I tend to be a bit opinionated. Some things are great the way they are and shouldn’t be changed. I like what I like. I like original configurations of things, especially guns. I like the configuration of something as it was the first time I saw something or the first one I owned. I am a traditionalist and I don’t like change and I accept change grudgingly.

For example, the Smith & Wesson Model 29 originally had a large, square butt/grip. The first M-29 I owned in the 1970’s came with that configuration. I liked it. It felt good in my hand and I was able to use the extra wood at the bottom rear of the grip to leverage the long 8-3/8” barrel up.

Now, Smith & Wesson is offering the M-29 with a round butt. That just ain’t right. Don’t get me wrong. I own a Model 686 with a round butt as my car gun however, it also comes with a 2 1/2” barrel. Not so much weight way out front.

Further, they have included a scalloped cylinder release and a hammer lock. The hammer lock, which, in my opinion, is a waste and was probably included, in part, as a result of our litigious society. In my opinion, they caved. Yes, I am aware that the company that purchased Smith & Wesson is the company who invented the hammer lock and so decided to include it in new offerings. The scalloped cylinder release really screwed up the classic lines of their revolvers.

It seems to me that most of Smith & Wesson’s newer offerings tend to look a bit too futuristic to me. My opinion is that if a gun looks like a space gun or a ray gun, it better shoot a beam that vaporizes the target.

Colt Gold Cup pistols should have a flat top, not a round top slide. The round top slide is a Government Model feature. However, I have seen Government Models, Officer’s Models and Combat Commanders with a flat top slide and I think their appearance is extremely attractive, but still not traditional.

Speaking of Commander Models; The Colt Combat Commander came with a rounded hammer spur. The Commander style hammer belongs on Commanders and Officer’s Models, not Gold Cups.

However, with the advent of the wide, upswept, beavertail grip safety, the Commander hammer is the only option. So, I have a Gold Cup Trophy with a round top slide and a Commander hammer. It also has a Bomar type rear sight! And worse yet, it has a dove-tailed front sight, which I replaced with a fiber optic sight. What is the world coming to?

At least the Gold Cup still has the wide trigger. That’s something, anyway.

Granted, the dove-tail front sight is less likely to be shot off the slide, and the Bomar style rear sight is more robust, but they still screw up the classic lines of the Gold Cup.

So why did I buy a Gold Cup with features that I consider non-traditional? Practicality is the answer. I was shooting IPSC and steel matches and I wanted a reliable gun. My traditional Gold Cup lost a rear sight pin during a match. I had to switch guns during the match. Also, I shot someone else’s Kimber with a dove-tailed fiber optic front sight and I liked it, especially with my weak, aging eyes. I knew of a gun store in town that happened to have a Gold Cup Trophy (with the dove-tailed front sight) so I bought it. I didn’t want to alter a Gold Cup National Match so I bought a $900.00 gun so I could put a $40.00 sight on it.

And another thing, what’s up with forward cocking grooves? They are just something else to screw up those classic lines. I have a Government Model with the forward cocking grooves that I use as my carry gun. I originally bought it for IPSC matches but replaced it with the Gold Cup mentioned previously. I never use the forward cocking grooves to check to see if the gun is loaded as it is always loaded.

OK, so is just me or is there something wrong with a short grip frame on a Ruger Old Army with a 7 1/2” barrel. Do you know how hard it is to handle and shoot a big gun like that with medium to large size hands?

I replaced the small grip frame on my stainless Old Army with a brass grip frame from a 3-screw Super Blackhawk. Looks nice, too.

And what about the Super Blackhawk? Shouldn’t that gun have a large grip frame with the square trigger guard and non-fluted cylinder?

Don’t get me wrong, I own a several Colts, S&Ws and Rugers. I just wonder why they have to change things.

By far, my favorite guns are Colt’s. But I wonder why they dropped the Detective Special, the Python and the Diamondback (among others) from the product line. Actually, they don’t offer a single double action revolver anymore. I wonder why, when Smith & Wesson still offers a number of double action revolvers.

I also can’t figure out why they don’t produce the Model “O” in .22 LR or at least offer a conversion unit for the Model “O” when other companies do.

I also wonder why manufacturers don’t offer guns that collector’s price so much. Have you seen how much people are willing to pay for a Colt Magnum Carry? The Blue book of Gun Values lists the Magnum Carry as being worth about $500.00. People are buying them for $1,000.00 on GunBroker and GunsAmerica. I know because that is what I paid for mine, without the box or papers.

Just what are these manufacturers thinking when they decide to change something that has worked for decades?

People like things the way they are or were. If that isn’t true why are automobile manufacturers going “retro” producing new old cars like the Thunderbird or Challenger which look more like the originals than new cars?