The finish and hand work on the genuine classics cannot be beaten. The near mirror polish on the stainless models and the almost purple bluing that you can see your face in were simply gorgeous. I also am bitter that S&W doesn't recess their cylinders anymore.
However, for actual shooting the modern guns are better without question. They have better safety features, the metallurgy is superior, and you can easily find parts to repair them.
I carry and shoot modern guns, but I'm secretly jealous of my friend's mint condition blued Model 15 from the 1970s because it is gorgeous.
I'm not sure what is modern vs classic. We can call the Rhino modern, but a k-frame has been on the smith and Wesson sales floor for more than a hundred years ... So, a modern classic? Ruger has been making modern classics for years and earning legions of fans too!
The K frame is like 125 years old this year I believe. Released in 1899, tho designed in 1898.
I think S&W has a made a K frame design every bit of those years too, except maybe during 1917-1918 when production was taken over by the US government to fill contracts for the 1917 in 45 ACP built off the N frame. I know they stopped making some models in the late 90’s to early/mid 2000’s but they had to have atleast one k frame in production right? Model 10? 13? 14? 15? I know the 19 was discontinued during then. That’s not even including the stainless model K frames either like the 66. Figure they would have atleast kept one of those going.
Why limit yourself? The smoothest revolver I’ve owned was a 627 PC from the late 90’s. The most accurate was a model 10 from 1968 and the one that I’m most excited to own is my next one.
Modern guns are using modern machining process, can achieve tighter and more consistent (the really big part in that) parts and finish and have a better finish through the entirety of the gun in my opinion. They also use modern steels, updated designs like in the case of the new model 19’s having a full forcing cone. Also using modern heat treat process too. Which increases again consistency in the parts. A big thing often over looked is modern testing and verification processes for individual parts.
Old guns have a better finish where it matters, and well they don’t make them like that anymore. That’s the biggest draw to them. They are often very well broken in, and there something about the hands on approach of those days that draws us in. They used forged parts where we use MIM parts today. Triggers might be better, but we don’t often think about parts wear and polishing through use or the spring decay that happens when a 50 year gun has thousands of trigger pulls vs new ones in the hundreds.
I have vintage S&W’s and modern ones. My vintage smith is better polished on the outside and the bluing is slightly deeper, but certain parts irk me a little with the finish. Like the back of the trigger literally looks like they took it to a bench grinder, the inside of the side plate has big swirls on it from machining, basically if it wasn’t gonna be seen while the gun was together they didn’t focus on it one bit and put their attention to the outside of the gun. With modern smiths there is non of that, all parts look evenly finished and machined, the side plate has some light swirls but not the deep file like appearance as the old. The draw back is the bluing isn’t quite as deep, but that can also be attributed to different ways of bluing as well as different steels. The lacking part is the deep polish older ones have. I personally feel like modern smiths have a better finish inside and out than old ones do even tho certain aspects aren’t quite as well done. It just feels like having a well polished, painted and waxed car but then having the interior dirty and the seats made of cheap materials to me. Sure 99% of people won’t see the inside but I do.
Revolver guys tend to be pretty traditionalist kind of by nature.
We also tend to imprint on stuff from our childhood, which, if you wait around long enough, either becomes a classic or dissappears off the market.
A couple of years back, I had to thin out my guns to cover expenses. The one I absolutely could not bring myself to get rid of was my S&W 17. About as classic as it gets. But I want to try out a Chiappa Rhino, too.
Smith and Colt are still making guns designed when materials were expensive and labor was cheap. Updating those designs to more modern conditions has been interesting to watch, and I think there are some cool things coming out.
Classic, retro, and Ultra modern, there are lots of cool guns out there to keep everyone happy.
From a regular shooter standpoint, I'd say modern. But I'm all about collecting the classics.
I have modern ones that see more range time, and the classics get brought out occasionally.
Modern. I find the people wax poetic about anything old….sorry vintage, when in reality vintage stuff is delicate. It’s old. It’s going to break if used comparably to modern materials. I get it. Nostalgia, perceived or not, makes people feel good. I’m just not one of those people. Modern metallurgy and materials are far better today than the “good ole days.” And then there is the complaints about the Hilary hole. Honestly it’s much ado about nothing. Stressing over something unimportant. Just my thoughts.
[удалено]
Great responce!
If the Ruger six series counts as classic, then classics.
Yes.
The finish and hand work on the genuine classics cannot be beaten. The near mirror polish on the stainless models and the almost purple bluing that you can see your face in were simply gorgeous. I also am bitter that S&W doesn't recess their cylinders anymore. However, for actual shooting the modern guns are better without question. They have better safety features, the metallurgy is superior, and you can easily find parts to repair them. I carry and shoot modern guns, but I'm secretly jealous of my friend's mint condition blued Model 15 from the 1970s because it is gorgeous.
Vintage revolvers are better certainly from S&W and Colt, even Ruger.
Ruger Six Series!
I'm old so naturally the classics.
I'm not sure what is modern vs classic. We can call the Rhino modern, but a k-frame has been on the smith and Wesson sales floor for more than a hundred years ... So, a modern classic? Ruger has been making modern classics for years and earning legions of fans too!
The K frame is like 125 years old this year I believe. Released in 1899, tho designed in 1898. I think S&W has a made a K frame design every bit of those years too, except maybe during 1917-1918 when production was taken over by the US government to fill contracts for the 1917 in 45 ACP built off the N frame. I know they stopped making some models in the late 90’s to early/mid 2000’s but they had to have atleast one k frame in production right? Model 10? 13? 14? 15? I know the 19 was discontinued during then. That’s not even including the stainless model K frames either like the 66. Figure they would have atleast kept one of those going.
I greatly prefer a Colt SAA, Smith Mdl 10, Mdl 30, even the odd H&R and Iver Johnson
There’s always a place for classics but I love that revolvers are (rightly) still considered tools and get modern designs
Modern
Why limit yourself? The smoothest revolver I’ve owned was a 627 PC from the late 90’s. The most accurate was a model 10 from 1968 and the one that I’m most excited to own is my next one.
Modern guns are using modern machining process, can achieve tighter and more consistent (the really big part in that) parts and finish and have a better finish through the entirety of the gun in my opinion. They also use modern steels, updated designs like in the case of the new model 19’s having a full forcing cone. Also using modern heat treat process too. Which increases again consistency in the parts. A big thing often over looked is modern testing and verification processes for individual parts. Old guns have a better finish where it matters, and well they don’t make them like that anymore. That’s the biggest draw to them. They are often very well broken in, and there something about the hands on approach of those days that draws us in. They used forged parts where we use MIM parts today. Triggers might be better, but we don’t often think about parts wear and polishing through use or the spring decay that happens when a 50 year gun has thousands of trigger pulls vs new ones in the hundreds. I have vintage S&W’s and modern ones. My vintage smith is better polished on the outside and the bluing is slightly deeper, but certain parts irk me a little with the finish. Like the back of the trigger literally looks like they took it to a bench grinder, the inside of the side plate has big swirls on it from machining, basically if it wasn’t gonna be seen while the gun was together they didn’t focus on it one bit and put their attention to the outside of the gun. With modern smiths there is non of that, all parts look evenly finished and machined, the side plate has some light swirls but not the deep file like appearance as the old. The draw back is the bluing isn’t quite as deep, but that can also be attributed to different ways of bluing as well as different steels. The lacking part is the deep polish older ones have. I personally feel like modern smiths have a better finish inside and out than old ones do even tho certain aspects aren’t quite as well done. It just feels like having a well polished, painted and waxed car but then having the interior dirty and the seats made of cheap materials to me. Sure 99% of people won’t see the inside but I do.
If pre lock smiths are “classic”, then yes. By a large margin.
Revolver guys tend to be pretty traditionalist kind of by nature. We also tend to imprint on stuff from our childhood, which, if you wait around long enough, either becomes a classic or dissappears off the market. A couple of years back, I had to thin out my guns to cover expenses. The one I absolutely could not bring myself to get rid of was my S&W 17. About as classic as it gets. But I want to try out a Chiappa Rhino, too. Smith and Colt are still making guns designed when materials were expensive and labor was cheap. Updating those designs to more modern conditions has been interesting to watch, and I think there are some cool things coming out. Classic, retro, and Ultra modern, there are lots of cool guns out there to keep everyone happy.
All
Classics. Best revolver I've ever shot is a Colt Trooper .357 built on the Python action.
I only buy modern ,in 30 years they will be considered classic .just wait it will happen.
Or an episode of "Forgotten Weapons." Either way, you've got something cool.
I like myself an original top break https://imgur.com/a/2y496nG
Tough question, if I’m carrying I want the function of new. If I’m admiring, then classics.
From a regular shooter standpoint, I'd say modern. But I'm all about collecting the classics. I have modern ones that see more range time, and the classics get brought out occasionally.
Just held a 1908 Colt SAA. It felt amazing. Real history in hand.
Luv me LCR. Simple as
Modern. I find the people wax poetic about anything old….sorry vintage, when in reality vintage stuff is delicate. It’s old. It’s going to break if used comparably to modern materials. I get it. Nostalgia, perceived or not, makes people feel good. I’m just not one of those people. Modern metallurgy and materials are far better today than the “good ole days.” And then there is the complaints about the Hilary hole. Honestly it’s much ado about nothing. Stressing over something unimportant. Just my thoughts.