Finish quality of NEW Smith & Wesson revolvers

[Rogervzv]

It must be true that the internet brings out people with problems more than happy customers.

My S&W 686+ (2013 vintage) functions great and looks great.

My S&W 627 PC looks terrific, is deadly accurate, and has no known defects whatever.

Same with my S&W 625JM -- fantastic gun and a pleasure just to look at.

Older S&Ws are OK. Frankly, in the old days S&W did a lot of hand-fitting, used outdated machine tools, and tried to make up for it in the quality control step at the end of the production chain. This is old-style manufacturing. Nowadays S&W, Ruger, CZ/Dan Wesson all use numerically controlled machinery, statistical quality control, and modern production techniques. The result is better guns at a better price. It is simply impossible economically to produce a hand-fitted production gun as in days of yore, and we are all the better for it.

 

[mete]

In the past the M28 was a real bargain compared to the M27 [30 % difference ] .The only difference in the guns was the finish of the 27 which required a SKILLED polisher !

 

[buck460XVR]

I think it comes down to what one wants from a gun. Is it a tool that will be used and will be exposed to wear or is a piece of art that one wants to look at? Is appearance more important than function? When a manufacturer produces a product, do they aim for the largest market within a specific price range or do they target a small amount of individuals? Years ago when stainless guns first came out, many folks disliked them because they were "too shiny" and did things to dull them before hunting with them. Now folks get a "brushed" finish and it's not shiny enough. Both could be and are easily changed. Hard to please everyone all the time.

Originally posted by Rogervzv:

It must be true that the internet brings out people with problems more than happy customers.

It is. It also seems that the internet is a place for folks to whine. It also seems for every happen owner that posts once about their positive experience, there is one unhappy troll that posts continuously about problems their friend or someone they know had. This is true regardless of manufacturer or product. Over @ the S&W forum they have a new rule about bashing other folks newer production Smiths because of this. Not because there are no problems with new Smiths, but because it is the same few folks that feel the need to bash them on every thread, whether the thread started out positive or negative.

Folks want to pay for a mass produced firearm, but want a custom finish. Folks want to pay for a mass produced action, but want a trigger than breaks like that of a custom shop gun. Folks want to pay for a modern blued firearm, but want the finish of old that took many more man hours and chemicals that are now illegal to use. Like old better, buy old. Like new just as much, buy new. Don't like the Hilary Hole, buy a Ruger. Don't like a billboard on the side of your gun, buy a Smith. Don't like a brushed finish, pay for a polished finish or do it yourself.

Gets old coming to sites like this looking to glean knowledge and info only to find nuttin' but whining and complaints. Then folks like me come here and whine about the whiners.

 

[Dragline45]

Is appearance more important than function?

No but you wouldn't buy a new car with a crap paint job.

Folks want to pay for a mass produced firearm, but want a custom finish

I know how to do a brushed finish, a hell of alot better than I have seen on most S&W stainless revolvers, and it is not very hard. If they are not going to take the time to do a proper brushed finish, then polish the gun or bead blast it. If they are not going to do either of those, then they shouldn't charge a premium for their product. S&W revolvers are not by any means cheap in price. Bead blasting is extremely easy, cheap, and quick to do. With a large enough polishing wheel they could polish their revolvers up pretty darn quick and have them look alot better than their pathetic excuse for a brushed finish.

These are examples of alot of the brushed finishes you see on S&W revolvers. It looks like they dry brushed these guns, which leave it with an awful scratched up look instead of a satin type finish. Also there is no method to how they brush these guns, sure the rounded contours make it harder than a flat slide, but their finished product comes out looking awful.

 

[Motownstan]

I agree with everything you say Buck.
I have three new Smith's, a 442 (no lock), Governor and a M-63. The fit, finish and function on all of them are very nice. I had to send the M-63 back for lead spitting but they had it back in about a week with a new barrel and no more problems.
When I bought them I wasn't looking for a highly polished work of art to hide in the safe.
If I was looking for a new house I would know better than to ask for wet plaster and hardwood floors.

 

[MJFlores]

Dragline45, thank you for posting those two photos...now people can see what I'm talking about. Those two revolvers are inexcusable and how they ever left S&W as a finished gun ready for sale is a wonder. They just don't care. For the amount of effort it would take to polish them, there's no excuse not to. The real scary part is there's people on this very thread that consider this acceptable behavior... so it's no wonder why S&W does it. Years ago, and not long ago mind you..a company would never release a product looking like that. It's deplorable. For those of you who argue "function vs. looks" and try to snub off those of us who demand quality....let me know when you buy new vehicles. I'll be over with a wet rag covered in sand to rub all over your new car. Wont matter to you though right?...it still drives so.... Unbelievable what some people are willing to accept. No wonder the most common thread on forums like this are "I bought a new gun but.... I'm sending it back". America is declining in more ways than one.

 

[Doug S]

You think some of these guys are giving you a hard time, go and "bash" a Taurus, and that group will really give you trouble. Seriously, I hear what you're saying, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think some people can get too caught up on minor cosmetic details, but there is some level of fit and finish that should be expected. I've purchased a couple of new S&W 642' in 2004-5 that were sloppy IMO. One had a nasty barrel that appeared to have been damaged during assembly. The other had some badly fitted parts. I ended up finding a lightly used prelock 642 from the late 90s. Fit and finish was much better. Also none of the finish peeling problems I've read about in recent years. Not saying the new are bad, just that I do not doubt that your personal experience has been negative.

 

[Rogervzv]

Buck said:

It also seems for every happen owner that posts once about their positive experience, there is one unhappy troll that posts continuously about problems their friend or someone they know had.

Exactly right. My S&W revolvers (my Rugers too, for that matter) function 100% and in my humble opinion are beautiful pieces of industrial art. Plus, they are reliable tools that can be counted on to do their jobs.

 

[Dragline45]

Exactly right. My S&W revolvers (my Rugers too, for that matter) function 100% and in my humble opinion are beautiful pieces of industrial art. Plus, they are reliable tools that can be counted on to do their jobs.

This thread isn't about the reliable function of S&W revolvers, it's about the awful finish they put on their stainless revolvers. If you can look at those two photos I posted and think those are acceptable finishes for an $800-$1000 revolver, than you are more easily pleased than I am. As I mentioned before, I know how to apply a proper brushed finish, what S&W puts on their revolvers is not a proper brushed finish. Rugers which can be had for sometimes $200 less have a much better stainless finish than the S&W's, there is no excuse for that.