't affect my life at all.
I've got my good stuff.
Denis