new vs old - j/frames

[Fat Boy]

Which is a better gun for carry/use and why? The gun will be a shooter, not a safe-queen-

1. A S&W Centennial, made around 1953- gun is in good shape, sale price is $400

2. A new-production j-frame; probably a 442 or similar

I tend to think the quality of the older gun "as new" would be better than the newly minted 442; better craftsmanship, better steel, no lock, no MIM, and so forth-

On the other hand, an older gun might have some metal fatigue?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Lucky Derby]

Between the two, I would go with the Pre-model 40.

I wouldn't subject either to large amounts of +P, just enough to familarize and load up for business.
The steel frame would be easier to shoot and it doesn't have the #$%^ lock.

 

[9mmepiphany]

3 or 4 years ago i would have made the same recommendation as Lucky Derby

i've since had several conversations with one of the foremost S&W revolversmiths and have changed my mind..

the newer 442 is made on more precise CNC machining and the fit and finish of MIM parts result in a superior action feel. also the steel and treatment is better, which avoids stretching

 

[owlhoot]

I too would go with the pre-40 model. Nevertheless, 9mmepiphany is correct as far as the smoother action comment is concerned. I have several ancient J frames and none has an action as smooth as my friend's new 442.

 

[Old Fuff]

If the older revolver has a grip safety be aware that the recoil of a .38 Special is enough to bruse your hand. The safety was a carry-over from the old .38 Safety Hammerless top-break that was chambered in .38 S&W. It was mild enough so the recoil didn't matter. Smith & Wesson got the message and dropped the safety, which wasn't necessary anyway.

Personally, I'm not sold on the idea that the CNC machined guns with MIM lockwork are all that better. If everything they make now is absolute prefection I have to wonder about new guns that get sent back for warrantee work, and come back with new cylinders, barrels, and even frames. Of course this happened occasionally with the older guns too, but then no one was making questionable claims about modern tooling.

What CNC machines do is make identical parts, one after the other. But nowhere is it written that they are always right.

 

[MMCSRET]

I'm not up to speed on these but a question comes to mind. Was the original S&W Centennial built in 38 S&W and if so was it done on an "I" frame, think Regulation Police.
Just curious, the original thread question brought it all to mind and I'm finding S&W nomenclature/cartridge/model# difficult to commit to memory. When was the "I" frame dropped for a particular model and the "J" frame substituted. I do know that the Regulation Police was not offered in 38 Special.
Questions, questions, questions;aaaahhhhh, I'm so confused!!!!!!

 

[RatDrall]

The only reason to buy an older S&W is to have a gun without the lock.

You can buy a brand new S&W 442, without the lock, for $440 or so.

It's getting harder to find a reason to pay almost as much for a 50 year old gun that is less durable, not to mention that the model you listed has a grip safety, one more part to malfunction...

 

[Old Fuff]

Questions, questions, questions;aaaahhhhh, I'm so confused!!!!!!

Poor baby...

Was the original S&W Centennial built in 38 S&W and if so was it done on an "I" frame, think Regulation Police.

No, it was made on a J-frame, modified to take a grip safety and enclosed hammer. It was chambered in .38 Special. It was preceeded by the .38 Safety Hammerless (1887-1940) that was a top-break and chambered in .38 S&W. It was S&W's original enclosed hammer pocket revolver and also had the grip safety.

When was the "I" frame dropped for a particular model and the "J" frame substituted. I do know that the Regulation Police was not offered in 38 Special.

The I-frame was similar to the J-frame, but slightly shorter and had a shorter cylinder. The I-frames were made in .22 RF, .32 S&W Long and .38 S&W. The Regulation Police was based on a standard I-frame, modified to take larger square-butt stocks. The I-frame revolvers were discontinued shortly after the J-frame "Chief Special" was introduced in 1950.

 

[Old Fuff]

It's getting harder to find a reason to pay almost as much for a 50 year old gun that is less durable, not to mention that the model you listed has a grip safety, one more part to malfunction...

I can think of a number of reasons, not counting the lock, to buy the older revolver. But if you prefer the newer ones... well to each his own.

As for the grip safety, Smith & Wesson introduced it in 1887, in their top-break Safety Hammerless line of revolvers. They were so popular production of the .32 continued until 1937, and the .38 until 1940. It was reintroduced in the first Centennial J-frame hand ejector in 1952. Unlike the current internal lock, the grip safety had no functional issues during this entire time span. However some find it to be unconfortable when shooting .38 Specials out of a lightweight Centennial, and as it was unnecessary the company dropped it.

 

[Fat Boy]

If the older revolver has a grip safety be aware that the recoil of a .38 Special is enough to bruse your hand. The safety was a carry-over from the old .38 Safety Hammerless top-break that was chambered in .38 S&W. It was mild enough so the recoil didn't matter. Smith & Wesson got the message and dropped the safety, which wasn't necessary anyway.

Thank you, Old Fuff for this bit of information- It is something I hadn't even considered- Along this line, I believe I read somewhere that these "grip safety" equipped guns had a way to pin the safety down, is this accurate, and if so, would that allow the addition of some polymer or rubber grips that would encase the backstrap of the frame?

 

[MMCSRET]

I am also a fan of the older designs and the workmanship that went into them. The reason I reference the Regulation Police in 38 S&W is because I fell into one some months back. Made in 1935/36, it is absolutely beautiful to look at the fit and finish of all the parts, even the stocks numbered to the gun. I knew Colt was good and always considered S&W to be a mass produced piece. This little "I" frame has caused me to look closer at older S&W. I seldom look at anything new anymore.

 

[Old Fuff]

I believe I read somewhere that these "grip safety" equipped guns had a way to pin the safety down, is this accurate, and if so, would that allow the addition of some polymer or rubber grips that would encase the backstrap of the frame?

You can pin the safety so that it's deactivated, but it still sticks out to the same degree that it would if you were squeezing it in far enough to fire the revolver. In theory you could cover the pinned safety with wrap-around stocks (wood, rubber or whatever) but you would need at least 3/16" of material at the back.

I like the model 40, but shoot "soft" loads. That's one solution. Another would be to remove the safety and make a filler to fill the space in the frame. Sounds difficult but isn’t, and no alterations would be made to the gun or safety, although it wouldn’t work of course. After the modification you could use most if not all of the stocks that fit later “no-safety” guns.

Depending on the individual, the safety may or may not be an important consideration, but now is the time to bring the matter up.

 

[MICHAEL T]

I only buy early S&W. I have a few in the safe. My carry 38 is a model 40 bodyguard It is a great pistol and I don't mind the little extra weight .Helps tame recoil. I shot one of these new lite weight snubs with the factory rubber grips . 5 rounds and I gave back to owner . I will keep my 49, The owner of that little J frame finished box of +P and traded pistol next day .
I have real barrel not a barrel with a shroud . Made to look like a barrel . No min parts and a lovely blue finish Not a ugly modern cheaper finish . You all keep buying the new stuff leaves me the older guns at a reasonable price. I prefer the better made older ones.
Wasn't it in NC or SC that prison guards got new S&W revolvers and when range firing the barrels begin snapping off . Yes that quality.

 

[Diggers]

The old revolvers are pretty for sure. Ofcourse you never really know what you are buying when you buy one, but if its a gun you really like then go for it.

About the new revolvers, I have a 442 with NO LOCK which I bought about a year ago.
Its nice to carry being 15 or so oz. and because I don't pocket carry I put a larger grip on it. I've big hands so the grip gives me something to hold onto and its nice for recoil. (Not that the recoil is that bad )

I like it, its not a gun you take the the range and go through 200 +p rounds with though, its not intended for that. Shooting regular .38s is not a problem at all.

 

[camsdaddy]

I would go new. I realize Im and oddball. I recently purchaced a 1968-1969 M38. I really like it but would trade it for a 442 quickly. I dont know why really. I like the wider front site. I like the fact that its rated for +P. I like the way the triggers feel on the newer models. I wouldnt pay $400 for a used one considering what I paid for mine. This is just my personal opinion. I say this with my M38 on my person while my Glock and other S&W are in storage. I would get a J frame without hesitation.

 

[Radagast]

The Regulation Police continued in production on the Improved I frame until 1961.

 

[madcratebuilder]

The I-frame was similar to the J-frame, but slightly shorter and had a shorter cylinder. The I-frames were made in .22 RF, .32 S&W Long and .38 S&W. The Regulation Police was based on a standard I-frame, modified to take larger square-butt stocks. The I-frame revolvers were discontinued shortly after the J-frame "Chief Special" was introduced in 1950.

Most I frame and improved I frame revolvers made the transition to J frame in 1961, M30, M31, and M32 to name a few.

I thought the early Centennial was a JC frame, and JCA for the early airweights. These would have had a pin stored under the grip to lock the backstrap safety down, most are missing.

I would buy the early Centennial, that's not a bad price. You can buy a new gun anytime.

 

[rainbowbob]

If the older revolver has a grip safety be aware that the recoil of a .38 Special is enough to bruise your hand.

I bought an old Model 40 for my every day carry. I soon discovered what Old Fuff is pointing out - that safety bites the webbing between my thumb and trigger finger.

As for fit and finish - I was surprised to discover the cylinder stop protrudes just enough to catch a casing if lined up just so and prevent ejection.

...remove the safety and make a filler to fill the space in the frame. Sounds difficult but isn’t...

How is it done? Since my 40 will probably be heading to the factory anyway, is that something they could do? Although I hate to modify a classic...that grip safety is too uncomfortable to shoot a lot. If it does eventually become my every day - I want to shoot it a lot.

 

[bhp9mm]

the Centennial

 

[Cosmoline]

If the grip safety bugs you, get the newer one. I prefer the old to the new.

 

[Steve 48]

I really like the older ones regardless of the machining process.

 

[OldCavSoldier]

I have old J-frame Smiths and new J-frame Smiths. Those in both groups are velvety-smooth in double action and so crisp in single action that you don't know the shot is off until it is off.

If the history of the old gun is known and acceptable, then go for it. If not, then, you are taking a risk. Personally, I would not want to trust my life on something that I did not fully know the history, and, therefore, would recommend the new piece.

Just my opinion.

 

[shockwave]

I would not want to trust my life on something that I did not fully know the history, and, therefore, would recommend the new piece.

Same here. I always buy new.

 

[Old Fuff]

I would not want to trust my life on something that I did not fully know the history, ...

I don't worry about history so much as condition, which is something I look into regardless if the gun is new or used; and I've inspected an awful lot of them that weren't right when brand new and still in the box. You guys have a lot more faith in current quality control inspections then I do.

For starters I like used ones that have enough use to show that they work, which is something you can never be sure about when dealing with a new one. After I get past that issue I start looking for defects. In my experience used guns that have problems are quickly detected, and these I pass - unless, which is sometimes the case I can buy them at a deeply discounted price. This has been going on for a long, long time - and so far I haven't been stuck with anything I wouldn't stake my neck on.

 

[Guillermo]

It's getting harder to find a reason to pay almost as much for a 50 year old gun that is less durable, not to mention that the model you listed has a grip safety, one more part to malfunction

with the kind of garbage that Smith is producing these days I find it silly to pay the premium for anything new