Smith & Wesson Revolvers

N

Nathan

New member
I love S&W revolvers, especially original blue models from the 60’s and 70’s. I don’t want to rehash everything they have done to destroy their product.

I’m truely surprised they have not made a premium line where they get rid of all their cost down stuff and the lock. Just make the same thing you made in 1978. or if it is cheaper, machine those internals from bar stock…kind of a Dan Wesson model, where all parts are machined to final shape without fitting.

If not a line, just make one model.

Anyways….sorry for the rant.
 
I agree

S&W has gone down hill even since the 90s. I don't want no stinkin lock. My 686 pre lock was one of my first guns to buy and will be one of my last guns to sell.
 
Super Sneaky Steve said:
Smith and Wesson sells their "Classic" line which is as close as you can get to those original models. Some have locks some don't.
Click to expand...

True, but the lock just looks bad. The MIM and cheap grips hurt every shot!
 
My 686 pre lock was one of my first guns to buy and will be one of my last guns to sell.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. My 4" 686 - purchased new in '86 (6/6/86 to be exact) is my "desert island" gun.

I don't like the lock, but have gotten over it. What I don't care for on the new guns is the way they craft the extractor star. Its "four-sided" machining looks cheap. It's a six-shot gun. Should have a six-sided extractor. (I don't know how else to explain that)

I have a new (2014) 686+ and its trigger is gritty. But I also have a new 629 Classic (2016) and its trigger is smooth.
 
Old Smith rocks.
7CbzJWY.jpg
 
I ordered a 686 recently and did not even accept it. The appearance of the stainless steel was horrendous. There were lots of blemishes and scratches. Clearly, SW did not even bother to polish it. Never again.
 
I'm sure they've turned out some stinkers, but I'll bet they did "back in the day" too. They just got fixed and nobody heard about it.
 
Last edited:
I have a small collection of S&Ws and revolver are all P&R era. I do have a dozen or so newer models, just a couple with lock. Also have couple dozen auto loaders, all older models. The newer stuff is just trade bait for the older models.
I chose S&W over Colt for shooting value, but when I started about 1962 my first new quality handgun was a Ruger Single-6. This gun was so much better than all my buddies H&Rs and IJs there was no comparison. So next couple years every buck I got went into Ruger Blackhawks. In 1964 I got a S&W m17 NIB on trade. I put it aside for a good while.
Had no use for DA revolver because of my experience with cheap ones. Didn’t want to shoot it and make used gun out of it. Finally a buddy heckled me into shooting it. It was like being baptized, carried K22 for serious 22 ever since. Also started the purge of the Rugers. I had managed to get one of each model they made in BH series, try that today!
These were 3 screw guns, little did I know they would be replaced with new models. The point is the big 3 in handguns, and throw in Browning have all slid in quality. I’m not interested in any NEW American made revolver or auto loader. The plastic and MIM boys can beat their gums all they want. I don’t think they would know a quality piece if it shot them in the buttocks. I will concede that over what I will call modern era, say 1895 on or smokeless powder introduction, there has been big improvements in steel alloy for gun manufacturing and machine tools for production there of. Then a point came where there was no improvement. The changes were mostly cost cutting. The safety BS isn’t part of that. It’s additional cost forced on the industry because of liabilities.
 
IMO, if SW wants to remain at the top of the competition, they should really:
1. Get rid of the locks that no one likes
2. Invest into their quality control
3. Develop 6-shot J-frame revolvers.

Right now, new revolver manufacturers, like Kimber, are killing it.
 
The locks hopefully will keep S&W from ending up like Remington.:mad:
Sleeved barrels are done on Smiths I believe to add durability, most are larger calibers for the frame size, I personally do not like them.
I do have 4 new Smiths that do not have sleeved barrels, 617,625, 642 and a 637.
All shoot just as well as any of my older Smiths.
 
The sleeved barrels aren’t well perceived either.
Click to expand...

The two piece barrels? I didn't like the idea until I got my 619 and noticed a definite decrease in group size compared to my 65. I now have no problem with the two piece barrels.
 
The locks hopefully will keep S&W from ending up like Remington.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the locks were a sign of S&W being on the same path that eventually killed Remington. Corporate (and foreign) ownership of the company.

In the matter of the locks, it was the British holding company that owned S&W pandering to the Clinton administration that got the locks put in. Public backlash tanked S&W stock and Thompkins LLC sold S&W for a loss.

In Remington's case, their owner corporation took out large loans under Remington's name, and then, somehow legally walked away with the money, leaving Remington hugely in debt it couldn't pay. Remington folded, ending an era.
 
44 AMP said:
I would argue that the locks were a sign of S&W being on the same path that eventually killed Remington. Corporate (and foreign) ownership of the company.

In the matter of the locks, it was the British holding company that owned S&W pandering to the Clinton administration that got the locks put in. Public backlash tanked S&W stock and Thompkins LLC sold S&W for a loss.

In Remington's case, their owner corporation took out large loans under Remington's name, and then, somehow legally walked away with the money, leaving Remington hugely in debt it couldn't pay. Remington folded, ending an era.
Click to expand...
I thought their connection to Bushmaster and Sandy Hook really hurt them?
 
I only got into revolvers a few years ago and hurridly put together my litle collection as Canada put a ban on handgun sales.
I only managed to get 1 S&W in my collection and that's a 460V.
 
I thought their connection to Bushmaster and Sandy Hook really hurt them?
Click to expand...

They took a PR hit, from that, and probably lost some sales, but the lawsuit for damages over their "responsibility" wasn't settled until AFTER Remington went away.

The lawyers handling Remington's assets made the settlement with the plaintiffs. No one at Remington had a say or was even asked, as there was no one at Remington when the settlement was reached.

SO, there was no longer any Remington to be damaged by the settlement payment.

Simply put, the lawyers handling Remington's "estate" acted in what they felt was their best interests, settling out of court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top