S&W Quality

I have no idea about the QC of S&W over the years, but I am surprised at the cost of their new guns compared to the wide availability at very low prices of S&W used revolvers.
Click to expand...

The fact is most people who buy guns don't know squat about them.
 
The old days are a thing in the past.
Click to expand...

I think there is a bumper sticker in that.

My take is that in the old days each one of those guns was hand fitted and went through numerous hands of people who cared. If something was not right, it got fixed. They were craftsman, they were decently paid and they were appreciated.

Today, its all automated and cranking them out as fast as they can due to demand. New people hired, others who its just a job, new times and real bad ones skip on through.

Ask yourself, how are all your co workers? Mine, some care a lot and some are as useless as mammary glands on a boar. Everyone has the same problem. You can't get good people for what they pay (and they want to pay as little as they can.

Last gun I got from Smith (MP15-22) had to go back. They did fix it and ran perfectly. That part is good, the rest is sad
 
Here’s a little piece of advice for anyone who gets a bad S&W:

Post your story, including a good photo on S&W’s Facebook page.

I can tell you, that gets their attention!!
 
I just sold off the last of my newer S&W guns. From the finish coming off to the cracked fames. Lock or no lock the*quality*of the newer guns sucks. There I said it. Even some of there P.C. guns leave the factory with problems. I'm glad some of you guys love you newer guns. This is not just my opinion it come from my experience with them. Shame on me for keep going back buying them hoping to get a good one. I love Smith & Wesson's and I'll keep buying the older ones that were made when people took a little pried in what they made. Yea there were a few bad eggs back then but Nothing like now. From the fit and finish to the parts used it's not even close. God knows I tried I just can't deal with it anymore. But that's just me. * *:mad:
 
S&W quality is not what it used to be, nor is Ruger's. But you have a better chance of getting a good ruger right out of the box than you do with S&W. At least that's my experience lately. The last 5 new S&W's I've bought all had something wrong with them. S&W will not fix everything you find wrong with the gun. All 5 did go bang right out of the box but had other defects some of which needed to be repaired. In spite of these problems, I still enjoy shooting them, don't have to be too accurate for IDPA. The Rugers I've bought have worked as advertised right out of the box, 4 rifles, 3 handguns. Also recently bought a Browning Citori and a Kimber 1911, had to send the Citori back, fixed the kimber myself. I sold guns for BPS for about 4 years, The brand with the most defects was Taurus by far.
Unfortunately, I love the S&W revolver. Also, I have had zero problems with the MIM parts on the S&W's. Not pretty but seem to work fine for me.
 
all seven of my revolvers are S&W and look and fire great. Most have been with me for several years and my newest one was purchased four yrs ago. Haven't really looked at any new ones lately.
 
My "new" ones were purchased during the last 10 years. Just yesterday I bought a mod. 15 made in 1967. You can't believe the difference. I'll take a clean older S&W over a new one every time. But you can't get an old JM625.
 
Traditionalist No 1: What's up with these cheap steel revolvers? Everybody knows that real revolvers have brass frames, and the only reason they are using steel is to save money!

Traditionalist No 2: And these golldanged smokeless cartridges! Quality cartridges throw up a tactical smoke screen when you light them off, but these newfangled smokeless cartridges barely smoke at all - cheap junk!
 
Taurus?

I noticed some posters mentioning Taurus. Apparently, these folks feel Taurus has poor quality. No arguement either way, but does poor quality from a budget end firearms manufacturer justify poor quality from the far superior S&W company whose comparably styled gun would cost twice as much or more. Not sure about my price comparison there, but it seems to me one should be able to expect no quality problems for the higher priced firearm. I'm not saying S&W can't have quality issues, but why blame them on the lower line competition. I headr the same type of logic when I was a kid. "Yeah, I made a D, but Billy made a F."
 
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.
Click to expand...
I owned a POS revolver in the early 80s and as a result, shunned revolvers for many years. I got to the quality revolver party around 2004, am a big S&W fan, and have owned better than 20 S&W revolvers in the last eight years or so.

I tend to listen to people like Mike Irwin, Tamara and the Old Fuff.
They have been around the block a few more times than I have, and have seen more than I ever will.

I will never buy another Taurus/Rossi, and honestly, I do not find Ruger revolvers appealing at all. So I buy and own (and sometimes carry) S&W revolvers. But I am under no illusions about S&W's infallibility, I only own one with The Lock (which has been removed) and will continue to carefully inspect any future purchases.

On the plus side, I have had only one experience with S&W's CS department, and it was very satisfactory.
 
Webleymkv, with respect to your Glock vs. S&W production numbers, I believe they are off. You cited the number of handguns manufactured in or exported from the U.S., but those numbers don't include the number of imports.

In this report (page 19):

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/121611-firearms-commerce-2011.pdf

you can see that in 2010 431,118 handguns were imported from Austria. I don't believe they were all Glocks (Steyr?).

Here is the report you cite:

http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2010-final-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf

Glocks: 31,395 in the U.S. and let's assume at least 75% of the imports are Glocks, so around 325,000. That's easily 350,000 Glocks per year, all pistols.

Now Smith manufactured 290,209 pistols and 229,000 or so revolvers. However, Glock is not allowed to import pistols chambered in .380, and that accounts for 49,595 of Smith pistol sales, or 17% of their pistol sales.

.380 acp is a hot market right now...

Take that out and you're looking at about 240,000 non .380 pistols.

So in comparable products, Glock far outsells Smith.

Smith should be happy Glock doesn't start making revolvers, although I'm sure they would be banned from importing them.;)
 
Smith should be happy Glock doesn't start making revolvers, although I'm sure they would be banned from importing them.
Click to expand...

I think its pretty obvious that any type of Glock revolver would be going after a different market share than S&W. I mean isn't that like saying Dan Wesson, Les Baer and Ed Brown should be happy Glock doesn't make a 1911?

The markets, products, and potential customers are quite simply, on completely different wavelengths.
 
That last part was a joke. However, I do think that people considering Smith and Wesson Sigmas, SDs and M&Ps probably also consider Glocks, and vice-versa, so in that sense they do share customers.

I am not a fan of current production Smith revolvers, and this makes me want to buy a Glock instead of an M&P.
 
I don't care for brand loyalty. Many companies put out quality products. However every company lets some flawed products out, some terribly flawed. This imo is not a problem its how they resolve that problem that determines what kind of company they are and from everything I have heard Smith is well above average in that department.
 
jason_iowa, I agree with you, for the most part.

I think the overall quality of a firearms manufacturer should be judged based on the following criteria, but obviously not to the same degree. When looking at these, only look at them individually and do not take other factors into account.

1) What percentage of manufactured firearms are 100% functionally perfect from the factory?

- All other things being equal a company that reaches a 99% functionally perfect number is better than one that only has a 50% functionally perfect level.

2) Of those flaws that occur, how serious are they? Are they minor, but the firearm still functions, or are they catastrophic, and the firearm is useless?

-If 99% of the firearms produced by two different companies are functionally perfect, how bad are the flaws in the remaining 1%? Imperfect lockup on one cylinder of a revolver is NOT as bad as a broken firing pin. Although it should be repaired ASAP, imperfect lockup (depending on how bad it is) does not prevent the firearm from being used in a self defense situation. A broken firing pin does.

3) If a problem needs to be addressed, how quickly does the manufacturer take care of the issue?

-Shorter turn around is better.

4) When a firearm goes back to the factory, do they ACTUALLY fix the firearm, or do they pretend to and just send it back?

-Obviously, if they keep your gun for only one week, and they send it back and it's still broken, that is worthless. But, if they keep it for a little longer, but it comes back to you 100%, then that is better.

5) What value are you getting for your money?

a) How durable is the firearm?
b) Are you restricted to certain types or loadings of ammunition in the caliber the firearm is chambered for?
c) What is the resell value?
d) How good is the fit and finish?


OK, if anyone wants to add to this list, have at it.

Here are two hypothetical illustrations:

Case 1) You buy a Kel-Tec pistol. It does not work from the factory (FTF, which is catastrophic). This appears to be true of 20% of their pistols of this particular model (80% function fine from the factory). You send it back, and it is returned within two weeks, and they've repaired the problem. Now the gun functions, but it is probably not very durable, shouldn't use +P too much, has low resell value, and the fit and finish is negligible.

Case 2) You buy a Smith & Wesson Model 60 (chambered in .357 magnum). It works from the factory, but the barrel is crooked. You send it back, and it is out of your hands for a month before you get it back. When you get it back, they claim that they've straightened the barrel, but they didn't. Then you are checking it over, and you realize that the ratchet/ejector wheel is poorly machined and shows pieces of jagged metal sticking off from the machining process. Additionally, one of the cylinders doesn't lock up fully. True, you should have caught this the first time around, but does the end user really have to be QC for Smith & Wesson? You send it back again, and it is gone for another month. You get it back, and the lockup is good, the ratchet looks like crap, and the barrel is crooked.

Resell on a Smith & Wesson is good. Fit and finish are supposedly good, except for that whole barrel and ratchet issue. It's a Model 60 so you aren't supposed to shoot too many hot magnums through it (basically it's a .38 special rated for limited use of .357 magnum ammunition), so in that sense durability is sort of questionable, and you're limited to certain types of ammunition.


Pick your poison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top