What's with old Smith grips?

C

ckpj99

New member
So I love my Smiths. My Model 10 is the best handgun I've ever shot, and no one will convince me otherwise :-), and my 36 is great, too. That being said, the first thing I did when I bought both of them was to change out the stocks (or grips or whatever you want to call them).

I have Miculek grips on my Model 10. I love wood grips, but I have small-ish hands. It's very hard to find wood grips that don't have finger grooves, and the finger grooves on K-frame grips never fit my hand right. The smooth wood and relatively narrow Miculek grip is perfect.

I have Hogue rosewood grips on my Model 36. These are you basic three finger grips with grooves, but the smaller J-frame size means the finger grooves are smaller (which doesn't make much sense to me, if you're designing grips for the average size hand, why change the size). They fit well. Both my guns were made in the early 70s.

However, I have two pairs of factory grips (I know one set is original, the other may or may not be) gathering dust in a box with other parts and grips. Also, I don't know a single person who shoots a Smith with factory grips. The closest I've seen is the folks that use the Tyler T.

So here's my questions. Why didn't Smith change their design earlier (I know that a lot of modern guns have different bulkier grips on them from the factory)? Why was it designed that way in the first place? Does it have something to do with handguns usually being used one-handed in the early 1900s? Did people have smaller hands? Did Smith always assume that people would customize their grips, so they kept the frame small to allow for more variety?

I've been thinking of running my guns with the factory stocks for awhile just to see how they behave, and if I can get used to them. Being that they are literally the smallest grip you can put on a Smith (since they follow the outline of the frame and you can't have a grip smaller than the frame), it does hold a certain appeal. Plus the guns just look nice in their original furniture.

So what's the deal here.
 
Beats me why they didn't.

I love Smith revolvers.

I hate Smith grips.

I have a large box of Smith grips, and virtually all of mine wear Hogue monogrips.
 
I might be the only person in the world that likes the target stocks on both K and N frame models of Smith and Wesson revolvers . I buy any reasonably priced set I see so that when I buy another Smith, I can replace whatever aftermarket stocks they have on it with a pair that fits my hand.
 
>>I might be the only person in the world that likes the target stocks on both K and N frame models of Smith and Wesson revolvers<<

Actually you're not. I too prefer the stock grips, and rather despise those ugly rubber jobbies.
 
Back in the '80s when everyone in my agency carried a revolver, (mostly, the SW66) it was an article of faith that the first thing we did when we bought a new revolver, was change the grips. One wag even said that SW put the cheapest, most unusable grips possible on their revolvers, so that they could ship a compete firearm. Back then, Smith & Wesson was owned by Bangor-Punta,(IIRC) so that might have been the truth.

Nowadays, old Smith grips are collectable. Go figure. We used to immediately discard the factory grips for something that fit our hands. The biggest aftermarket grips were Hogue monogrips, or Pachmayr Presentations. Some guys even carved their own, or took the originals out to the shop and put them on the belt sander until it approximated something they could use.

I wish I had half the old Smith grips I've thrown away over the years. Some of them are valuable on the collector market.
 
S&W had to accommodate every person who picked up the gun. Trying to make everyone happy is impossible. No matter what size, shape or style of stocks (correct term is stocks) they used they would never make everyone happy.

I have been shooting handguns for 47 years. I have had hundreds of revolvers come and some have gone. I have tried every type, size, shape, style and configuration of stocks on my revolvers.

Here are my conclusions after nearly half a century of experimentation.

On K frame Smiths the Magna style works best. I don't care at all for finger grooves and aftermarket stocks that hang below the bottom of the grip frame (ala Hogue) make the gun top heavy and it feels funny to me.

standard.jpg


On N frame Smiths I use the Magnas on revolvers with 4" or less of barrel and target style with 4" or more (obviously the 4" guns go either way). The 6" and longer K frames also get targets. IMO the stocks made in the 1950s have a more pleasing contour and are more ergonomic than the later ones.

standard.jpg


I find the stocks on the middle sized Colts less appealing than the ones from S&W but I have never found a good substitute. My favorite stocks for the large frame Colt revolver is the 1955-61 target style with full coverage checkering.

standard.jpg


I need checkering on anything over 38 Special or I can't control the gun in recoil. I see 44 Magnums with smooth stocks and that would fly out my hand if I shot it. On the Colt SAA smooth is okay because the gun rolls up rather than jumping away.

I hate rubber. Detest the feel and the smell. Not crazy about stag unless polished smooth. Admit to admiring nice mother of pearl but they are fragile. Plastic fake pearl or stag stocks are an abomination.

I have mixed emotions on ivory. On the one hand I admit to being an animal lover and I am disturbed at the thought of such majestic animals being killed for their ivory. On the other hand ivory is a stock material fit for the gods and I love it so. God help me I do love it so.

standard.jpg


standard.jpg


standard.jpg
 











Now you know someone who likes factory grips, and have you noticed the buttugly grips Smith puts on their guns now...plastic and rubber yuckola
 
OP- I know exactly what you are saying! i have smaller hands myself - genetics I goess? :D

I carry a 1980ish Model 36 and the factory grips are O.K. and seem to work alright but i'm not thrilled with them.

On the 1952 Pre 10 M & P that i have (which is one of my favorites) - when I purchased it it came with a set of Smith grips from a later date. What I hate about them is that they are so "squarish" - for want of a better word. In other words, the thickness of the grip at the square butt combined with the small, abrupt radius on the edge is something akin to grasping a 2 X 2. The old style grip - not sure of the proper name - but on a lot of pre war Smiths that doesn't overlap the frame at the top but fit in to the area cut for the frame - are a lot more comfortable for me. They are thinner and have a larger overall radius to the curved profile of the grip. In fact, I just switched them out and put a older "beater" pair on them of that style. I have the same style on my 1920s M & P Target and like those as well.

I have a pre 15 Combat Masterpiece (1956) and it had some smooth rosewood profiled grips on it of some unknown origin. They are OK but they don't give me the "grip" like a pare of checkered grips do.

I have tried grips of all different sizes and materials and I still keep going back to that thinner old style wood grip. I don't' think you are in a minority when it comes to your thoughts on the stock Smith grips - I'm reminded of that when ever I go to a range and see folks shooting their Smiths of all ages - rarely do I see any with the original factory stocks on them. :)
 
i shoot better with the original grips on my model 10 than any other grips ive tried on them including pachmayr. for my models 430, 638, 640 and 940 i took off the factory rubber grips and use wood service grips i bought from smith and wesson. now you know two people who like and use factory wood grips
 
I bought a 642 a while back and the Hogue grips beat me up so badly, I had to install an old set of standard wood grips; less blood and better accuracy. For double action, control is much better with the hand all the way up in the grip, middle finger touching the frame. Many people have the idea that a DA revolver cannot be shot accurately unless the trigger finger is pulling straight back. That is not necessarily true and is more a matter of "conventional wisdom" than actual experience.

Jim
 
I was actually just curious to find out people's opinions. Definitely not trying to take one side or another. Great discussion so far.

I understand why people like Target grips, they are quite a bit bigger than normal stocks (magnas, I guess). From what I understand, I have magnas for both of mine. I'm no expert on the different styles.

I don't like rubber anything. It's not a hard use material. Take a look at my cameras with rubber external coverings (I'm a photographer) and you'll see that rubber wears out and breaks down, especially with daily use.

I think I may give my other stocks I try. I only shoot .38 Special. However, I think the checkering might be an issue. I believe when my quest for the perfect grips began that I decided that wanted smooth grip because the checkering ripped up my hands.

Thanks for all your input. I didn't hear anyone say anything about shooting one-handed. Is the "people always used to shoot handguns one-handed" thing a myth? Do the smaller grips aid in shooting one-handed.
 
I shoot one handed. I cant say they make shooting any easier but they make thumb cocking a little easier.
 
19 & 36

When I bought my mdl 19 for work/LEO that was the first thing I changed. Replaced the target grips for some Pach's. My 36 also has some Pach's on it, but I did keep the original grips for it. I wish I'd have kept the target grips that came with my 19. I'd like to put her back to original one of these day. Need to find a presentation case too.
 
I prefer the Magnas. Mainly for aesthetic reasons, I will admit. I am kicking around the idea of getting a T-Grip for my Highway Patrolman. The target grips just seem clunky and bottom heavy. Not trying to raise ire, it's just what I prefer.

I do like the rubber boot grips that come on the J frames, though I have considered going the Magna/T-Grip route for my 642. Maybe will maybe won't. If I had an old school Chief's Special, blued Centennial or my dreamy model 40, I most definitely would.

Again, that's just me.
 
I have a hard time finding grips big enough for my hands. I need them wide across the backstrap. My 25-2 wears presentation grips. Think of big fat target grips with no checkering. The little 15-2 wears skinny Magnas and I have a difficult time holding it. There is too much hand to wrap around too little gun. It stays that way so I can work with new shooters.
The reason I'm selling my Super Redhawk in 454 and running with the 7-1/2" Redhawk in 45 Colt is the grip. I can't get big enough grips on the SRH. The Redhawk is a better fit.
 
I mean, at the end of the day, one of the huge advantages of buying a revolver is the grip adaptability. Semi-autos might come with a couple different back straps these days, but really, you're options are very limited. I'd argue that with the right set of grips 99% of all revolvers can be made to fit 99% of hands. Also, you have the option of changing grips for different tasks. I can put little chunky wood boot grips on my j-frame for CCW, and then if I decide it needs to woods gun or a nightstand gun, I could put big cushy Hogues on it. You can't do that with a semi-auto.

Obviously, the versatility of revolvers is a huge advantage, especially if you reload. Although I don't own any, I bet some Hogue Decelerators on a K-Frame loaded with the .38 special loads I recently made with 3 grains of Trail Boss would make about as much recoil as a laser pointer.
 
I have not been shooting much lately on advice of my ear doctor, but at one time I shot one handed (mostly) and double action, using a 3" Model 36. I could keep a cylinder full in 2" at 7 yards easily and in 4" at 25 yards on a good day. I have kept all shots in a silhouette target at 100, shooting one hand. (Did that as a demo; wan't say I could do it all the time.) Needless to say, I could do better with a real target gun, but the Model 36 was my carry gun and I shot it a lot.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top