Serious Revolver Lust...
- Thread starter Tamara
- Start date
I messed up and let one go when I had the chance to buy it. I have a feeling I'll be regretting it.
FYI I also heard you can order one without all the Thunder Ranch stuff on it.
___________________________________
An old west lawman once said when asked why he carried a .45, "because they don't make a .46"
FYI I also heard you can order one without all the Thunder Ranch stuff on it.
___________________________________
An old west lawman once said when asked why he carried a .45, "because they don't make a .46"
Mike Irwin
Staff
pity
Sir William
New member
Let it go. I am a "t$rds*cker" according to Mr. Smith. Every single TR-21 44 Special I have seen has been a POJ. S&W had some returned by the media as they were non-functional and unsafe to fire NIB. I would pass on a TR-21 44 Special.
Last edited:
Samuel2001
New member
POS/POJ, but I still want one!!! Its blued and in .44spl., enough said! Did I mention I want one in the worstest way!!! 
Sir William
New member
I am not sure. A few may show up on www.sixgunner.com I have seen a total of three. They were all poor. I have e-mailed, talked with and IMd with thirteen (nice number!) other people who have had functional, safety, fit and finish or negative comments in re the TR-21. I figure 16 bad revolvers is a good indication to AVOID. The worst trigger I have ever had the displeasure to pull. Heavy, long, gritty, heavy, did I mention the heavy trigger? Grips are pitifully fitted on every TR-21 I have seen. One revolver had a pretty and deep blue frame but, the barrel was a weak purple colour NIB. It truly stood out. I usually take magazine reviews with a grain of salt. Bad reviews leads to no factory freebies to test, no advertising and attacks by Mr. Smith.
Samuel2001
New member
Mr. 41spl. I realy enjoy your signature!! Makes me chuckle every time I read it. Some days I feel the same way. 
Sir William
New member
S&W did let some out too early. The first defense of these was dumb, they said they were not handfitted. $900.00 should deliver a rather good quality revolver. Not hardly. The best part was the beautiful dispay/presentation case with the TR logo. S&W should have built the TR-21 to the quality standard of those cases.
It shouldn't reflect on them, but it must be a tad embarrassing for the folks at TR too.
This is the sort of thing, were I fortunate to preside over such an enterprize, I would simply not allow to happen. It is in the interests of S&W to bend over backwards to make such special runs a cut above the rest in every respect. Even if it means losing a few dollars in the process, the prestige is worth it. And the reputation of S&W, as well as the client is at stake who has committed their name to the product as well.
This is the sort of thing, were I fortunate to preside over such an enterprize, I would simply not allow to happen. It is in the interests of S&W to bend over backwards to make such special runs a cut above the rest in every respect. Even if it means losing a few dollars in the process, the prestige is worth it. And the reputation of S&W, as well as the client is at stake who has committed their name to the product as well.
Tamara said...
Ain't that always the way... I am itching to shoot one, myself. I probably shouldn't though. I have been trying to convince myself, for some months now, that I don't NEED 2-3 .44's- but this may make it harder.
As to the QC issues, I haven't read any negative reports among the Sixgunner/Frontier Sixshooter gang, and several of that crew have bought them already. I'll post an inquiry over at FSC and dual-link the threads when I get a chance. Sixgunner seems down at the moment, as they have just undergone a rebuild.
Link to FSC thread thread on same subject.
Ain't that always the way... I am itching to shoot one, myself. I probably shouldn't though. I have been trying to convince myself, for some months now, that I don't NEED 2-3 .44's- but this may make it harder.
As to the QC issues, I haven't read any negative reports among the Sixgunner/Frontier Sixshooter gang, and several of that crew have bought them already. I'll post an inquiry over at FSC and dual-link the threads when I get a chance. Sixgunner seems down at the moment, as they have just undergone a rebuild.
Link to FSC thread thread on same subject.
Last edited:
We got two. Both are cosmetically quite nice. I didn't do a detailed checkout a la Mr. March, but the trigger pulls are about what I expect from an Out-Of-The-Box revolver, which is meaningless, since if I buy one it will get a trigger job, like every other Smith revolver I own. (See my sigline. )
Some observations:
1) "These things are too rare/expensive to carry."
Nonsense. As far as "expensive", a $775 revolver is hardly too expensive to tote in a world of $800 plastic HK wunderguns and kilobuck-plus custom 1911's. As far as rarity goes, I have toting revolvers (PC13, 3" 610, and 3" .45LC 625) that are 1-of-200 or 1-of-300 guns. Measured on that scale, these things are as common as fleas on a hound dog. Heck, they're certainly no rarer than my 646, which is destined to die a wretched death as a shot-out IPSC gun.
2) "They have a lock and that goofy billboard on the sideplate."
I'd like them without both The Zit and the pimp logo. I'd also like tomorrow's winning Lotto numbers and a date with Russel Crowe. If they're a deal-breaker for you, don't buy one.
3) "They're non-traditional."
True, but this is both good and bad. I'd love to have an older Model 21 as a toting piece. They were near-ideal, and only needed two things to make them almost perfect in my eye as a CCW N-frame: A round butt and a cylinder latch clearanced for speedloaders. Guess what? This way I don't have to track down and butcher a collectible classic to make a totin' iron. Plus, with various improvements to lockwork and heat treat, I'll bet one of these will stand up to Elmer Keith Memorial Rhino Rollers better than one of the originals.
I think I'm gonna buy one. The gun's going to go in a holster, and the silly display case will be left in its cardboard box and stacked in my back room with all my other S&W boxes, from the blue & gold ones of yesteryear to the aluminum PC cases of yesterday.
)Some observations:
1) "These things are too rare/expensive to carry."
Nonsense. As far as "expensive", a $775 revolver is hardly too expensive to tote in a world of $800 plastic HK wunderguns and kilobuck-plus custom 1911's. As far as rarity goes, I have toting revolvers (PC13, 3" 610, and 3" .45LC 625) that are 1-of-200 or 1-of-300 guns. Measured on that scale, these things are as common as fleas on a hound dog. Heck, they're certainly no rarer than my 646, which is destined to die a wretched death as a shot-out IPSC gun.
2) "They have a lock and that goofy billboard on the sideplate."
I'd like them without both The Zit and the pimp logo. I'd also like tomorrow's winning Lotto numbers and a date with Russel Crowe. If they're a deal-breaker for you, don't buy one.
3) "They're non-traditional."
True, but this is both good and bad. I'd love to have an older Model 21 as a toting piece. They were near-ideal, and only needed two things to make them almost perfect in my eye as a CCW N-frame: A round butt and a cylinder latch clearanced for speedloaders. Guess what?
This way I don't have to track down and butcher a collectible classic to make a totin' iron. Plus, with various improvements to lockwork and heat treat, I'll bet one of these will stand up to Elmer Keith Memorial Rhino Rollers better than one of the originals. I think I'm gonna buy one. The gun's going to go in a holster, and the silly display case will be left in its cardboard box and stacked in my back room with all my other S&W boxes, from the blue & gold ones of yesteryear to the aluminum PC cases of yesterday.
Hi Tamara,
The first one S&W sent me had the barrel overtightened, the front sight blade was canted left, the forcing cone failed a No-Go gauge, the cylinder had to be forced shut the last 16th of an inch or so, the DA triggerpull was 12.5 pounds, there was an etched (not merely rubbed) drag line around the cylinder already right out of the box caused by the fact that whoever assembled the gun did not dress the sharp edge on the bolt stop where they used to, and the Ahrends grips were so poorly matched I could almost fit a dime in the gap at the front. It was returned unfired.
The second one they sent had the barrel overtightened, the front sight was canted left (but not quite as far as the first one), there was such a radial burr at the muzzle crown that a range rod wouldn't enter the bore, after several tries the burr was moved enough to get the range rod in & it showed a tight spot inside the bore, the forcing cone again failed the No-Go gauge, the DA trigger was 12.25 pounds, and the same etched drag line on the cylinder was also caused by leaving the edge of the bolt stop sharp. The cylinder did close correctly & the Ahrends grips were much better mated. The gun was also not fired before returning it to S&W.
My info from very reliable sources is that at least two other samples were not regulated to POA, both shooting high and right with the Black Hills loads the guns were reported to be sighted in for. Indications are the guns may actually be regulated for the relatively anemic 246-grain traditional round nose lead loads.
I was really looking forward to this model because I liked the concept of a rugged fixed sight big bore for serious carry, but lost interest and cancelled the project after I saw the second one.
Like you, I don't expect a perfect gun out of the box, I expect at least a little action work & maybe some sight work. In this case, my feeling is that S&W did not take the gun seriously and thought they were producing a semi-commemorative. The display box, if nothing else stands out, is a prime indicator, at least to me, that they considered it more of a display piece than a shooter. There seems to be a left turn somewhere between the original concept and the final execution.
I consider the two guns I've had in hand to be raw material. Again, the same can be said of many, if not most, new guns out today, depending on how picky you are & how much you want to modify them to meet your own individual needs. There's no point in dwelling on that unduly, but in this case I personally didn't feel like spending $150 to correct the barrel problems alone, those should have been picked up at the factory. The front sight is a poor design, in my opinion; yeah, it's retro, but it's too wide to give my eyes (and admittedly this is purely subjective) enough light on both sides of the blade in the rear notch, and the rear notch is too shallow. I have an older "pencil barrel" Model 10 with that front "moon" blade ramped & serrated from the factory to reduce glare, instead of the full smooth half-moon of the 21, and the rear notch is deeper (measured it) than on the 21. There are better sight options for quicker acquisition under stress.
The 12+ pound DA trigger pull is frankly absurd, in my opinion, for the "combat revolver" the 21 was touted to be. As I understand it, this results from re-positioning the mainspring seat notch to deliberately create a stronger hammer strike (resulting in a stiffer DA pull) to compensate for a change in the dimensional setup of the firing pin, and the MIM hammer. I could also replace those MIM parts (and I won't get started on MIMs) with forged parts, and replace that MIM firing pin with a longer one from C&S, and work on a mainspring reduction, but I decided it just wasn't worth it to spend all that money and effort to end up with an expensive gun in a basically moribund caliber I don't reload for that's not well supported by the ammo makers. That is not putting the .44 Special down, and is not meant to be any kind of insult to .44 Special fans. I recognize that there are many fans of the caliber, and it's a fine performer WHEN PROPERLY LOADED like the Black Hills stuff, but it wouldn't do anything for me that isn't already done in other calibers and guns with better ammo support that I do reload for.
I can live with or without the gold logo, that was S&W, not Clint. I won't get into the lock; it can be removed, the hole doesn't bother me, and this little dissertation deals with what I perceive as quality and execution issues that affect performance, not legislative requirements or esthetics.
I see many posters saying they're happy with the 21, and how nice it looks. It does look nice. But, some of us prefer quality & performance to pretty, and a shooter to a display piece, and I did not anticipate this thing merely being a range gun. Lesser expectations if all you're gonna do with it is pop a few off at a range five or six times a year. That's not what I had in mind for it. Yes, I could have returned the second gun and asked them to correct the problems, but when I returned the first one I included a list of the problems, left it open & did not specify how the defective gun should be dealt with. They could have repaired it, but elected to send a second one instead, and when it had most of the problems of the first one along with a couple new ones, it diminished my faith in either their ability to understand what was wrong with the guns or their ability to correct them. Or, their interest in really looking to see what was wrong.
Clint Smith & associates deserve full credit for the original premise, but my personal opinion, based on the two I've handled & others I've communicated about, leaves me believing that S&W just did not take the gun as seriously as Clint did. Hopefully, if they bring out other versions, they'll pay more attention to detail on them.
As I've noted elsewhere, I'm not hostile to S&W. I own several of their products, have carried several in uniform with complete confidence over the years, and still believe that for many decades Smith & Wesson revolvers were the best in the world overall in terms of fit, function, and long term durability. (Please, Colt shooters, no letter bombs. I own several Colts, too, and this is just my opinion in overall comparison.) There are many nice folks working for S&W, and I don't condemn them all on the basis of this gun. But, I'm very disappointed in it, and from the viewpoint of an old revolver guy, it just ain't even what it should have been, much less what it could have been. The external fit & finish are well done & superior to those of some of the down periods in S&W history, and the trigger pulls are at least smooth, but I can't get past the feeling that they just didn't care as much about some things as they should have.
This is not an attempt to talk you or anybody else out of buying one, or a dump on Clint Smith, just an advisory to check the individual gun out thoroughly before you make up your mind, and to know what you may be getting into up front.
If you don't have high expectations, you may be happy with the gun despite these problems, but if you do, you'll probably end up sinking some money into
it, and maybe more than you'd planned to. Depends on what you want the gun to be- cool to brag about on the coffee table, or serious carry to defend your life. In your case, sounds like you spend a few bucks here & there to maximize performance on guns you deem worth it, like me. Just take a good look before you buy.
If & when they do bring out a non-commemorative version in .45 ACP or .45 Colt, I may very well reconsider spending the money, but I hope they'll address the quality control on them by then.
Nothing said here is intended to start an argument with anybody or to spark debate. It is also not intended to be a Smith & Wesson Bash. I'm not interested in discussing it further or defending my opinion, take it or leave it, and if current owners are happy with their 21s, that's fine.
Denis
Oh, good luck with Russell Crowe.
The first one S&W sent me had the barrel overtightened, the front sight blade was canted left, the forcing cone failed a No-Go gauge, the cylinder had to be forced shut the last 16th of an inch or so, the DA triggerpull was 12.5 pounds, there was an etched (not merely rubbed) drag line around the cylinder already right out of the box caused by the fact that whoever assembled the gun did not dress the sharp edge on the bolt stop where they used to, and the Ahrends grips were so poorly matched I could almost fit a dime in the gap at the front. It was returned unfired.
The second one they sent had the barrel overtightened, the front sight was canted left (but not quite as far as the first one), there was such a radial burr at the muzzle crown that a range rod wouldn't enter the bore, after several tries the burr was moved enough to get the range rod in & it showed a tight spot inside the bore, the forcing cone again failed the No-Go gauge, the DA trigger was 12.25 pounds, and the same etched drag line on the cylinder was also caused by leaving the edge of the bolt stop sharp. The cylinder did close correctly & the Ahrends grips were much better mated. The gun was also not fired before returning it to S&W.
My info from very reliable sources is that at least two other samples were not regulated to POA, both shooting high and right with the Black Hills loads the guns were reported to be sighted in for. Indications are the guns may actually be regulated for the relatively anemic 246-grain traditional round nose lead loads.
I was really looking forward to this model because I liked the concept of a rugged fixed sight big bore for serious carry, but lost interest and cancelled the project after I saw the second one.
Like you, I don't expect a perfect gun out of the box, I expect at least a little action work & maybe some sight work. In this case, my feeling is that S&W did not take the gun seriously and thought they were producing a semi-commemorative. The display box, if nothing else stands out, is a prime indicator, at least to me, that they considered it more of a display piece than a shooter. There seems to be a left turn somewhere between the original concept and the final execution.
I consider the two guns I've had in hand to be raw material. Again, the same can be said of many, if not most, new guns out today, depending on how picky you are & how much you want to modify them to meet your own individual needs. There's no point in dwelling on that unduly, but in this case I personally didn't feel like spending $150 to correct the barrel problems alone, those should have been picked up at the factory. The front sight is a poor design, in my opinion; yeah, it's retro, but it's too wide to give my eyes (and admittedly this is purely subjective) enough light on both sides of the blade in the rear notch, and the rear notch is too shallow. I have an older "pencil barrel" Model 10 with that front "moon" blade ramped & serrated from the factory to reduce glare, instead of the full smooth half-moon of the 21, and the rear notch is deeper (measured it) than on the 21. There are better sight options for quicker acquisition under stress.
The 12+ pound DA trigger pull is frankly absurd, in my opinion, for the "combat revolver" the 21 was touted to be. As I understand it, this results from re-positioning the mainspring seat notch to deliberately create a stronger hammer strike (resulting in a stiffer DA pull) to compensate for a change in the dimensional setup of the firing pin, and the MIM hammer. I could also replace those MIM parts (and I won't get started on MIMs) with forged parts, and replace that MIM firing pin with a longer one from C&S, and work on a mainspring reduction, but I decided it just wasn't worth it to spend all that money and effort to end up with an expensive gun in a basically moribund caliber I don't reload for that's not well supported by the ammo makers. That is not putting the .44 Special down, and is not meant to be any kind of insult to .44 Special fans. I recognize that there are many fans of the caliber, and it's a fine performer WHEN PROPERLY LOADED like the Black Hills stuff, but it wouldn't do anything for me that isn't already done in other calibers and guns with better ammo support that I do reload for.
I can live with or without the gold logo, that was S&W, not Clint. I won't get into the lock; it can be removed, the hole doesn't bother me, and this little dissertation deals with what I perceive as quality and execution issues that affect performance, not legislative requirements or esthetics.
I see many posters saying they're happy with the 21, and how nice it looks. It does look nice. But, some of us prefer quality & performance to pretty, and a shooter to a display piece, and I did not anticipate this thing merely being a range gun. Lesser expectations if all you're gonna do with it is pop a few off at a range five or six times a year. That's not what I had in mind for it. Yes, I could have returned the second gun and asked them to correct the problems, but when I returned the first one I included a list of the problems, left it open & did not specify how the defective gun should be dealt with. They could have repaired it, but elected to send a second one instead, and when it had most of the problems of the first one along with a couple new ones, it diminished my faith in either their ability to understand what was wrong with the guns or their ability to correct them. Or, their interest in really looking to see what was wrong.
Clint Smith & associates deserve full credit for the original premise, but my personal opinion, based on the two I've handled & others I've communicated about, leaves me believing that S&W just did not take the gun as seriously as Clint did. Hopefully, if they bring out other versions, they'll pay more attention to detail on them.
As I've noted elsewhere, I'm not hostile to S&W. I own several of their products, have carried several in uniform with complete confidence over the years, and still believe that for many decades Smith & Wesson revolvers were the best in the world overall in terms of fit, function, and long term durability. (Please, Colt shooters, no letter bombs. I own several Colts, too, and this is just my opinion in overall comparison.) There are many nice folks working for S&W, and I don't condemn them all on the basis of this gun. But, I'm very disappointed in it, and from the viewpoint of an old revolver guy, it just ain't even what it should have been, much less what it could have been. The external fit & finish are well done & superior to those of some of the down periods in S&W history, and the trigger pulls are at least smooth, but I can't get past the feeling that they just didn't care as much about some things as they should have.
This is not an attempt to talk you or anybody else out of buying one, or a dump on Clint Smith, just an advisory to check the individual gun out thoroughly before you make up your mind, and to know what you may be getting into up front.
If you don't have high expectations, you may be happy with the gun despite these problems, but if you do, you'll probably end up sinking some money into
it, and maybe more than you'd planned to. Depends on what you want the gun to be- cool to brag about on the coffee table, or serious carry to defend your life. In your case, sounds like you spend a few bucks here & there to maximize performance on guns you deem worth it, like me. Just take a good look before you buy.
If & when they do bring out a non-commemorative version in .45 ACP or .45 Colt, I may very well reconsider spending the money, but I hope they'll address the quality control on them by then.
Nothing said here is intended to start an argument with anybody or to spark debate. It is also not intended to be a Smith & Wesson Bash. I'm not interested in discussing it further or defending my opinion, take it or leave it, and if current owners are happy with their 21s, that's fine.
Denis
Oh, good luck with Russell Crowe.