Interesting video! I’ve been searching for a pre-lock 4” 686 to replace the one I stupidly sold in the late 1990s. Maybe I should buy a new production model instead?

New production is a lot easier to find. If you can rent or borrow one, I'd try it before paying $$$$ for something that may or may not have age/wear issues.

If you want a comparison of new vs old Smith models from a use standpoint, this is a good video (you might have seen it before.)




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/bMVy-B0Oh6k

quote:

Originally posted by G-Man:
Interesting video! I’ve been searching for a pre-lock 4” 686 to replace the one I stupidly sold in the late 1990s. Maybe I should buy a new production model instead?

quote:

Originally posted by Deputy 617:
I am often amused by folks telling everyone how great things were back in the day, and how "they just don't make things like they used to". I for one, can (and do) appreciate the classics, but I have no doubt that modern manufacturing produces products at least equal to, if not superior to their predecessors.

Technology, yes
Craftsmanship? Find good craftsmanship these days and it's worth it's weight in gold. That's what technology is replacing.

fingered a new 4" model 64 at my LGS. Nice enough, but no soul. Took my 6" Model of 1905, Military and Police, 5th change, to the range last month. It still shoots tighter than any new S&W, I'll bet, because it IS hand fitted.

With Colt making revolvers again - with ONE PIECE barrels and everything you need in a revolver and NOTHING you don't - who cares what the current company posing as s&w does.

They can stuff their overpriced wind up guns. Regards 18DAI

Yes, but back in the day, fine craftsmanship was necessary to make up for crappy production processes. As the armorer in the video states, the parts coming out of machining had wide tolerance and had to be carefully hand fitted to make them work. There are a few huge downsides to that. It takes a lot of skilled man-hours, which translates to big costs. It also make a gun that is difficult to fix when necessary, because the parts aren't really interchangeable. You need to get the same rough machined part that the original gunsmith started with, and have another gunsmith hand fit it into the gun. Nowadays, you can order a part, drop it in, and it just works, and likely better than the hand fitted assembly of yesteryear.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

quote:

Originally posted by Deputy 617:
I am often amused by folks telling everyone how great things were back in the day, and how "they just don't make things like they used to". I for one, can (and do) appreciate the classics, but I have no doubt that modern manufacturing produces products at least equal to, if not superior to their predecessors.

Technology, yes
Craftsmanship? Find good craftsmanship these days and it's worth it's weight in gold. That's what technology is replacing.

I would have to disagree with this guy. This is his opinion, but you will hear the opposite for most of the old guys that worked on the guns. I don't think the quality is as good today, and I definitely know the blue and is nowhere near what it used to be.

You're talking cosmetics not function. I bet out of the box (both old and new), the new guns have better triggers and are more accurate. As far as finish, I don't know why guns today would even be blued. While it looks nice, it offers next to no protection for the metal. I'd rather have stainless (which doesn't need the protection), or for a dark finish, nitrocarborizing or DLC. Or better yet, those finishes over stainless.

quote:

Originally posted by mdj:
I would have to disagree with this guy. This is his opinion, but you will hear the opposite for most of the old guys that worked on the guns. I don't think the quality is as good today, and I definitely know the blue and is nowhere near what it used to be.

The issue many traditionalists have with the lock on current S&Ws is as much a philosophical one as it is an objection to the mechanical function and aesthetics of the lock itself. The circumstances under which the lock came to be adopted caused many people to write off any interest in owning a product from the company, and despite changes in ownership, the distaste remains for many.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
New production is a lot easier to find. If you can rent or borrow one, I'd try it before paying $$$$ for something that may or may not have age/wear issues.

If you want a comparison of new vs old Smith models from a use standpoint, this is a good video (you might have seen it before.)




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/bMVy-B0Oh6k

quote:

Originally posted by G-Man:
Interesting video! I’ve been searching for a pre-lock 4” 686 to replace the one I stupidly sold in the late 1990s. Maybe I should buy a new production model instead?

Thanks! I had not seen that before!

I find the shrouded new barrels very interesting. Likely still installed by crush thread. What holds the shroud in place has not been mentioned. If you've ever experienced the ejector rod loosen, giving you a tight or locked up cylinder, one can now appreciate the ball detent 2nd yoke lock, D shaped one piece ejector rod. No more cylinder lock up issues. Those 2 little alignment pins through the ejector star have been known to come loose. Thanks again to the D ejector rod, those are history. Holding of the seer and main spring hook has been simplified to the point of near absolute. I believe the crane/yoke screw is improved also. Better design of main spring. Side plate and frame bosses should not cause any friction. Whats not to like. Oh and, that historic pivoting hammer nose. I recall a PPC revolver I had built over 30 years back. The builder removed metal from top of the hammer. It was to clear the rear sight of a Grand Master sight rib. Hammer nose would rise and slam into the frame. Even the firing pin bushing of the L frames had to be upgraded due to primer flow. Now we get a much better thought out spring loaded firing pin and flat faced hammer.

I went through the S&W armorer's school while I was an LEO. I can fix the older, post war models
IF I can get parts. The pre war gun are getting harder to find parts for.
I sold most of my pre war S&W revolvers and missed my 44 and 45 caliber ones.
I bought an 21-4 45 caliber and a 22-4 44 special caliber. Both shoot excellent and I have not had any trouble with either of them.
The good news if I need parts S&W has them available or I can send gun to S&W for service.

I look st it this way, you have your old school classics in the safe and drag em out every so often for a trip to the range, show n tell, or in my case posses a magnificent example of a nickle model 29-3 with the sweetest trigger you'd ever want for hunting, and it's not in perfect condition so it gets used along with a not so perfect model 58 and 28.
These new revolvers give you the opportunity to by a new S&W and shoot the snot outta it, it breaks send it back to get fixed, something isn't right send it back tell em to fix it, got a bucket of nuts and bolts, post a picture on their Facebook page and ask for a new one.
Meanwhile your classics are in the safe enjoying semi-retirement but still see use.
Dale

I have a model 36 S&W that dates to 1958 and it was nearly unfired when purchased. Once I got home with it and loaded up with snap caps I discovered why the previous owner didnt ever shoot it. That serrated trigger with it's 15-16 lbs. trigger pull had my index bleeding after 20 pulls. Note; this revolver was made in 1958.

Another nearly unfired S&W in my collection is a model 19-3 maded in 1973 or thereabouts. The reason for it's never being fired by the previous owner became very obvious once I got to the range with it. It came from the factory with a hammer nose that was too short it trigger a primer in double action and could only fire in single action about 40% of the time.

Contrast that with my 2008 vintage model 620 which is capable of shooting to 1 MOA if a handgun scope is mounted to it. Those MIM internals are so well made that tuning the DA trigger to 8.0 lbs. was simply a matter of shimming the strain screw and installing a 14 lbs. rebound spring.

So, tell me again about those "good old days". Plain truth is that nearly every manufactured item you can purchase today is manufactured to the 6 Sigma standard and features a level of quality that makes the 1950'0 and 1960's seem like the Stone Age.

PS; re-tuned the trigger weight on the model 36 to 10.2 lbs., did some polishing on the trigger to dull the serrations and installed a trigger stop rod in the rebound spring to solve the trigger stirrup from going past center. On the 19-3 I obtained a new hammer nose from Power Custom and fitted it properly so it now functions perfectly.

Glad you enjoyed it. For anyone who wants to carry a revolver bigger than the J-frame, there's a lot of good information in there.

quote:

Originally posted by G-Man:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
New production is a lot easier to find. If you can rent or borrow one, I'd try it before paying $$$$ for something that may or may not have age/wear issues.

If you want a comparison of new vs old Smith models from a use standpoint, this is a good video (you might have seen it before.)




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/bMVy-B0Oh6k

quote:

Originally posted by G-Man:
Interesting video! I’ve been searching for a pre-lock 4” 686 to replace the one I stupidly sold in the late 1990s. Maybe I should buy a new production model instead?

Thanks! I had not seen that before!

quote:

Originally posted by 18DAI:
With Colt making revolvers again - with ONE PIECE barrels and everything you need in a revolver and NOTHING you don't - who cares what the current company posing as s&w does.

They can stuff their overpriced wind up guns. Regards 18DAI

Amen to this.

WJR

I came across this guy at my LGS and took a hard look at it. 686 Talo Edition, 7 shot with 5 inch barrel and unfluted cylinder. The fit, finish, timing, and lockup is superb. I might just get this instead of continuing to look for an older prelock 686.

I've got a Three-inch-barreled Talo 686--The fit and finish are as good as ANYTHING S&W has put out in the last 20, 25 years...

quote:

Originally posted by mikey357:
I've got a Three-inch-barreled Talo 686--The fit and finish are as good as ANYTHING S&W has put out in the last 20, 25 years...

I have an early ‘80s Model 19 and maybe the bluing on the older guns is better but these stainless Talos are sweet. I think I’m getting it!

quote:

Originally posted by David Lee:
I find the shrouded new barrels very interesting. Likely still installed by crush thread. What holds the shroud in place has not been mentioned. If you've ever experienced the ejector rod loosen, giving you a tight or locked up cylinder, one can now appreciate the ball detent 2nd yoke lock, D shaped one piece ejector rod. No more cylinder lock up issues. Those 2 little alignment pins through the ejector star have been known to come loose. Thanks again to the D ejector rod, those are history. Holding of the seer and main spring hook has been simplified to the point of near absolute. I believe the crane/yoke screw is improved also. Better design of main spring. Side plate and frame bosses should not cause any friction. Whats not to like. Oh and, that historic pivoting hammer nose. I recall a PPC revolver I had built over 30 years back. The builder removed metal from top of the hammer. It was to clear the rear sight of a Grand Master sight rib. Hammer nose would rise and slam into the frame. Even the firing pin bushing of the L frames had to be upgraded due to primer flow. Now we get a much better thought out spring loaded firing pin and flat faced hammer.

The shrouded barrels don’t bother me I have an old Dan wesson. Everything you mention I find myself in violent agreement with. The lock up is amazing and I am glad for the transfer bar. This debate will rage on and on but I am on the side of the new models, these shoot and shoot.