S&W QC

[StrawHat]

These revolvers span a bit of time, 1918 to 2007. The one built in 1918 was probably a rush job as there was a war going on and the revolver was needed by the Army. The one built in 2004 has the advantage of needing less hand fitting. All are wonderfully capable of putting the bullets on target. The quality is largely the same on them all. The finishes are different but that reflects the eras they were built, their age, how they were handled and stored, and how much use they get.




Has S&W produced some lemons? Sure! Some of those 1917s were rejected by the Army. Some of the revolvers from the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and on up through today are not as good as the end buyer thought they would be. The records indicate that returns are not a new thing for the company. The records also show they fix things or replace things where it is proper to do so.

Kevin

 

[doubleh]

I haven't bought anything made by S&W in years except for a first generation full sized M&P in 40 S&W. They were reputed to have less than stellar triggers but this one had the best trigger of any of the plastic fantastic handguns I have owned. Age and arthritis then took a toll on my right wrist and it became very painful to shoot for even just one magazine. I considered turning into a 9mm but instead gave it to a grandson. I recently asked if he wanted to give it back so I could do the 9mm thing and was met with a resounding NO.

 

[Japle]

I carry a Shield Plus daily, but I had to go through 6 of them at my LGS before finding one with a good trigger.
NIce pistol. It wears a factory red dot that I like. Accurate and easy to control.
S&W autos seem to be better quality than the revolvers I've seen lately.

 

[TTv2]

Don't be too hard on Smith & Wesson. They are not alone in the manufacturing world in their quality control philosophy.
Virtually every manufacturer of every product seems to have decided that the end consumer should be the QC department. Why pay trained employees when you can pay anyone off the street to answer the phone and say "I'm sorry. I've never heard of that problem before"?

The problem there is S&W is charging a premium price for equal potential QC issues as everyone else is.

I had planned to buy a .22 DA revolver earlier this year from a lower priced company because I figured if all the rimfire triggers on a revolver under $800 are crap, then I'll buy a budget turd vs a polished turd.

Ended up getting a Ruger cuz that was all that was available.

Same applies to other calibers, unless I really want a particular one, I'm opting for the lower priced model because I stand and equal chance to get something that doesn't have an issue.

 

[Styx]

The problem there is S&W is charging a premium price for equal potential QC issues as everyone else is.

I had planned to buy a .22 DA revolver earlier this year from a lower priced company because I figured if all the rimfire triggers on a revolver under $800 are crap, then I'll buy a budget turd vs a polished turd.

Ended up getting a Ruger cuz that was all that was available.

Same applies to other calibers, unless I really want a particular one, I'm opting for the lower priced model because I stand and equal chance to get something that doesn't have an issue.

S&W and other manufacturers may or may not have "equal potential QC issues," but S&W revolvers offerings, features, distict look, ergos, aftermarket and accessory support, so on and so forth aren't equal. That's why most pay a premium for them. Plus with inflation, S&W revolvers costs about the same as they always have.

S&W manufacturers well over 400 thousand revolvers per year, and I'm sure all 400k+ aren't sold every year, so I reckon there's a half a million sitting waiting to be sold NIB at any given time. Even with a 1% defective rate for some Q/A issue (whether minor or major) because an employee didn't do their job or something slipped through, that's still over 4k revolvers each and every year out of the hundreds of thousands they manufacture. Even at .5% defective rate, that would be over 10k in 5 years with a percentage of customers reporting about issues with one increasing with each year on social media and forums.

Then you'll have the small percentage of people who come across these defects who will, each and every year, accumulate in their complaints while most who don't have an issue will not take the time to join a forum or social media to tell everyone ad nauseam about how they got a good one like those who had an issue will complain about their issues with their example.

Next, I'm sure that S&W revolvers had many QC issues in the past as well. Matter of fact I know they did via first hand accounting from former L.E. who carried and/or where responsible for their up keep at their department. The difference between then and now is there was no internet, social media, cellphone, etc. None of us would know about any of the issues we just heard several members in this thread bring up. Billy on the East Coast wouldn't know about the problems Bob on the West Coast was having, nor would Bob be able to constantly regurgitate his misfortune.

Last, S&W manufactured way LESS revolvers at that time than they do today, so even if the percentage of defects were the same, their would be way less of them on the market for buyers to come into contact with. Also, the majority of gun owners back in the day didn't own 5, 10, 15 or more revolvers. Gun owners today buy and own a larger collection of firearms than in the past thus increasing the probability of them coming across one that has a buggered screw, chatter marks, small imperfect, etc.

 

[Styx]

I only one 5 S&W revolvers all manufactured within the last 5 years. Two 686+, one model 69, a model 60, and a model 640 Pro. None of them have had issues or any problems, but I'm sure some could find something small to bring up if the look hard and long enough.

I’ve had two 686+ revolvers land on my bench for action jobs in the last month. In both cases, my 1st impression was, “Who decided to throw a handful of sand into this thing before screwing on the side plate?”

The one I got today is a Performance Center gun. The DA is horrible. Heavy and rough. Is there any QC at S&W anymore?
No way this gun or the one I worked on 3 weeks ago should have left the factory. How could someone sign off on guns like this and go home feeling proud?

Most people probably would have picked up, used, and been very happy with those examples and their trigger for years. Some are trigger snobs so to speak and others will do well and will be content using a trigger someone else would swear up and down was terrible. I see with semiautos and revolvers for all manufactures. Some, for example, will complain about Glock triggers being terrible, so they'll need to do a trigger job, change springs, or buy a completely new aftermarket trigger. Others can pick up a stock Glock and shoot lights out with the stock trigger. There are recent Colt Python threads on this forum where some believe the trigger is great while others are complaining. To me, the Taurus G2 and G3 triggers are just fine, while to others they're the worst triggers ever. I'd bet I'd be able to keep up with them shooting a stock G3 as them shooting a plastic fantastic of their choosing.

 

[CraigC]

Personally, I never buy into the idea that the sky is falling. I think the internet is the world's complaint department, that folks are more likely to complain about something bad than brag about something good. More and more people are online and contributing to that. Not to trivialize the bad experiences people have but those experiences never seem to be kept in perspective. That said....

S&W and other manufacturers may or may not have "equal potential QC issues," but S&W revolvers offerings, features, distict look, ergos, aftermarket and accessory support, so on and so forth aren't equal. That's why most pay a premium for them. Plus with inflation, S&W revolvers costs about the same as they always have.

You're not getting the same gun you always have. They've made leaps and bounds towards cheapening their product to the point that the fit & finish advantage they 'had' over Ruger, no longer exists. It's a race to the bottom.

 

[buck460XVR]

Personally, I never buy into the idea that the sky is falling. I think the internet is the world's complaint department, that folks are more likely to complain about something bad than brag about something good. More and more people are online and contributing to that. Not to trivialize the bad experiences people have but those experiences never seem to be kept in perspective.

I agree. I have bought several new S&W revolvers over the last few years and found them to be completely satisfactory, with no canted barrels, bent front sights or other cosmetic blemishes. I'm not saying others haven't, but wonder why they bought them like that. With the impressive CS and lifetime warranty S&W gives with new revolvers, I think most folks would be better off to complain to them first before they trash them on the internet.

You're not getting the same gun you always have. They've made leaps and bounds towards cheapening their product to the point that the fit & finish advantage they 'had' over Ruger, no longer exists. It's a race to the bottom.

I don't think the idea is to "cheapen" the product, only to try and keep it at a price point that the intended customer vase will accept. I think S&W accepted the fact by watching Ruger sales, that the majority of folks don't want a pristine see yourself in the reflection finish. They watched Colt drop out of the revolver market because their revolvers were above the price point of the majority of revolver buyers. Even now, with a finish not a nice as they used to be, Colt struggles to keep enough customer base for their revolvers. The new Rugers I have bought are not my father's Rugers either. The 77/44 I have looks like the bolt was dragged down a road before being put in the gun, yet it shoots very well. The finish on my Ruger 1911 is not what is on my Colts and Kimbers, but it too shoots very well for the money. My new S&W revolvers do not shine like my old ones, but they tend to be a tad more accurate. Kinda what I want.m One only has to look at the MSRP of S&Ws vs Rugers to see they are ptretty much the same. Thus one should not expect the quality of one to be above the other. How do they shoot?

 

[CraigC]

I'm not saying others haven't, but wonder why they bought them like that.

I always wonder the same thing. I'd say 99% of complaints could've been avoided had the buyer been paying attention. I think most people ass-u-me a new gun to be perfect but they shouldn't. I know I don't.

I don't think the idea is to "cheapen" the product, only to try and keep it at a price point that the intended customer vase will accept. I think S&W accepted the fact by watching Ruger sales, that the majority of folks don't want a pristine see yourself in the reflection finish. They watched Colt drop out of the revolver market because their revolvers were above the price point of the majority of revolver buyers. Even now, with a finish not a nice as they used to be, Colt struggles to keep enough customer base for their revolvers. The new Rugers I have bought are not my father's Rugers either. The 77/44 I have looks like the bolt was dragged down a road before being put in the gun, yet it shoots very well. The finish on my Ruger 1911 is not what is on my Colts and Kimbers, but it too shoots very well for the money. My new S&W revolvers do not shine like my old ones, but they tend to be a tad more accurate. Kinda what I want.m One only has to look at the MSRP of S&Ws vs Rugers to see they are ptretty much the same. Thus one should not expect the quality of one to be above the other. How do they shoot?

Whatever word you want to use to describe it, they're doing it to reduce production costs.

I agree, one should not expect one to be above the other......but they do. The post I quoted said so.

Colt is a debacle all by itself.

 

[CoalTrain49]

You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky? ' Well, do ya, punk? CE

 

[Styx]

The problem there is S&W is charging a premium price for equal potential QC issues as everyone else is.

S&W and other manufacturers may or may not have "equal potential QC issues," but S&W revolvers offerings, features, distict look, ergos, aftermarket and accessory support, so on and so forth aren't equal. That's why most pay a premium for them.

You're not getting the same gun you always have. They've made leaps and bounds towards cheapening their product to the point that the fit & finish advantage they 'had' over Ruger, no longer exists. It's a race to the bottom.

I agree, one should not expect one to be above the other......but they do. The post I quoted said so.

Did you read what I posted and what TTv2 and I were discussing because your reply has nothing to do with what we were talking about?

 

[CraigC]

Did you read what I posted and what TTv2 and I were discussing because your reply has nothing to do with what we were talking about?

I've read the whole thread, my comments stand and it has everything to do with the post I quoted.

 

[Styx]

I've read the whole thread, my comments stand and it has everything to do with the post I quoted.

Okay but you responded talking about S&W's past quality vs current and asserted implied they were the same when TTv2 and I were discussing S&W current quality issues and price point vs other manufacturers current quality issues and price point which is why I stated what you asserted I stated and your response to me didn't apply to any we were discussing. Two different topics.

 

[CraigC]

S&W revolvers costs about the same as they always have.

The above statement stands on its own and that is what I was primarily responding to. If that's not a reference to "S&W's past vs present" then maybe you should have worded it differently.

 

[Styx]

The above statement stands on its own and that is what I was primarily responding to. If that's not a reference to "S&W's past vs present" then maybe you should have worded it differently.

I'm still confused about what you're reading but okay Not going to beat a dead horse.

"S&W and other manufacturers may or may not have 'equal potential QC issues,' but S&W revolvers'* offerings, features, distict look, ergos, aftermarket and accessory support, so on and so forth aren't equal [context: S&W revolvers aren't equal to other manufacturers' offerings, features, looks, ergos, parts support]."

 

[Japle]

There's no doubt that some of us are pickier about triggers than others.
I don't expect a new revolver to have the kind of action that you'll find on one that's been worked over by a good 'smith, but I draw the line at finding metal shavings and black sludge.
I draw the line at a revolver that requires 11 lbs of pressure to get the cylinder stop to move.
Years ago, I bought a 686SSR that had 6 chambers and 7 cylinder flutes. It's hard to make excuses for that kind of QC.

 

[TTv2]

My focus isn't so much on S&W's past quality, it's that they and the S&W fanboys try to pass their CURRENT quality off as tho it is equal, if not superior, to what the past quality was.

We know that's not true.

@CraigC is correct regarding current US revolver manufacturing being a race to the bottom, yet the prices on them keep going up and we get less for our money.

IMO, if it's going to be a race to the bottom between Ruger, S&W, and to some extent Colt, then I'd rather go to the bottom first with Taurus because the only direction they have to go is up and they appear to be making strides to improve their quality, take care of their customers in a timely fashion, and keep the prices affordable whilst also innovating.