Quality American non-1911 semi-autos?

[legion3]

Why does it matter if it's a US based company as long as it is being made here and US workers are benefiting?

Then I couldn't buy glock or HK or Walther or CZ or any number of excellent firearms.

Why does it matter if its a US based company as long as it is made somewhere and US shooters are benefiting?

I am of the mindset that the American companies make just as good a pistol as the Europeans.

The only pistol that qualifies is the M&P. Assuming your speaking of a service class pistol.

Except that its American made I don't see the allure of the M&P. Maybe if I monkeyed with the back straps I could get a fit I like but in the stores the stock grip setup does nothing for me and the trigger pull and lack of reset made the one I shot nothing special.

 

[P97]

I have several brands of used guns. All the new guns that I have bought for several years have been Rugers. I don't think they can be beat, in what you get for your money. My CCW is a Ruger P90DC, and I prefer it over anything else. JMHO

 

[Fishman777]

Smith and Wesson M&P...

I've owned several Rugers over the years. I've been a huge supporter of their products on this, and other, forums. They have some good revolver designs, but their QC really, really sucks. So does their support. I've phoned in several times with several complaints, on new guns, and their standard answer seems to be "send it in and we'll have a look at it".

They wanted me to send new guns in, on my own dime, to fix problems that should have never existed in the first place. I was not completely satisified with two of the guns that I bought from them. When phoning in, they didn't even give me assurance that they'd fix the problems free of charge. Whether the gun would be fixed for free or not depended on someone's opinion of whether the gun was within specs. Heck, after spending $600 on a *new* gun, I expect *a lot* more.

As much as I like some of their designs, I can't see myself ever buying another Ruger. I'd only buy a new Ruger that was perfect or if I needed a POS to bang around. If things improve, I'll probably go back to Ruger for my revolvers, at least. The problem is that these guns are almost always flawed, and after waiting months and months to buy a particular revolver, I settled for the best, flawed guns that I could find. These are the only products that I can think of that come flawed "off the shelf." If I bang up the gun on my own, I'm fine with that. I expect, however, that a new gun should come to me with good fit and finish. I don't want to buy new and invest more money to make it right. In any other market, you'd get a discount on buying a new, flawed product.

I recently bought a M&P from Smith and Wesson. The gun was perfect. They struggled a little out of the gate with this model, but they *fixed* the problems. At this time, M&Ps are among the best autoloaders available. Smith and Wesson also supports their customers. If there is a problem, they fix them for free. They also pay for shipping, both ways. Try shipping a 45 oz gun overnight via fedex and see how much it costs you before you criticize me on this.

I can't comment on other US gun manufacturers, but I can tell you that I'd buy Smiths over Rugers, at this time. I'm actually thinking about selling my remaining Rugers and using that money to buy more M&Ps. The one thing that I can say is that Ruger listens to their customers. I complained about how the SR9 barrels were 2/100 of an inch too short to be offered on the Canadian market. Within a year, their new catalog came out and they converted all of their 4" guns into barrel lengths that were legal in Canada. I'm sure that I was not the only one clamouring for this. Ruger did listen to their customers. Maybe things will improve at Ruger and I'll buy more stuff from them. Until that happens, I'm an Smith and Wesson man.

I know that I've railed about revolvers, but there seems to still be a lot of complaints about the SR9s. They've also had several recent safety recalls. That is a red flag in my book.

 

[Skylerbone]

While Ruger pistols look big and strong compared to say a Smith, there is a reason for all that bulk. Ruger uses investment castings for their frames, Smith uses forged frames. When discussing autoloaders you will also find stamped parts as well.

For those not familiar with the processes, a wikipedia search will be useful in clearing things up. In house forge work is the reason I buy Smiths over other "just as good" brands. Fit and finish also tend to be better overall as well.

As for the M&P I've sounded off already but they also have the hardest (RC rating) slide and barrel on the market today. The Pro models make the trigger right out of the box for under $600 after rebate.

Compare a GP 100 next to a 686 and you will see a world of difference. Heavy tool marks and pitted areas on the Ruger, little if any on the S&W. Eject the cylinders and check the frames there, the forcing cones, the barrels, same story.

It's not everything, I would sooner buy a Ruger than a pistol marked Forjas en Brazil but as the Smith is a better option in my never to be humble opinion, I'll stick with them.

 

[conhntr]

Skyler I agree. I always wanted a SAA but the cost for a decent colt or usfa was too high. 495 for a "new vaqero"? I figured I would give it a try.

+ shoots poa and getting 2" at 15 yards which I am happy with

-hammer sides appear to be in the white and have already rusted. Gun is cleaned stored the same as the rest and the only other I've had rust on was a Henry
-fake color case looked ok in store but in real light it is a bit ugly
-finish on grip frame and barrel aren't even close to the same color

I wanted to like it and would rate it as a buy at 325$ new but at 500?
No!

Otoh my 686+ at ~700 is in a different league fit/finish way beyond the ruger

 

[bharen]

"While Ruger pistols look big and strong compared to say a Smith, there is a reason for all that bulk. Ruger uses investment castings for their frames, Smith uses forged frames. When discussing autoloaders you will also find stamped parts as well."

A properly executed investment cast frame will be stronger than a forged frame of the same dimension. Pistol or revolver. Reason? The forging process introduces stress risers which are more prone to cracking. It is all in the production control and QC. Some companies do investment casting very well (Ruger, FN, CZ), other not so well.

Browning/FN found this out the hard way when they introduced the High Power in 40S&W. The frames were cracking at low round counts. The 40 S&W round was battering the forged frames to death. FN went to investment cast frames of the same dimension and the cracking issues went away. FN now uses the same cast frames for both the 9mm and 40 S&W versions of the HP and they are holding up just fine.

I'm not poo-pooing forged frames. When done right they are excellent products. However, it is just as easy to make a lousy forged frame as it is to make a lousy cast frame. Again, it is ALL in the production control and QC.

 

[P97]

An article of the two methods. http://www.sportingclays.net/forums/thread.cfm?threadid=4318&messages=2

 

[Publius1688]

+1 for all the M&P supporters. You can't go wrong if you buy new production.

 

[TonyT]

Forgot to mention in my previous post - the older S&W 45 semi autos are also excelent. I purchased a S&W 645 several years ago and it has been totally reliable with every bullet shape it has been fed. A solid hunk of stainless which one can purchase for $500 or less.

 

[Skylerbone]

Propperly executed means always done right. Poor QC means things are slipping through the "cracks" (pun intended).

Lots of investment casting people out there claiming all sorts of things, some of it even true. With forgings however parts can be strengthened after the process.

For what it's worth my tools are drop forged, axels are forged, knives are forged. Which Japanese swords are of the cast variety?

Stress risers or no, I'll take fine forgings over bulky, pitted, toolmarked castings any day. Ask yourself how many Snap On tools you've ever replaced vs the fine Made in China junk.

 

[Zundfolge]

After a bit of digging around I'm having a hard time finding American made non-1911s.

Looks like the M&P is probably the best non 1911 out there.

If you want a steel pistol, it looks like S&W, Kahr and Ruger are the only options (did Springfield import the CZ clone they used to sell?).

However there's a lot of crap metal (note I didn't say steel) pistols made in the US. Jennnings/Bryco, Hi Point, Jimenez, etc.



edit
found another one, the new Baby Eagle is a USA made Walther P99 clone

 

[jon_in_wv]

Were they both 100% reliable out of the box? Absolutely. Did they need some attention for full functionality? Absolutely. So quality may be subjective in so far as details but I would have no problem recommending either for carry. 800 & 100 rounds without failure and counting.

Your definition of full functionality sounds a bit subjective. A trigger job on a weapon that is already reliable is preference, not functionality. I own two M&Ps and both came with fine triggers right out of the box. You might like a different trigger but what it comes with is perfectly functional in my book.

 

[Skylerbone]

Jon,

The functionality I was referring to was the slide release which could not be operated by a lefty at all and needed two thumbs for a right hander. While I only use this control for disassembly others prefer to chamber their first round with it.

<............> My gunsmith's (the paid professional) scale maxed out before tripping the trigger.

<...Snark removed...>

I love my M&Ps as modified and would not take back any work I've done. If a trigger job is a slight to it's functionality you should see what I did with my Dremel!

 

[Art Eatman]

THR ain't a day nursery...