What features do you like/dislike on new S&W revolvers? -you can vote for more than 1
- Thread starter Mark IV Series 80
- Start date
I have one of the last Model 29s produced (pre-pact), and it's a combo of old and new features. For instance, it's polished blue, but it has neoprene grips. IMHO the dull-looking neoprene doesn't look near as good with polished blue as wood used to look. However, I admit that the old checkered wood grips were not especially comfortable to shoot, at least for me, and the neoprene is a practical improvement. The hammer on my 29 is the old forged full-target style, but the trigger is MIM. Function is fine, but these two parts look a little odd on the same gun.
I've been thinking that in my younger years stainless S&Ws were a novelty. I guess the demand must have exceeded the supply, because I remember the local dealer wanted substantially more than list price for a Model 64 (this was around 1970). Nowadays, of course, blue and nickel guns are the exceptions. Times sure change. I have nothing against stainless. But I like the other finishes as well.
I've been thinking that in my younger years stainless S&Ws were a novelty. I guess the demand must have exceeded the supply, because I remember the local dealer wanted substantially more than list price for a Model 64 (this was around 1970). Nowadays, of course, blue and nickel guns are the exceptions. Times sure change. I have nothing against stainless. But I like the other finishes as well.
To my displeasure S&W dropped the barrel pin many years ago. While I never completely got over that change, I did buy a few more S&W revolvers in the subsequent years that followed.
Personally, none of the changes are acceptable to me. I'm all done with S&W primarily due to the frame-mounted firing pin and safety gizzmo. While I was not pleased with the "deal with the devil" - I'm even less pleased with the changes made to their revolver line. S&W lost me as a customer.
Personally, none of the changes are acceptable to me. I'm all done with S&W primarily due to the frame-mounted firing pin and safety gizzmo. While I was not pleased with the "deal with the devil" - I'm even less pleased with the changes made to their revolver line. S&W lost me as a customer.
trapshooter
Moderator
To tell the truth, I haven't even held a 'new' or even a 'newer' Smith. All of mine are 'pre-sell-out' and 'pre-cheap-out'.
One thing I liked, and made me prefer Smith revolvers over most others, was the cylinder release. Breaks open away from shooter, under (my) right thumb. Easiest to do combat reloads with. Admittedly, some other makes do this as well, but DW's were not common and more expensive when I bought my revolvers, for instance. Never cared for the others. This feature is what steered me away from Colt revo's, although they are (were) fine products.
One thing I liked, and made me prefer Smith revolvers over most others, was the cylinder release. Breaks open away from shooter, under (my) right thumb. Easiest to do combat reloads with. Admittedly, some other makes do this as well, but DW's were not common and more expensive when I bought my revolvers, for instance. Never cared for the others. This feature is what steered me away from Colt revo's, although they are (were) fine products.
hitnthexring
New member
The last S&W I bought was about 1 year ago. It was Modl 625 (45 ACP Revolver). It's great. Very accurate. It doen't have that stupid lock on it. I'll never buy another S&W because I can't find one without the lock. Every S&W I've handled with the lock has a terrible trigger.
Pinned barrel advantage.
During assembly, it takes a lot less torque to properly install the barrel.
Without the pinning, the additional torque required to keep the barrel from unscrewing often stretches the barrel enough to distort the bore. More often noticed in stainless barrels.
Sam
During assembly, it takes a lot less torque to properly install the barrel.
Without the pinning, the additional torque required to keep the barrel from unscrewing often stretches the barrel enough to distort the bore. More often noticed in stainless barrels.
Sam
never say never...
I just received my new 686-5 with the 2 1/2" barrel, and it has most of the features I said I wouldn't have on a Smith.
Stainless, MIM, frame mounted pin and "black bouncy stuff" on the grip frame.
With that being said, it has a great feel in the hand, and a nice (if not perfectly smooth) trigger out of the box. The finish is attractive, and I kind of like the newer style cylinder release.
Oh well...live and learn!
I just received my new 686-5 with the 2 1/2" barrel, and it has most of the features I said I wouldn't have on a Smith.
Stainless, MIM, frame mounted pin and "black bouncy stuff" on the grip frame.
With that being said, it has a great feel in the hand, and a nice (if not perfectly smooth) trigger out of the box. The finish is attractive, and I kind of like the newer style cylinder release.
Oh well...live and learn!
NAVIGATOR,
He didn't say that the pin "keeps the barrel tight", he said that when installing the barrel in a P&R-era gun, it's almost impossible to overtorque it, as you merely twist until the recess lines up and then drift the pin into place. With unpinned barrels, it's easy to accidentally give one or two twists too many and distort the frame and/or barrel ever-so-slightly. If you look at the barrel/frame juncture on a post-'82 gun, you may notice a slightly deformed or "squashed"-looking ring around the barrel; that's how it got there.
He didn't say that the pin "keeps the barrel tight", he said that when installing the barrel in a P&R-era gun, it's almost impossible to overtorque it, as you merely twist until the recess lines up and then drift the pin into place. With unpinned barrels, it's easy to accidentally give one or two twists too many and distort the frame and/or barrel ever-so-slightly. If you look at the barrel/frame juncture on a post-'82 gun, you may notice a slightly deformed or "squashed"-looking ring around the barrel; that's how it got there.