in an attempt to innovate, does it feel like some companies have lost their way?

[Doogy]

I've recently become interested in the 3rd generation Smith & Wesson autos. My father carried one on duty while as a detective in the 1980s, and he loved everything about it. I am looking at picking up a couple, and most can be had for a song in relation to their quality.

In looking at current threads, archived threads, and threads on other forums, it seems like the 3rd gen Smiths have a huge following, and unlike just about any other gun you can think of, the vast majority of posts are positive, often stating: "workhorse, ultra-reliable, feeds anything you give it, nearly jam proof, nice quality, shoots straight for a combat handgun,", et cetera.

I know many, many departments used these before the popularity of Glock and others, but it seems funny to me that Smith virtually gave up on their success to try to develop their own polymer guns and focus on "new" technology.

I use the Smith 3rd generations as what I feel is a good example, but have some gun companies "lost their way" in an attempt to innovate and stay mainstream?

Doug

 

[kwelz]

I respectfully disagree. Change isn't necessarily bad, and just because something worked doesn't mean it is the best option. Polymer frame guns are just as durable, hold more rounds and are lighter than an equivalent sized steel framed gun.

The only way S&W would have lost their way is if they had committed to making only older technology handguns and not advancing with the rest of the industry. If anything I would say the new Smith guns are a perfect example of staying right on track.

 

[Doogy]

"the rest of the industry" though aren't all making polymer guns as their mainstay. CZ, all of the 1911 makers, Sig (for the most part) and others are content to continue to make very high quality all steel/alloy guns.

 

[Zoogster]

Polymer is much cheaper to make. They can usualy sell a polymer for around the same amount as a steel frame firearm, meaning there is a much higher profit margin on polymer firearms.
That is why you see the big names rushing to get a piece of the polymer market.

Steel frame autos take more effort to make to the same tolerances, and wear out more tooling.

Prior to the success of the Glock and transition to polymers many people would have laughed at you if you tried to sell them a piece of plastic that reminded them of a child's toy for the same price as a robust chunk of steel.
Now the market asks for it, and manufactures will most certainly line thier pockets and oblige.

 

[ugaarguy]

but it seems funny to me that Smith virtually gave up on their success to try to develop their own polymer guns and focus on "new" technology.

The reality is that the 3rd Gen guns never sold all that well on the commercial market. then Glock came along and started taking over the LE market which pretty much killed the metal frame auto as a police duty weapon. Their timing couldn't have been better either. Look at everything a modern police officer has on his duty belt; pistol, radio, pepper spray or taser, flashlight, retractable baton, pair of gloves, one or two pair handcuffs, and extra magazines for pistol. Every ounce counts even more now with the equipment they have to carry.

Many of us love the 3rd Gen S&Ws for all the positive attributes you list, and the fact that they're cheap now. There's a big supply, but only moderate demand. I really like my 5946, and I like even more than it was an inexpensive police trade-in very good condition.

If you like the 3rd Gen S&Ws get one now while the prices are good.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Innovation is one thing and I'm not entirely opposed to polymer although I'm not sold on most of them. Fad is another thing entirely. I believe Beretta lost their way when they allowed a "design company," Guigiaro Design to influence the lines and design of 9000 and the PX4. Neither looks as good or functions better than the old beretta's. The 9000 has a grip so long I can't hold the gun with my small hands. The fact that the 9000 landed as a sales dud should have been their first clue to stop consulting with designers and go back to making exceptional guns.

 

[mainmech48]

I'd agree that it was the huge erosion in S&W's piece of the domestic LEA market that Glock was able to effect due to the competitive advantages their design and manufacturing technologies offered was pretty much the largest factor.

They could equip an entire department with a sidearm offering directly comparable mag capacities, lighter weight, 100% direct parts interchangability and proven reliability of a very high order in a package with ergos that fit a wider range of hands for per unit price less than half of the best deal S&W could make them.

Factor-in the sizable net losses Glock was willing to absorb to get the first few "Big Name" departments on-board, add in the very generous trade-in allowances and other 'sweeteners' like extra magazines, parts and gear that Glock was willing to throw in and it was essentially no contest when the local beancounters revued the bids.

S&W, like everyone else, had to adapt to compete or die. They did, and now they are back in the game.

The trends in civilian sales , especially handguns, closely follow the LE and military market and what's seen most often in their holsters is bound to be relected there.

Like it or not, the paradigm has changed. I'm still kind of on the fence about it myself, but I do recognize that it's happened and that I'd better accept it and learn to live with it.

FWIW, I'm with ugaarguy to a large degree. I bought the 4586 that resides in my nightstand as an LE trade-in with Hogues, two mags and near new Meprolites in VG+ condition for $300, plus tax. Get 'em while they're cheap; they're great pistols and the deals won't last forever.