"S&W Quality slipping??"

[Surefire]

I keep reading this, but am not seing it when I actually examine a S&W at the range. Or when I shoot one.

Where is the quality slipping, what parts?

Maybe I'm lucky, but I am not seeing a difference in quality from my 1997 686+ (has given me 8 years of fabulous performance) to the new one (2004-2005 model) I looked over today at the range today.

Is the issue that S&Ws are now hit-and-miss, or all they all "slipping"?

I've seen more quality slipping from Rugers than from S&W, and I am a Ruger fan (my favorite make) saying this. Three of my last four Ruger revolvers have had "issues" out-of-the box.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Smith & Wesson's quality control has been an on again, off again affair for decades. A friend in the business tells me the general quality is higher today than it was when the company was British-owned, but some individual guns are still lemons.

What's the percentage of guns with serious problems? There's probably no way to find out, since a.) a great many gun buyers wouldn't know the difference, and b.) a great many guns are hardly ever shot.

 

[Surefire]

I guess I was lucky with my 1997 686+.


Now I'm hoping that when I get a newer S&W, I'll be lucky and get a decent one.

 

[grey9551]

May Be Wrong

I may be wrong but, it seems that 8 out of 10 complaints come from new guys who don't know there weapons well enough yet. I read of the new guys removing the side plates just to make sure they are clean we all know that is just plain foolish and usually more harm than good comes from it

Also most folks aren't shooting their weapons nearly enough to tell if they are working properly or not. They set a target 10 yards away and if they can't hit the black with every shot they think they have a problem with the weapons.

I think S&W and all the big name brand dealers should hold basic armorers classes not so much to teach the folks what to mess with and how to fix it but, mainly to teach them what to keep their hands out of. I think it would go a long way for customer relations.

Gary
.

 

[Majic]

Maybe I'm lucky, but I am not seeing a difference in quality from my 1997 686+

Most posters would stick your 1997 model in with the new models. The quality that is spoken about is from decades ago.

 

[unspellable]

Qc?

I think S&W quality control has improved from where it was say fifteen or twenty years ago. (Which was stinko, so there is still room for improvement.)

On the other hand I think the designs have gone down hill starting with dropping the 6.5 inch barrel on the Model 29, then the barrel pin, then the counter bored chambers, and now we've lost all the good old ones and have a collection of stuff that look like refugees from a Buck Roger movie and are stuck with locks, etc.

 

[nero45acp]

I've owned 9 S&W revolvers, the oldest a M14 from the early 60's and the newest a 2005 M60-18. Having said that, I'm not a revolver expert and I won't pretend to be one, but what I have noticed is a number of cost cutting moves by S&W that for me makes the newer models a little less appealing. Some of those cost cutting moves include:

-No longer pinning the barrels
-Two-piece barrels
-Hollow triggers
-Fake case-hardened triggers and hammers
-Fugly angular cylinder latches
-Not polishing the inside of the frame on their stainless revolvers as well as they once did
-Very few blued models offered (model 10 & Thunder Ranch .44)

I realize that these changes don't really effect the function of the revolver, but for me they do negatively effect the aesthetics of them. This is not meant as a bash S&W post, I love S&W revolvers. It's just that I'd love them even more if they weren't cutting some of these corners.


nero

 

[Boats]

I dunno, all of these new ones come with an extraneous hole in the side.

 

[scubie02]

hmm, yeah, I guess I'd have to say it seems true overall, I'm not sure its so much "quality slipping" as in they are trying to make them the same, but are doing a bad job of it, I think its more cost cutting measures maybe. All I know is that I don't see a big improvment from my Smith's over my Taurus', in fact my model 85 taurus has a better trigger than my 642 smith, and I sold a 686 not so long ago because it was easily outshot by my 1911's and even my xd 9 easily kept up with it in the accuracy department. Finish's are pretty so-so too. I don't think the 686's was actually as good as my taurus tracker, and my 642 had several flaws in the finish when I bought it new.

 

[recondoc]

I don't know much about quality slipping in the past few years but can see and feel a very distinct difference in overall quality between my friends 686 from the early '90s and my 28-2 from the '70s. I just got the 28 last Sunday and it is the first, of what I hope will be many, older Smiths. There is no question that a lot more time and workmanship went into the older guns. I don't know if they are doing more CAM CAD stuff now but I would expect it in this day and age. I still think that overall, Smith still puts out the finest quality revovers on the market today. They should have passed that quality standard over to their auto department.
Doc

 

[JohnBT]

A poster at rimfirecentral sent his 647 back because it shot patterns. They called him, said that the 647 has been discontinued, and offered to send him a different model - because they don't have enough parts to fix his. I think he picked a 648.

I don't know if this is quality service or a quality snow job.

I hope our 647 doesn't break before it becomes a rare and valuable collector's item.

John

 

[mete]

The real fall in quality of S&W was around 1980.I worked on many of them.Often a brand new gun wouldn't function !!! Typically they would have 2 or three major problems and a number of minor ones .A sad story and that's when many turned their backs on S&W forever. Remember that at one time they earned the reputation of making the best handgun in the world.

 

[unspellable]

S&W the best?

In some circles they still have the reputation for making the best handgun in the world. If we confine the discussion to double action revolvers, I'd be willing to say they are still in the top three of the majors. There are some VERY good revolvers by VERY small makers out there, but one seldom even hears of them let alone sees one.

I'd say Dan Wesson makes the best large frame revolvers today, but they have had their ups and downs.

Colt has become one of the VERY small makers.

Rugers are strong, but I for one do not care for the looks or handling and as a consequence I have little experience with their quality control.

Taurus is obviously out to steal S&W's thunder and they have improved a lot but QC is very good with some models and poor with others. But if they continue to gain and S&W continues to slide Taurus will pass up S&W one of these days.

 

[Surefire]

Maybe I'm lucky, but I am not seeing a difference in quality from my 1997 686+

Most posters would stick your 1997 model in with the new models. The quality that is spoken about is from decades ago.

Hmmm...I'm very happy with the quality of my 97 model. Excellent trigger pulls in DA and SA, very tight lockup, good cylinder gap, and absolutely no obvious quality problems. It shoots like a dream, and has held up well to thousands of rounds. If the quality was even better decades ago, I got to get me one of them older guns soon!


And as for S&W quality vs. Ruger....IMO the Ruger design is much better (which is why I own more Rugers than any other revolver), but the quality-control of Ruger is not as good as S&W. Rugers QC has gone down greatly the last three years, IMO....I've had three problem Ruger revolvers within the last four I bought. The think the Ruger itself is more durable, but out of the box greater chances of problems, which is unfortunate because its my favorite design of the revolvers.

 

[drannor]

I own around a dozen smiths, with the majority made from 1975 - 1985. Most of these were purchased LNIB or NIB unfired. (14,15,17,19,29,586,686) I have a couple from the 60's and early 70's, and a few new ones made since 2000. If the 1985 - 2000 were bad years then I guess I'm blessed....

That said I've only had one functional problem with any S&W and that was a 1977 M19. Cosmetically perfect but the ejector rod was a little bent causing a vastly irregular DA trigger pull. Replaced the rod and now it's butter smooth. It's entirely possible the damage was inflicted by the previous owner fondling it. He certainly never shot it.

The 586 has the most beautiful bright blueing I've ever seen on a S&W, the 14's blueing by contrast is a little mottled and uneven. Both are tackdrivers. By comparison my brand new PC 29's cylinder is so badly blued I'm considering shipping it back to S&W.

I'm in agreement with the folks that say there are good and bad guns from any period.

As to specific parts:
- Average blueing quality is way down judging by the new 586s, 10s, etc
- Trigger actions in general aren't as smooth as my older guns

 

[Gordon]

My 296 of 1999 will be the last new S&W I ever buy and even that one is not great, just unique. I saw a new Model 60 5" apart on an armmore's bench last week and almost threw up! I was thinking about the Model 60 5", but after I saw the innards-FORGET IT!

 

[JohnBT]

Are you sure that wasn't the Model 60 do-it-yourself kit?

John

 

[Stainz]

My absolute worst-ever QC S&W was my NIB safe-queen 24-3 from '83, the 'Bangor Punta' era. My other older unit is a 3" 65 from '88 - a police trade-in. That 24 had spattered brazing remnants from the posts on the frame's innards, sporadically interfering with moving parts - even the rebound slide. It wouldn't launch a cylinderful without help. Horrible. My ten new purchased 2000-2005 produced revolvers have had a total of two 'problems' - a loose ejector rod (LH thread - just tightened it.) and a kinked ejector spring, evidenced by a less than smooth feeling when pressing the rod in. S&W sent me a spring quickly. Additionally, I tried to wear out a 4" 625-8, even dropping the cylinder several times due to the loose sideplate/yoke screw, all my fault... S&W fixed it gratis. No, I am thankful that they '... don't make them like they once did'!

I think a lot of folks expect a smooth and light trigger 'out of the box'. They all smooth up with a 'trigger job' - or 1,000+ dry-fires, if properly cleaned & lubed. The hammer must hit with authority to pop all primers, certainly a design requirement for a PD firearm. For a dedicated plinker - especially if you roll your own ammo and employ Federal primers - you can try lighter effort hammer springs. I advise against sideplate removal for the squeamish/mechanically challenged, too. A bit of spray cleaner/lube (RemOil/Breakfree - available from Wally World, even!) in the openings prior to the 1,000+ dry-fire regimine helps with the 'owner-derived trigger job'. Even if your revolver is already 'broken-in', your finger will be stronger - you'll think the 'pull' is smoother & lighter!

Stainz

 

[SnWnMe]

I think a lot of folks expect a smooth and light trigger 'out of the box'. They all smooth up with a 'trigger job' - or 1,000+ dry-fires, if properly cleaned & lubed. ....
.....Even if your revolver is already 'broken-in', your finger will be stronger - you'll think the 'pull' is smoother & lighter!

+1

 

[Surefire]

Upon further review (looking at my receipts), my 686+ 6" must be a 1996 model. It was bought by me in November 1996.

 

[HankB]

I inherited a "Pre-27" .357 made shortly after WWII . . . one need only compare that finely finished revolver, side by side, to anything coming out of S&W during the last several decades to answer the question "Is S&W Quality slipping?"

Current S&Ws are certainly functional, in much the same way that a Glock is functional - but they don't really inspire much admiration. The guns coming out of Springfield these days are the firearm equivalents of the generic groceries you can find at the cheaper grocery stores.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Hankb nailed it.

When I put my pre-numbered guns and even my pre-wwII guns up against the stainless steel or even blued steel that has been coming out of S&W in the past decade or so I find it hard to understand why anyone even questions the quality slippage.

Put a nice Registered Magnum, next to a Pre-27, next to a 627 and tell me that there is not a direct decrease in fit and finish with time. You are joking yourself. The fit and polish/finish has definately decreased.

This is why I now only own 1 numbered S&W a 610 6.5" fluted. I just could not see the point. My preference is for the pre-war fit and finish while still being able to have modern guns. For example these are all pre-numbered guns:

The best ones for overall fit and finish are the pre-war Registered Magnum and 38/44 Heavy Duties. They are TIGHT which is amazing considering they have been in use for over 70 years in some cases.


Now with all that said, I have to admit that from a raw accuracy point of view, I would tend to argue that the modern guns are probably more accurate.

 

[Surefire]

So, I think I see the point.

Quality has slipped compared to several decades ago. Its not something that just happened within the past 5 years or so.

I have NOT owned an older S&W in the 1970s and before. Every S&W I've owned or fired was made after 1980.

 

[SnWnMe]

Take an old M29 and a 90s and up M29. Run em with hot loads. See which one will involuntarily unlock the cylinder for you in recoil.

Take an old 36 and a recent production 36. Run em with +P loads. See which one will give up first.

The old guns have their quality features. The newer guns have improvements that the older guns will not match. Best to have a few (or many) from all eras

 

[Old Dog]

The old guns have their quality features. The newer guns have improvements that the older guns will not match. Best to have a few (or many) from all eras

My feelings exactly.

While I feel the older (pre-70s) are the coolest-looking and some of the best made (overall) revolvers ever (in terms of workmanship); I have some recent production Smiths that are exceptionally accurate, show excellent fit & finish (no, I don't like the blemish on the left sideplate, but I ignore the lock), are totally reliable (and still look pretty good, too, IMO) and hold up better to hotter loads ...