S&W Stainless Factory Finish Horrid
- Thread starter Dragline45
- Start date
This all reminds me of a comment I made when I was admiring a new Colt Python (about 20 years ago), one that had one of their special finishes: "Yeah, it really shows the scratches well."
Not all older guns had high polish finishes, although I cannot speak to the bluing, which I believe may have been a different process (any company, not just S&W). In fact, I owned an old long-action M&P, the ones that so many were made of, yet seem to be quite rare, and it had what I call a satin finish. Not shiny at all, yet quite attractive. I also like the matt finish found some of their later stainless guns but I don't remember having noticed any brushed stainless guns lately. But you should see my 20-year old Model 13. It has a finish that looks like--it's 20 years old. That's what you call a patina.
Not all older guns had high polish finishes, although I cannot speak to the bluing, which I believe may have been a different process (any company, not just S&W). In fact, I owned an old long-action M&P, the ones that so many were made of, yet seem to be quite rare, and it had what I call a satin finish. Not shiny at all, yet quite attractive. I also like the matt finish found some of their later stainless guns but I don't remember having noticed any brushed stainless guns lately. But you should see my 20-year old Model 13. It has a finish that looks like--it's 20 years old. That's what you call a patina.
Dragline45
New member
Whats my point?? Whats your point.... You are the one who brought up Taurus in the first place, which I still don't understand why seeing how it has nothing to do with my dissatisfaction in the finish on S&W stainless revolvers. Also I never once mentioned they were not a reputable company so once again whats your point?
Sorry I talked bad about your "favorite" gun company I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. I own a number of S&W revolvers and like I said before they are the only revolvers I own. But just because I am a fan of S&W I am not going to let it blind me to the decreasing quality in products.
Last edited:
There are a lot of factors at play other than S&W wanting to "cut corners" just to make a profit.
- Legal challenges by anti-gun groups cost the company millions in litigation costs.
- Tighter environmental regs increased the cost of bluing guns.
- Rising labor rates for skilled workers
- Purchase of newer CNC machines and computers to reduce labor costs
- Rising costs of steel and aluminum
- Product liability insurance costs skyrocketed
- The impact of "our" boycott after Tompkins PLC capitulated to the Clintons
- The increase in lower-cost imports (e.g. Taurus & Rossi specifically)
The only "good" news for S&W's revolver business was Colt's exit from the market. Colt left the market when it could not produce a cost-competitive revolver and still make a profit. But then, Colt was also forced to adopt union workers under the UAW banner.
Thank the lawyers and anti-gun groups for sub-standard triggers on today's guns. Thank them also for the lack of leading-edge innovation by U.S. gun makers since they spent R&D dollars on legal defenses.
- Legal challenges by anti-gun groups cost the company millions in litigation costs.
- Tighter environmental regs increased the cost of bluing guns.
- Rising labor rates for skilled workers
- Purchase of newer CNC machines and computers to reduce labor costs
- Rising costs of steel and aluminum
- Product liability insurance costs skyrocketed
- The impact of "our" boycott after Tompkins PLC capitulated to the Clintons
- The increase in lower-cost imports (e.g. Taurus & Rossi specifically)
The only "good" news for S&W's revolver business was Colt's exit from the market. Colt left the market when it could not produce a cost-competitive revolver and still make a profit. But then, Colt was also forced to adopt union workers under the UAW banner.
Thank the lawyers and anti-gun groups for sub-standard triggers on today's guns. Thank them also for the lack of leading-edge innovation by U.S. gun makers since they spent R&D dollars on legal defenses.
Yes s&w should have a better finish for the money you pay. I looked at a new 686 yesterday terrible finish!!!I bought a ss GP 100 in august $600 otd the ss finish is GREAT! I want a 686 but not until they improve the finish on them.Or Ill have to buy a used -1 or-2 blued pistol!S&W should be ashamed of themselves for the high price junk finish they offer now.
I don't like the brushed finish either.
I bought my first S&W, a model 10, in 1970 and I still remember the deep blue finish on it, I also remember that I paid MSRP for it, $85.00. The last S&W I looked at was a 686 priced a little more than $700.00, and the side plate was covered with angle scratches, so many that I bought a matt finish Taurus 617 for ½ the price of the Smith. I also bought a can of Mothers Mag Polish and with two hour's work I had a revolver that looked better than the S&W and functioned as well as the Smith.
A rather sad commentary from a lifelong Smith fan and owner.
I bought my first S&W, a model 10, in 1970 and I still remember the deep blue finish on it, I also remember that I paid MSRP for it, $85.00. The last S&W I looked at was a 686 priced a little more than $700.00, and the side plate was covered with angle scratches, so many that I bought a matt finish Taurus 617 for ½ the price of the Smith. I also bought a can of Mothers Mag Polish and with two hour's work I had a revolver that looked better than the S&W and functioned as well as the Smith.
A rather sad commentary from a lifelong Smith fan and owner.
The real problem, IMHO, is not the fine scratches in the finish. For me, it's the lack of a matte or "frosted" finish. As Old Bear said, he used some polish and had a pretty gun. Sure. A pretty reflective gun. To me, that's a problem on a carry gun, especially one I might use at night.
On the Model 67 below, someone tried to "fix" a scratch with a 3M ScotchBrite pad and made the gun ugly below the cylinder release. Polishing it out left half the frame shiny, so I took the plunge and polished all but the cylinder. It's pretty and I've had people mistake it for a Nickel Model 15.
If S&W keeps this up, I might invest in a bead blasting cage and create a frosted finish for stainless gun owners.
On the Model 67 below, someone tried to "fix" a scratch with a 3M ScotchBrite pad and made the gun ugly below the cylinder release. Polishing it out left half the frame shiny, so I took the plunge and polished all but the cylinder. It's pretty and I've had people mistake it for a Nickel Model 15.
If S&W keeps this up, I might invest in a bead blasting cage and create a frosted finish for stainless gun owners.
Last edited:
BillCA said:
The real problem, IMHO, is not the fine scratches in the finish. For me, it's the lack of a matte or "frosted" finish. As Old Bear said, he used some polish and had a pretty gun. Sure. A pretty reflective gun. To me, that's a problem on a carry gun, especially one I might use at night.
To me, the epitome of what Bill's talking about is my pre-lock 65 LS (Lady Smith). One of the nicest Smiths made. I've always wondered why its nice frosted (satin) finish was "unique" and not a regular offering--along with why its perfect 3" barrel length has not been as regular an offering, but that's a whole 'nother puzzlement and discussion.
The real problem, IMHO, is not the fine scratches in the finish. For me, it's the lack of a matte or "frosted" finish. As Old Bear said, he used some polish and had a pretty gun. Sure. A pretty reflective gun. To me, that's a problem on a carry gun, especially one I might use at night.
To me, the epitome of what Bill's talking about is my pre-lock 65 LS (Lady Smith). One of the nicest Smiths made. I've always wondered why its nice frosted (satin) finish was "unique" and not a regular offering--along with why its perfect 3" barrel length has not been as regular an offering, but that's a whole 'nother puzzlement and discussion.
BarkSlayer
New member
I think the finish on my stainless Smiths is fine. Never been an issue.
I have an old 66 and 686 along with some new Airweights, a JM 625 and a newer 617.
Other than the triggers and hammers (which are perfectly functional) the fit and finish are very close. The Airweights are particularly well done and if I had to pick my biggest beef is the lack of grooves on the front and back straps, this was a nice touch. As far as performance, I can’t tell any difference between them.
Other than the triggers and hammers (which are perfectly functional) the fit and finish are very close. The Airweights are particularly well done and if I had to pick my biggest beef is the lack of grooves on the front and back straps, this was a nice touch. As far as performance, I can’t tell any difference between them.
wild cat mccane
New member
They aren't the same across models.
The 686 line is very rough.
The others are bead blasted. Some are polished.
For a small fee, S&W will do any of the three for you.
Mother's Mag Polish will take a Taurus, GP100, or S&W to the Colt appearance. It isn't magic.
The 686 line is very rough.
The others are bead blasted. Some are polished.
For a small fee, S&W will do any of the three for you.
Mother's Mag Polish will take a Taurus, GP100, or S&W to the Colt appearance. It isn't magic.