Were the old premium built revolvers truly better than more modern iterations?

Were the revolvers from the 30’s and 40’s more accurate than the new SW performance center models (or other makes' premium lines)? Let's ignore for the sake of this discussion the topic of effecting fine finishes.


I’ve not had the opportunity to handle or shoot many of the classic revolvers….aside from a dear friend’s very old SW .22 revolver which i must admit feels beautiful in hand and is very accurate.


If this is true, i wonder why that might be. The higher end tooling and machines in use today must be more precise. CAD-CAM must have facilitate improved design and optimized tolerances and interface relationships. Material sciences have no doubt added much to the matter.
 

I certainly appreciate the value of experienced hands fitting and effecting beautiful work but people are still capable of pretty amazing work. 


I would imagine that specialized teams such as those dedicated to the performance center must in general felt to be more experienced, talented etc.


Curious as to your thoughts and if in fact the older high grade revolvers really were better?

Well, thru maybe the 80’s
Then they crimped the barrels to frame causing tight spots. Then they went to two piece barrels.

I like the series 5 and earlier

From what I’ve read about S&W, op to the early 1990s the didn’t use much CNC equipment.  They used dedicated and tooled machines in cells.  Each machine made one cut (or two) then the part was shifted to the next machine for another cut.  What this meant that final assembly required fitting a lot of parts.  The employees were pretty skilled.  The better skilled worked on the higher end products.  

In the mid 1990s S&W moved to CNC to reequip its production machinery. In some respects with CNC and the products they now have, less fitting is required and the employees don’t develop the older skill set.

I read the new Python is pretty good. All modern automated manufacturing vs the old hand fitting. I've not compared them- anyone here try both?

In my experience a 50s-60s Colt OMM still in good condition would be.  And a 55ish good S&W 1955 Model

I shoot a lot of S&W revolvers. Cosmetically, the old S&Ws were better finished than the new ones. In terms of triggers and in terms of accuracy... I believe there is more variation from individual gun to gun, than from year to year.

I have a 28 no dash, a beautiful late 1950s era Highway Patrolman that was well cared for, but it won't shoot better than 9-ring at 50 yards with any load. Trigger is pretty good but the gun just won't shoot, I don't know why. Meanwhile my 19-5, made after they stopped pinning barrels and recessing cylinders, is a 2" gun at 50y. To a collector the '50's 28 may represent a better era for S&W but to a shooter the 19-5 is the winner. I really, really wanted the 28 to shoot because I prefer the N-frame, but despite *trying* much harder testing and re-testing loads I could never make it group like the 19.

My 17-2 is my favorite .22 firearm, period, but it doesn't make the best poster child for old S&W quality seeing as the target hammer spur FELL OFF while dry firing. Also, I shoot nearly the same scores with a modern 617-6 4" that's got a great trigger from the factory. However, I also have a 617-6 6" which came with a significantly worse trigger. Again, I think gun-to-gun variation is so large it outweighs any good years and bad years.

Then you have other problems with the old stuff. For whatever reason, S&W put huge cylinder throats on the old .44s and .45s. Both my 29-2s gauge at .433" throats, which is oversize for the bullets commercial casters sell at .430". My Model of 1955 Target .45 ACP had .455" throats, and I used to shoot it with Brazos .454" bullets. It also had the chambers cut a little too short and if you used .45 ACP brass over .893", you couldn't close the cylinder! I eventually got tired of it and fit a 625 cylinder to it. Modern day S&W at least knows how to cut a hole the right diameter and depth. Now it shoots well with ordinary .452" bullets.

Price being equal, my bias would be towards new simply because it's easier to get parts and support for them. But I would also favor buying ANY revolver in person where you can inspect the thing.

Thank you for sharing your insight and experience.

Not very long ago I purchased a 686 plus performance model that appeared to me to be a nice platform with which to learn.

The trigger left much to be desired but I guess not all that surprising or unexpected. While it functioned satisfactorily, on closer inspection I noticed that the hammer was gouging/ peening the frame. The revolver was for me very costly….and disappointing.

A dear friend of mine is addressing / correcting these issues for me but I’m not sure how likely I would be to consider another new product from them. 

Perhaps I’ll find a nice used older model..or a different manufacturer.

I've owned one modern S&W and own a LOT of old S&Ws. I simply can't get over the gross QC problems of modern S&W I don't care how they shoot, especially since I can get an old one that does shoot and doesn't look like it was put together by Taurus. And it'd probably be cheaper than a new S&W too.

I would say on the whole, you're just as likely to get a lemon new S&W as any other S&W and that is in spite of the advancements in technology; new S&W just sucks and I wouldn't be surprised if they roll up the whole revolver line here in a few years with exception for maybe a few PC models and such.

it sounds as though these concerns are unfortunately not unique. 

it's very sad to hear. SW has a long and important history and i generally prefer purchasing American made products as this country has been very good to me and my family.

I've found several nice older larger frame SW revolvers online but so far, most are either from sellers who are unwilling to sell to California...or are out of my price range by the time one adds the requisite California taxes, transfer and registration fees.  Here FFL transfer fees are usually 100 dollars, plus there's a new additional 11% tax in addition to the standard purchase and shipping costs. 

Our local shop must value their stock highly as their prices on used firearms seem to exceed similar items i see posted on gun broker.

i'll keep looking and i sure appreciate everyone's input.

FWIW California's latest attack on the constitution does not appear to apply to used guns: "Imposes an excise tax in the amount of 11% of the gross receipts from the retail sale of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition."

https://oag.ca.gov/ogvp/new-firearm-law

brand-new wrote:it sounds as though these concerns are unfortunately not unique. 

it's very sad to hear. SW has a long and important history and i generally prefer purchasing American made products as this country has been very good to me and my family.

I've found several nice older larger frame SW revolvers online but so far, most are either from sellers who are unwilling to sell to California...or are out of my price range by the time one adds the requisite California taxes, transfer and registration fees.  Here FFL transfer fees are usually 100 dollars, plus there's a new additional 11% tax in addition to the standard purchase and shipping costs. 

Our local shop must value their stock highly as their prices on used firearms seem to exceed similar items i see posted on gun broker.

i'll keep looking and i sure appreciate everyone's input.

I would imagine CA would have some good selection when it comes to S&W revolvers in pawn shops and such, just on account of how many people there are.

jareds06 wrote:
I would imagine CA would have some good selection when it comes to S&W revolvers in pawn shops and such, just on account of how many people there are.

You'd be mistaken. People don't seem to get rid of them, and the few that do show up are snapped up immediately.

that has been my experience as well

I see a lot of nice looking older S&W revolvers in the used section of the local Cabelas. They'll ship free to any Cabelas/Bass Pro store. But if its not local, you'd be buying based on two or three photos and a minimal description.

https://www.cabelas.com/l/used-guns#sortCriteria=%40offerprice%20ascending&f-brand=Smith%20%26%20Wesson&f-action=Revolver&firstResult=64

thank you, we don't have a store locally but perhaps my FFL might be able to work with them. appreciate the link

Grifo wrote:I see a lot of nice looking older S&W revolvers in the used section of the local Cabelas. They'll ship free to any Cabelas/Bass Pro store. But if its not local, you'd be buying based on two or three photos and a minimal description.

https://www.cabelas.com/l/used-guns#sortCriteria=%40offerprice%20ascending&f-brand=Smith%20%26%20Wesson&f-action=Revolver&firstResult=64

Doesn't apply to shipping into Cali, unless the gun happens to be on the "safe guns" list. Guns not on the list (which is probably 99.9% of all S&W's ever made) can not be shipped into Cali. 

Virtually the only way you can obtain any S&W not on the list is from a private party that also resides in Cali.

JHHolliday wrote:I read the new Python is pretty good. All modern automated manufacturing vs the old hand fitting. I've not compared them- anyone here try both?

I have a new one with a 6" barrel and one manufactured in I believe 1981 also with a 6" barrel.

I ransom rest tested both and accuracy wise they are very similar...pretty much a 1/2 inch group at 20 yards.

Triggers are almost the same, both are very smooth.

I prefer the new grip versus the old. I put on a set of Nill grips on the older model.

My only complaint is with the rear sight on the new model. Colt put a tiny allen screw in the sight that you need to tighten.

Revolvers are what I like to shoot, I have tried them all. S&W is still the best made today, but they lack the Craftmanship that the older ones have. Fitting on the older ones was hand done and done right. There isn't much fitting needed on the new ones, most are drop in parts. Colt is a look at revolver, they wear out the barrels to a smooth barrel or loosen up the insides. I collected Smith's for awhile, I got worn out cleaning them. There. was over 400+ of them, best savings account there is. Problem of today there is NO Craftsman's ship in anything made. Trigger jobs aren't done but half right, if it moves it should be fitted and polished.

I don’t like the 2 piece barrel system Smith is using.   I am of the opinion the company is run by bean counters with no regard for customers.  I have seen to many that never should have left the factory.  

We will know it’s really serious when we are buying a Taurus because of the better quality.

From what I've read, the older guns were assembled by smiths who would swap lock parts out until they got a set that gave good results - leveraging the minor variations to get the best performance.  Modern guns...well, you have to remember that they are selling them to youngsters who think an untuned 1911 trigger is the most wonderous thing they have ever touched.  There's a strong attitude of selling the customer a moderately good gun for cheap and leaving the more knowledgeable consumers to take it to a gunsmith.

I recently sold two of my S&W revolvers. A 14-8 and a 29-8? I've already forgot what dash it was. Both of them were so called "classics". I didn't sell /offer any of my older ones for sale. Which pretty much tells you what I think of the newer ones. I also sold my newer model 41. ...

A new Manurhin or Korth will set you back $3,500+ perhaps a nice, like new vintage Python, will too. Are they superior to a new production S&W, Colt, or Ruger? I would say by and large yes, in fit and finish, accuracy and action.

As a personal preference, I do not like the way a Colt or Ruger feel, nor do I like the DA action, even after they have been aftermarket improved. However, the finish on the 70s maybe even 80's S&W was quite good, and they were accurate, however my experience the action was compromised. A nice, clean S&W of the 70s & 80s can have action reworked and may recut the throat, if needed, for $200 - $500. Then one may have a total of $1,000 - $1,300 in the gun and it will be a very nice gun, great action, accurate at less than half the cost of a Manurhin and maybe 1/3 the cost of a Korth.

Current production S&W that I have encountered have better out of the box actions than the guns of the 70's, however barrel type and installation methods as mentioned previously may compromise the accuracy as compared to the older style guns with pinned barrels. I'm not sure why S&W has compromised their revolver accuracy with modern production. Perhaps it is market research, keeping a price point vs the cost to make them as good (accuracy) as they were. Maybe it is quality ammo in the target .38 Spl variety, or the cost of that ammo considering the limited production quantities these days for target .38 spl.

IMO, if you are going to shoot the gun at 25 yds or less, then a new production S&W is the way to go. It will probably be more than fine right out of the box. If it is an L or N frame (686, 27 or similar) then you can shoot it with lead bullets or +P jacketed ammo and it will hold up. If you are going to shoot lead or less than +P ammo then a K frame will be fine.

If you intend to shoot the gun at 50 yds and do not intend on replacing the factory barrel, get an older (pre mid 80's) S&W or Colt, Ruger too if you like them and have a seriously competent revolver smith (there are few these days) go through the gun and you will have a fine great shooting gun.

Of course, opinions vary since preferences do to. Last, if I could have only one handgun, it would be a revolver. A .357 magnum S&W 4" L frame.

great information and insight, thank you

may i then ask, is there a generally preferred barrel length for shooting 25 to 50 yards on paper for little groups with adjustable target sights?

4, 5, or 6" Barrels will all be comparable for pure accuracy but the 6" length has long been considered the target barrel for competitive shooting.   The longer sight radius and balance of the gun are factors that help make that so too.  I have been intrigued with the 5" length especially when it comes to the large frame revolvers but that is the rarest length you will find so 6" is what I have for my target guns.

John

I have kicked myself 100 times for not buying a Dan Wesson pistol pack way back in 1978. Instead I could only afford one with an 8" barrel. Later bought a 4" barrel for it. Now I wish I had got a 6" too. In retrospect probably should have saved up another month or two and sprung for the pistol pack.

Those guns would shoot with anything at the time. That is why they dominated revolver class in handgun silhouette shooting in that era.

Darrell