1911Forum banner

S&W post-2000 year models

8K views 76 replies 40 participants last post by  Austin_TX 
#1 ·
Why so much dislike for post-2000 revolvers? Is it JUST the internal lock, or are there other reasons?
 
#2 ·
My experience is a sample of one but my 4" 629 44 mag purchased new a decade back has been a great shooter. All it needed was some trigger work. It's straight, fit and finish is excellent, locks up tight and always worked perfect. Hate the Hillary hole but that is the only downer. I own several Smith's vintage 1960's/70's for comparison.
 
#3 ·
For me, I very much disslike the safety hole in the side of the frame.

I only own two recent Smith revolvers, 929s. Both of which I yanked the cylinders and barrels out of and put them in older, non-safety, N frames I had laying around.
 
#4 ·
Ive read that "hot loads" can inadvertantly vibrate the revolver into a locked position. Would having a smiff remove/disable the internal lock make it more desireable, or is it truly the "hole" that bothers most folks??

Reason I ask, I found a new revolver I really like. Its a limited edition (1 of 300) model from Altamont that has scroll work...but it has the lock. Wondered if that would make it less collectable/desireable to the revolver crowd.
 
#6 ·
Smith revolvers locking up due to the lock self activating did occur in some small J frames when shot with .357 loads, but reports about this occurred when such guns first came on the market. Not much recently and in K, L and N it didn't seem to happen. Current collectors do get turned off by the lock, but I think in a decade or two nobody will care as much. I think if you like the gun you should get it, especially if you want to soot it. I have a number of Smiths with the lock and have never had one self activate.
 
#7 ·
The hate for the lock stems from the reason it's there in the first place, rather than the lock itself. The frame profile of the K frame had to be tweaked to accommodate the lock, so now it looks "fat."

Overall quality is decent, but the resell value of locked equipped guns isn't as good, and they're just simply ugly. My double action revolver money goes to Ruger and Colt, until that lock goes away. Ruger got rid of theirs when we complained, now it's time for S&W to do the same.
 
#17 ·
The hate for the lock stems from the reason it's there in the first place, rather than the lock itself. The frame profile of the K frame had to be tweaked to accommodate the lock, so now it looks "fat."
+1 the re-contouring of the frame made it look like a bloated whale. S&W finally re-did the frame contouring on some of the revolvers recently but the damage was already done. The hole doesn't bother me as much as the "fat" frame.

FWIW, I bought a dozen or so Smith revolvers in the past year, none have the lock.
 
#8 ·
For me personally, it's mostly looks. The lock in the side of the frame ruins the look of the gun. Taurus revolvers have had locks longer than S&W, and no one complains about them. They were out of the way and unnoticeable.

S&W on the other hand drills a damn hole in the side of the gun... The working side of the gun that you pretty much have to look at every time it's in your hand. Some of the worst trigger pulls I've ever seen on a Smith, was on a lock gun. Though, I have never taken one apart to see if it interferes with the trigger pull.

I am not opposed to a locking system, but I want the choice to choose. I can lock my **** up in the safe, I don't need a lock on the gun I'd never use.
 
#10 ·
My LGS had a sale on all s&w n frames with the mim/ loc for $699 I think I can accept the nib n frames for that, anything in nickel gets my vote.
 
#11 ·
Nickle? I'm bettin' you'll have to settle for Stainless, unless you want to have an aftermarket nickle job done.

I have Smiths with the IL and without. Personally, I spend much more time looking down the sights of all of them, than I do staring at the left side. To me, the so called "Hillary Hole" is less obtrusive that the Billboard warning sign on the side of many Rugers. As for MIM.....most everyone that mass produces firearms uses them. They are time tested and proven to be just as reliable as hand-fitted and much more consistent. Ugly? As others have said, there are much uglier revolvers out there, even without the hole. Big thick Frames and square corners. No, A S&W is like a good looking blonde. Everyone wants her, but those who can't, feel the need to make "dumb" blonde jokes to make themselves feel better.....:biglaugh:

Out of all my S&Ws, my newer ones with the hole, are the most accurate. Some of those are models never produced before the "hole". Coupla of them with MIM triggers have the best breaking actions of all of them. I have models all the way from Airweight 637s to my primary deer hunting revolver, a .460 X-Frame. Both of those have the "hole", both of those have been shot thousands of times with heavy loads. Never had a lock-up due to the IL. Generally it's a loose extractor rod. For the price, you can not get a better shooting, better looking D.A. revolver than a Smith. For the price, no other manufacturer gives you a lifetime warranty. If you are making your decision on owning one purely on the "hole"......you are missing out.
 
#12 · (Edited)
I get so tired of these threads decrying the use of MIM and the internal lock (IL).

Let's deal with the lock first - if you don't like it, disable it or remove it. Is it the hole you object to? There are plugs made to fill that hole. People who deny themselves some of the finest revolvers that Smith has ever made because of the lock are only leaving more on the table for me.

As for MIM, that technology has allowed Smith to maintain realistic pricing while not compromising the quality of the product. MIM parts are dimensionally more consistent than the forged counterparts and help reduce or eliminate the amount of hand fitting necessary. I consistently hear gunsmiths saying that the factory triggers on MIM guns are some of the best Smith has ever produced and need far less work to make them competition ready. Next time you are on a plane, look out the window at the turbines in the jet engines - they are most likely MIM components.

I've been a shooter for about 60 years and it always amuses me to hear the current generation pine for the previous generation's guns. Without realizing that the subsequent generation will be pining for the guns they complained about so vociferously.

I collect S&W revolvers and I would never let the presence of MIM or the IL stand in the way of acquiring a desirable revolver. My collection is eclectic and of the modern era (from 1950 forward) and contains Smiths of all stripes - as it should.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

EDITED to add for the OP: You stated <<Reason I ask, I found a new revolver I really like. Its a limited edition (1 of 300) model from Altamont that has scroll work...but it has the lock. Wondered if that would make it less collectable/desireable to the revolver crowd.>>

An engraved revolver is generally considered a collectible and not expected to be shot. If I saw that someone had modified one from an "as built" condition, I'd conclude that it had been shot or otherwise fiddled with and would greatly devalue that particular gun. A word to the wise: Concentrate on the beauty of the gun and the artwork and don't be swayed by what you may perceive as negative attributes. You may end up shooting yourself in the foot, so to speak.

PB
 
#14 ·
I began to lose interest in new Smiths when they switched to MIM parts, but the Hillary Hole did it in for me. Funny thing is, I have cheap Rossi and Taurus handguns with similar crap and they don't really bother me, but on a $750+ Smith & Wesson it's an absolute eyesore and a reminder of the day when a British-owned S&W got down and kissed the anti-gunner's collective asses.

For the same reason, if I ever buy an M1A rifle I definitely WILL add a bayonet lug to it. The current ones without the lug look neutered to me. Forget the fact that I will never, ever use it. Even 16" barrels on an M4 bug me, but I can't do anything about that so I have to live with it.
 
#26 ·
a reminder of the day when a British-owned S&W got down and kissed the anti-gunner's collective asses.
Ya know....I hear that all the time. Yet, remember when folks said the same thing about Bill Ruger? Funny, how quickly folks forget. BTW....I own Rugers too. One of my favorite restaurants before this whole Pandemic thing was in a Best Western Hotel. Since this Pandemic thing I have used Teledoc twice. In the recent past I have stayed at Microtels, Americinns and Days Inns. OMG! I must be an anti! Or....maybe I respect their difference of opinion and the services they provide outweigh the minute amount of negative. S&W may have wavered, but, right or wrong, they also may had done what they thought would save their company at the time. They could retool and throw out the frames with a hole and charge what Colt does. Or they could provide a working mans' revolver that still has more quality and finesse than an equally MSRP priced Ruger, who's CEO was even more anti-gun. What I don't understand, is how does buying an older Smith, negate what S&W has done recently, if one is making a moral stand?:confused:

On March 30, 1989, Bill Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:
"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."
William B. Ruger
 
#15 ·
I don't like the hillary hole but could live with it. Having held & shot an older N frame & new N frame, there is a different feel to them. I think, but have not measured, the frame is slightly deeper on the new N frame. They do have a slightly different feel.
Would I buy a new S&W revolver if I wanted one? Maybe, I think they are very high quality guns. Oh the newer N frame was very accurate & no unwanted lockup.
 
#18 ·
Smith & Wesson went from being my favorite gun company to a nonentity to me when the lock came out. It's too easy to buy the great Smith & Wessons that I admire to waste funds on comparatively ugly revolvers with locks, two-piece barrels, swollen frames, and MIM parts. Yeah, they might serve just as well, but they're in no way superior.

While I was shooting it I did experience a lock that failed and locked up a Smith & Wesson revolver belonging to someone else. I will never experience such a failure with a Smith & Wesson revolver here because none of them have the wretched lock. Smith & Wessons are used for personal defense and that would be a sick feeling to desperately pull a trigger that will not budge.

The company's wholesale embrace of cheap plastic for their automatics to the exclusion of some quite decent models they were formerly marketing only punctuated my personal disgust. I did try a .40 Shield and it's ok for what it is, but I don't take it seriously.
 
#23 ·
I've bought and sold far more pre-locks, but I've never had a problem with a lock gun.

I find the bluing on the current Classic series to be very impressive.

I'm not in the market for a S&W right now, but if the Performance Center does a 610 at some point I won't be able to order one fast enough to join these:

 
#28 ·
For me personally?

Until I'm not pissed off any more.

The S&W that suckled the Clinton teat was the British owned ones. The peckerwoods that instituted the locks were the ones after. SafeTHammer or something like that.

I don't care enough about Ruger to be mad at them. I'm currently pissed off at Springfield, and Rock River.
 
#31 ·
The only one that I have is a 329 PD.

I do not shoot it a lot, but it is a pretty nice gun. Just the ticket for a woods gun . Nice and light in a chest rig. It carries easily all day long.
 
#37 ·
Elmer Keith, Bill Jordan and Skeeter Skelton are currently doing back flips in their graves...

Personally, I am with the purists. My money goes to vintage, preferably non-stainless, P&R handguns. I own several stainless versions which I consider to be "tools." I own exactly one, S&W revolver with a Hillary Hole, a 4" 625 .45 ACP that was simply a deal too good to pass up.

Of course, I am old and I could care less about others opinions, and have no reason to change mine. YMMV.

:rock:
 
#38 ·
I'll have to say I like the looks of the vintage Smiths better than current models, but not to the point of passing up revolvers that meet a need or tickle a fancy. My latest is a three-inch barreled M19 Carry Comp from the performance center. I like shooting it better than my pre-lock Model 19s.
 
#39 ·
I like old and new S&W's. That being said its seems the new ones take a pounding with hot loads better then the older ones.

Did have that stupid trigger lock activate on a 329PD by itself however. That and the hammer cocked itself also. 25oz and full power 44 mags don't mix that well really. Its nice with 44 specials. :rock:
 
#41 · (Edited)
Adding an additional part that is completely unneccessary and has any possibility of locking up the gun when you desperately need it to work is insanity. I will just keep buying vintage S&W revolvers without "locks" on them. Keep in mind that just because you have never personally seen a S&W with the lock seize up when firing does not prove that it cannot happen. It does happen. And after 2000 S&W's quality control went down the tubes. The days of skilled workers hand fitting every part are gone. New CAD CAM machines don't matter if you have unskilled workers who simply "assemble" revolvers. Ruger has gone down the same path.
 
#43 ·
Ive never used the one on the one lock gun I have. In fact, I think I may have removed it and plugged the hole before ever shooting it. It is a fine revolver in-spite of it. Of the 10 or so Smiths I own its the only one with the lock. My other stainless revolvers are good also. A 625 3" made in 1990, a 686 4" from 2000 (with no lock) and of course my 629 6" with lock removed.
 

Attachments

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top