Looked at a Smith 640 Pro Series at Sportsman's Warehouse today. I just came away with the feeling that is was just a cheaply made revolver. At first I was excited, "Cool a Smith without the lock!", the fiber optic front sight and the fluted barrel, I thought it might be an upgrade to my current 640-2.

Then started looking at it. The finish was just really poor. It wasn't consistent and fell somewhere inbetween the traditional Smith stainless finish of my older revolvers and the high polish of the Ruger single actions. I'd say it was king of Taurus like, high polish but falling short. Then there was the end play in the cylinder and a gritty trigger. So much for the higher attention to detail of the pro Series.

So when did Smith & Wesson jump the shark? I know some claim when pinned barrels and recessed cylinders disappeared. Others when MIM took over forged parts in the action. My personal feeling was the appearance of the internal lock. But what I saw today was even worse. It used to be I looked at Ruger's as second to Smith. But I really think Ruger has continued to improve while Smith has declined. There's a couple of Ruger's that I'm really intrigued by, like the GP100 in 10mm and the 8 shot .357 Redhawks. There's really nothing that interests me with Smith's current offerings.

2001. After that s&w ceased to exist as a fine gun maker. The idiot lock being the first sign.

We have had one of those 640 "pro series" for sale in the case for over two years. Everyone who handles it comes away with the same impressions that you did. And the trigger feels like it has sand in the action.

So, I put a Kimber K6 in their hand and they buy it.

The disparity in quality between the K6 and the revolvers made by the current company posing as s&w is so glaring that I am embarrased for them. Someone send a K6 to s&w so they can see an example of what an $800 revolver SHOULD be.

I have carried S&W products daily for going on 40 years. Fine reliable guns that I have staked my life on. And every one of them was made PRIOR to the year 2000. As far as I am concerned, S&W went out of business in 2000. These days that company simply peddles cheaply made junk, bearing the famous trademark, at scalpers prices.

FYI, the LGS I work at put all 8 remaining J-frames into the clearance case. Below cost. Just to be rid of them. We will no longer carry ANY new s&w revolvers. Regards 18DAI

No idea when S&W was eaten alive on the "Deadliest Catch", or whatever they've done acrobatics with sharks, but I prefer older pre-2000 S&Ws.

At the same time I have a 442 no-lock and M&P340 with the lock removed and they've been fine for what they are, ugly, abused BUGs that live in an ankle or pocket holster.

S&W still makes some nice revolvers. I have a Model 29, 44 magnum and a Model 617, .22 LR, both great guns. There are several of their Performance Center guns I wouldn't mind owning either.

Pre-lock, pre-MIM.

Keep in mind, most manufacturers have followed the same MO, trying to economize features and quality to stay in the market. Look at costs of Beretta or Sig back in the 90's, the quality of their products and the same today. In some ways, I believe the $500 Glock is responsible because its pulled down the pricing of all metal guns and their makers have had to cut corners to get there.

I think it was when the British company owned them - before the lock company bought them, so probably in the late 90's.

I don't feel like S&W revolvers have "jumped the shark". I think they still make a very good product and from the ones I have and have had, other than grips and maybe the internal lock, I think they are just fine. In a lot of ways better than they ever where.

Don't ever by an older model 25 and expect it to shoot well for instance. I have a Performance Center 629 Light Hunter Plus that I have put a 2x Leupold on and this thing will literally shoot 3in groups at 100 yards. That's legitimate groups, repeatable over and over again not some accidental best group out of 10. It's great fun, I can set anyone behind it, with a rest and they will hit a 6in plate at 100 yards almost everytime.

It's sad to see no real nice wood grip options anymore. 20-40 year old S&W revolver grips are worth more than some of their guns.

I think S&W has done a decent job of scaling back revolver production, as demand has waned, without losing much if any quality. From talking with the S&W reps that travel to shows and gunshops I'm told that a lot of the older craftsman are dying off and/or retiring though so the end may be in site.

For instance, I was told that there are only about 4 craftsman that work on the S&W Model 41. The 41 is made in its own shop he told me. They only make 1-200 a year. Supposedly they only make 35 of the Performance Center Model 41 a year. Soon those men/women will be gone and the Model 41 will probably be no more.

At least S&W isn't like Colt. Colt had the corner of the most desired handgun, 1911, and rifle, AR-15, and they completely turned their back on the consumer market to chase military contracts that they ended up not winning.

Colt is a barely visible shadow of what they once were.

Smith and Wesson on the other hand is doing quite well.

quote:

Originally posted by PGT:
Pre-lock, pre-MIM.

Keep in mind, most manufacturers have followed the same MO, trying to economize features and quality to stay in the market. Look at costs of Beretta or Sig back in the 90's, the quality of their products and the same today. In some ways, I believe the $500 Glock is responsible because its pulled down the pricing of all metal guns and their makers have had to cut corners to get there.

Glocks are so inexpensive to make. I was told by an insider once that it costs about $97 to make a Glock. That's how they made so much money when police departments started switching to Glocks. The department would trade in their Gen2 or Gen 3 Smith and Wesson Autos and get free Glocks in return. Glock would then sell the police trade in S&W on the used market for 3-400 bucks. Not real hard math to figure out that there was a lot of money made there.

The most recent S&W I own is a 2005 j-frame in 22 wmr. They do a fair job of making j-frames, probably because they still sell well, and you can get them without the lock. Other than those, I have no interest.

My impression too, about when the lock was introduced. Ofttimes my older Smiths were less than perfect, but I just don't have the same desire to own post 2001 versions. That being said, we have a no-lock 642 in the family that has been a good Little gun. My 686 SSR, with lock, did need to go back to S&W for an issue. I may buy one of those 10MM Ruger GP-100s one of these days, but have to say I'm not considering purchase of a new S&W revolver of any kind. I guess, per 18DAI's sales experience, I am not alone in that.

FWIW, and 18DAI undoubtedly knows a lot more about this than I do, I just don't think current PC guns are built to the high standards that the pre M&P/pre huge ray-gun like revolvers,etc. were. I had several of the earlier PC guns,e.g.,945,952,952-1,CQB,etc. All precisely fitted and finished in and out, accurate, boringly reliable,etc. To me, like the quality of the SIG P210s. Now, not so much......

My collection of Smiths is fairly deep, for just about anything post WWII through the late 90s. I only have one Smith made after 2001, because it was a Father's Day gift and the serial # prefix is "DAD".

Guns made after 2001 just look embalmed to me, especially the classic series. With a little patience you could find excellent samples of a Model 19 made in 1980, why would you want to spend the same and sometimes more on what amounts to a replica? Plus, I want to hold 1980 again. I watched The Gauntlet for the first time in a while last week, and really enjoyed seeing Clint whip around that Model 66 snub. I'd buy a shooter 66 on impulse but have zero interest in the Classic version.

IMHO, it started with Bangor Punta.

People used to bitch about the Bangor-Punta S&Ws, back in the 1980s. Then S&W surprised us and figured out a way to make them cheaper/worse.

I've had a lot of S&W revolvers over the years but refuse to spend money on one with a lock. The only one I have left is an early 90's Performance Center model 29 in.44 mag. that has the 2nd smoothest trigger on a wheel gun I've ever owned. The first was a 686 made in the mid 80's that got stolen. Every Smith I've looked at in the last 15 years or so hasn't come close to the quality of those 2 guns.

Jim

rock185 the Performance Center, which began around 1991 as a seperate entity located in an old airplane hangar out behind the main factory - staffed with professional gunsmiths, no longer exists.

It is now an assembly line in the main factory. The only thing the current PC guns have in common with the models from the 90s is the PC Logo stamped into the frame.

The last Performance Center gunsmith, Vito, retired in 2014 IIRC. We have 3 of those "performance center 986 9mm Miculek" revolvers. We only have those because we took them in trade from 3 really good customers. Those customers were disappointed by the poor accuracy and lousy triggers on them.

The manager didn't want to take them as he knew we would be saddled with them. But like I said, these guys are REALLY good customers. Regards 18DAI

1982. No pin=no buy for me.

quote:

Originally posted by HOGSTR:
Guns made after 2001 just look embalmed to me, especially the classic series.

Embalmed. What a perfect description. I prefer pinned barrels and recessed cylinders. The addition of the redundant internal safety lock sealed the deal for me.

I like their airweight and airlite j-frames, but even on those I’ve had a couple with sub-par finishes. I’ve never had an issue with functionality of any of my smith j-frames so I don’t mind them because I just want my carry weapon to be functional not necessarily pretty.

I do agree that Kimber makes a far superior revolver at that 800-900 price point though

I had to look up "Jump the Shark".

I thought it referred to television shows that had gone irrelevant.

Cannot make myself even consider buying a "lock" S&W. All of mine are pre-