Smith & Wesson brings back the 586
- Thread starter BillCA
- Start date
excelerater
Moderator
stick up for em all you want bill no S&W fans I know
like MIM or Locks...no matter how well they operate ,I have a 686
w the lock,its runs fine,,,wish I bought an older model
like MIM or Locks...no matter how well they operate ,I have a 686
w the lock,its runs fine,,,wish I bought an older model
Regards 18DAILemon Squeezer
The only S&W "Classic"remake worth buying is the Model 40-1 Centennial-no lock and it's rated for 38+P.
The Model 22-4(there are TWO models using that number)remake of the Model of 1950 Army is a neat revolver-it really isn't a remake of the 1950 because it has a shorter barrel and a shrouded ejector rod.It shoots 45ACP/45 AutoRim.
The other 22-4 is a remake of the Model 1917 Army and it sucks.It has cheesy case coloring and a trigger from hell.
I wouldn't spend $200 on it,but it sells for almost $1000.
Anything else,I'd stick with the REAL classics-meaning originals.
I did buy a 22-4 (1950 Model)and it's OK,but the front sight is a little high-the Thunder Ranch grips were not comfortable,so I put some Pachmayrs on it-it's a revolver I use for HD/SD.
It can handle the Buffalo Bore "heavy"AR's with ease.
The only S&W "Classic"remake worth buying is the Model 40-1 Centennial-no lock and it's rated for 38+P.
The Model 22-4(there are TWO models using that number)remake of the Model of 1950 Army is a neat revolver-it really isn't a remake of the 1950 because it has a shorter barrel and a shrouded ejector rod.It shoots 45ACP/45 AutoRim.
The other 22-4 is a remake of the Model 1917 Army and it sucks.It has cheesy case coloring and a trigger from hell.
I wouldn't spend $200 on it,but it sells for almost $1000.
Anything else,I'd stick with the REAL classics-meaning originals.
I did buy a 22-4 (1950 Model)and it's OK,but the front sight is a little high-the Thunder Ranch grips were not comfortable,so I put some Pachmayrs on it-it's a revolver I use for HD/SD.
It can handle the Buffalo Bore "heavy"AR's with ease.
And my experience has be 180 degrees opposite. Obviously, many Taurus guns have many, many problems, but the lock isn't one that I've seen or heard about.
Hello, kettle? This is the pot. You are black.
Perhaps I'm taking license with the definition of "overstated" but I've not heard of folks having trouble with the Taurus lock, so you seem to be wildly overstating that there is such a problem.
If you want to find common ground, I agree that the S&W lock isn't a real-world problem or worry that I have. I don't believe the lock is going to tie up my revolver when I don't want it to.
The lock wouldn't keep me from buying a particular revolver, but given the choice, I'd find a pre-lock for reasons I've stated elsewhere, and recently.
While this is entirely possible, sure sounds like you made it up on the fly.
The "vast majority" of hobbyists and real handgun aficionados don't like the lock for several reasons. Myself, I just prefer a S&W from an earlier time.
Geezerglide
Inactive
586 Question
I have a 586 that has Belgian proof marks on it. Anyone know of any reason they would be on there.
I have a 586 that has Belgian proof marks on it. Anyone know of any reason they would be on there.
It seems to me that every time Smith introduces a new model revolver, it gives the anti-lock anti-MIM crowd an opportunity to ventilate. Well and good, if that's what floats your boat, it's fine by me. Truth is, however, that this has long since become boring.
I'm not in the market at present for a new revolver, the ones I own suit me fine. If I were, however, I'd be intrigued by the 586. I used to own a 686 (yes, with a lock) and it was just eerily accurate. I would be surprised if the new 586 is less so.
As for price, remember, and locks and MIM notwithstanding, Smith continues to make top of the line revolvers. $700 for a brand new top quality revolver? Not bad -- especially when you consider that good quality 1911s are going for well north of two grand these days. How many of you who are complaining about the price of Smith revolvers own one of those 1911s?
I'm not in the market at present for a new revolver, the ones I own suit me fine. If I were, however, I'd be intrigued by the 586. I used to own a 686 (yes, with a lock) and it was just eerily accurate. I would be surprised if the new 586 is less so.
As for price, remember, and locks and MIM notwithstanding, Smith continues to make top of the line revolvers. $700 for a brand new top quality revolver? Not bad -- especially when you consider that good quality 1911s are going for well north of two grand these days. How many of you who are complaining about the price of Smith revolvers own one of those 1911s?
Doug Bowser
New member
Who would want a new one. I prefer the old pinned version.
Doug
Doug
True, but the vast majority of hobbyists and "real" handgun aficionados make up a very small portion of the actual buying public. Most gun owners aren't guys like us.
It's overstated. I've handled hundreds of post-2000 Smiths, and I've never seen one of the locks fail. I've seen broken forcing cones and overtorqued barrels, but no lock failures. Nobody to whom I've spoken directly has seen it, either.
Anything can happen (and does), but the percentages are very, very small. While your experience is unfortunate, it's very rare.
230therapy
New member
Check the lock failure thread on the S&W Forum.
Alright, enough already!
As the OP, I started the thread to let people know they could once again buy a blued version of the popular 686 revolver. Those of you who want to remain stuck in 2000, whining about S&W's caving in to Clinton, installing the lock and using MIM parts, start your own thread.
Otherwise, I'll ask Tom Servo to close this thread.
Besides, that, the locks and the MIM parts are really our fault.
Remember, S&W was owned by the British Tomkins PLC group when it made the boneheaded agreement with the Clinton administration in 2000. And they did that so they could bid on federal contracts for thousands of guns.
Then came the big public outrage from all of us -- all of you too -- and the start of a "boycott". Tompkins sold S&W for a fraction of it's real value (between 13% to 40% depending) to the company Saf-T-Hammer which invented the lock and had been trying to get S&W to offer their patented product.
Thus, exit the spineless Brits and enter Saf-t-Hammer.
Of course they put their lock into S&W's. And no doubt the inventors of the lock received a royalty for each lock installed. That's only fair. They found a way to get their product to market -- buy the market for it. But the boycott did hurt S&W. The hullabaloo caused S&W to shrink, eliminate less popular offerings, look for cost savings and reduce costs. S&W expanded the use of MIM parts to save money and the company's competitiveness. Some internal parts and designs were reworked to make manufacture less labor intensive. This allowed S&W to earn a profit, much of which has been used to bring out new guns and return old favorites to the catalog.
In 2009, S&W announced that it was going to phase out the internal lock in their revolvers. No time frame was specified though a few types have come out without the lock (Models 40, 442, 642). I could very well see S&W continuing to offer several models both with and without the lock. They may retain the lock on some Model 10's, 36/60's and perhaps one other -- specifically for the non-enthusiast who worries about their children.
MIM parts on mass produced guns are here to stay. They've proven to be durable enough for the job and provide a huge cost savings so we can afford our passions. Purists and enthusiasts can still get non-MIM parts through the Performance Center at an additional cost (which you'd pay extra for if it was a standard feature).
Clinton is no longer in office. The Brits no longer control S&W. The company is moving forward incrementally to stability and trying to listen to its customers.
As the OP, I started the thread to let people know they could once again buy a blued version of the popular 686 revolver. Those of you who want to remain stuck in 2000, whining about S&W's caving in to Clinton, installing the lock and using MIM parts, start your own thread.
Otherwise, I'll ask Tom Servo to close this thread.
Besides, that, the locks and the MIM parts are really our fault.
Remember, S&W was owned by the British Tomkins PLC group when it made the boneheaded agreement with the Clinton administration in 2000. And they did that so they could bid on federal contracts for thousands of guns.
Then came the big public outrage from all of us -- all of you too -- and the start of a "boycott". Tompkins sold S&W for a fraction of it's real value (between 13% to 40% depending) to the company Saf-T-Hammer which invented the lock and had been trying to get S&W to offer their patented product.
Thus, exit the spineless Brits and enter Saf-t-Hammer.
Of course they put their lock into S&W's. And no doubt the inventors of the lock received a royalty for each lock installed. That's only fair. They found a way to get their product to market -- buy the market for it. But the boycott did hurt S&W. The hullabaloo caused S&W to shrink, eliminate less popular offerings, look for cost savings and reduce costs. S&W expanded the use of MIM parts to save money and the company's competitiveness. Some internal parts and designs were reworked to make manufacture less labor intensive. This allowed S&W to earn a profit, much of which has been used to bring out new guns and return old favorites to the catalog.
In 2009, S&W announced that it was going to phase out the internal lock in their revolvers. No time frame was specified though a few types have come out without the lock (Models 40, 442, 642). I could very well see S&W continuing to offer several models both with and without the lock. They may retain the lock on some Model 10's, 36/60's and perhaps one other -- specifically for the non-enthusiast who worries about their children.
MIM parts on mass produced guns are here to stay. They've proven to be durable enough for the job and provide a huge cost savings so we can afford our passions. Purists and enthusiasts can still get non-MIM parts through the Performance Center at an additional cost (which you'd pay extra for if it was a standard feature).
Clinton is no longer in office. The Brits no longer control S&W. The company is moving forward incrementally to stability and trying to listen to its customers.
That's a great post, BillCA, very informative and a great read.
The only part that sucks about it is right at the beginning where you cry about what folks are talking about in your thread, your threat to run to the playground lady on how the conversation hasn't developed to your standards, the telling of everyone that they shouldn't be discussing it... so that YOU could could give the clear & concise recap about precisely what everyone is talking about right now.
Seems, well... whatever. Guess the thread will get closed now.
Maybe we should preface all threads with exactly what should be discussed in each one at the whim of the OP.
The only part that sucks about it is right at the beginning where you cry about what folks are talking about in your thread, your threat to run to the playground lady on how the conversation hasn't developed to your standards, the telling of everyone that they shouldn't be discussing it... so that YOU could could give the clear & concise recap about precisely what everyone is talking about right now.
Seems, well... whatever. Guess the thread will get closed now.
Maybe we should preface all threads with exactly what should be discussed in each one at the whim of the OP.
excelerater
Moderator
LOL SEVENS......
I never met a S&W I didnt like..including my 686,19,66 and 39-2
I never met a S&W I didnt like..including my 686,19,66 and 39-2
It will if folks want it to. It will if folks don't start acting more civilized.
Bill, your history is largely correct, but I'm not sure about this part:
I read something Massad Ayoob wrote to that effect, but I never found confirmation. When I saw the first batch of non-lock 442's, I was curious, and I asked my Smith rep about it.
He wasn't aware of any plans to do away with the locks. His explanation was that the company has some non-lock frames kicking around in the factory, and that they'll occasionally do a run of guns using those. Given that the Performance Center guns all still have them, and that there's no way to request a specific gun without them, I'm not sure they're still planning on phasing them out.
(Playground lady?)
The "playground lady" wasn't a comment at any one particular moderator personally, it's a general term applied to the whiny kid who calls over the "law" when he's upset with something happening at recess.
Smith & Wesson does awfully big business in those states that require such internal lock type nonsense, it would be quite difficult to believe they'd opt-out of these states by not offering the internal lock on ALL of their products. I'm not sure exactly what is required to get a handgun on some of these states' "approved" lists, but I'm guessing this is a part of it.
For my buck, I always find it laugh-worthy when someone starts a thread on a discussion forum and then gets annoyed or upset at how the thread evolves, as if he has some manner of ownership of the discussion, since he happened to be the person who submitted the title and the first post.
We discuss things about firearms around here...
"Those of you who want to remain stuck in 2000, whining about S&W's caving in to Clinton, installing the lock and using MIM parts" still fits the description of what we discuss here on TFL... regardless of who someone asks for moderator intervention, by name even.
Smith & Wesson does awfully big business in those states that require such internal lock type nonsense, it would be quite difficult to believe they'd opt-out of these states by not offering the internal lock on ALL of their products. I'm not sure exactly what is required to get a handgun on some of these states' "approved" lists, but I'm guessing this is a part of it.
For my buck, I always find it laugh-worthy when someone starts a thread on a discussion forum and then gets annoyed or upset at how the thread evolves, as if he has some manner of ownership of the discussion, since he happened to be the person who submitted the title and the first post.
We discuss things about firearms around here...
"Those of you who want to remain stuck in 2000, whining about S&W's caving in to Clinton, installing the lock and using MIM parts" still fits the description of what we discuss here on TFL... regardless of who someone asks for moderator intervention, by name even.
yenningcomity
Inactive
I smell failure....
I owned a 586 no dash that hadn't been through the recall. It was a great gun and had a better trigger than my 686-5 which is why I sold that one. the reason I say it will be a failure is because the older versions were better and are readily available. Forged parts vs MIM, better triggers, and no lock for far less than what a New 586 will cost.
I owned a 586 no dash that hadn't been through the recall. It was a great gun and had a better trigger than my 686-5 which is why I sold that one. the reason I say it will be a failure is because the older versions were better and are readily available. Forged parts vs MIM, better triggers, and no lock for far less than what a New 586 will cost.