Guys,
If you'll go back through ALL of my commentary in this thread, and any other thread where I've discussed current Smith quality, you will NOT find a post where I said their guns are junk , nor will you find a post where I said not to buy new.
When the subject of Old Vs New comes up, you WILL see posters who know the difference & do not like the difference.
For those like me, it'll be Old, hands down.
I know what Smith revolvers were, I know what they are.
At ANY price point, we should simply not be getting canted sights, loose sights, over-turned barrels, poorly fitting grips, badly cut crowns, poorly cut cones, badly cut chambers, gaps between steel and wood, and so on.
These ARE quality issues that should not be occurring.
These ARE quality issues that DID not used to happen with such regularity.
Many of us get very tired of having to routinely pay for after-buy gunsmithing to finish what the factory didn't.
My acquaintance with Smiths goes back to 1959.
My father & I both carried 'em in uniform.
I've had enough, and still have enough, Smiths here to compare from various years of production.
Borland,
I'm not arguing with you on the "new" for the hundred-thousand guy.
The PC has gone way downhill, which is sad, but another matter entirely.
I used to talk to people there that knew their stuff (one of whom was the guy who told me the Smith MIMs were not as good as their forged).
Those guys are gone.
Y'oughta hear the words my gunsmith uses to describe the PC.
You're right, basically just different configurations.
As far as the "minority" of which I'm a member goes- as I said most of the Smith revolver market doesn't know & doesn't care.
That does not preclude my minority from expressing an opinion regarding new vs old.
And in the current setting, while NOS & 90% samples of vintage classics ARE still available, prospective buyers do still have a choice, IF they want true quality & don't mind making the effort to find it.
In some cases, a better quality used gun can be actually cheaper than a new one.
Again- I paint NO picture of these new Smiths being junk, total or otherwise.
Those who may pull that out of my commentary are inserting verbiage not there.
Shur,
Yes, I have checked prices.
Would you not rather spend another $25 on a new Smith to ensure that they actually took the time to put the barrel on right?
To cut the crown right?
To BUILD IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I for damn sure would.
Shoot more & complain less?
I shoot for a living.
Anytime I get a new Smith or Ruger in nowdays, I expect to find something wrong with it.
Something the factory should have picked up in manufacture.
Something the factory should not have let out the door.
Something the buyer should not have to pay to get fixed, or return to the maker immediately to get corrected.
What's this about "the new ones are stronger"?
If you're citing the Endurance package on SOME N-Frames as being stronger, that doesn't cover the entire revolver line-up, and I'm not aware of anything else "stronger" aside from the new K-Frame cones, which have been causing problems of their own.
Your 29-10?
I'll put my 29-5, pre-MIM, pre-frame firing pin, up against it any time. Got "The Package", certainly no weaker than your newer model, and I'd bet money the forged parts will outlast your MIM hammer & trigger.
I think you're making an unsupported blanket statement.
Dglud,
I was referring to the STATEMENT as idiotic, not the poster.
The sentiment expressed was idiotic.
We could go on for another month or two, but the subject's been well covered.
There HAS been a notable decline, but if you're satisfied with Smith revolvers today, buy 'em.
If you're not, better stuff's still available.
Denis
.
), but at some point my spidey senses start to tell me the overall picture those who haven't seen S&W's over the decades get - intentioned or not - is that the new stuff is never worth their consideration. In this case, I simply try to offer some balance.