S&W production runs or years to avoid?

C

croyance

New member
Are there specific production runs or years of manufacture where S&W had poor quality control?

I am trying to fund out what to avoid. My handgun niches are generally filled, so there is no pressing need (only self created) to buy a gun right away. So I can buy when a gun I like comes my way. Still, I don't want to get a lemon even if it looks good.

The question can also be flipped around to : What are the best S&W revolvers?
 
The only production run that I avoid are the Heriage Series. UGLY! OTT, early Model of 1902s in 32-20. They aren't heat treated and aren't able to deal with modern 32-20 rifle cartridges pressures.
 
"They aren't heat treated and aren't able to deal with modern 32-20 rifle cartridges pressures."

They weren't able to deal with the pressure developed by Winchester's High Speed line of ammo back at the beginning of the 20th century, either.
 
I agree. The LadySmith early model 22 l revolvers also have a safety issue with modern 22 lr high velocity cartridges. It is sad to pick one up and find the forcing cone ruined. I am not certain that they are even safe with CB 22s.
 
You can't expect nothing to hold up to usage of something it wasn't designed for.
Rather than looking at vintages you should run your own quality control check. There's no telling what type of prior life a used firearm may have had. Learn what to look for in that firearm and judge it on it's present condition.
 
Sure, but there is only so much a check will tell you.

For instance, while looking for information on the S&W 19-3, I found a linked page about the 629 and found that earlier models don't hold up under heavy usage. It wasn't until the -5 or -6 incarnations that they were redesigned.
No check will tell me that. If the prior owner didn't use it that much, there won't be undue wear. In that particular case, the cylinder will reverse under heavy recoil. That might not even show when fiddled with.
 
I am establishing a retirement home for S&W revolvers from all the bad years. You should not fire these guns. If you send them to me with a $5 check, I will insure they get a proper and fitting retirement. Be safe, not sorry. The years involved run from 1887 through 1992.
 
I find that there is alot of snobbery involved with this topic. The Model 29's, for example, were the first handgun made to shoot the 44 magnum. It took awhile for everyone to figure out just what the 44 would do to a handgun. Remember that Smith brought out the 44 magnum and it would be many years before anybody else would bring out a double action 44 magnum. I'm not including Ruger's Blackhawk. Same goes for the .357 magnum. Some folks believe that all Smiths made after 1965 are no good. Other say all models from the eighties are lousy.

It's too big of a topic to generalize like that. I agree with the one poster. Do the checks. The only Smith that I know they had problems with was the 586/686 (no dash) models. Smith announced a recall in 1987 and is still honoring the recall to this day. I just shipped my 586 to the factory a couple of days ago via FedEx. Smith is paying for the shipping and the modification.

Regarding the early Model 29's. I've been told by some that the early magnums couldn't stand up to the heavy rounds, but I've heard from others that they've been shooting their 29's for the past thirty-five years without any problems. It's been said that the real problems began when shilloutte shooting became so popular and the model wasn't designed for the battering that the steel shooters inflict. Once again Smith made engineering changes whne these problems arose. However Smith never announced a recall and the early 29's are outstanding examples of Smith and Wesson's revolver skills.
 
I found a linked page about the 629 and found that earlier models don't hold up under heavy usage.
Click to expand...
No the M29/629 didn't hold up to certain heavy usage. The silhouette shooters found that the heavy 300 grainers pushed hard would shoot them loose. It wasn't a design failure, but an example of a design pushed beyond it's limits. The revolver was designed around a 240 grain load which at that time was unbelievable. In time folks learned the cartridge could be pushed much harder. A similar situation was found of the K-frame magnums when pushed beyond it's design. If you do the research of a particular firearm, inspect it and find it's in good mechanical condition, feed it ammo it was designed for, and shoot it like it was designed then it shouldn't have problems. Even today with the Endurance Package built in the M29/629 won't hold up to a lot of the 300+ grainers pushed hard without shooting loose (they won't unlock, but will develop endshake).
First and foremost you have to have an idea of the planned usage for the firearm. Your research on the models starts there. Once you find a suitable model you want you then check it for proper functioning and condition.
 
Then what about the 686 plus? I understand there where timing problems. Has this been fixed? What '-' number would the fix be?
 
by croyance:

"I found a linked page about the 629 and found that earlier models don't hold up under heavy usage....
In that particular case, the cylinder will reverse under heavy recoil. That might not even show when fiddled with."

This is true. Happened to mine almost NEW OUT OF THE BOX. I have any early no dash 629 (bought it new) that would come unlocked, and the hammer bouncing would on occasion touch off a second round! Smith did some high speed photography, saw what the problem was, and sprung the guns differently. Mine came back fixed, and with an unbelievable trigger. Best trigger of any of my handguns to this day.
_______________________________
by Majic

"The silhouette shooters found that the heavy 300 grainers pushed hard would shoot them loose. It wasn't a design failure, but an example of a design pushed beyond it's limits."

That statement is NOT 100% accurate. In the case noted above (cylinder coming unlocked) it WAS INDEED a design problem. Mine would come unlocked w/ normal 240 grain mag loads--that second unexpected round going off was quite exciting. The sound of a 44 mag starting to go FA is pretty exhilarating--but not real safe. Recoil was a handful though. :D
 
The LadySmith early model 22 l revolvers also have a safety issue with modern 22 lr high velocity cartridges. It is sad to pick one up and find the forcing cone ruined.
Click to expand...

Might be because the early Ladysmiths (Model M) were designed for semi-smokless 22 Longs, not HV 22 Long Rifle. Besides they're too valuable and fragile to shoot. (But I have.:p ) This is akin to shooting modern 45/70 hunting loads in a Trapdoor or a current smokless load in a BP frame SAA.


Dean
 
According to the big S&W book- another one they say had a factory recall was the 581, and 581-1. I can't get to my book right now, but they said if the problem was factory fixed, then it'll have a "M" stamped by the model #.
 
In general I tend to think that anything made past 1958 is pretty suspect. :)

Stay with the pre-numbered guns and you will do fine. Guns deserve names not numbers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top