Pre numbered models from 1947 to 1957 the Best?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
5,687
Location
Delaware home of tax free shopping
Yesterday I took my 1956 Smith & Wesson .357 magnum to the range. Here is a picture. It seems to me that the years 1947 to 1958, may have been the best for quality and features for S&W revolvers. Do other folks agree? Is this the optimum time frame for old Smith's in terms of features like sights, ribbed barrels, and short throw actions, as well as fit finish and accuracy? IMG_20190727_195425_644.jpg
 
Last edited:
Howdy

I suspect that in 1899 when the first 38 Military and Police came out there may have been those who bemoaned the lowering of quality from what had come previously. That is human nature.

Your criterion of including short throw actions probably makes your statement true. I don't remember exactly when short throw actions first showed up, I think it was shortly after WWII.

But I have lots of 'modern' Smiths from before 1947 and I think they do not take a back seat to anything later, with the possible exception of short throw actions.

I just took a look in the SCSW and it appears modern Micro Click rear sights and short actions first appeared with the K-22 Masterpiece (Pre War), only made from 1940 to 1941. Although this short action hammer did not resemble the modern one with the deep gullet between the hammer spur and the hammer body and the deep checkering on the hammer spur that we have come to associate with the modern short throw hammer. Like the one on your 1956 357 Magnum.

Also, a lot of folks deride the Bangor Punta guns, but the first Smith I ever bought was my Model 17-3 which I bought new in 1975. The quality of that revolver, both inside and out, is second to none.

Model_17-302_zps1ae99eb4.jpg




The CNC machining inside the frame is second to none.

17framecloseup02_zpsb8362c19.jpg




This Model 14-3 from 1974 is no slouch either.

model14-3box02_zps33983522.jpg



So all in all, your premise is pretty subjective. But if part of your criteria is modern Micro Click rear sights and modern short throw hammers, I would at least extend the time period to some of the Bangor Punta guns.
 
JMHO I think that while the workmanship has declined over the years metallurgy and many design changes have improved.
Again IMHO the golden years for high quality Smiths is from post WW2 til the early 80 when they stopped pinning the barrels.
This is reflected in my collection. IMG_20190202_164036495.jpg
 
I agree with mavracer. But much of that is my own personal preference. IMO, when the boys got back home from the war (WW II), they were ready to go to work, provide for their families, and had a sense of pride in their abilities that I don't think we have seen since. In the following picture, there are 5 pre-war S&Ws, and 13 post-war S&Ws. Of the post-war, 8 of them are non-model marked, 5 are model-marked and two of them are non-pinned. The only one that is not a Hand Ejector (swing out cylinder) is the one top break .32 Safety Hammerless. The oldest HE is the nickel plated .32 Hand Ejector, 1st Change from 1906. The newest one is the 16-4 with 8 3/8" full lug barrel from 1989. 1 is from 1948, 7 are from the 1950s, 1 from the 1960s, 2 from the 1970s, and 2 from the 1980s. Guess that makes the 1950s my favorite decade. DSC07751a.jpg

Sure makes for quite a "menagerie". Oh yeah, calibers are .22, .32 S&W Long, .32 H&R Magnum, .38 Spl., .357 Magnum and .45 ACP.
 
The .32 Long is a terrible round, you should sell it to me. :D

Beautiful Smiths folks.

You need to be more specific. There are 4 of them in my pic. ;) One of them gets carried fairly often. It has 6 "warmer than average" cartridges in the cylinder.
 
I have always believed the "5-screw" S&Ws are superior to later versions, particularly the recent offerings with frame mounted firing pins and ILs. The "short action" versions of the 5-screw models (those from the years the OP is referring to) are to me the Golden Age of S&W. YMMV!

Dave
 
I am going to engage in a little heresy here.

The guns that S&W are making right now are as good as any. Yes, they have two piece barrels, yes they have the "Hillary Hole", yes, they have MIM.

But if my two latest acquisitions are anything to go by, S&W still knows how to make a darned fine revolver. These 64-8 models were surplus corrections and LEO, but like new in box, one is a 4" and the other a 3". They shoot just as well as anything else that I have in the safe.

I compare these with an M&P pre-model 10, a 64 no dash, a 37 no dash, a 686 no dash, a 642 no dash, a 442 no dash, and a 19-4. They hold their own against the best, even if they aren't the prettiest girls at the dance.
 
In terms of fit in finish, I think the pre-war revolvers have the edge. While I personally prefer the .44 Special Triple Lock, the pre-war Registered Magnum is probably the pinnacle of fit and finish for Smith & Wesson.

In my opinion, it's hard to beat a pre-war S&W .44 Special, though the pre-24 is one of my favorite target revolvers.

GRtJeXu.jpg

T3uIip0.jpg
 
I like the new ones too, I have a PC 627 from 2008, and a PC 625 from 2017. They shoot very well and have good triggers, many sight options, and very smooth actions. The polishing and hand fitting have been replaced by modern technology.
 
that is the timeline I prefer, though I would buy anything without the hillary-hole.

murf
 
I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but if one time period is "better" than the other, I can't tell it.

I don't really have any old ones anymore, but I've got a Model 19 from 2018, and a Model 13 from about 1980 or so that has been fired, but basically is in NIB condition. I can tell they're different, but I don't know if one is "better" than the other.
 
I have S&W, 45 ACP revolvers from 1918 through to the 22-4. The best factory trigger is on the 22-4s. It will also group with my 25-2.

Kevin
 
In terms of fit in finish, I think the pre-war revolvers have the edge. While I personally prefer the .44 Special Triple Lock, the pre-war Registered Magnum is probably the pinnacle of fit and finish for Smith & Wesson.

In my opinion, it's hard to beat a pre-war S&W .44 Special, though the pre-24 is one of my favorite target revolvers.

View attachment 852675

View attachment 852676


That top one is one of the coolest Smiths I've ever seen. Tons of class!
 
Yesterday I took my 1956 Smith & Wesson .357 magnum to the range. Here is a picture. It seems to me that the years 1947 to 1958, may have been the best for quality and features for S&W revolvers. Do other folks agree? Is this the optimum time frame for old Smith's in terms of features like sights, ribbed barrels, and short throw actions, as well as fit finish and accuracy?View attachment 852355

No I don't agree with that even a little bit.

I have a lot of 5-screw Smiths from the 1950's, to include a Pre-27 and Pre-29. Yes they are very finely made. However, they don't hold half a candle to a pre war N Frame, such as this 1938 3.5" Registered Magnum pictured below...


RwiBDh.jpg

AMtQXH.jpg

OAI68V.jpg

a8Aphw.jpg

3i5Lo4.jpg

Ssf6mS.jpg

I1dIit.jpg

TXpFvR.jpg

x60geM.jpg
 
Last edited:
My old 38-44 Outdoorsman, N frame 38 Special with adjustable sights, is not a high condition handgun. The gun was made in 1934. These older Smith's had a level of workmanship simply not found in postwar guns. This is not a slam on postwar guns. I like and enjoy the postwar guns. Compare a postwar 357 Magnum/Model 27 to those Registered guns. For that matter take a pre-war K frame 38 Special and compare to post war K frames in this age range we are discussing. I have done this with my old 38-44 to my current N frames. This comparison includes a 60's vintage Model 29. Side by side there is no contest. Prewar wins!
 
My old 38-44 Outdoorsman, N frame 38 Special with adjustable sights, is not a high condition handgun. The gun was made in 1934. These older Smith's had a level of workmanship simply not found in postwar guns. This is not a slam on postwar guns. I like and enjoy the postwar guns. Compare a postwar 357 Magnum/Model 27 to those Registered guns. For that matter take a pre-war K frame 38 Special and compare to post war K frames in this age range we are discussing. I have done this with my old 38-44 to my current N frames. This comparison includes a 60's vintage Model 29. Side by side there is no contest. Prewar wins!
Yes it goes for K frames also. I have some pre war K frames and some 1950’s K frames. Big difference.

For example, a 1930’s Outdoorsman 22 is a not nicer than a 1950’s K22. Two different levels of craftsmanship.
 
I can't do photos. It would clear up the discussion if somebody pop the side plate of a pre-war what became the N and/or K frame. On some of the old Smith you had pins in the hammer. These pins located the hammer so as not to allow chaffing. Boy, do we need a picture. Of the current guns my favorite is my 6" Model 19. We are talking apples and oranges here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top