S&W Classic Revolvers

[Jeff Higgins]

As many of our Pelican shooters probably already know, S&W introduced a line of revolvers some time ago that are meant to reprise some of the all-time "classics" from their storied history. Well, I finally broke down and bought one, finding a pretty darn good deal at my local gun shop. I chose a 4" blued Model 29, certainly one of their more "classic" among their "classics".



I have to say, upon bringing this revolver home, I have been very pleased with its overall quality. I guess I'm not really sure what I was expecting, not being one to buy many new firearms of any sort, but this one definitely shows that someone at S&W still cares, still takes pride in their work, and still produces a very fine revolver. I think that's pretty cool, in this day and age.

Alas, I won't be able to shoot it for awhile, as I wait for some recent surgery on my left hand to heal. I've got plenty of ammo loaded up for it in the form of two loads, one consisting of 20.0 grains of 2400 driving the RCBS .44-250K bullet, and the other consisting of 22.0 grains of 296 behind a 300 grain LBT bullet, both cast from wheel weights. Both shoot wonderfully in my other .44 mags, so I see no reason why they won't shoot well in this one. Can't wait to find out...

[KFC911]

Nice! My first was a M27 as a freshman in college, then several years later a M629....now maybe you like to shoot them things, but the .44 mag makes me wanna cry with R-P....would I try a Higgin's "special" reload....oh hell no

Grady Clay (RIP sir) learned me to search out .44 Special...I've only found one box....I know why you roll yer own ..... are your .44 mag and .45 LC reloads similar in effect?

[Bill Douglas]

I know what you mean. This one is just a beautiful work of art (accurate too.)

[Jeff Higgins]

Yes, my full power .44 mags and .45 Colts are pretty darn close, performance-wise. Both launch 300 grain bullets in the mid 1,200 fps range. These are purely hunting loads, though, and really not very much fun to shoot. Even the 250 grain .44 mag load I mention above is pretty much confined to hunting, sending that bullet downrange at over 1,300 fps.

My ultimate plan for this gun is to load it with that 250 grain bullet, but back it off to match my lower end, "Colt safe" .45 Colt load. That .45 Colt load just tops 900 fps with a 270 grain bullet over 9.0 grains of Unique. I'll load the .44 with the 250 grain bullet with the same 9.0 grains of Unique for about the same velocity, matching .44 Special loads. That makes for a dandy woods bumming, or cold day heavy jacket concealed carry load. I'll start out with the heavy loads simply because that's all I have right now but, as I empty a batch of brass for reloading, I'll put together a batch of the lighter load. Yes, the beauty of handloading... I'll even use full length .44 mag brass for these, just so the bullet jumps less before it gets to the rifling. Works pretty darn good.

[Bill Douglas]

Yep, when I started loading .38 special loads in the longer .357 cases I stopped getting those odd flyers.

[Jeff Higgins]

That, and it allows you to shoot the heavy and light loads interchangeably without having to scrub out the fouling ring that forms in the chambers ahead of the case mouth. If everything is the same length, it doesn't get in the way when you try to chamber the longer cases.

[aigel]

IMHO the S&W quality never really dipped unlike other manufacturer's. There were changes in manufacturing to bring the company to the 21st century, but none of them compromised quality or finish. They did step on their dick with the lock feature and that would be the only reason keeping me from buying a new one. I can get a pre-lock used unit for the price of a new one and know it will only go up in value. Not really going to matter for me, but my heirs will appreciate it.

G

[Jeff Higgins]

Yeah, the lock doesn't really do it for me either. I do have plenty of pre-lock S&W's, though, so I figured I would get a new one and see if I could just ignore it. Turns out it's pretty darn easy to ignore.

I really didn't like the transfer bar on the New Model Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks either. Nor did I ever really see the need for the cross bolt safety on Marlin lever guns. I particularly disliked the tang safety on the Miroku built Winchester lever guns, since they preclude the use of a tang sight. Oh, and that damned firing pin block in the series 80 Colt 1911's just ruins the trigger pull on them. And let's not forget the "Swiss safe" extended base pin that can be used to block the hammer fall on the Virginian Dragoon single action that is sure to malfunction just as the elk of a lifetime steps out in front of you...

I could go on and on. The fact of the matter is that all of these "safety improvements" that have gotten incorporated into many traditional old designs are with us to stay, a product of our times. I own many examples of all of these, replete with the modifications that we all decried as having "ruined" them forever. I've gotten over it. Not a single one of them interferes with the function of the firearm, nor my enjoyment of it. They are all pretty darn unobtrusive, with the lock on the S&W being one of the very least obtrusive. And it really is one hell of a nice little gun.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by aigel

IMHO the S&W quality never really dipped unlike other manufacturer's. There were changes in manufacturing to bring the company to the 21st century, but none of them compromised quality or finish. They did step on their dick with the lock feature and that would be the only reason keeping me from buying a new one. I can get a pre-lock used unit for the price of a new one and know it will only go up in value. Not really going to matter for me, but my heirs will appreciate it.

G

Say what? SW quality did dip especially noticeable in the mid 80's. People don't like the lock shyte. That's why prices for used ones match new.

Take a look at Smith quality before WW2...

[KFC911]

I dunno Tabby....I bought mine way back....just a casual buyer like most...defer to folks like you and Jeff. Hell, didn't know what pinned and recessed was until your posts . I only have two....a p&r M27 from the late 70s and my M629 is mid 90s....both are superb, quality spoons imo...might not be in terms of collector values, but that doesn't matter to me. Now the .357 Marlin I purchased a decade ago (damn you Higgins ), even before the "change", doesn't compare to the quality of my 336 I bought at 18. Still nice, but obviously not in the same league imo.

[tabs]

Smith & Winchester both made comebacks in quality. But to nowhere near pre war levels. After the war quality slowly began to decline in the spoon biz. To keep costs in line they cut quality.

[aigel]

Originally Posted by tabs

Say what? SW quality did dip especially noticeable in the mid 80's. People don't like the lock shyte. That's why prices for used ones match new.

Take a look at Smith quality before WW2...

What's the difference exactly?

Is it "hand made"? That's not always better ...

G

[Jeff Higgins]

"Quality" can mean vastly different things in the firearms world. Pre-war "quality" primarily means finish, which is really the only thing that is important to collectors. The other component of pre-war "quality" was all of the hand fitting that went into the higher end manufacturers' products. Not because they just loved to do it, but because of the extremely low quality of machine work being done in those days. They had no choice but to pay folks to sit there and painstakingly fit all of the moving parts just so they would function. The "quality" of any particular piece depended very much upon the skill of the craftsman who did the final fitting. There were most certainly "good" ones and "bad" ones. Collectors don't care. As long as it looks good on the outside, hell, it doesn't even need to have any internal lockwork - they will never so much as cock it, much less fire it.

Beyond that, we see problems related to materials and not yet fully understood heat treating processes and requirements. Many of the "quality" pre-war guns have issues with soft parts in their lockworks - it's pretty darn hard to hand-fit parts that have been heat treated to Rockwell "C" hardnesses in the high 40's. There were issues with Smiths and Colts (and many others) going "out of time" - their soft internal lockwork components had simply worn to the point that they no longer functioned properly. It didn't take much shooting to make them do that, either. There was an entire cottage industry of gunsmiths kept busy repairing these "quality" firearms - they have since had to find another line of employment.

Additionally, bore and groove diameters, not to mention chamber and throat diameters, varied wildly from what is considered optimal. Many "quality" pre-war guns are wildly inaccurate by today's standards. Us cast bullet shooters can somewhat address this by playing with bullet diameters and alloys, but these guns will never shoot as well as examples with proper dimensions. Good thing the collectors attracted to these have no interest in shooting them.

"Quality" today means precise CNC machining that all but eliminates the need for hand fitting. It means the correct alloys used in the correct application with proper heat treating. It means consistent, precise bore and groove diameters with the proper relationship to chamber and throat diameters. It means a level of accuracy in off the shelf guns that exceeds that of the most carefully fitted match guns of the pre-war era. It means durability and reliability folks could only dream of back then.

Yes, there is no doubt that external fit and finish are not what they once were. In the tradeoff necessary to keep actual working guns affordable, however, I'll take the modern examples each and every time. They are leaps and bounds ahead of pre-war guns in functional quality, which is what I'm after.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

"Quality" can mean vastly different things in the firearms world. Pre-war "quality" primarily means finish, which is really the only thing that is important to collectors. The other component of pre-war "quality" was all of the hand fitting that went into the higher end manufacturers' products. Not because they just loved to do it, but because of the extremely low quality of machine work being done in those days. They had no choice but to pay folks to sit there and painstakingly fit all of the moving parts just so they would function. The "quality" of any particular piece depended very much upon the skill of the craftsman who did the final fitting. There were most certainly "good" ones and "bad" ones. Collectors don't care. As long as it looks good on the outside, hell, it doesn't even need to have any internal lockwork - they will never so much as cock it, much less fire it.

Beyond that, we see problems related to materials and not yet fully understood heat treating processes and requirements. Many of the "quality" pre-war guns have issues with soft parts in their lockworks - it's pretty darn hard to hand-fit parts that have been heat treated to Rockwell "C" hardnesses in the high 40's. There were issues with Smiths and Colts (and many others) going "out of time" - their soft internal lockwork components had simply worn to the point that they no longer functioned properly. It didn't take much shooting to make them do that, either. There was an entire cottage industry of gunsmiths kept busy repairing these "quality" firearms - they have since had to find another line of employment.

Additionally, bore and groove diameters, not to mention chamber and throat diameters, varied wildly from what is considered optimal. Many "quality" pre-war guns are wildly inaccurate by today's standards. Us cast bullet shooters can somewhat address this by playing with bullet diameters and alloys, but these guns will never shoot as well as examples with proper dimensions. Good thing the collectors attracted to these have no interest in shooting them.

"Quality" today means precise CNC machining that all but eliminates the need for hand fitting. It means the correct alloys used in the correct application with proper heat treating. It means consistent, precise bore and groove diameters with the proper relationship to chamber and throat diameters. It means a level of accuracy in off the shelf guns that exceeds that of the most carefully fitted match guns of the pre-war era. It means durability and reliability folks could only dream of back then.

Yes, there is no doubt that external fit and finish are not what they once were. In the tradeoff necessary to keep actual working guns affordable, however, I'll take the modern examples each and every time. They are leaps and bounds ahead of pre-war guns in functional quality, which is what I'm after.

Well there ya go with your misinformation again...At Colt and Smith if it didn't past the muster of perfection you had to fix it on your OWN TIME....that meant it got done right the first time. Accuracy was pretty darn skippy back in the day of muzzleloading target guns..all you would have to do to realize that is read Ned Roberts book on the Cap Lock Rifle...why it was ole General Sedgwick who said, "That they can't hit you at this range" right before he was shot dead at 800 yards by a Confederate sniper using a muzzleloader.

Now with modern metallurgy and using CNC machines means that you can turn out a quality spoon at a fairly low cost. But the best of the target guns are still hand worked...ED Brown, Wilson, Springfield Custom...

[flipper35]

I would take a plain jane blued finish if it is a good shooter. My 28-2 is an awesome shooter. Nothing special to look at but a good, good shooter.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by tabs

Well there ya go with your misinformation again...At Colt and Smith if it didn't past the muster of perfection you had to fix it on your OWN TIME....that meant it got done right the first time.

The problem was that there was simply too broad of a range of "right" in these mass produced guns. Some had fantastically smooth actions. Most did not. Pistolsmiths made very good money in those days, smoothing up factory actions. The factories' best efforts, on their top of the line, limited run guns was quite good. The rest were rather pedestrian, hit and miss as far as getting a "good" one.

Originally Posted by tabs

Accuracy was pretty darn skippy back in the day of muzzleloading target guns..all you would have to do to realize that is read Ned Roberts book on the Cap Lock Rifle...why it was ole General Sedgwick who said, "That they can't hit you at this range" right before he was shot dead at 800 yards by a Confederate sniper using a muzzleloader.

Well there ya go with your misinformation again...

Muzzle loading target arms of that time period remain some of the most accurate arms mankind has ever produced. The Irish team that showed up for the first Creedmoor matches were insulted and almost pulled out when the American challengers showed up with breach loaders. The Irish saw these new fangled rifles as a ready made excuse for when the American would inevitably lose.

Originally Posted by tabs

Now with modern metallurgy and using CNC machines means that you can turn out a quality spoon at a fairly low cost. But the best of the target guns are still hand worked...ED Brown, Wilson, Springfield Custom...

Of course they are hand worked. But a decent Ed Brown, Les Baer, Wilson, or other custom starts at about $3,000 and goes up rapidly from there, often exceeding $10,000. I just spent $900 on a new Smith that will out shoot anything you can show me from the pre-war era. And that is really the topic under discussion - today's production guns vs. yesterday's production guns, not what is available from high-end custom shops. The fact of the matter is that today's production guns from the major manufacturers are absolutely head and shoulder above what they were making back in the pre-war era. There really is no comparison, other than in finish and aesthetics, which the pre-war guns win hands down.

[flipper35]

Not to mention hand fitting a semi-auto as opposed to a wheel spoon is completely different.