destroyed Shield

Does the manual for the Shield caution against +P ammo beyond the typical excessive wear comment? Normally I'd look it up myself but I'm on mobile only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
• “Plus-P” (+P) ammunition generates pressures in excess of the pressures associated with standard ammunition. Such pressures may affect the wear characteristics or exceed the margin of safety. Use of “Plus-P” ammunition may result in the need for more frequent service.
• “Plus-P-Plus” (+P+) ammunition must not be used in Smith & Wesson firearms. This marking on the ammunition designates that it exceeds established industry standards, but the designation does not represent defined pressure limits and therefore such ammunition may vary significantly as to the pressures generated and could be DANGEROUS.
Click to expand...

This is from S&W's owners manual online. I also looked at the owners manual of my wife's 9mm Performance Center Shield. Same thing.
 
Last edited:
Full, you are wrong. A boilerplate warning "don't do this"does not relieve them of the responsibility of making a product that N withstand normal use, and reloads are normal use. It should be nearly impossible to blow up a nine. Creating an unsupported chamber and saying that the shooter alone is responsible doesn't really fit full legal warranty, and that has been well documented.

He should try to have Smith fix it. If he doesn't try to push limits of their products by holding them partially responsible, that's one more reason for them to never improve their product, and to deny responsibility.

Do not assume that his work is at fault.
 
briandg said:
Full, you are wrong. A boilerplate warning "don't do this"does not relieve them of the responsibility of making a product that N withstand normal use, and reloads are normal use. It should be nearly impossible to blow up a nine. Creating an unsupported chamber and saying that the shooter alone is responsible doesn't really fit full legal warranty, and that has been well documented.



He should try to have Smith fix it. If he doesn't try to push limits of their products by holding them partially responsible, that's one more reason for them to never improve their product, and to deny responsibility.



Do not assume that his work is at fault.
Click to expand...



So we should assume an entire design that has sold very well and met with good reception is at fault, but not assume than a individual reloader made a mistake? And yes I know wide selling doesn't mean good, but in this industry junk products get crucified pretty quickly, ala R51. I read the warning on Starline. Before this I hadn't read reports of Shields blowing up, at least on this forum, and most folks are pretty vocal about that. Most FFLs I know that have sold them haven't mentioned anything to me about problems and these are guys I'm friends with and are generally pretty up front with me. I ran +P through the one I owned without major issue, nor did I notice any bulging brass.

Maybe it's the pistol, maybe it's the reloads. S&Ws warning about reloads can be found in most manuals these days (it's pretty standard legal protection). I agree that the OP should send it in and see S&Ws response as I think a good company will go to bat for its buyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You, too are wrong. We assume that his ammo is at fault, so we decide that it can't be that pistol, and that everything should just be written off as him not following the rules, doing something wrong, and being fully responsible for what happened? That's not how it works, and you bloody well know it.

Under pretty much all circumstances, there is a thing called "burden of proof" and in this case that burden will be on the maker, for the most part.

he needs to present the thing to the maker and let them prove that there were no problems with the gun, or replace it if it turns out that the thing split up because of a flaw in the receiver. plenty of guns have case failures that don't destroy the receivers.

Companies love hearing people pushing the fault off of them, onto the consumer.

check oil levels at every fill up and change oil every 3,000 miles
Click to expand...

What bull toast. Arbitrary boilerplate to prevent accountability. If a car's bearings go out within warranty and the owner didn't check every fill up or went 3,500 miles between changes, what then?

Companies love it when nobody challenges their products. It's plausible deniability. 10,000 toasters break because of faulty switches, and are thrown away.the company sells defective products in millions with impunity.

But, whatever your opinion is your own. If everyone followed that philosophy warranties would be meaningless. Manufacturers. Could write any sort of exclusion that they wanted.
 
Another very important question.

Did it say anywhere in those documents that use of handloads actually voids the warranty? Unless it specifically states that using handloads voids th a warranty, whether or not he used handloads is immaterial, making that whole complaint ridiculous.
 
You're attributing to me what I feel is more than I said. I said it could be both. But I'm a mathematician. I work in probabilities, and I imagine the probabilities aren't equal in this case, both from my experience and what I've heard (but I don't have exhaustive research). And I'm not sure what I "bloody well know." I'm not sure I agree the onus is on the manufacturer to prove themselves not responsible. And even if it were, unless you wanted to take them to small claims court they could always get a gunsmith to sign off that it wasn't their fault. But I don't think S&W is that kind of company from my experience

I think you're getting more upset about this than need be. I agreed that sending it to S&W is a good idea. I don't think we need to be up in arms until we hear back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And yet the OP still hasn't been back on here to tell us what his HANDLOADS were or were suppose to be.
 
You know, I am having an irritating week and I am irritable, and I am slamming onto you unnecessarily. You are right and I humbly apologize to you.

The simplest way to look at this is to establish whether handloads actually nullify warranty coverage, in the case of other companies, it isn't in question.

If the loads didn't void the warranty, the point is irrelevant. He is fully entitled, and in a certain degree,obliged to send it to the maker for examination.

Whatever was in the load, the unsupported chamber probably allowed the case to fail, when it might not have. Unsupported chambers are a potential problem that the maker put in on their own. Any weak case, even factory presents a risk with them, and this risk may be lower in a fully supported chamber.

(Again, this also begs the question, is the case actually unsupported, or does it actually have steel support all the way to the web of the case, with none of the thinner body exposed? Unless thin body brass is exposed, we again slide into another issue.)

The final question is, should that handgun have gone through catastrophe failure, essentially because he used unapproved, yet still (probably) safe loads, that may have failed, on l y because of a design that isn't as strong as others?

Sending it back is his right. When there, the company will probably find no facts that conclusively prove that shooter error, and being smart people, they will recognize that there are no contractual or legal grounds to deny his claim. They will almost surely make some sort of concession, unless he very clearly violated warranty in some grleviou way, like performing modifications to parts subject to mechanical stress.
 
Reloads always seem a hazy area for some companies. I'd have to really go through the manual to know for sure. Usually there's a cautionary note but you're right does that actually legally exempt them from coverage. I honestly don't know. From what I've heard from others and my own experience S&W is usually pretty fair in their dealings so hearing back from them is a good idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My bodyguard has enormous issues with reliability on numerous levels and they want me to return it, but I haven't yet.

I expect that they will replace it without even looking at it, and that it may be just the same as the first one.

There is a drawback to having a great replacement policy. If you sent in a product in the past, it would be fixed, rather than shuffled right back with the same problems in a new gun.

Sort of like my Ford dealer and their warranty service. Five visits for a transmission problem, and once, I marked a tire. They hadn't even moved the car.
 
My experience is that S&W uses their warranty service to offset what is IMO a less than stellar QC process. I've run the gambit with S&W, even with $1200 1911s. They always fixed it, I just wish they fixed it before it left the factory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You are right

The least expensive way to do it is to skip in-depth examination, count in the quality of the product to be good enough out of the door. I would guess that only a few out of a hundred get claims for service. Pay postage, have an in house parts swapper and or actual gunsmith decide if it can be fixed, and. Either swap out the defective parts, adjust it, or recycle and replace it.

A business has to run lean, and after near failure, they had to take . Extreme measures, just like colt did. They both thought that traditional contracts would carry them forever.


Has anyone here actually bought a colt are, or 1911 in the past five years, I wonder? Smith still manages to sell a lot of their traditional goods.
 
Sort of like my Ford dealer and their warranty service. Five visits for a transmission problem, and once, I marked a tire. They hadn't even moved the car.
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing to do with Ford and everything to do with your local independent dealer.
 
And I clearly said that it was my Ford dealer, didn't I? It's right there in your quote, right?

A warranty is only as good as the policy, and that policy is still depending on those who execute it. A replacement warranty is only as good as the replacement will be.
 
@brian. You're good at telling everyone they're wrong and you're right. Idk, I think I'd probably take the side of the the SW shields who are proven to be not defective than joe blow with the hand loading press in his trailer who experiments with different powders. Warranties arn't your strong suit and it shows. So if I overload the powder and blow up a gun that's the companies fault? The customer is NOT always right.
 
Son, you are just plain wrong, but if thinking that you are right makes you happy, go ahead and think that.

The end of the story will come when he sends it back and they determine exactly what happened. Unless they can determine that the gun was completely flawless and that the handloads were the complete and sole cause of that failure, they are going to probably do something, history shows that.

There are millions of pages of warranty law on the books with most of it meant to protect the consumer, not the manufacturer. This isn't a coffeemaker, there are many considerations involved, legal and others. They are going to be very flexible. History shows that. It's important to make people in this industry believe in the product and the maker.

I've got nothing more to say about it. It's up to him to send it in, it's their decision to service it under warranty or repair, or send it back. If they do take care of it, he's the winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top