So we know the gun community has a lot of older gentlemen in it. They all claim that the quality of guns was so much better back then. I can believe it to a certain extent with some brands. We all know the the crapfest Remingshit has turned into.
But I want to know about the new production smiths. I know, I know, the lock is bullshit, luckily it is easily removed. So lock aside, how are the new production smith's compared to the older ones?
I see people bitching about how the new ones suck and the MIM parts are prone to breaking. Yet, no excessive amounts of actual complaints on their guns.
What is /k/s verdict? Are the newer smiths pretty much on par with the older Smiths? Or is there a huge difference in quality?
The biggest part of the "better quality" is the fact the fit & finish was better and there was more hand work done. Hand work has gotten too expensive (polishing etc).
MIM looks like shit but is functional. Cheaper than milling a piece out because you can mill the molds once and have a coolie run the machine to crank out the parts vs pay a CNC operator to make every single piece.. .
Functionally I have noticed no difference between old Smiths & new Smiths with the exception that the 1950's & before had smoother triggers. That could either be because they are very well broke in or have better hand fitting of the parts back when labor was cheaper.
>>31896349
I would agree that firearms of the past were made more so by hand and craftsmanship then automated machines.
>I see people bitching about how the new ones suck
That can be literally any new model at this point.
>>31896349
I'm no expert, but I have a heathy amount of Smith revolvers, old and new
>old
10 heavy barrel
10 pencil
14 (6 inch target gun in 38 spec)
15
64
686
36
66
>new
642 x 2
JM .45 acp
Air lite 44 magnum
classic series 29 (3 inch)
classic 21 (44 special)
the 8-shot 357 (model escapes me, thanks age)
Honestly, I think the new guns are fine, but maybe overpriced. However, there is something about the older smiths. They feel like "real" guns. I know it's not a great description, but they have some sort of quality that the new guns don't.
All in all, I will hem and haw over buying a new gun unless it's a killer deal. I will literally jump on an older (pre-lock or pinned hammer) in a heartbeat of its in good shape.
>>31896349
This pic is from a thread I did on plugging the Hillary Hole. Notice the rough machining in the recess. Don't have a pic but the inside of my 35 year old M29 is smooth as a Loli's bottom
>>31900579
Another
Good friend of mine worked in quality control/assurance for Remington. He quit to go to lower paying job with GE. He couldn't take it anymore.
>>31900586
>>31900579
still looks like shit
>>31900596
>still looks like shit
I'm not that anon but I'm pretty sure that's his point.
So, is the only way to acquire a NEW good revolver nowadays to buy a god damn Korth?
>>31903058
somehow vastly increase the quality of automation, or go back to hand fitting everything and pay a premium on the labor. back before 1970 or so, machinery was the expensive bit - people were cheap.