Why are NEW S&W considered inferior?

D

Deerinator

New member
I've been noticing a disturbing trend that i have read here and there people are saying "i don't like smith anymore because the way there made" of "they don't make them like they used to" and "there quality has diminished"..this is what i have heard while reading on these forums my question is "Whats wrong with the smiths today, are they junk? and "When did they turn crappy with the new models with the 3 digits like 629, 686, etc? Whats the difference between these new "junk" models and the old "good" models. I just bought a m19 and i think its beautiful and is a great revolver but i do want to get a new M66 or 686/629 in the future so i would like to hear peoples opions on this matter.

Thanks. I hope this can get cleared up.

As a side note we have about a 1 inch of standing snow!
 
Don't believe what everybody says S&W still makes one very nice gun.What most are saying to is the older ones were put together and fitted mostly by hand.With the new machines most is done by the machine.I have a Model 66 and the 686 newer models with the locks and they shoot just as good as my older smiths.Most times forget the lock is even there and yes there a quite a few that won't buy a gun with a lock????????????????? :) Ask then why?You do know that the model 19 and 66 is the same gun 66 is SS.
 
So on a new smith they have that key lock deal? But you can just leave it off and forget about it but when tranporting it to your range and or to register it at the police station turn it on right? If i can just turn it off and leave it off and throw away the key then i don't need to worry. DOES it affect the internals of the gun like more parts in the guts to monkey with?

Could you remove the lock? I know that is a huge NO NO but can it be done?
 
I don't think I have ever locked mine the keys are still in the boxs.I think that is what most are afraid of is if they need the gun for HD it could lock it self.I have put about 4000 or more thru my 66 with no troubles.My 686 about 2000. :) Not to sure about removing lock but possible??
 
Not to get into it line by line, or to get an argument started, but the current Smiths are built differently, with different construction methods, design alterations, and different materials. Many people who look beyond the bluing don't believe the guns are as durable as they used to be, and feel the current changes were done strictly to make the guns cheaper to manufacture.
There is a difference in the new internal parts, internal dimensions have been changed to meet drop test requirements in some states, double-action triggerpulls are heavier. The new two-piece barrels are intolerable for some Smith fans, the rifling has been changed in them, barrel work will be at least slightly more complicated for gunsmiths. Personally, I won't own a Smith with a flange at the muzzle.
The keylocks have reportedly malfunctioned and locked up guns in three or four publicized cases.
The changes that have been done to the classic designs, and incorporated into new models, have affected performance to at least some degree. New shooters, shooters not familiar with the older guns, those who don't know or care about the finer points that made the S&Ws what they were, and those who don't understand the difference, usually don't worry about the difference.
If you like the current Smiths, buy one.
The lock parts can be removed without affecting the performance of the gun, and it's arguable over whether or not it's a no no to do it.
The lock is not a safety device, it is not there to prevent an accidental discharge, it's a storage device to prevent unauthorized use. If you alter a safety device it's a potential liability in court, if you remove the lock, and store the gun securely when it's not on your body or in your hand, there should be no problem.
Denis
 
Jerry Miculek's performance doesn't seem to be hindered by the new Smiths. Ditto the ICORE and IDPA wheelgun wizards who abuse their guns everyday. But what do they know?

A firm that is so worried about lawsuits that they alienate alot of their old fans by adding a lock to their guns will probably exhibit the same amount of worry if they can indeed find verifiable (like documented, not internet posts) instances of their devices failing and issue a recall. They recalled a brand new SW1911 IIR, regardless of the hit in sales and the impact on the gun's market momentum.

I have more old Smiths than new ones. But a lock won't stop me from getting more new ones especially if it's the only way to get offerings I want like the 460, the 57MG and the TR21.
 
In all sports the big name performers get away with little rule infractions. Depending on the sport a lot of it is associated with equipment. I would like to see Mr. Miculek's and others of his level have their guns torn down for a detailed inspection. Now I'm not knocking his ability, but at his level his equipment is usually far from being stock and don't really represent what you find on the store shelves.
 
I had no problem with the locks until I started reading discussions at www.smith-wessonforum.com from actual owners who have had malfunctions in their Smiths due to the locks locking up the gun. Even if it's a remote chance, I'm not purchasing one with an internal lock from any company.
 
I have an older (60's) SW19 and a bunch of newer SW's. While often quality of the older ones are nicer, I have never had a complaint about any of my new SW's. Shoot, I just bought another 586.

Doug
 
miculek

pretty sure miculek isn't competing with a S&W he bought off the shelf...would be nice if competitor's did use their companies gereral retail equipment..but..his weapon is performance shop plus, no doubt.
quality in just about all makes is down actually..if you look at a good example of a pre-war S&W and compare it to 70's production and again to current production you will see the decline in fit, finish, cosmetics, and design e.g.: pins to crush fit to 2 piece barrels, etc...some specific improvements were made along the way, such as with the 29 series when larger bearing surfaces were built-in along the way, but generally the guns have gone downhill as the bean counters calculate just how much can be trimmed here and there to maximize profits and as ownership has changed hands from american to british to whoever may be in control today....a few makes may be bucking this trend...unfortunately, overall S&W is probably not one of them right now.
 
It's an emotional issue for many.
In my case, bearing in mind I did say BUY ONE IF YOU LIKE IT, I won't own the flanged two-piece barrel, I don't like the MIM parts (personal preference based on conversations with people in the industry and one 625 with MIMs that I own), and I dislike the 12+ pound DA trigger pull to increase ignition reliability with the changes in headspacing and firing pins.
The locks I'm not too crazy about, but those are a minor issue compared to the others for me.
I'm not suggesting anybody avoid S&W guns, I'm not saying to boycott the company or lynch the S&W president. I'm not saying changes should never be made, or that a company should not move with the times. I'm merely answering the question that was asked, trying to explain why the current guns are not popular among some shooters, and stating my own preferences as an example.
Are the current guns inferior? Depends on your definition of inferior. They do look a little nicer on the outside in fit & bluing, and that's all many shooters who don't know much about the guts, or care, look at. Which is fine, if they're happy with the gun that's all that matters for them. Maybe the politest way to put it is that the new Smiths have evolved in directions that have caused them to lose interest for some people. Inferior, maybe yes maybe no; different, definitely.
The Corvette would be a roughly comparable analogy in the car world. The current Corvette is not the sheer high-compression muscle performer that the originals were. Is it inferior? Again, depends on your definition of inferior. The owner of a classic Stingray may consider any Vette built after 1976 to be junk, while the owner of a 2005 Corvette may like the computer-controlled engine performance, gas mileage, and low tire pressure indicators & consider the Stingrays to be horribly primitive.
It's a matter of preferences. IF YOU LIKE THE NEW SMITHS, BUY THEM, SHOOT LONG & PROSPER.
Denis
 
It's not that the new S&W revolvers are inferior to other guns on the market today. They are not. They are, however inferior to the S&W revolvers of yesteryear.

All it takes is to hold a grafitti desecrated zit lock enhanced scandium S&W in the left hand and a pinned and recessed blued S&W in the right and the difference is readily apparent. In fact, if it were not for the S&W logo on the side, you would not think they were made by the same company. The old P&R guns are a beauty to behold. Guns like the M27 and even little J frames were put together with a pride of craftsmanship that is lost today. It's not that the new S&W guns are bad, it's just that they are mediocre and the old S&W guns are superb. The best part is the superb craftsmanship of the old S&W guns is available for much less. S&W may indeed suffer simply because they used to make such a darned good product.

The lock is only a symptom of a company that is out of touch with it's clientele. There have been several instances of the lock failing and locking up the gun. S&W, however, will not remove the lock until the lawsuits of locks failing and people dying as a result outweigh their reasons for putting the lock on the gun in the first place.
 
so is there a quality revolver that is being produced today that matches the smiths of old? I don't like the idea of a lock stopping useage of the gun...i don't understand "TWO PIECE BARRELS" how the heck is that possible? Heavy DA pull! How heavy are we talking here? I don't know what my 1970's model 19 has for a da pull but i don't think its no where near 12 pounds.

So if i were to get a New smith to act like a old smith i would need to get rid of the lockout device and get a trigger job? So on top of paying 650 for a new smith i would then have to put 150 into a trigger job? So making the gun cost 800 bucks in the end...or i could pay 600 for a old 29 and have the same effect?
 
Guess it's time to hop into the fray.

Are the new S&Ws inferior. . .as far as performance goes, no. Hate to say it, but if anything they are stronger and more accurate.

Are the new S&Ws inferior. . .aesthetically, yes. OK, the two piece barrel CAN enhance accuracy, and does make it easier to switch out, and is more cost effective, BUT, they decided to choose the UGLIEST darned implementation of it I've ever seen. They should have done a bit more work on the looks of it.
The lock. . .don't like it on a principle level, but I can't blame them. If they want to sell guns in commie states like California, Maryland, Jersey, etc, they have to do it. You can sit back and say "screw 'em if they live in such a state, they should move if they want to buy guns", but that is nothing but selfishness. A lot of people can't move, and why should they uproot their whole lives because you don't like a gun part? Now, they could have thought things through a bit more and just put the thing on the removeable side plate, so you can just switch it out. As it is, you can have a gunsmith remove it and weld up, then buff where the hole was, and not worry about it. Money out of your pocket? Yep, otherwise buy used.
MIM, really isn't a problem if done right. I work with people in that industry, have seen their processes and product. If done right, it just melts the wax compound out of the molded parts, forming the crystaline mettalic structure, which can then be heat treated and stress-relieve, forming a part that has a normal metallic structure. Forged parts will be stronger due to the working of the metal in the forging process, but MIM parts done right will be just as good as parts machined out of bar stock (not forged), which no one has a problem with.
Pinned & recessed? Love it, makes for a classy revolver. But in reality, it's more cosmetic than anything. The pins I can kind of see, but the recesses. . .another 30 seconds on the CNC mill would recess the cylinders.


Now, I DO prefer the older, handfit by craftsman guns. I like my pins and recesses and deep bluing. But, it's all aesthetics. People cry about the prices of S&Ws now. If they still made the P&R guns, and had skilled craftsmen handfitting them, they'd be $1000 or more for the same $650 gun, then we'd hear all the whining people do about the prices of Colt revolvers because they have to be hand fit. So, S&W IS following the wishes of the gun community, because the gun community has sent the message that they are unwilling to pay the skilled workers what they deserve for all that detail work they claim to crave, so the companies (all of them, not just S&W) have to cut corners to make guns that are good, yet still cheap enough to buy. Kind of like the cheap made-inchina crap at wally world, Americans voted with their wallets that they'd rather have cheap crap to buy that will wear out quickly, than to spend their hard earned money paying American workers to make a quality product.

BUT even if the crying stopped and people were willing to pay for the handfitting, there'd still be locks so they could be sold in communist run states.

[/RANT][FLAMESUIT]
 
I wouldn't buy a new smith just since they have the lock on them :barf: Might as well get an auto. That, and they arn't hand fitted anymore.

Though, the old Smith's are hard to beat, both in price and quality.

The new ones are priced out of my league in any case, other than the Sigma anyways ;)
 
It's not that the new S&W revolvers are inferior to other guns on the market today. They are not. They are, however inferior to the S&W revolvers of yesteryear.
Click to expand...
I couldn't have said it any better. S&W is a mere shadow of its former glory. :(
Sure, they had some rough times when QC slipped a bit. But for the most part S&W wheelguns were the best to be had right up until 1997. That was when they first started using MIM parts. In 1998 was when things really went bad. That was the year they changed the lockwork and put in even more MIM parts. :barf: Things have gone straight down the toilet ever since for the true Smith lovers among us. :mad:
Then again it depends alot on who you're talking to. Some S&W collectors will tell you that Smith went to crap in the 70s or maybe the 80's. There is some variation in opinion as to exactly when it happened, but there's no doubt that Smith & Wesson is on a long downhill fall.
As for myself, 1996 is the cut off date. I don't care what fancy super duper guns they make out of the most modern space age materials or how slick they look. I just ain't buying anything made after '96. I refuse to spend my hard earned money on something I know I won't like no matter who's name is on it.

In all fairness, S&W isn't the only gun company with problems. Colt has just barely been hanging on for years. There have been a number of rumors floating around that QC at Ruger and Taurus has taken a nosedive.
This is what happens when companies pay more attention to lawyers and accountants than they do to their customers. :mad:
 
That sucks.

Man i'm 22 and i feel like all the good guns have been made and hold know future in revolvers after hearing what you guys have said. Makes me sick that a standard can't be made and no matter the times or politics some things never changed. Proper price for Proper goods instead of just because someone acctually did something out of the ordinary on the gun mean you can hike the price up another 500 bucks because joe blow buffed a feed ramp. These company got to realize that the average hand gun buy feels guilty when they have to put more that a weeks pay on a gun...well at least i do. And thats why companies like taurus and rossi are still around selling guns left and right because they are economical and they work. Well thats my opion and i'm done ranting.
 
The two-piece barrel is a barrel tube threaded into the frame surrounded by a barrel shroud which has the outside contours of the old one-piece barrel. The shroud has the sight rib & sight & ejector rod protection, the barrel tube has a flange at the muzzle. When the tube is tightened, it holds the shoud in place by tension on the flange bearing on the front of the shroud.
The DA pull on the two TR 21s I had here both exceeded 12 pounds. The slot inside the bottom of the frame where the mainspring seats has been moved to provide a more reliable ignition (heavier hammer fall, heavier DA pull) to compensate for the changes in headspacing and firing pins.
I can't tolerate the flange (consider it a personal failure if you want), and as a former revolver-carrying cop who doesn't own any "range" guns, I won't tolerate a 12 pound plus DA trigger on a gun I may use for defensive purposes.
I also have major reservations about a MIM firing pin, among my preferences for non MIM parts in general.
Again, this is just me, if you like the new Smiths, buy one.
Denis
 
My suggestion is you should go and find yourself a nice Registered 357 Magnum and then compare it to a modern 627. Now compare the fit, finish, and the polish of on the metal to a modern one. Compare the trigger pull, the checkering on the barrel. Feel the fit and finish of the action. Pull the trigger in double action and single action.

If you are still wondering what the difference is then in your case there is none.

For me, I prefer the 5 screw pre numbered N frames because they are so nicely made and so well built. The guns just ooze quality and fit and finish. It is a joy to take them to the range.


And yes I do actually shoot my 1939 Registered Magnum.

9-n-frames.jpg


Sorry this picture is 3 more N frames out of date.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top