S&W long vs. short action?

[Mk42gunner]

All my life I have read and heard that the S&W doble action is the best of all double actions, usually compared to Colts or heaven forbid Rugers.

But... then I read and hear of just how smooth the "old long action" S&W double action mechanism was.

I've played with and worked on a few Colts, never a Python, and only remember shooting two .22 Diamondbacks that my cousins' uncle had.

I've played with, worked on and owned a few Rugers.

I've played with, worked on a truckload of worn out Model 10's and owned a few S&W's, including a five screw K-22 and a 1903 Hand Ejector.

They were all able to be smoothed up to at least satisfactory, if not down right slick.

There may or may not have been a few Rossi's, Tauruses (tauri?) and the occasional top break in there somewhere too. The less said about those and smoothness the better.

Not having shot any of the larger framed S&W's, was the long action really that much better? Or is it a case of "I used this when I was young, and nothing made these days is as good as it was then?"

Just curious, thanks for the answers,

Robert

[Don Purcell]

Mk42. I have a transition model 38/44 Smith and Wesson Outdoorsman .38 Special and the action feels like two panes of oiled glass working together. It was made in 1946-47 I believe when people with years of experience hand fitted the parts. Yeah, there is a difference. However, a friend of mine has a stainless Model 627 that has a crisp smooth action that is to die for, very solid and very accurate. Actually the new guns are probably closer on tolerances but the old guns have a soul.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Might be a little bit of what you said there at the end. If you fire a pre-war (that would be war no. 2) S&W vs. one made in the 60's when they came to have model numbers instead of model names you will notice a difference. But it's just that--a difference and folks that used them could shoot either very well. Both could be greatly improved with an action job, but there was a time period when S&W's guns just about had an action job right out of the box. That would be the older ones you're talking about.

[gnostic]

I'm told, that the steel they make guns from today, would grind up the tooling of pre-war guns. I've always prefered S&W because of their non-stacking triggers.

[Outpost75]

I'm told, that the steel they make guns from today, would grind up the tooling of pre-war guns. I've always prefered S&W because of their non-stacking triggers.

While I might be called an old fart and a heretic, Jim Clark built both of my Ruger PPC guns so that they would stack like a Colt Python. Bill Davis way back put a Colt Python barrel on an S&W Model 19 for me and set that one up to stack like a Python also. This was done when Pythons were the top gun, but scarce, expensive and made of unobtanium...
To properly establish the time frame, for any other old farts reading this, it was during the era when the NRA National Police REVOLVER championships were held at the Mississippi Law Enforcement Officers Training Academy outside Jackson, MS.

[rintinglen]

There was more than a bit of exaggeration in the claims made for the "old" long action guns. Some of the guns made in the 1930's were really good. Low production rates and the urgent desire to perform well to keep a scarce job made for some pretty good guns. However, I have had several 1903 hand ejectors and M&P's that weren't all that and a bag of chips. 1917 S&W's are not renowned for their smooth actions either.
However, I did have the privilege of firing a registered magnum that was as smooth as a babies bottom. SOME of the old guns WERE of a level of excellence that is virtually unrivaled in factory firearms.
That said, a good smith can make a Ruger, or a Colt action feel amazingly good, not to mention an S&W of almost any stripe or era.

[EMC45]

While I might be called an old fart and a heretic, Jim Clark built both of my Ruger PPC guns so that they would stack like a Colt Python. Bill Davis way back put a Colt Python barrel on an S&W Model 19 for me and set that one up to stack like a Python also. This was done when Pythons were the top gun, but scarce, expensive and made of unobtanium...
To properly establish the time frame, for any other old farts reading this, it was during the era when the NRA National Police REVOLVER championships were held at the Mississippi Law Enforcement Officers Training Academy outside Jackson, MS.


Smython?

[Char-Gar]

To answer your question directly, while there is some difference in feel between the old long action Smiths and the newer short action ones, I don't feel one is clearly superior to the other. They are just a smidge different and nothing else.

The Colts do have a very different DA pull with a stacking at the end. I can shoot them just fine, but have a slight preference for the Smith and Wesson DA pull.

Here is a couple of old long action Military and Police 38s and a newer Model 10. The top one is from 1931, the middle 1913 and the bottom 1964. I also throw in a 1954 Colt Official Police for good measure.

[Outpost75]

Smython?

Exactly!

[Ithaca Gunner]

From the for what it's worth department, I own a prewar M&P. It's okay, but my 629-3 is so much smoother! Not knocking the old guns, just stating a fact between two guns I own.

[Char-Gar]

From the for what it's worth department, I own a prewar M&P. It's okay, but my 629-3 is so much smoother! Not knocking the old guns, just stating a fact between two guns I own.

The smoothest K frame I own is a 2005 Model 64. Right out of the box, it was slicker than snot on a glass door knob.

[Mk42gunner]

Thank you for your experienced answers Gentlemen.

You have pretty much confirmed my thoughts that there was a difference, but not a Cadillac to Yugo sized one.

Robert

[Blackwater]

I'm a S&W fan myself, but have a Colt DS with a really good DA trigger, and I have come to believe that it's more a matter of whichever one we get conditioned to. They can all stand some deburring and slicking up, and maybe some lighter springs sometimes, depending on what application they're intended for.

Colt used to advertise "hand fitted actions," but what they didn't say was if they weren't, they might not function right. I've always liked the Colts, but with my hands conditioned to the S&W grips, and DA pulls, I've never been able to warm up to the Colts I've had. I liked them, but they just didn't seem to like me as much as I did them.

The older S&W's had more hand fitting in them, and this may be the biggest difference, along with the fact that many of those older guns were shot a lot, and thus were worn in and deburred from use more than many newer ones - really an "apples and oranges" situation.

A good 'smith can make most revolvers better, lighten the pull, and do all sorts of things if you've got the $$$ and time and inclination for that sort of thing. I'm with Char-Gar on the difference being not worth considering, and personally, I'll take the better metalurgy of the newer guns, but that's because I love the K-frames, and want to be able to load my .38's as hot as I can get them and still be nice to my guns. That's the difference I care about most. But that's just me. I always get a charge out of handling one of those old guns, though. It's a heart-head dichotomy for me, and I try to go with the head, usually. But I certainly wouldn't want to be shot with one of those old guns eihter, though!

[ReloaderFred]

Bill Davis called his S&W's fitted with a Python barrel "Smolts" in the late 1970's. The Python barrel was normally in the .356" diameter range, so it shot the HBWC bullets well.

When I was Rangemaster for our department from 1977 to 1979, we had bought about 800 Model 19-4's in 1974. Whenever a Deputy brought one in and complained about the action, I'd take the sideplate off and clean out all the filings and debris left inside from the factory, then oil it lightly and put it back together. They would then brag about the "action job" I had done on their duty gun......

I can still shoot most S&W revolvers better double action than I can single action, probably from the many, many thousands of rounds fired through them on the range and in PPC matches and practices. Old habits die hard..

Hope this helps.

Fred

[9.3X62AL]

Like Fred, I "grew up" on double-action revolver shooting--and can run a Colt/S&W/Ruger in that mode as well or better than if fired via thumb-cocking first. Between the 3 makes, I have no true "preference"--I have examples of all three in the safe. S&W does predominate, and I have both older "long-action" examples and newer "short-throw" hammer variants. Both kinds work wonderfully.

[FergusonTO35]

My 2015 S&W 637 has a sweet double action pull. Very smooth and not too heavy, you can feel the cylinder index for surprisingly precise shooting in double action. All I did was add the Wolff 8 pound rebound spring and lightly hone the hammer, trigger, and rebound slide with a fine whetstone. My 1990's 10-10 has had nothing done to it and also has a great pull.

[scattershot]

I'm an old phart, and I remember that those old Smiths were smooth, all right, but I have felt others just as smooth. I think the difference is that the old guns came from the factory that way.

[reddog81]

I prefer the short actions. I have more experience with them and they feel more natural. I'm sure if I had shot the long actions first I would prefer them. Also remember every gun is unique and ones persons experience with a couple of guns is a very small sample.