S&W Quality
- Thread starter Doug Bowser
- Start date
Hammerhead
New member
I've bought 6 or 7 Glocks in the past 15 years, most ordered sight unseen. Four HK's, 3 USP's, one HK45, all ordered by my dealer. If you include friend's pistols that I have first hand experience with, the number would be around 20. Never a bad part.
I think part of that is the way they are built, they don't require the same hand fitting that a revolver does. Also the hammer forged barrels and the molded frames tend to be more uniform. The individual parts are just thrown together, so it's easier to cull bad parts during assembly or inspection.
I think we've all seen the picture of the recent S&W's with bad muzzle crowns, bad forcing crowns, thread chokes, etc... Go down to your LGS and take a good, hard, unbiased look at the Smiths. My 63 had to have the barrel replaced it was so bad (rough), the replacement wasn't much better. I even had trouble with a custom shop 952. The sear broke twice within a month. They were very good about fixing it though. The 686 SSR that I saw at my LGS should have never left the factory. Even you would have agreed had you seen it.
I would never order a S&W sight unseen, and I'll stand by that.
Ruger, well my opinion of them has come around. I did order my flat top Bisley .44 from a distributer and was pleased. The GP100 looked great, so I put my money down on that. I may look for either an SP101 or 3" fixed sight GP and I'll probably have to order that.
IIRC, Glock pistols outsell S&W revolvers by a wide margin, and they have fewer reported problems with quality, so simple logic tells me they do better than S&W with QC.
Not a fan or recent Glock designs, but that's not really a QC issue.
Last edited:
Strafer Gott
New member
Conflict of interest?
Every time someone posts about how scrued up "The new Smith" is, my old Smiths' go up in price. I love it. But every time somebody gets on the box about Rugers, It's still the same price for old Rugers. You Ruger guys are just going to have to try harder. Oh and another thing, comparing polymer to metal pistols probably won't work either.
There just has to be a way to make all those old security sixes worth more !
Every time someone posts about how scrued up "The new Smith" is, my old Smiths' go up in price. I love it. But every time somebody gets on the box about Rugers, It's still the same price for old Rugers. You Ruger guys are just going to have to try harder. Oh and another thing, comparing polymer to metal pistols probably won't work either.
There just has to be a way to make all those old security sixes worth more !
Two Rugers - new GP100 and Security Six - had quality control problems. Fixed the GP100 at home with a file and Ruger repaired the Security Six.
With my S&W revolvers the problems were nearly non-existent. Out of 8 revolvers, two had botched trigger jobs. No QC issues.
Slip ups will occur with any manufactured item and QC will find most of them.
Two things that I am waiting for 1) a dreaded, vile, to be avoided at all cost 100% MIM revolver made by either or both S&W and Ruger; and 2) S&W's removal of their exclusive silly lock. Neither Ruger nor Taurus have those things.
With my S&W revolvers the problems were nearly non-existent. Out of 8 revolvers, two had botched trigger jobs. No QC issues.
Slip ups will occur with any manufactured item and QC will find most of them.
Two things that I am waiting for 1) a dreaded, vile, to be avoided at all cost 100% MIM revolver made by either or both S&W and Ruger; and 2) S&W's removal of their exclusive silly lock. Neither Ruger nor Taurus have those things.
I have 4 Smith and Wessons from 30+ years old till new. No problems, or the single complaint from any of them. I have a 37-2 j frame, and 686-5 357 mag, a M&P 15-22 rifle, and had a Sigma 9mm. Two of them were used when I go them, and two of them new. All have been 100%. This is just a small sample od S&W as a whole, but mine has been nothing but awesome from every Smith I have owned. No one company is perfect, there will always be lemons, but Smith and Wesson is a company I still trust more than any else.
jolly roger
New member
Have never had a problem with a S&W with one exception. Frame crack on an old 669 9mm which was otherwise in pristine shape. I sent it in. They said "Well we don't make that frame anymore. How about an M&P?" I said "45 Compact?" They said OK...after a small delay...I said DONE. Sent to my FFL in a week. I had that 669 for about 20 years or so...You cannot beat that!
S&W revolvers over 35 years have been no problem and I have quite a few. When we had revolvers on my department there were few if any problems straight from the factory. I even have 2 with "The Lock", a Model 21 and a 642. No issues. The 21 is a superb shooter.
Sure any company can send out a **** and S&W of course errs on occasion. They have certainly had a few failures like the abominable SW380 and the first Smegmas. But overall I stand behind them 100 percent. I think they tend to err a whole lot less than most.
S&W revolvers over 35 years have been no problem and I have quite a few. When we had revolvers on my department there were few if any problems straight from the factory. I even have 2 with "The Lock", a Model 21 and a 642. No issues. The 21 is a superb shooter.
Sure any company can send out a **** and S&W of course errs on occasion. They have certainly had a few failures like the abominable SW380 and the first Smegmas. But overall I stand behind them 100 percent. I think they tend to err a whole lot less than most.
Winchester_73
New member
S&W makes semi pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns. There is no way glock outsells them just making semi auto pistols.
Your purchase of about 10 pistols of Glock/H&K tells us nothing btw about the quality control of the company when you consider how many they've made.
You're just guessing which is better, you have no objective data to support your claim, which is what I said from the beginning.
coolbreezy
New member
I had a model 500 with the dreaded IL, it never hindered performance or function, I just didn't like it for asthetic reasons.
According to the ATF's statistics, in 2010 (the most recent year available) Glock produced 31,395 handguns (all semi-autos as Glock makes no revolvers) while S&W produced 290,209 semi-auto pistols 228,814 revolvers for a grand total of 519,023 handguns.
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2010-final-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf
This means that if both Glock and S&W had defect rates of 1% and we only took S&W's revolvers into account, there would still be almost 2,000 more defective S&W revolvers due entirely to the difference in production numbers.
I was willing to keep an open mind about the lock. After several thousand 44 specials through my lock equipped gun, I'm convinced that all the arguments are a tempest in a teapot. I've yet to actually meet anyone who had a problem with it
Am I happy the thing is there? Hell No!
Does it worry me? Not any more.
Am I happy the thing is there? Hell No!
Does it worry me? Not any more.
Hammerhead
New member
Objective data??? I never claimed it was a scientific study. I gave my opinion and experiences, and those of the owner and manager of my LGS. This is an opinion forum, so lighten up.
That's a very good point. It's like what's known in the research community as the 'file drawer effect' - bad examples are removed from the pool of evidence because they don't meet accepted standards or expected results. It's one reason that it's actually hard to pin down the question of whether older guns were actually built better than current ones, and if so, by what degree.
Like others have mentioned, it's apparent that S&W's quality has varied over the years. The 80's revolvers have a reputation for lower quality, for example.
Though I expect that the manufacturing process employed in the post-war years probably did result in fewer goofs leaving the shop, if simply because there were more hands and eyes on the piece as it was being assembled.
Here is my experience with the recent smith's I got.
629 classic 44 mag with 5" barrel : no muzzle crown at all.
627 performance center : the barrel was screwed too much in the frame and couldn't aligne the sights. The cylinder did not lock on one chamber while cocking single action.
351 PD: firing pin too short could not fire a complete cylinder without at last 2 failure to fire.
686: no finish in the chambers impossible to remove the empty brass without help of a tool!
All of this on a one year period! So maybe I'm very unlucky, but don't guys tell me everything is ok at smith and Wesson cause I never experienced so much troubles with other brands!
Out of 6 S&W revolvers I got last year, only 2 were fine, a 360 PD and a model 36 (from the 80's).
I bough one ruger gp 100, for less money I got more satisfaction!
629 classic 44 mag with 5" barrel : no muzzle crown at all.
627 performance center : the barrel was screwed too much in the frame and couldn't aligne the sights. The cylinder did not lock on one chamber while cocking single action.
351 PD: firing pin too short could not fire a complete cylinder without at last 2 failure to fire.
686: no finish in the chambers impossible to remove the empty brass without help of a tool!
All of this on a one year period! So maybe I'm very unlucky, but don't guys tell me everything is ok at smith and Wesson cause I never experienced so much troubles with other brands!
Out of 6 S&W revolvers I got last year, only 2 were fine, a 360 PD and a model 36 (from the 80's).
I bough one ruger gp 100, for less money I got more satisfaction!
My recent experience with S&W revolvers has been bad as well. Four out of four that I bought in the last 18 months needed to be sent back to the factory to be fixed. Two of them needed new frames, and three needed the barrel straightened.
I didn't get the quality or the customer service I expected with this brand.
I didn't get the quality or the customer service I expected with this brand.
My 40 year experiance with S&W has been perfect.Old pistols, new pistols,with a lock, without a lock,38spl, 357,44mag,never a problem with any of them. I guess I must be lucky. I have 5 snubbies models 66,64,60,637,37, and all shoot to point of aim.
The only deer mount I have on the wall was shot with a 629 8 3/8" with a 2 power leupold scope at a hundred yards. I'm sure every company run by anyone other than Jesus Christ is going to have human error,I just have'nt experianced it from Smith and Wesson.
The only deer mount I have on the wall was shot with a 629 8 3/8" with a 2 power leupold scope at a hundred yards. I'm sure every company run by anyone other than Jesus Christ is going to have human error,I just have'nt experianced it from Smith and Wesson.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The traditionalists can lament that "they don't make them like they used to" and trumpet about anonymous posts on internet fora all they want, but I've yet to see anything but anecdotal (and usually anonymous) evidence that S&W's quality is any less today than it has ever been."
Well, I think I'm more than an ancedote. I worked for American Rifelman from 1990 to 1994, and then in a gun shop from 1994 to 1996.
While I was with Rifleman we sent back at least two guns S&W sent to us for testing.
Supposedly they had been hand selected...
The revolver had a cracked frame, and the semi-auto had a trigger that would bind solid at least 5 pulls out of 10 and wouldn't fire.
We also regularly heard from NRA members who had purchased new S&W products only to have significant problems with them. And more than a few of my fellow staffers in other areas of NRA also had issues with newly purchased S&Ws.
When I worked at the gunshop we sent back a number of guns to S&W for various problems, including one where the barrel was at least 15 degrees off kilter.
I kept an eye on S&W revolvers for many years, examining and handling thousands of them at gun shops, gun shows, and ranges, and the simple fact is that the late 1980s and 1990s were a time of SERIOUS quality control problems for the company.
If you want something more concrete, you only need to read Paul Barrett's book Glock: The Rise of America's Gun.
It touches on S&W's quality issues, including the problems Smith had in sending guns to the FBI that would work out of the box and also a statement by Sherry Collins, S&W's ad director, that QC had slipped badly over the years.
The whole Sigma fiasco is another potent indicator about how badly S&W had slipped at the time.
Yes, any company will have issues. That's the nature of a manufactured product. It's the rate of issues that are the indication of problem, and the sad truth is that during the late 1980s and well into the 1990s Smith & Wesson had an issue rate that far exceeded other major players in the firearms industry.
Well, I think I'm more than an ancedote. I worked for American Rifelman from 1990 to 1994, and then in a gun shop from 1994 to 1996.
While I was with Rifleman we sent back at least two guns S&W sent to us for testing.
Supposedly they had been hand selected...
The revolver had a cracked frame, and the semi-auto had a trigger that would bind solid at least 5 pulls out of 10 and wouldn't fire.
We also regularly heard from NRA members who had purchased new S&W products only to have significant problems with them. And more than a few of my fellow staffers in other areas of NRA also had issues with newly purchased S&Ws.
When I worked at the gunshop we sent back a number of guns to S&W for various problems, including one where the barrel was at least 15 degrees off kilter.
I kept an eye on S&W revolvers for many years, examining and handling thousands of them at gun shops, gun shows, and ranges, and the simple fact is that the late 1980s and 1990s were a time of SERIOUS quality control problems for the company.
If you want something more concrete, you only need to read Paul Barrett's book Glock: The Rise of America's Gun.
It touches on S&W's quality issues, including the problems Smith had in sending guns to the FBI that would work out of the box and also a statement by Sherry Collins, S&W's ad director, that QC had slipped badly over the years.
The whole Sigma fiasco is another potent indicator about how badly S&W had slipped at the time.
Yes, any company will have issues. That's the nature of a manufactured product. It's the rate of issues that are the indication of problem, and the sad truth is that during the late 1980s and well into the 1990s Smith & Wesson had an issue rate that far exceeded other major players in the firearms industry.
I agree with Mike. When I showed photos of my “six-chamber-seven-flute” 686SSR at the SC Nationals last March, I heard quite a few interesting stories from other shooters. These weren’t just casual shooters, either. This was the Nationals. They were serious people with tons of experience who saw many hundreds of guns in action every year.
I won’t try to repeat any of their stories, since I can’t confirm them. I will say that many of them dealt with barrel alignment problems, broken or missing parts and serious timing issues.
In addition to the 686SSR I mentioned, I have a 327PC (eight shot Scandium/Titanium .357) that I use for SC competition. In the gun’s 2nd match, it began shooting a couple of feet high and to the left. I found the nut holding the barrel shroud in place was loose. They hadn’t secured it at the factory. S&W certainly couldn’t have expected me to keep it tight. The gun didn’t come with a (very specialized) wrench and nothing in the average gun-owner’s shop would fit. I had a DW wrench that I modified to fit. After checking the threads (no sign of any thread-locking compound) I reset the barrel-cylinder gap and Loc-Tited the front and rear threads. After thousands of rounds, it’s still nice and tight.
Fundamentally, this is a terrific gun. You have to wonder, though, if there’s a step in the assembly process that mentions Loc-Tite and if so, why was that step skipped?
I won’t try to repeat any of their stories, since I can’t confirm them. I will say that many of them dealt with barrel alignment problems, broken or missing parts and serious timing issues.
In addition to the 686SSR I mentioned, I have a 327PC (eight shot Scandium/Titanium .357) that I use for SC competition. In the gun’s 2nd match, it began shooting a couple of feet high and to the left. I found the nut holding the barrel shroud in place was loose. They hadn’t secured it at the factory. S&W certainly couldn’t have expected me to keep it tight. The gun didn’t come with a (very specialized) wrench and nothing in the average gun-owner’s shop would fit. I had a DW wrench that I modified to fit. After checking the threads (no sign of any thread-locking compound) I reset the barrel-cylinder gap and Loc-Tited the front and rear threads. After thousands of rounds, it’s still nice and tight.
Fundamentally, this is a terrific gun. You have to wonder, though, if there’s a step in the assembly process that mentions Loc-Tite and if so, why was that step skipped?