S&W: Don't make 'em like they used to?

C

CarbineCaleb

New member
I was browsing the Buffalo Bore site, and came across this note in their .357 Magnum ammunition description:
You’ll notice that new S&W revolvers with short barrels are often shooting faster than older S&W revolvers with longer barrels. The new S&W revolvers are very good and are made with equipment that makes them more consistent and faster than the S&W revolvers of yesteryear.
Click to expand...

I often hear folks lamenting the decline in S&W quality since the good ol' days. When I read this, it makes me question whether the decline in S&W quality has been similar to the decline in automobile quality over the years. The one that makes them perform better and last longer and have fewer problems than the cars made in the good ol' days. :D

Has there truely been a decline in quality? Or just changes?
 
I would likely have to agree that the actual machine work and metalurgy of todays guns is better. The newest Smiths I own are a 696-1 (MIM parts, no lock) and a 296 (MIM, no lock). The fit, finish and timing are as good, or better, than most of my older Smiths. But.....I do not like the lock. Period. I don't have to like the lock, its ugly. If it was hidden like the Ruger's SA version, I would be OK with it. I just don't want a little hole and an arrow on the side of my Smith. And, yeah, its a deal breaker for me. No politics, no fear of it not working, just...just...Eyyywwww, I don't like it.
 
If a little gain in velocity consistency is the best that can be said of the "better engineering" of the new breed of Smiths that is indeed damning them with faint praise.

The more apt analogy is that one can still find many classic '59 Cadillac convertibles still road capable and in very high demand. Look around a Cadillac lot today and I defy you to point out the 2005/6 one that will sell for more than most of the new ones on a lot 45 years in the future--if any examples from today even continue to exist outside of a scrap yard.

One Cadillac was built to be timeless, the other for eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. Once upon a time many Smiths were made to be timeless, today. . . . :rolleyes:
 
If a little gain in velocity consistency is the best that can be said of the "better engineering" of the new breed of Smiths that is indeed damning them with faint praise.
Click to expand...

Well, this is not from an article trying to praise S&W, it's just a technical note explaining why ammunition performance is what it is in old versus new Smiths. The implication is, that at the very least, the newer Smiths are made with tighter tolerances and closer fits than the old ones.

You may be nostalgic for a 1950s car - but in terms of any engineering measures, say:
- straight line acceleration
- lateral acceleration (cornering)
- handling dynamics
- ride control
- braking
- fuel economy
- quietnesss
- safety
- features
- average lifespan
- defects
- etc, etc, etc

The 21st century cars bury the mid 20th century ones. It's nostalgia, plus the rarity of an old car that's actually still in good condition that may make an antique car worth a lot of money.

We're supposed to be talking about Smith & Wessons though, not Cadillacs! :D
 
Well in some revolvers, especially those chambered in the magnums and the .45 Colt, the ammo demanded a change in the original design. The older models were built to withstand loads that today have been far exceeded. Minor engineering changes and the tightening of tolerances have to be implemented into the models to withstand these new loads. Even the small framed .38 spl revolvers had to undergo changes so they could hold up to the usage of the +P loads so popular today that wasn't around when they were designed.
Notice that the quote comes from Buffalo Bore which is one of the manufactors that makes the new high powered loads that can cause durability problems in the older revolvers. Revolvers in good condition 50, 70, or more years in age still functions just fine with no problems using the loads which they were designed for. You can only push engineering specs so far before you start to encounter problems.
 
are made with equipment that makes them more consistent and faster than the S&W revolvers of yesteryear.
Click to expand...
Cookie cutter - aka. CNC.
Yep,, each one is consistently inferior;barrels are not smoothed like their older cousins;no longer are the outsides polished;all of 'em have a bobbed butt;Smith get's the "save a tree eat a beaver" award for shunning wood.

They are "faster" though :rolleyes:

Least with the hand fitting of yesteryear, one in a hundred or a thousand was simply outstanding.

I'm fortunate enough to have a 19-4 that is as close to perfect as you're ever gonna find. It was made during the often mentioned "troubled years" of Smith and Wesson. My personal opinion is that during those so called years, some of the best and some of the worst to ever come out of Smith happened back then. (with the exception of today's cookie cutter crap)

I also believe that because of the extra finishing required for a Nickel finish, the mid to late 70's/early 80's were when the best individual guns were singled out for the Nickel process. Just about every Nickel Smith I've handled from that time has a better overall fit/finish/feel about it.
That's just my pet theory though.

Also, every newer CNC produced Smith I've owned (7 since 1999 including spare barrels) has had an exceptionally rough bore. Using lead ammunition has been out of the question. It results in key holing and severe leading. Again, my personal theory on that is that Smith probably doesn't take the extra time to smooth out the bores figuring that just about every bullet the bore will see will have a jacket;most "serious lead shooters" are going to lap the bore anyhow. I can't fault them for this since it makes sense if it's true. Why bother spending extra time/money on something if it's not needed?

Finishes? Yep - stainless is low maint. *Frosted* and *bead blasted* are just fancy ways of saying lazy and cost cutting. Brushed ain't too bad...still isn't a finish though (IMHO).

All God's little revolvers got round little butts...
no- a round butt can't be made a square butt by adding a different set of stocks....
Rubber grips -- Blech!! 'nuff said.

They are faster though I guess...

No thanks, I'll stick with my slower, wooden stocked, pinned and recessed, blued or nickel, square butt satin smooth bored - "snails"... ;)
 
I think most folks would agree that the fit and finish of mass produced guns got worse as time went by. Just look at a clean Colt or S&W made before WW II and you'll see. The guns made in the 1950s look a little better than the ones made in the 1970s, and the ones made now make no effort at beauty.

Easy to understand why: labor costs. Takes time (= money) to precisely fit the parts and polish for that deep blue. Now most guns are stainless which is cheap and fast to produce. Wood stocks are replaced with rubber. Guns are now mere tools, not art objects like they used to be.
 
I'll agree - when I pick up and handle an older Smith with a deep blue finish and wood grips I realize there is a beauty there which simply is not to be found in most of today's production guns. Especially since nearly all Smiths guns are now stainless.

But as far as accuracy , I'll put my 1994 vintage 686 and 2000 vintage 629 against any other Smiths made in any time era. Still , one of those older Smiths would be nice to have! As for the new stuff , Smith has become way over priced IMO. And like the poster above mentioned - the lock just makes the whole thing even that much more unacceptable! :barf:

The older cars and realibility? I'll take todays cars. My 2001 has 118,000 miles on it and has not missed a beat. The only "tune up" done was replacing plugs at 99,000 miles. It will start at zero degrees and I can drive off immediately. Many of the cars of the "old days" were junk at 100,000 miles , if they even made it that long.
 
The new production techniques and metallurgy are better. Many of the new designs however are atrocities, like movie props out of a B-grade sci-fi thriller from 1960.

Reckon I am joining the dinosaur crowd, and I notice that folks are buying the new stuff regardless of my opinion of it. This is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Many of the new designs however are atrocities, like movie props out of a B-grade sci-fi thriller from 1960.
Click to expand...

I like most of 'em, which haven't really changed much in the last 50 years... some of the Performance Center guns get pretty adventurous with the styling though - they can be odd looking. :eek:
 
A different take from a gun user. For several years I purchased semi auto's, and I have kept 1 or 2 revolvers around for whatever reason. Recently, for some unknow reason, I've been drawn back to revolvers.

I find myself more, and more looking to Smith & Wesson. This past year I have purchased a NIB SW625jm, a used SW66, and I just ordered a SW629 Mountain Gun. Like some of you, I grew up with wheelguns, and as a consumer-user I don't find any change in quality, except maybe in small frame guns, where I currently don't have much interest.

I personally don't have any problems with the quality of todays revolvers with the exception of expensive guns from SW with crap grips.
 
Last edited:
I own four recent-vintage Smith N frames: two 627 Special Editions (five inch, non-fluted cylinder, gold dot front site, and full underlug), a 625-9 .45 Colt Mountain Gun, and a 610-3 3.875 inch, full underlug, 10mm/.40 S&W. While I agree that the artistry of the older Smiths -- my 30+ year old 27-2 is a perfect example -- is superb, I do not feel contemporary N frames lack in quality, durability, reliability or accuracy. In sum, today’s N frames are great tools while those from several decades ago were also great art.
 
The last S&W I bought was a 22A rimfire. I didn't find out until after I bought it that Smith & Wesson rates the life of this rimfire pistol at only around 10,000 rounds (which is only 20 cartons of .22 ammo). The gun jams in every way imaginable and the recoil buffer lasts about 200 rounds before deforming. Several posters at rimfirecentral.com have experienced cracked frames with this model.

I am considering sending it back to Smith for disposal after 10,000 rounds (if I can ever get 10,000 rounds through it).

When I say this is the last (new) Smith I bought, I mean the _last_.
 
It seems we are lumping several different things together here, which may or may not be related to each other.

First, the advances in CNC (Computer Numerically Controlled) machinery, cutting tool design and materials have made repeatable accuracy very easy. It is easier to punch in .0005" (half a thou") in a CNC than trying to move a stop on a mill using the dial or an indicator. Likewise, long lasting ceramic and carbide inserts that index almost exactly can also help in the area of repeatability, and keep down costs. As an example, a hole on a part I used to have to drill and finish with old fashioned tooling took nine and a half minutes. We got the latest and greatest cutting tool, and it went down to 55 seconds, with both better accuracy, repeatability, and surface finish.

However, most of the "fit and finish" operations still boil down to a critical eye and a patient and skilled hand, much like before the rise of the CNC. Although the hole on the part I described earlier was superior, it still needed to be honed and or burnished for a truly smooth and accurate finish, and these operations are time consuming.

Also, a CNC machine only insures accuracy and repeatability, it doesn't turn cheap steel into good steel, a poorly designed part into a well designed part, and won't look at a finished part and say, "I can do better..." It won't slow down the feed or speed for a nicer looking part, it won't take a finishing cut if it is not told to do so, and it will make a rough part if that is the recipe fed to it via zeros and ones.

I also think we have different priorities on what we all look for in "quality". Is accuracy the prime factor? Or is it looks and feel? Is durability before, after, or in between the first two, and how much would you pay for each? Is price a quality? I don't know, but I sure see a lot of posts here that start with, "Where can I get a cheap, inexpensive..." Those thread messages aren't lost on the boys in marketing.

If I were running S&W, I would have a line of "XFF" (eXtra Fit & Finish) revolvers and pistols, so those of you who want a 70 year old master craftsman to piddle away on the trigger until it is perfect can get it, straight from the factory, thanks to your willingness to pay for it, or you can order a Manurhin revolver for a couple of grand right now, before I take over.
 
My latest Smith is a 25-13 and I have to say the polishing is superb, the action and accuracy are tops. I too loathe the lock which, yes, Taurus does better. We all want no lock at all of course.
 
Ledbetter: Yep, the 22A semiauto doesn't have a good reputation. It is cheap - less than half the price of the simpler 617 revolver from the same company - that is a tipoff to some corner cutting going on, I am afraid. Their model 41 is the .22 semiauto that is meant to be good, much pricier of course, though.

ulmer: Yes, I've never owned an older one, but have shot many of their current models and they seem very well made to me. Just kind of curious because I hear a lot of love for the older ones in this forum - wanted to know what's up with that - can be tradition, nostalgia, stubborness, or a genuine advantage (beside price).
 
I guess I have answered this question enough times, I should save a word document on it for ease.

The short answer is simple, if you have to ask if the quality has dropped, then you obviously have not handled or shot good pre-numbered or pre-WWII S&W's.

My Pre-War Heavy Duty's and the Registered Magnum are so much better fitted and finished that the comparison to my 610 is a joke. Now I admit the 610 is exceptionally accurate, but when I want to shoot quality, get yourself a pre-war and have at it.

Also I have read and been told that comparing a triple lock to a Registered is like night and day also. The Triple Lock makes the Registered look like a high school shop project for fit and finish, but I don't have first hand experience.
 
Hmmm - I guess they get some feeling of what people are willing to pay on the high end with their Performance Center line. I am willing to bet that they sell 10 normal Smiths for every PC. It's a little odd, because in semiautos, most guns cost $600-1000, but it seems like they have a hard time getting that for a revolver. I am not sure why. Ruger definitely has plenty of fans that cite it's price advantage over the standard Smiths.
 
It is true that the 22A is not S&W's high-end .22 pistol, but it is comparable in price to the Ruger or Buck Mark, designs which last well beyond 10,000 rounds. I would guess the others would last 10 times that number of rounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top