S&W Model 64-8

[Petrol & Powder]

A friend picked up a slightly used S&W Model 64-8 and I performed a detail strip and inspection of that gun.

The dash 8 version of the old stainless K-frame is quite the departure from the traditional K-frame workhorse, but the basics are still there. If you’re old school like me, the internal lock, two-piece barrel and MIM parts cannot be ignored. But here’s what I believe to be a fair evaluation.

First, this was a used gun, but it had seen very little use. He didn’t pay a lot for it and it was in excellent condition. The timing was spot on, with no failure to carry up in SA or DA. There was no appreciable end shake. The ejector rod operation was smooth. Many of the parts have a slightly different form from the older models but they are well fitted. I didn’t measure the DA pull weight; however, it was smooth but very heavy.

The barrel to cylinder gap, measured with 6 empty casings in place, was exactly .006”. A .007” feeler gauge would not fit. The throats were checked with pin gauges, and they were all identical. A .357” + gauge would just barely pass, a .3575” + would not. From a fitting and assembly point of view, the revolver was very good.

Like all new S&W revolvers, it has a round butt grip frame. I guess this makes sense from a manufacturing perspective. Only one style is needed, and a square butt conversion grip can be installed if that’s desired. The factory grips were two pieces with some type of soft rubber molded onto a hard plastic inner shell. The grip screw has an exposed head on one side but threads into a brass ferrule embedded into the inner side of the opposite grip panel; it does not pass completely through the opposite grip. Not the best factory grips I’ve seen but far from the worst. The serial number on the butt of the grip frame is completely concealed by the grip but the same number is found on the frame under the yoke.

The overall finish on the gun was decent but the finish on the cylinder was excellent. In fact, the entire cylinder was machined very well with crisp, but not sharp edges and a fine finish. The extractor is a new style and was very finely fitted to the cylinder.

The screw that retains the yoke has the spring-loaded plunger, as is now the norm. The two remaining side plate screws appear to be identical, with a beveled edge on the screw head. This is a departure from the older screws that had a flat head for the screw under the grip and a slightly doomed head for the lower side plate screw. The holes in the side plate are counter sunk so that the flat head screw is no longer needed. This is one of the manufacturing changes made to reduce specialized parts.

The yoke is retained by the forward side plate screw as is normal but the cut in the yoke does not extend completely around the part. Once the side plate and yoke are removed from the frame, the departure from the older models is glaringly obvious. Almost none of the internal lock work is carried over from the prior versions. The hammer, DA sear, trigger, rebound slide, cylinder stop, bolt and some other parts are MIM parts. The firing pin is contained in the frame and is not attached to the hammer. There are cuts in the frame for the internal lock and the associated parts. The MIM parts showed no signs of being fitted and one would assume the tolerances of those parts “as made” don’t require fitting. Again, this is a concession to manufacturing and assembly.





The plunger/strut that interfaces the rebound slide to the trigger is a separate part and is loose in the trigger. It is captured between the trigger and rebound slide when assembled but this doesn’t look like a good idea to me.



The two-piece barrel utilizes an external shroud and an inner tensioned barrel. This undoubtedly simplifies assembly and fitting of the barrel. The shroud includes the front sight and under barrel lug. Because the shroud is keyed to the frame, there is no “clocking” issue with getting the front sight perfectly vertical during assembly. The barrel itself is in tension, like the old Dan Wesson switch barrels. After the barrel is inserted through the shroud and tightened, the only step left is to cut the breach face to achieve the proper barrel to cylinder gap.

Speaking of the breach face, there is no flat cut on the breach end to compromise the forcing cone, but the forcing cone does appear to be a bit thinner overall. Perhaps this is where better materials can be used for the inner barrel. S&W now uses an electro-chemical etching process to form the rifling. I do not have a bore scope but under some magnification the rifling appears to have a very smooth finish but the lands have slightly rounded edges. It’s not quite as sharply defined as traditional cut rifling, but the overall finish is excellent. A tight-fitting patch revealed zero choke in the bore.

The trigger face is smooth and rounded, this is a huge improvement over the old, serrated trigger face of some target models. If the gun will be shot predominately in DA, this is good thing.

Overall, the 64-8 is still a utilitarian, stainless steel, fixed sight, K-frame chambered for 38 Special.

The real world of business is harsh. Economic pressures are unforgiving and unwavering. S&W had a choice; they could find ways to reduce manufacturing costs, or they could increase prices and face the inevitable competition with those higher prices. Their very survival was dependent on the path they chose. The departures from the older versions are significant. Individuals will have to decide for themselves if they can tolerate the departure from traditional design and materials.

 

[RicinYakima]

Thanks for an excellent report, as I have not ever looked inside one of the new models with lock.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't know if the internal lock, MIM parts and other changes would prevent me from buying a new S&W revolver, but I haven't purchased any either.

 

[hporter]

I have several with the Hillary hole, the two piece barrels and the MIM parts. Do I prefer the older ones, yes. But time marches on and I won't miss out on things I want because I am stuck in the past. Time always marches on for better or worse.

Now if S&W would produce a few more runs of the J frame .32 H&R magnums - I would be a very happy man. With the Hillary hole or not.

 

[hporter]

BTW - that was a very good write up P&P. I forgot to acknowledge that.

 

[JWinAZ]

Very good description of a recent Model 64, thank you. The hand spring is different, and is a bit of a trick to get the hand and spring back into place, at least for me.

At a NRA convention maybe 20 years ago I stopped by the S&W display. Roy Jinks (S&W historian) was there and I chatted with him. He bristled when I made a comment about the lock, and asked if I thought Californians should be deprived of S&Ws.

 

[Snakeoil]

The changes were inevitable. Ruger has been using cast and probably MIM parts for a long time with great success. It does make me cringe to see them in that photo. It's just that S&Ws were just as pretty on the inside as out. Kinda utilitarian looking inside now. But then, I think revolvers should be blue.

Thanks for the report.

 

[CZ93X62]

He bristled when I made a comment about the lock, and asked if I thought Californians should be deprived of S&Ws.

Gavin The Magnificent and Cal-DOJ do a fine job of that already.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

He bristled when I made a comment about the lock, and asked if I thought Californians should be deprived of S&Ws.

It had nothing to do with California. That was S&W and the Clinton administration.

 

[Jeff H]

The last two new revolvers I bought from Taurus and Rossi - recently - had NO LOCKS.

When Ruger replaced my Lipsey's 44 Special Flat Top with a production model, it had no lock.

Not sure how binding the agreement Smith made is, but others have bravely stepped away from it.

BOTH had MIM parts, but both cost half of what a similar Smith would too. Both looked pretty impressive inside as well.

All the MIM hammers I see have voids "cast" into them, which makes me wonder if they have lost mass or if they accounted for that some other way. Makes me wonder about the heavy trigger pull. I'm pretty sure that was the issue with the last Taurus I had, coupled with moving the firing pin/spring to the frame and adding a transfer bar. Frame-mounted firing pin AND a transfer bar is a lot of extra inertia to overcome with what I assume to be a lighter hammer (reduced momentum), making a really heavy hammer spring necessary. I may be full of beans too.

I bought the Rossi RP63 because it stayed with the Smith-like lockwork; hammer block, rebound slide and hammer-mounted firing pin. It's a tad heavier than the older Rossis, but nothing like the Taurus.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Not sure how binding the agreement Smith made is, but others have bravely stepped away from it.

The others never made the agreement to start with.
And S&W could step away from the internal lock by they are fearful the move would be seen as eliminating a "safety" feature.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I can’t say the internal lock is an absolute deal breaker for me, but I don’t own any Smith’s with the lock.

The MIM parts are a big departure from traditional manufacturing processes but from an economics viewpoint, I can certainly understand the advantages of using those parts. I’m not convinced MIM are inferior to the older type parts in terms of strength.

The two-piece (or sometimes three-piece when a cap is added) barrel assembly is a clear improvement from a manufacturing stance. The shroud is put in place, the inner barrel is inserted and screwed tight; all that is left at that point is facing the breach to achieve the desired B/C gap. No thread choke, no canted front sights, perfect B/C gap every time, no complicated facing of a shoulder, the barrel is held in tension; there are a lot of positives here.

The lack of an internal lock on DA revolvers from Ruger, Taurus, Rossi, Colt, Kimber, ,,,,probably helped sell some of those guns. Smith & Wesson painted themselves into a corner with that ridiculous, superfluous lock. If they eliminate it, they will be accused of removing a safety feature. If they keep it, they will undoubtedly lose some potential sales to competitors without a lock.

Ultimately, I’m glad S&W is still in business and still making DA revolvers.

 

[Jeff H]

...If they eliminate it, they will be accused of removing a safety feature. If they keep it, they will undoubtedly lose some potential sales to competitors without a lock....

Not arguing, but my point is that others have eliminated their locks without apparent negative backlash. I'm sure the other companies had to make the same risk assessment.

Also, not trying to convince anyone that Brazilian revolvers are better than American revolvers, but Brazil is not a third-world country and their manufacturing capabilities are world-class. I've specified, purchased, worked on and commissioned equipment from all over the world and many countries might surprise some as to how sophisticated their manufacturing capabilities are - even China. So, I'm looking at an apples to apples comparison for curiosity's sake - and not harping on retail pricing (this time).

Oddly, Rossi had a massive recall on their revolvers a few years ago for drop-safety issues. They were using the same old Smith lockwork with the rebound slide and hammer block, so I'm not sure how or why that happened. In their new manual. the recommend leaving an empty chamber under the firing pin, which I'm guessing was their safety fix, because now that they're back, they use the same old Smith lockwork - with MIM parts. I've been inside one contemporary Taurus and one contemporary Rossi lately and honestly can't say the MIM parts are inferior, in fact, the insides of both of these revolvers are significantly nicer than when either were making those parts the old-fashioned way.

From what I've been able to learn about MIM parts, the end result is a part made from whatever steel is would have been made from had it been machined from billets or forgings. It responds the same way to heat-treating and can be through-hardened or surface hardened, just like any other part made of the same steel. The difference is that the part takes its physical from via a different process, but ends up being the SAME otherwise. I'm no expert on that, but that's what I've gathered so far.

EDIT: Got interrupted several times and failed to summarize the point on MIM, which is that "cheaper to make" does not necessarily dictate "cheaper" in terms of function and performance. Savage, Ruger and Charter Arms showed us that rather blatantly (long ago now), but the stigma kept all three in the less-than-premium category for decades. THAT contributed to them being less costly on our end. Now that "new people," who are unaware of the previous prejudices are buying Savage and Ruger stuff without that "stain," their prices have gotten closer to their competition. Charter, well, Mr. Ecker has found his niche and seems to be flourishing in it.

Inside of a current-production Rossi (made by Taurus) is pretty clean, pretty much because of MIM parts:

 

[462]

Ruger discontinued the safety on their New Vaquero and I'm not aware any hew and cry. Or did I miss it?

 

[Snakeoil]

S&W offers quite a few revolvers that do not have the internal lock feature. So, I would not say that they are 100% committed to the change. It appears to me that they are more about addressing a broader market.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Jeff – no argument here at all. While some other companies did play with their own versions of the internal lock, it was for different reasons. S&W, when it was owned by Tomkins PLC, made an agreement with the Clinton administration on March 17, 2000. That agreement gave S&W some immunity from certain lawsuits in exchange for several concessions from S&W, including the addition of the internal locks. To offset the predicted loss of sales, S&W would receive preferential treatment in some government contracts. The resulting, extremely predictable, consumer backlash resulted in a huge loss of value to Smith & Wesson. In May of 2001, S&W was sold off to Saf-T-Hammer for $15 million, considerably less than the $112 million Tomkins shelled out for S&W. Actions have consequences – S&W’s deal with the Clinton administration resulted in a huge loss of the company’s value.

The agreement between S&W and the federal government later fell apart, largely due to changes in the law that shielded manufacturers from the types of lawsuits they were worried about in the first place. (elections have consequences too, and sometimes those consequences are good).

So, the S&W internal locks came about due to an agreement, (a deal with the devil some say) not out of a desire to improve safety. And S&W bragged loudly about it when they did it. But Smith & Wesson is now in a place where deleting the internal lock will be labeled as the “removal of a safety feature”, not the deletion of an unnecessary mechanism. They’re pretty much stuck with it now on external hammer revolvers due to public image. They could probably remove the internal lock and try to weather the storm of idiots wailing that they don’t care about children, but their stockholders likely don’t wish to take that chance. Other manufacturers that quietly added a few locks and then quietly removed them again, aren’t similarly situated.

As for Brazil’s manufacturing capabilities, you’ll get no argument from me. Embraer aircraft are Brazilian products and they have proven to be very successful. IMBEL, makers of firearms, including some 1911 pattern pistols for Springfield Armory Inc., are Brazilian. Obviously, Taurus and other firms are well known Brazilian manufacturers. Where something is made doesn’t necessarily dictate how it is made. In fact, lower labor costs often allow for high product quality for the same final price.

MIM production, like Ruger’s Investment Casting processes, requires huge upfront costs for tooling and equipment but can yield high quality parts at a reduced “per part” cost. This long view of reduced production costs is why companies invest giant sums of money to reduce costs over many, many years.

In continuous processes, like say oil production and refining, a penny saved at a stage in the process is a penny saved a million times. A few cents saved per part is a few cents saved EVERY time you make that part. If you are only making a few, it’s no big deal. When you are making thousands, it becomes a big deal. Add faster assembly to that equation and the savings multiple some more.

 

[Snakeoil]

All good points. Anytime you get in bed with a politician, there is always good chance you are going to catch something that will outweight the few moments of pleasure.

Regarding the MIM process, I would also think that it makes labor requirements lower. They are pretty much all assemblers now, not gunsmiths. I'd be curious if timing is perfect on every guy or if they still need to be tweaked.

I think I told this story here before. I bought a .44 mag Blackhawk new and when I got it home, I found porosity in the top strap when I removed the cylinder. I called Ruger and asked if there was an allowable amount of porosity in their frames. The rep said that there is no porosity in their frames. I told her there was in this one. She asked that I send the gun back to them. I did and I got a call in a couple weeks. They agreed that the gun should have never left the factory. Asked what I wanted. I told them I really wanted their new Blackhawk with the top rib for a scope. I could not find one locally. The one I wanted showed up at my doorstep about a week later. Only problem was it had a different serial number and that made for problems on my permit. So, I went to the county clerk, took the one gun off my permit and showed it as sold to Ruger and put the new one on and all was good again. Never did keep that ribbed Blackhawk. Horse traded it for something else, can't remember what. Probably a S&W.

 

[Jeff H]

...But Smith & Wesson is now in a place where deleting the internal lock will be labeled as the “removal of a safety feature”, not the deletion of an unnecessary mechanism. They’re pretty much stuck with it now on external hammer revolvers due to public image. They could probably remove the internal lock and try to weather the storm of idiots wailing that they don’t care about children, but their stockholders likely don’t wish to take that chance. Other manufacturers that quietly added a few locks and then quietly removed them again, aren’t similarly situated...

Agreed, all good points and lots of detail which some of us have let get fuzzy and others have never seen.

I don't see how Smith deleting a "safety feature" would be any different than any other company deleting a safety feature. It was an agreement with the federal government which has become moot, but I doubt most of the public today remembers or even paid any attention to begin with.

I doubt Ruger added the expense of locks out of concerns for safety, rather there had to have been some external pressure to do so. If not directly, at least indirectly, possibly in having seen "writing on the wall" which ultimately never came to be fulfilled. Foreign companies face other challenges - more hurdles than domestic, and Taurus likely was pressured directly or indirectly as well. Yet, imported clones of the old Colt SAs get away with original-style lockwork, while Ruger was the focus of direct pressure via litigation to incorporate the transfer bar system. Sometimes a specific state manages to foist their will upon a maker and the rest of us live with it. What possessed any of them to add unnecessary parts and complexity, I'd bet, has always been some external pressure, whether the federal government or something else.

Maybe you're right, I don't know, but I can't see Smith's "public image" being marred when the general public is either clueless and apathetic or willfully ignorant and vehemently opposed to any gun anyway. Their image with shooters would be improved, for certain... maybe. I think now that the majority of people buying new guns don't even remember any of this ever happening.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Regarding the MIM process, I would also think that it makes labor requirements lower. They are pretty much all assemblers now, not gunsmiths. I'd be curious if timing is perfect on every guy or if they still need to be tweaked.

My understanding is the MIM parts can be machined/polished/fitted/etc. as needed but rarely need to be fitted.
So, yes, assembly would be far faster, and therefore less expensive.
I can't speak to the timing after initial assembly with MIM parts but I'd venture a guess that very little needs to be done beyond just assembly.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

It was an agreement with the federal government which has become moot, but I doubt most of the public today remembers or even paid any attention to begin with.

In the words of The Fonz - "correctamundo"