SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    Question on "old" S&W revolvers.
Page 1 2 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Question on "old" S&W revolvers. Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
I have a 629-4 RSR from 94, a 627PC Lew Horton from 97, and a newer 629 Competitor from a few years ago. The double action pull on the newest one is the best. I would never part with the older ones though :-)
 
Posts: 66 | Registered: May 05, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Mid 70's to early 90's are of dubious quality to me. Hit or miss. My early 629 was awesome, but I went through (3) 29-3's before I found one that shot under 2" at 25yds. Had a 16-4 that shot like a laser beam, and a 19-3 that patterned, not grouped. An early 686 with a canted bbl, and a nickel 586 that was perfect. I found my late 90's to 2002 guns have more consistent quality and accuracy.
 
Posts: 62 | Registered: March 08, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Bookers Bourbon
and a good cigar
Picture of Johnny 3eagles
posted Hide Post
My S&W 686 no dash SN AAF5XXX ($265 NIB) left the factory without the forcing cone being cut. Otherwise, perfection. I had the tools and cut the forcing cone myself.




STOP TRYING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY -
YOU'RE NOT TEQUILA

 
Posts: 2902 | Location: Arkansas  | Registered: November 06, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Junior Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by guardianangel762:
When did the quality die? I shot a Model 57 from the 70's. Beautiful glossy blue barrel a grip that bit into the hand but was not too aggressive and I shot 6 rounds under 3" at 25 yards with it. I did something similar with my dads Model 10 from 1969.

When did they stop being well made into the rough triggers I seem to feel from the ones from today.


My first post on the Sig Forum and it's going to be about Smith revolvers ..... Smile

I've been buying Smith revolvers since about 1972. And I recall back then (under the Bangor Punta name) that many of the old timers told me how Smith quality had gone downhill, that actions locked up on their own and that when the sideplates were removed "metal filings" poured out. Nothing, they said, could compare to the Smiths of the 1930's and early 50's. Funny that we now look back to the 70's as when Smiths were so much better than they are now.

I would say that by comparison the older folks back then were right to a degree. The internals of the 30's to 50's Smith I own are smoother than those of the 70's and 80's.

Having said that, of the 40 or so Smiths I own only one is a new manufacture. It's a bone stock 442 (no lock) that I use for CCW. If I have to use it, like my Sig 938 it's replaceable. The new Smiths do not appeal to me because of their cold rolled pins, spray paint finishes, shallow bluing, matte finish where there used to be fine checkering, mottled MIM parts instead of case hardened stock steel and of course - the lock. Whether the lock fails or not, can be filled is beside the point for me. Because of it the slope of the frame from rear sight to grip top is changed, it's most apparent on the J frames. It looks odd as heck to me and I don't like it.

But, I do think current Smiths are made to closer tolerances than the older Smiths. And the MIM parts, while they don't respond (IMO) to polishing as well as steel stock do come out of the factory fairly smooth. Unfortunately Smith uses geometrics so their hammers, triggers, DA sear and such can be assembled rather than fitted. The gun feels OK, but it won't ever feel great.

The two piece barrels are a good example of what I mean. They certainly are well made - but they shouldn't be on a Smith revolver to begin with and that's why I don't buy them and I suppose why others don't either.
 
Posts: 2 | Registered: November 12, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bofire:
in my opinion "mid 70's" is not "older Smiths" 1950-1969 make some beautiful guns, I am lucky enough to own some.
Carl


I wouldn't say they are old Smith's but they are close to 45 yrs old and allot better made then what we are seeing today. To me they are older ones. I was just barely legal to buy them.

As I said we saw changes when I worked at the gun shop which was from the mid to late 70's. The sad part it's not just S&W.


*** A Proud NRA Benefactor Member***
 
Posts: 138 | Location: North Carolina | Registered: April 07, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Let's be careful
out there
posted Hide Post
they started down the slippery slope when they were acquired by Bangor Punta.
 
Posts: 6503 | Location: NW OHIO | Registered: May 29, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Constable
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dfletcher1801:
quote:
Originally posted by guardianangel762:
When did the quality die? I shot a Model 57 from the 70's. Beautiful glossy blue barrel a grip that bit into the hand but was not too aggressive and I shot 6 rounds under 3" at 25 yards with it. I did something similar with my dads Model 10 from 1969.

When did they stop being well made into the rough triggers I seem to feel from the ones from today.


My first post on the Sig Forum and it's going to be about Smith revolvers ..... Smile

I've been buying Smith revolvers since about 1972. And I recall back then (under the Bangor Punta name) that many of the old timers told me how Smith quality had gone downhill, that actions locked up on their own and that when the sideplates were removed "metal filings" poured out. Nothing, they said, could compare to the Smiths of the 1930's and early 50's. Funny that we now look back to the 70's as when Smiths were so much better than they are now.

I would say that by comparison the older folks back then were right to a degree. The internals of the 30's to 50's Smith I own are smoother than those of the 70's and 80's.

Having said that, of the 40 or so Smiths I own only one is a new manufacture. It's a bone stock 442 (no lock) that I use for CCW. If I have to use it, like my Sig 938 it's replaceable. The new Smiths do not appeal to me because of their cold rolled pins, spray paint finishes, shallow bluing, matte finish where there used to be fine checkering, mottled MIM parts instead of case hardened stock steel and of course - the lock. Whether the lock fails or not, can be filled is beside the point for me. Because of it the slope of the frame from rear sight to grip top is changed, it's most apparent on the J frames. It looks odd as heck to me and I don't like it.

But, I do think current Smiths are made to closer tolerances than the older Smiths. And the MIM parts, while they don't respond (IMO) to polishing as well as steel stock do come out of the factory fairly smooth. Unfortunately Smith uses geometrics so their hammers, triggers, DA sear and such can be assembled rather than fitted. The gun feels OK, but it won't ever feel great.

The two piece barrels are a good example of what I mean. They certainly are well made - but they shouldn't be on a Smith revolver to begin with and that's why I don't buy them and I suppose why others don't either.


Good first post! There are quite a few dedicated S&W fans here. I go back probably as far as You do , 1971 was MY year for my first one.

Welcome...It's a GREAT Forum.

FN in MT
 
Posts: 5186 | Location: Craig, MT | Registered: December 17, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Welcome to the forum FN in MT.


*** A Proud NRA Benefactor Member***
 
Posts: 138 | Location: North Carolina | Registered: April 07, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    Question on "old" S&W revolvers.

© SIGforum 2017