It's ironic how people now seek out the old 1970-80s revolvers as "vintage" models, better than today's models. I share this outlook, but at the time, S&W didn't have a great reputation. Handgun enthusiasts groaned at the name "Bangor Punta," the parent company of S&W. Revolvers were coming from the factory with excessive cylinder gaps, loose actions, excessive headspace, soft steel and other problems. Ruger, meanwhile, had a sterling reputation. I had an FFL back then, and I ordered many guns for friends and colleagues. If they had any problems, it was up to them to rectify the problems because I wasn't making any money off them. But the junk I saw was incredible.
Sterlings, Llamas, Tauruses, AMTs and many others came in with cheap, smelly oils and plastic bags, and many others that didn't work out of the box -- that never surprised me. What did surprise me was that some guns that I thought wouldn't work, did work, flawlessly. Some of these were Jennings, Ravens, Rossis that came in and worked flawlessly, and were pretty well made, especially the Rossis.
With the introduction of the 686/586 and the amazing 9mm autos, the 459, 559, and 659, the company made a concerted effort to improve its quality control; however, there were issues. Two Kentucky cops noticed the front sights on their 681s (the fixed sight version) were being worn off by their holsters. Tests showed that the heat treat was off and the steel was soft. This is more an issue with forged steel than investment cast. Also, Ruger's quality control was simply better, although some of the Security-Sixes had issues with cracked forcing cones. Why this happened, no one has been able to say; it could be a heat treat problem there, too. On the plus side, most of those who had this problem had it early in the gun's life. In other words, if it was going to crack, it was going to crack early on, not after extended shooting of factory rounds.
S&W 686 is a beautiful gun. Accurate, too.
.
That's a lady!
