New Classic Smith & Wesson Model 19

[Snake Plisskin]

Long time away , now returned. Anyone have one of the New Classic Smith & Wesson Model 19, personal review, photos ect, thanks for you help.


Something like this photo below

 

[Snake Plisskin]

 

[Drail]

I would strongly advise you to find a nice old one and buy it. The new ones are NOT worth the asking price. The 19 IS a great revolver.

 

[gotboostvr]

I would strongly advise you to find a nice old one and buy it. The new ones are NOT worth the asking price. The 19 IS a great revolver.

The new ones have a beefed up forcing cone compared to the old ones.

I'd say that alone is worth the price of admission.

If I hadn't already grabbed a spare barrel (and cylinder among other parts) I'd consider a new 19 to spare my old -3.

Maybe after I've installed my last spare barrel, I'll buy a new one.

 

[Snake Plisskin]

Well I alrready ordered one and it will be here tomorrow.I have never had a NIB Smith & Wessom before and this was my chance to go " Back to the Future " so to speak. With all the small changes it does not bother me in the least , I am not a purist just a shooter and I know I will enjoy it just fine.

I would strongly advise you to find a nice old one and buy it. The new ones are NOT worth the asking price. The 19 IS a great revolver.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Congrats on the new revolver. Don't forget the range report.

 

[thomas15]

You will probably want to do a trigger job on it.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Here is the flat on the underside of the forcing cone of my Model 19-3 from 1975. I would be very interested to see a close up of the forcing cone on one of the new ones.

 

[MrBorland]

AFAIK, the new K-frames don't have the flat underside. I pulled the pic off the interweb to confirm. IIRC, a bit less of the forcing cone extends beyond the frame as well. And from those I've checked out, the ball detent works rather well, and the gun locks up tight. I've not shot the new K-frames, but my bet is they shoot just fine. I would advise the OP to inspect their new gun closely before taking it home

 

[Snake Plisskin]

Here is a photo of the new 19 Classic forcing cone , looks fine to me. JMHO

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

Thanks for the photos.

The forcing cone looks great.

But I am not crazy about the spring loaded ball and detent. A cost saving departure from the original design. They could have saved the old spring latch at the front of the ejector rod, but that is more expensive to make than a ball detent.

But that's just me.

 

[MrBorland]

But I am not crazy about the spring loaded ball and detent. A cost saving departure from the original design.

The ol' "if it's new, it must only be a cost-saving approach that cheapens the quality of the product"

Well, I'm not so sure about either: From what I've seen, the ball detent works well to lock up the gun. Ball detents have to be designed and installed correctly for them to work well (I had a respected gunsmith install one in one of my revos, and it did next to nothing). It's not clear to me that it'd be any cheaper than the original design.

And as far as function, one of the Achilles heel of the traditional S&W design is they use the front of the ejector rod to lock the front of the cylinder (the other Achilles heel is the yoke screw). If the ejector rod is even a wee bit bent, the action can be significantly affected. On top of that, this design puts the lockup much further forward than where the force is actually applied. Finally, some may argue about how significant it is, but the spring and contact force adds drag to the cylinder, and therefore a bit of pullweight to the DA trigger. Redesigning and relocating this far-forward lockup to a ball detent at the front of the cylinder gets around all of these issues.

 

[mcb]

I would rather have the ball detent on the crane than the ejector rod lock. If the ejector rod backs out just a little bit with an ejector rod lock you have a real pain in the butt to get the revolver open. With the crane ball detent the ejector rod can unscrew several full turns and you can still get it open. My 627 has a ball detent in the crane that engages the ejector rod shield an it works very nicely.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The ol' "if it's new, it must only be a cost-saving approach that cheapens the quality of the product"

Well, I'm not so sure about either: From what I've seen, the ball detent works well to lock up the gun. Ball detents have to be designed and installed correctly for them to work well (I had a respected gunsmith install one in one of my revos, and it did next to nothing). It's not clear to me that it'd be any cheaper than the original design.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I never said a spring plunger cheapens a product. I said it is a cost saving departure from the original design.

In another life, when I was a mechanical designer I used spring plungers all the time. They are available in many, sizes and materials as standard off the shelf products. Ruger is using them in the recoil shield of the New Vaquero to index the cylinder to the loading position when the loading gate is open.

A simple off the shelf part, which in quantities will only cost pennies, is much more cost efficient to design into a firearm than the traditional method S&W used to latch the front of the ejector rod. It also means less parts, and less parts means cost savings. With an off the shelf spring plunger all you do is select the size and material you need, and drill a hole the correct size to receive it. You can thread the hole or you can simply drill a press fit hole and press them in position. They come with and without thread lockers on them too. Then all you do is line up a detent in your 3D model for the plunger to catch in. Then you send the 3D model information to the CNC department so they can program it into the machines. Really, really simple, and less expensive to produce than the traditional way S&W always latched the front of the extractor rod with parts made in house.

https://www.mcmaster.com/ball-detents

In the rare situation where an off the shelf plunger will not fill the bill, one can be designed from scratch and mass produced for just a few pennies more than a standard one.

Smith and Wesson has always been about driving the cost out of manufacturing. Always. MIM parts are only the latest example. Driving the cost out of manufacturing means the product can be produced for less. Then the manufacturer has the choice of whether to pass the cost savings onto the customer or not.

Regarding the extractor rod unscrewing and getting stuck, absolutely, I have had that happen. You give the rod a little bit of extra torque so it won't happen. Of course S&W modified the design years ago, putting a reverse thread on the extractor rod so the normal operation of the revolver would tend to tighten, rather than loosen, the extractor rod.

I just prefer the older design.

Like I said, that's just me.

 

[cfullgraf]

I just prefer the older design.

I agree, I like the older S&W designs (post Model Number series through the late 1990's). I've had the opportunity to collect a few in recent years. I've enjoyed your posts of older S&W revolvers.

But, I do like upgrades and improvements in the design and new models not previously available. I like the K-frame models with adjustable sights so I may invest in a current Model 19 or Model 66. I've cracked a forcing cone on a 1980's vintage Model 19 so the upgrade design has some interest to me.

I don't shoot very much top 357 magnum loads any more so about any revolver in my gun safe is safe from potential damage.

Bottom line though, our hobby has lots of flexibility in what one wants to concentrate on. So, keep looking for those rare/unusual S&W revolvers to impress us with. If nothing else, I'll enjoy the information.

 

[CajunBass]

I've got one of the new ones, (see my avatar). While I haven't shot the new one a lot, it shoots just fine. The grips are a little narrow, but not enough for me to change them. I don't/won't shoot it a lot with Magnum loads anyway so they'll be fine. If you require bigger grips, any grips for a round butt K-frame will work.

Cost. I paid about what I paid for an unfired (outside the factory) Model 66-1 in a presentation case. I could and did, not long after, buy a nice 19-4 for less. Again, pay your money and take your choice.

The thing that "bugs" me most about it is that extra .2" of barrel. There is no logical reason to not like it. Heck, I can barely tell the difference unless I hold them side by side, but I "know" it's there. I know why they did it, and I think it's a good idea, but it still bugs me. I have a thing for 4" barrels.

Only you can decide if you want to buy a new one or not. I did because I haven't bought a "new" Smith and Wesson revolver (a Model 19 actually) in about 40 years. The things like the lock, MIM parts, two piece barrel and such, don't bother me at all.

edited to add: Another advantage of the "new" Model 19 is that I can walk into my local gunshop this morning, and buy one. I don't have to wait/hunt for one.

 

[Slamfire]

Pretty!

 

[Slamfire]

AFAIK, the new K-frames don't have the flat underside. I pulled the pic off the interweb to confirm. IIRC, a bit less of the forcing cone extends beyond the frame as well. And from those I've checked out, the ball detent works rather well, and the gun locks up tight. I've not shot the new K-frames, but my bet is they shoot just fine. I would advise the OP to inspect their new gun closely before taking it home

View attachment 804942

Looks like S&W redesigned the barrel so less of it hangs out of the frame. That is all to the good as the barrel cone has more support and it less likely to crack with hot loads. The original K frame 357 Magnums had a reputation, and I met a guy to whom it had happened, that the barrel cone would crack with 125 grain loads that made major.

 

[Snake Plisskin]

I've got one of the new ones, (see my avatar). While I haven't shot the new one a lot, it shoots just fine. The grips are a little narrow, but not enough for me to change them. I don't/won't shoot it a lot with Magnum loads anyway so they'll be fine. If you require bigger grips, any grips for a round but K-frame will work.

Cost. I paid about what I paid for an unfired (outside the factory) Model 66-1 in a presentation case. I could and did, not long after, buy a nice 19-4 for less. Again, pay your money and take your choice.

The thing that "bugs" me most about it is that extra .2" of barrel. There is no logical reason to not like it. Heck, I can barely tell the difference unless I hold them side by side, but I "know" it's there. I know why they did it, and I think it's a good idea, but it still bugs me. I have a thing for 4" barrels.

Only you can decide if you want to buy a new one or not. I did because I haven't bought a "new" Smith and Wesson revolver (a Model 19 actually) in about 40 years. The things like the lock, MIM parts, two piece barrel and such, don't bother me at all.

edited to add: Another advantage of the "new" Model 19 is that I can walk into my local gunshop this morning, and buy one. I don't have to wait/hunt for one.

The extra barrel length has to do with our friends to the North ( Canada ) as they have some crazy law no revolvers under 4" thus 4.2" for Smiths and Rugers and any other revolver manufacturer.So no worries we will just have to live with it.I see no big deal about it. Heck Ruger makes a 5", there are others who make 2", 2.5" . 2 3/4". 3" , 45/8 , 6" , 6.5" ect from other gun makers.

 

[mcb]

I would love to see them make a Model 13 based on this new frame. Now that would be a nice combat revolver.

 

[Snake Plisskin]

Here is part of the Canada's crazy law :
Prohibited firearms include: Handguns

• with a barrel length less than to 105 millimetres (4.1 in), or;
• that are designed to discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition;
• exceptions are stated in the Regulations Prescribing Exclusions from Certain Definitions of the Criminal Code International Sporting Competition Handguns[

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

The new ones aren't BAD looking, exactly. Just the proportions are strange to my eyes. I think it's mainly the different curve angle at the back of the frame to accommodate the lock. This also hides more of the hammer, making it seem smaller than it is.

MIM parts bug my aesthetic sense as well. I like my steel milled, not "poured."

From a practical sense, I'm sure the new 19 is stronger, more accurate, and durable than the old K- frame magnums........but.....but......aargh.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

This thread is making want to buy a 357 or 38 revolver. I currently don't have one but really want one!

 

[Master Blaster]

Great looking gun, there is nothing wrong with buy a new S&W revolver instead of hunting for an older model! In fact I own both new and old revolvers. S&W has turned out great revolvers and Lemons all through their history. My newest is a model 625 PC made in 2017, and the oldest I currently own is a K-22 made in 1952. Yes the older Smiths are prettier, but the brand new ones are just as durable, shoot just as well, and have a warranty and parts which could be important if you shoot tens of thousands of rounds per year. Congrats on your purchase enjoy it!

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

S&W has turned out great revolvers and Lemons all through their history.

Whoa.

Please identify a lemon that S&W has produced in the past. And I don't mean 'lemonsqueezers'.