S&W prelock models

[rodblder]

What makes a prelock Smith different from the newer models?! are they better for some reason or just preferred by collectors?
Thanks

[Kerplow]

Some people fear change.

Some people don't want extra crap they won't use and may potentially fail.

Some people think it's ugly.

Some people think all of the above.

Personally, as long as it doesn't fail or cause some other type of failure, it doesn't bother me. I have not read a single account of one failing.

[rcslotcar]

Prelock for me,,the new S$W's are just plain ugly.

[-hanko]

What makes a prelock Smith different from the newer models?! are they better for some reason or just preferred by collectors?
Thanks

I'd say they are better given more hand assembly and fitting by experienced hands...the older the gun, the more of that you see. S&W's blued finish on older guns is awesome.

Those might be the reason collectors prefer them...they're collectable.

[john myers]

prelock or even better pre 1982 the barrels were pinned and the cylinders were recessed finish seems better
might loose some internal parts through the hole in the side of frame on the later ones!!!col

[denpython]

Like any manufacturer, lemons have been made at any given period of time.

Just suss out the revolver you have interest in.
Make sure the barrel is not canted, has good yoke to frame fitting, timing etc. There is a list of stuff to check.

[D.A.V.I.D.]

Prelock for me,,the new S$W's are just plain ugly.

They're the same with a tiny hole.

[Milsurp Collector]

What makes a prelock Smith different from the newer models?! are they better for some reason or just preferred by collectors?
Thanks

It's not the lock itself. The lock to me just says recent production, which is not as good as what came before. I think if you look at the fit and finish of older Smith & Wesson revolvers compared to current production, there is no comparison. They just don't make them like they used to. Here are examples of quality control problems with newer S&W revolvers.

Example: I once inspected a shipment of Smith & Wesson .22 Masterpiece target revolvers sent to the sporting goods department of a large mass merchandiser. Those half dozen revolvers were so poorly made that the gap between cylinder face and forcing cone varied widely as the cylinder was turned. At one position or another the face of the cylinder would actually drag against the forcing cone. One or two of those revolvers were so far out of spec that the cylinder could not be rotated all the way around. One such gun I could understand somehow slipping by quality control, but a whole shipment so poorly made that even a cursory inspection would have revealed the problem? Obviously there was no quality control inspection before those new revolvers were shipped.

Example: On another occasion a friend and I inspected perhaps a dozen newly arrived S&W revolvers at a gun shop and found large gaps between the cylinder crane and frame in all of them. On the same guns the cylinder ratchet notches were so poorly machined that no two were identical; it looked like a drunken monkey had done the work. Again, a single defective revolver would be understandable--mistakes happen--but a whole shipment of lemons is impossible to explain as an isolated mistake.

Example: I purchased a brand new Chief's Special .38 Special revolver. At the time of purchase the store clerk gave me a box of Smith & Wesson brand .38 Special factory loaded cartridges. (In those days S&W marketed ammunition under their brand name.) After firing no more than half of that first box of ammunition, I noticed that all 5 chambers of the cylinder had developed a slight bulge. Presumably it had not been properly heat-treated. Thank goodness I noticed the problem before the revolver blew-up in my hand.

Example: A Guns and Shooting Online staff member purchased a brand new S&W 22/32 Kit Gun whose rear sight could not be adjusted far enough laterally to put bullets into the target at 25 yards. Upon close examination with a straight edge we found that this revolver's frame was actually machined in a slight curve. Clearly no one had test fired this revolver at the factory.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

Also http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-rev...ow-i-feel.html

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/244768-factory-quality-control-problem-w-new-686-a.html

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-smithing/509821-s-w-quality-control-going-downhill.html

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/425920-quality-control.html

Even people on this forum have reported problems that should have been caught before the guns left the factory

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1286858

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1305351

In order to stay competitive in today's market S&W had to find ways to make their revolvers more, um, cheaply. Not only is there competition in the handgun market from all the cheap plastic polymer frame semiauto pistols that didn't exist 35 years ago, but Ruger is applying competitive pressure with their cheaper to make plastic polymer frame revolvers.

The nicest S&W revolvers are not just pre-lock, but are the pre-lock revolvers made before 1982. The pre-1982 revolvers can be identified by the presence of a pin locking the barrel, and cylinders that have machined counterboring for the cartridge rims, also known as "pinned and recessed".



In the first of many cost-saving moves, in 1982 S&W stopped counterboring the rear of the cylinder for the cartridge rims and just made the cylinder shorter to make room for the cartridge rims. They also stopped using a pin to lock the barrel and started just tightening the barrel for a crush fit. Then they started using more MIM (metal injection molding) parts, added the lock, started going to a less polished finish, etc.

Even when new S&W revolvers don't have mechanical and quality problems - and thankfully most of them probably don't have those problems - they just don't look as nice as the older ones. The roll marks aren't as nice, the finish isn't as nice. Not to mention the unattractive "Hillary Hole" for the lock.

If people have a newer S&W revolver that shoots well and they like it, that's great. Me, I prefer the older ones. There are plenty of older S&W revolvers out there and those that are at least 50 years old (this year that's 1967 or older) are exempt from the handgun roster.

[nikki#2]

I have not read a single account of one failing.

Lock failure on video.

And confirmation of of above lock failure by a certified gunsmith: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...l-lock-failed/

[highpower]

I have been a S&W guy for years. I recently sold off a couple to fund other toys, but I still have 14 left. Two of those I have were made post 1980, one in '82 and the other in '84. Although the differences are subtle, I do notice a slight difference between the earlier guns and the later ones. Things like the fit of the crane to the frame are just not as precise on the later guns.

That is not to say that there is anything wrong with them, one is a 66-2 and the other is a 586-1. Both shoot just fine and I love the balance of the 586 when I shoot it. But, the earlier guns just give me a better overall impression of attention to detail.

I have seen pictures of later Smiths that seem to have been put together with a total lack of care as to fit and finish and it makes me sad to see that the quality control has slipped that badly.

While intellectually, I know that the lock shouldn't make any difference, somehow it just offends me that they think it should be there in the first place. If I had one of those, I would remove it and plug the hole.

[nikki#2]

Depends on intended usage. Range gun, gun games, etc., etc., etc. ?, I've never had a problem with the lock.
HD? Give me a no lock with a crimson trace laser grip.

[MrOrange]

Yeppers to Milsurp Collector, with the exception of the recesses for the cartridge rims, which is an affection first used, unnecessarily, for the .357 Magnum. I used to think that it was just nostalgia, or plain old obstinate old-timers, but the more I see of both early and late model Smiths, the more I appreciate the older ones.

For example, I have a Victory Model M&P, which was so named to try and save some honor from the rough accelerated wartime production. Mine has been re-blued sometime in the post-war years, apparently with the original metal finish. For shooting and not resale, I wouldn't trade it for two brand new Model 10s. Same with a no-dash 640 I used to own, before I sold it to a family member at a good-guy price.

Some people fear change.

Some people don't want extra crap they won't use and may potentially fail.

Some people think it's ugly.

Some people think all of the above.

Personally, as long as it doesn't fail or cause some other type of failure, it doesn't bother me. I have not read a single account of one failing.

You don't read very much. There have been accounts dating back many years. There are at least a couple reported instances right here on CG.

[RegionRat]

As someone who has only recently come back to pistols and revolvers after a 20 year break, I am grateful for the education here. I wasn't following the S&W lines back in the 80s because I chased silhouette and hunting pressure guns like Dan Wessons and Rugers. The few model 29s that came to the range and tried to keep up with those high energy loads were dropping out too quickly and fell out of favor.

Now that I have a 929 with no option to get an older version, I will have the lock addressed so it can't fail.

Now I have to frame all my future pursuits in terms of pre 1982. I don't think this will be easy or cheap, but I may as well get started.

Thanks for the wisdom folks.

[stormvet]

I'll take a pre-lock any day over a newer model, I'm not a huge revolver guy but I do appreciate a good one. I currently only own four, three are Smith's. A 686-4, a 586-3 and a newer 617-6. The two pre-locks are better guns in every way, from appearance to performance. That said, I haven't had any issues with the 617 and the trigger is ok. But when compared to the two pre-locks, both visually and using it comes up well short.

[DrewN]

Well, I have bought a bunch of the "New Classics", locks or not. Blue and wood revolvers are my favorites, and I'll support any manufacturer still making them. I did get a lemon 69 (barrel shroud had about 1/8" slop in both directions- pitiful), but I had a replacement in hand in 11 days.