Don't Build 'em Like They Used To!

[Confederate]

I've noticed that older like-new S&W revolvers aren't selling for any more or less than like-new S&W revolvers with locks and MIM parts, and wondered why.

At a gun store in Virginia, I saw a gorgeous like-new 7-shot 686 without a lock and with a far superior action and wood grips (that sold separately for $50) that was going for the same price as one just like it with a lock, a much stiffer trigger-pull and cheap rubber grips. It seems that despite the cut corners on the second gun that there was no price difference!

I asked the salesman about it and he conceded there were reliability issues with the locks (though not great), that the grips on newer guns were far less expensive to manufacture than wood grips, but more importantly, that the older hammers and triggers that used to be hand-fitted are now drop-ins and, as such, have significantly rougher, stiffer actions. Even with all these considerations, he said, buyers pay the same prices for the new guns as the old.

I couldn't believe it and wondered why. The older 7-shot 686 he had was much nicer -- and he had a K-frame that had an even better action than the other two and was like new.

The prices kept many owners of the older guns from selling them. When I asked about Ruger Security-Sixes, he conceded that the only ones they got were old beat-up models. People, he said, tended to hold on to the pristine models, which he said sold for $450. Well no wonder! Who wants to sell a like-new Security-Six for $300 so the gun store can sell it for $450?

People say they don't want S&W to cut corners, but apparently people will pay the same for the same models without regard for superior craftsmanship, and why are the prices of some guns being kept unrealistically low?

I've been looking for an older 4-inch 686 with hard-chromed hammer/trigger, wood grips, no lock, and in like-new condition because I foolishly got rid of mine years ago, but always thought I'd have to pay more. I also have like-new S&Ws that I'm simply not going to sell for the same "blue book" prices that "cheaper" guns. People pay more for hand-fit parts in Colt Pythons. Why aren't the older, better-made used guns commanding a premium over the used guns that are more cheaply made?

It doesn't make sense, and I think it keeps a lot of great guns out of circulation -- and it may be the reason people are hanging onto guns. I paid significantly more for my pinned and recessed 629 than what people are paying for new 629s today. It's still unfired and I suspect it will be a collector's item one day.

I'm just surprised things have gone as they have. The only Smith I actually wouldn't mind buying these days is a Model 60.

 

[Guillermo]

Most folks want what they want and they want it now.

Or they want a warranty.

Besides, some people care more about "new" than "quality"

They also call them by the same or similar "names" so the uneducated and/or uninitiated think that they are the same.

There are also the people that like guns made out of high tech ultra light materials.

Some people ignore politics and lack of customer concern

All in all, the phenomenon of which you speak happens for a variety of reasons

 

[Magnumite]

I think a good bit of it has to do with the fact the guns are revolvers. The last several years has seen a preponderance of semi auto buying. The revolvers are certainly not dead or dying, but the focus and demand are more on semiautos. If the market focus was on the revolver, you'd see premiums paid for the older guns such as one may see with Series I Kimbers.

 

[Daizee]

New guns lose value the moment they walk out the door, just like a car.
Two identical guns, one NIB and the other "used" will sell for different prices.
Say the new gun goes for $600 and the used one goes for $500.

Now take that used gun and assume it's an older model with a nicer action and no MIM parts. Give it a $100 premium - bingo, they're the same price. And BTW, the used gun has no federal excise tax on it, so add another percentage to the core value.
More of the money you pay is going against the actual market value of the gun itself, not to more abstract concepts like taxes and "newness". So you DO get more for your money, even if it's the same.

I think it's that simple. And the customers for each type only partially overlap (significantly, but definitely not completely).

Basically I agree with Guillermo, and that's my model of what's going on.

-Daizee

 

[MCgunner]

Some of the older Smiths just have a high demand and aren't made anymore. Look at the 3" 65s, for instance, if you can find one. 3" K frames are rare and valuable. Sorta depends on the model. 4" heavy barrel 10s, not so rare, not so expensive, and 10s are still produced, though I'd never trade my early 60s gem for a new one.

 

[Slamfire]

I asked the salesman about it and he conceded there were reliability issues with the locks (though not great), that the grips on newer guns were far less expensive to manufacture than wood grips, but more importantly, that the older hammers and triggers that used to be hand-fitted are now drop-ins and, as such, have significantly rougher, stiffer actions. Even with all these considerations, he said, buyers pay the same prices for the new guns as the old.

Issues with the locks have happened and there are very vocal people who hate them.

I never liked the old wood grips, they were uncomfortable for me, were not shaped like my hands, so I always took them off. I prefer the Hogue or Pachmyr and always have.

I forget when double fitted trigger parts ended, might have been pre WWII or in the 50's. Those had the smoothest actions.The late model production S&W's that I own or have handled still have excellent actions and pulls. Older actions have older springs that loose their spring tension and that will fool you into thinking that old guns have better actions. I recently purchased a M586 which had a wonderful double action. Unfortunately it was due to a weak mainspring and I got misfires in cold weather. When I put in a NOS vintage S&W mainspring, well the double action is no longer like a Python anymore.

The one thing I miss from the old days is the hammer mounted firing pin. I like direct strike ignition mechanisms, they lay more energy on the primer than systems which transfer energy through transfer bars, floating firing pins, etc.

It is my considered opinion that today's S&W's are the best machined examples to date.

But the only way I am letting loose my M624, is from my cold dead fingers.

 

[Clifford]

I'm not fond of MIM parts but the reality is they work well and are cheaper to produce than forgings. I really don't like the look of the lock but as far as function goes you can easily disable it to the point that it cannot cause any malfunction of the revo. Thou I would prefer that they put the lock on the hammer like Taurus, then you would have the option of completely removing it.

Other than snubbie's, I cannot imagine that the revolver market is getting any larger, more than likely it's shrinking. Now the mfr are trying to produce a complicated product (compared to most auto's) at a resonable price. It's not an easy task for any mfr to pull off, that's why most new revo's don't have the same fit & finish of the older models. It's simply the way mfr's have to produce them and still meet a price point that will actually move the product.

The only thing I really miss from the old days are resesed cylinders ala the old m27,28 and 29. I really like the look of it and you can be damn sure S&W isn't gonna start doing that again.

 

[Owen]

they can't put the lock on the hammer, because Taurus has a patents on that for another....10 years?

Seriously, Taurus sued S&W because their gun lock had a threaded part. No kidding, I was there.

 

[M&PVolk]

It sounds like many of you have the same approach to guns as I have to my cars...vintage is better! I have no doubt that from a quality of materials and craftsmanship perspective, the older guns are probably much nicer than their modern counterparts. The modern guns, like modern cars, maybe just lack what I refer to as "soul". Having said that, there is always a degree of doubt when purchasing a used gun. Just how used is it? By contrast, the purchase of a new gun provides a sense of security. Both are functionally the same and are likely to be just as reliable for their intended purpose despite the niggling differences.

For me, I might shun newer guns in longer barreled models, but I have no issue with my Airweight 637. The light alloy makes it perfect for its intended purpose, and the lock can be disabled. Also, the wear and tear on the gun isn't nearly as bothersome as it would be on a classic. For a range example, though, an older sample might be much more preferable. I don't drive the classic to work everyday, I drive a cheap beater for that. If I want to have fun or get around in style, only my classic will do.....

 

[Guillermo]

they can't put the lock on the hammer, because Taurus has a patents on that for another....10 years?

Old Fuff, THR member Extraordinaire, once said that Taurus offered their lock to Smith & Clinton free of charge.

Hopefully he will sweep in with his encyclopedic knowledge and expound upon this.

 

[Guillermo]

It sounds like many of you have the same approach to guns as I have to my cars...vintage is better!

The only advantage to a new Smith is if you want am ultra light frame or a configuration that was only recently added.

MIM parts, 2 piece barrels and poor fit&finish are what new Smiths are about. Mass produced and mediocre at best.

Forged hammers and triggers, hand fitted triggers, pinned barrels and recessed cylinders on the other hand...that is good stuff

The bottom line is that unless you care about whatever they call their version of Titanium, a 50 year old J frame is superior to a brand new one.

 

[Lastmohecken]

I recently paid $700 plus each for an older blued 4 inch model 29 and an older 6 inch model 25-2, 45 ACP revolver. Both had pinned barrels, great actions, factory target grips, and that wonderful old Smith and Wesson bluing. Those guns are getting harded to come by, all of the time, and I wouldn't trade either for a new Smith.

 

[Guillermo]

I wouldn't trade either for a new Smith.

nor should you

Those guns are far superior to ANYTHING that Smith makes today.

Besides, buying a new gun supports a company that does not care at all what its customers think. And why should they? As long as they go into the stores and buy their products Smith will be fine.

 

[JR47]

It's funny to see the adulation afforded old revolvers. Today's guns are actually better fitted. The old "hand-fitting" was required. Parts weren't capable of being held to the same tolerances as today, so fitting each gun was required.

I think that part of the issue is that there are fewer old guns today. The survivors tend to be examples that worked from the start, or were repaired early on. Without a history, one tends to assume that the gun works today, so it must always have worked. Great idea, but simplistic thinking.

The legal environment of 2010 is far different than that of 1930. Litigation and regulation are facts of life today. The factories could produce much better triggers, but the lawyers say "no", and that's it.

Nobody actually believes that S&W just decided one day to add a lock to their guns, do they? It was in response to legislation in various locales. They did so to allow shooters to obtain their products, and not just abandon them.

Many of today's gun problems can be avoided by examining the gun prior to purchase. Then, take it home, field-strip it, examine it, clean it, and lube it. Too many people think that a new gun is like a new car, and can be used without service by the buyer. Not happening.

I will freely agree that the finish of today's guns isn't on a par with the older pieces. THAT is a matter of money. Just look around at what a professional hot blue, by a knowledgeable gunsmith costs.

 

[420Stainless]

I only have one modern S&W - a Model 25-13. I like it just as much as my 60's and 70's era Smiths, but do wish it didn't have the IL. It is only three years old and I'm looking forward to seeing how well it ages.

 

[Old Fuff]

Today's guns are actually better fitted. The old "hand-fitting" was required. Parts weren't capable of being held to the same tolerances as today, so fitting each gun was required.

A short time ago I had an opportunity to examine an "older" S&W revolver. I was suprised to find that the cylinder had absolutely no rotational movement when it was locked, and zero cylinder end-shake too. The sideplate was so closely fitted that from two feet away you couldn't for the most part, see where the sideplate and frame came together. The stocks were still a perfect fit because they had been individually fit to the frame, and they were serial numbered to the gun.

Why would this attract my attention? Well it was because it was a .38 Double Action model, a top break that was made during 1884 or '85.

Some folks like to claim that current revolvers are machined to closer tolerances then before, and therefore are better fitted. Quit frankly this isn't always true, and my perspective come from going inside Smith & Wesson (as well as other) revolvers that were made from the Civil War to present day.

Older S&W revolvers were put together by highly skilled and experienced workman that used a process called "selective fitting." In particular hammers and triggers were matched so that if one was slightly undersized a slightly oversized part was matched against it. The result was a zero-tolerance fit.

Today the guns are simply assembled, put in any hammer and trigger and you're done. Suposedly the tolerances between MIM parts is close enough so no further attention is needed.

This is a more economical way to build guns, and doesn't require a high level of skill. I don't see that they are better, just less costly to make.

CNC programed machines don't always turn out perfect parts, and when they don't the result is an awful lot of identical out-of-tolerance parts - that end up being used anyway. So some folks have been surprised that when they returned a new gun for service, a major part, such as the frame, cylinder or barrel was replaced. On rare occasion the whole gun has been replaced.

So did any of this ever happen during the "old days?" Sure it did, and the company made it right if the matter was called to their attention. But if the new gun fans want to make an issue concerning fit and finish (as opposed to materials, which are unquestionably better) the Old Fuff can prove otherwise.

 

[Guillermo]

Parts weren't capable of being held to the same tolerances as today, so fitting each gun was required.

I was going to shoot this down but Old Fuff did it quite well, completely and effectively.

He does that

frequently

 

[Old Shooter]

Stastically the newer CNC and MIM parts are made to be "put it in and ship it, it's good to go"

In the real world the older hand fitted parts and actions are greatly superior in smoothness and function.

I can say that base on my own experience and that of many of my friends who own/shoot both older and newer Smiths.

Bellyache all you want, I ain't changing my mind!

 

[w_houle]

Where are the artisans... those skilled in being able to manufacture these marvel of manufacture? Look at your watch, your furniture... there's plenty of things that seem to be not where they were in days gone by.

 

[420Stainless]

and when they don't the result is an awful lot of identical out-of-tolerance parts - that end up being used anyway.

That's the saddest part. The machines and operators are both capable of making them close to perfect everytime, but the management pressure for ever increasing output with minimal inventories keeps the request for waivers on deviations to the specifications an all too common part of everyday business. If one part number isn't good it stops the whole assembly process to remake or rework them - and so every reason possible is explored to rationalize use of the out of spec. parts.

 

[Ala Dan]

Gentlemen: I have [and still probably would] pay extra for a solidly sound,
pre-MIM S&W revolver, than I would say a new one; ie: 642, 340PD, late
686 abd such. Now, I do own some of both; and the ones I do have are
extremely fine weapons, in every respect. My all time favorites, are a
4" pinned, pencil barrel S&W model 10-5 in .38 Special from the very
early 60's; and a 4" model 19-3 in the original factory box (with tools
and doc's) from 1975. Also, I own a little S&W model 34-1 .22LR "Kit
Gun" from 1982 that I would not take a fine bottle of wine for. All of
these Smiths rank amongest the top tier grade wise; being pristine in
every respect, and all are factory nickeled.

I am just as proud of my little D-frame Colts; especially the factory
nickel one that dates back to 1971, and only been test fired a total
of six times. The 2x blued models date back to 1966 (my good old
days spent in Uncle Sam's U.S. Army), and are in excellent overall
mechanical condition; and the finishes ain't half bad either~!
The larger Colts really never fit my hands, so after owning many
Colt Troopers, Pythons, etc. I gave up on them many year's ago.

As too the Rugers; I had a SS 4" Security-Six .357 magnum that
I bought NIB for $190 years ago, that really fit me well and was
accurate as all get out. It wore a set of Pachmayr grips, and I
had a Bianchi OWB real leather holster for it. Sadly, I let a co-
worker talk me out of it one day, for the sum of $225.

Case in point: Today, even tho' I'm a semi-auto guy; my LOVE
for good revolvers has a special place in my heart. If forced to
make a decision on making a purchase, I would not jump over
a good revolver, to get too any semi-automatic~!

 

[w_houle]

and so every reason possible is explored to rationalize use of the out of spec. parts.

Yeah, but take a dozen pre WWII guns apart, separate into components and separate the parts into boxes. Build a dozen pistols without picking your parts.

 

[atomd]

Cut a 2x4 in half with the very best blade that money can buy. Put the 2 pieces together and see how smoothly they fit together.

Then cut another 2x4 in half with the crappiest blade money can buy.....but then use an ultra fine grit sandpaper to fit the 2 together.

Attention to detail trumps technology sometimes. A skilled craftsman can fit gun parts together better using nothing but river rocks in the dark compared to a machine cranking them out by the thousand all day long. Time is money though....so those hand-fitted parts are going to cost you. We don't "need" them to make a reliable gun but when you want something special you need to find someone special to make it for you.

 

[Guillermo]

Yeah, but take a dozen pre WWII guns apart, separate into components and separate the parts into boxes. Build a dozen pistols without picking your parts.

nope

I will buy a dozen pre WWII guns and have a dozen great guns that are better than any of the shlock that the current company whose products bear the same name

 

[SaberOne]

I sold my older Smith's along time ago when I jumped on the auto-loader band wagon. Today, I'm still kicking myself. Now, I can still take a new steel Smith' and have someone like H. Bowen make the action as good as an old one, complete with 'some' forged parts. It simply costs a few hundred more to it.