"S&W Quality slipping??"

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I read this thread I keep seeing a reoccuring theme. This is that the new S&W products are not as good as those of of the past.

Well, maybe this is because the company we are calling Smith & Wesson, is Smith & Wesson IN NAME ONLY. Think for a moment. Before what's their name, Safety Lock bought them they were British owned. Before that Bangor Punta, with maybe something in between.

How far back do we need to go to get to when Smith & Wesson was really Smith & Wesson? The 1970's, maybe?

Each entity that has owned S&W has changed something. Not every thing for the good. Better manufacturing methods is sometimes good, sometimes not. MIM parts are NOT good in my personal opinion. They are functional, but have no asthetic value. They look CHEAP.
The companys insistance in replacing older, not real old, but just older guns with new versions because they don't have the parts to repair them, is a clue that S&W is not the S&W we knew. It's a different company making a look alike replica of the guns we used to know and love.

Sadly, I believe my early 80's Bangor Punta Mdl 25-5 is a much better product than what is coming out of S&W today. Even with all the wear it's accumulated from being used.

S&W quality slipping? Naw, it's not really S&W anymore. Just a facimile.


Joe
 
IIRC the last time Smith and Wesson was owned by the Wessons was in the early 60s. It was sold to BP @ about that time. In the 80s it went from BP to LZ, then to Tomkins and finally, to Saf T Hammer.

Maybe Ruger will buy them next :D

But seriously, if you haven't had a chance to examine a pre War 44HE target, you have not seen a beautiful Smith and Wesson. I had a stab at one. But the $2500 asking was too much :)

Oh and RMs too.
 
Blues,

It is hard for me to comment on the durability of a modern S&W like my 610. It is only about 10 years old. It is just a baby, a pup, a yearling.

Now I can comment on the durability of my pre-numbered smiths. Every one is at least 8 years older then I am and most of them are over 65 years old. My favorite 38/44 is from 1930 which makes it 75 now. It has been shot a lot, a whale of a lot and it still works great. Most of my pre-war guns have been used hard and are "working" specimens and not safe queens.

So from a durability standpoint the modern stainless steel smiths could best be considered suspect since we just don't have enough time to tell if they will really last. The older pre-war N frames can be described as "proven" since they have passed a reasonable test of time. By the way, I consider a reasonable test of time to be at least 50 years.

So lets see, the pre-numbered S&W's are more durable or at least have proven durability, have better cosmetics, fit and finish and have a proven functionality.

The modern S&W's (stainless) appear to be more accurate and have lesser cosmetics, unproven longevity and durability and somewhat questionable fit and finish.
 
Modern Smith Durability? Hmmm . . . when stainless M629s were first introduced, they had problems with the heat treatment, and some suffered early failure.

Just recently - within the last year or two - S&W Performance Center 329's were blowing their barrels off with factory ammo.

And there are persistent reports of "The Lock" failing. (This is admittedly quite rare.)

Exceptions, sure . . . but my "pre-27" .357 has been fired a LOT, and is still tight and accurate. As is my blue 5" M-27. And my customized blue M-28. And my "pre-M10" M&P. Etc.

"Durability" and "strength" are important considerations - the endurance package for .44 Mags that was introduced, IIRC, with the late -3 versions of the M29 was a mechanical improvement. But if durability and strength were the only criteria in choosing what to buy, then Redhawks and Super Redhawks would have driven the M29/M629 out of the market entirely. (And the folks driving Lamborghinis and Porsches would be in Chevy and Ford pickups.)
 
(And the folks driving Lamborghinis and Porsches would be in Chevy and Ford pickups.)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh. It's been decades since S&W could not laughably be compared to high end products in any field. I'll take the Ford or Chevy these days because if S&W is making Porsche equivalents, it is the disguised Volkswagen.

73914B.JPG


Today's S&W "Porsche:"

170245_large.jpg


Well, they both have locks in their sides anyway. :evil:
 
Nope. I almost bought a 66-2 last month, but the owner wanted too much for it.

Still looking for a preagreement. . .

581 or
586
13
19
27
66 or

a P&R .357 that is 5" or less with some sort of underlug.

or a J frame that isn't beat to death. I don't hate Smith & Wessons of a certain bygone era, but I absolutely despise the current product offerings and the pusillanimous nature of the current ownership group. What good is "American Owned American Made" if one is going to act like the French but without the aesthetic sense?
 
Boats

Today's S&W "Porsche:"
Click to expand...

ROFL! That is the ugliest thing I've seen this afternoon... all my Smiths are from the 70's, and I'm out of touch. What the heck IS that thing? :)

StrikeEagle
 
That thing is a Model 327. N-Frame, 8 shot 357 Mag. Hammer lock, titanium cylinder, two piece barrel, Scandium frame. Average street price is around $850.00

It's PC in more ways than one. :evil:
 
Peter,

I am not doubting the durability of the older S&W revolvers. I have seen way too many that had beem through hell and were amazingly resolute. But I have also seen many that had not fared so well.

Vintage S&W and Colt revolvers will stand up to an amazing amount of use. It's the ones who are subjected to large amounts of abuse that don't fare so well.

All of my recently owned N-frames date from 1968 to 1986. They have all been shot a lot but also have been well cared for. They should be good for at least another 100 years. Is the blueing as good as a Registered Magnum? No. Is the fit as good as a New Century? No. Will they last as long. I'll wager they will.

I have chosen to aquire and use more modern S&W revolvers only because of economics. My budget just can't stand the strain of vintage Smiths and Colts.
But I still expect quality and durability.

The enhancement packages S&W has incorporated on their newer revolvers enable them to handle larger amounts of hotter than designed ammunition. Therefore they should last for several more generations. As long as they are cared for as well as your pre numbered models have been.

Now sure S&W has had some problems. But you'll notice very few problems with guns made using the older technology. Read that to mean real forged steel.
I see no reason that a 1999 Model 10 shouldn't last well into the next century.
 
I have recently tested the new M619 and M620 revolvers and found them to be as well made and reliable as any Smith I have ever owned.

There are always doom and gloom stories about a particular gunmakers quality slipping. The only one that has really be a fact is Colt. They haven't made a decent firearm since 1945. :mad:
 
"S&W Quality slipping??"

No. Still the best revolver company around, bar none. You can sure do a "costly" whole lot worse!
 
So Blues where do we differ?

We agree that the blueing and the finish of the older guns are better
We agree that the older guns can take a lot of abuse and have lasted a long time.
We agree that the newer ones are probably more accurate then the older ones.

You feel the new ones will last just as long, I am unsure of that (I don't trust MIM for some reason). ;)

I think the key difference is a slight change in budgets. You said your cannot take the strain of vintage S&W/Colts, I can only take a bit of strain. Let me tell you I have passed up several Registered Magnums so far and everyone killed me. I have been wanting a Triple Lock Target and just have not been able to swing the cash for a nice one. Heck even my beloved pre-war HD's are now costing more then $1000 for a nice one and shooter grades are $500 a pop.

I guess I don't see much difference in our position. They are surprisingly similar.
 
Peter you and I pretty much are in agreement.

My previous comment was NOT directed to you.

So, what most of y'all are saying is that you judge quality purely on cosmetic appearance and not on functionality and durability.
Click to expand...

It was, however, directed at those who judge a gun simply on whether is has a lock or not. Or because the blueing isn't as good because the terribly expensive hand polishing was eliminated. Or that such & such company hasn't made a decent firearm since 1776. Or because of the politics of the company president/owner.

I own two Lear Siegler S&W and they are just as good as my Pangor Punta S7Ws. And before someone denounces all Bangor Punta guns as junk let me remind everyone that B-P took over in 1965!
All stainless guns were originally B-P procucts. The L-frames originated under B-P control.

IS anyone going to tell me that a 1966 nickled Model 29 wasn't a beautiful gun? That a 1969 Model 58 didn't have a spectacular deep blue job? That a NIB 1970 Model 19 wasn't a work of art? That a 1978 Model 37 wasn't suberbly fitted? That a 1981 586 didn't have an excellent fit and finish? Well the ones I had did. All of those were Bangor Punta guns.

So I don't think that S&W quality has slipped as much as it has evolved.
A working revolver doesn't need to be as lovely as a registered magnum was.
Due to the cost of labor and taxation cosmetics are forced to suffer.
Durability has the modern day standard.
Function has superceeded fanciness.

One has only to look at the modern day semi-automatic handgun to confirm this. After all the Luger may have been a work of art but a Sig works better.
 
The only one that has really be a fact is Colt. They haven't made a decent firearm since 1945.
Click to expand...

Please tell us you're kidding. :)

Second Gen SAA's are mighty sharp. I never liked Pythons myself, but I have to admit that they were a superior product and a class act.

You think not?

StrikeEagle
 
Hotly contested but ... Me thinks BluesBear has won the day.
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't agree. The only way he wins is if all of us acept the uglyness of MIM parts and the key lock. And the hokey designs they have come out with.

I won't do that. As far as I'm concerned, S&W is a facade, a hollow excuse for what it once was. Their products may or may not be as durable as the older ones, but they are less desirealbe TO ME because of the ugliness of the parts and lack of finishing as a whole.

BluesBear has some good points, but he don't win me over. Maybe in 25 years when the MIM equiped guns have been around and in continous use and have proven to be as durable as the forged parts guns, maybe then.
But not yet.

Any way, you key lock, MIM and agreement lovers go right ahead and buy these new suedo S&W's. I'll pass thanks.


Joe
 
I'm not trying to win anything nor convert anyone. Just saying that there's more to quality than physical appearance.
Hopefully y'all don't judge people the same way you judge firearms.


Having said that, I also refuse to own a MIM S&W. :D
 
Quality has evolved?

That is a curious way of marking obvious slippage.

Why can it not be accepted that economic expediency drives many of the current moves rather than a desire to offer similar or superior quality at a similar or lower price?

Heck, I am the owner of a revolver that is an ode to cost cutting. The Ruger GP series replaced the Security and Speed Six in part because the predecessors were money losers on the manufacturing effort compared to the even more modular replacement series. I don't feel shamed that I bought "the cheaper" revolver. It was designed to be built the way it is and meets all my requirements. To my way of thinking, it is far better to have something designed from the start to be manufactured inexpensively, than it is to have something that was designed to be made relatively expensively face a cheapening out of its production values on an ad hoc basis.

I think the small tragedy that is currently S&W's revolver line-up stems from the fact that one used to get so much attention to detail for the price, but now one obviously does not but is still charged a premium for the end product. Today's Airweight (non Scandium) is more cheaply made that one ten years ago, but the price is relatively the same. Therefore the changes could not be for your benefit so much as it is to the bottom line of the company. It is laudable to keep prices in check, but to pretend no compromise in quality has taken place is naive.

Even if Ruger's blueing is tantamount to a paint job, at least if one desires, the revo can be reblued. Smith has the Model 10 available in blue as its only regular carbon steel offering. When one can go to a really decent shop or show and see offering after offering of used blued Smith guns, that Smith is down to one currently made blue model is really tragic.

No matter how hard one tries, no one can spin surface hardened MIM firing group parts as anything near the equivalent of the older forged parts.

I don't so much mind the crush fit barrels, but the profligation of the new two piece barrels is something I am not a fan of. Even if they are functional, they look awful.

The mismatched or multicolored revolvers they make do nothing for me, and I am not old enough to clearly remember "the good old days." Lest one think I am solely picking on S&W for their aesthetic sins, Beretta completely buggered up one of the best looking auto pistols of all time by hanging black plastic parts all over their latter day stainless 92FS series pistols. Some materials "progress" is anything but as far as form is concerned.

So I find S&W's marketing to indeed be curious. I wonder who they believe themselves to be in competition with in the market place.

A survey would say that they might think they have two competitors in the DA revolver market. The first is Ruger, which really only overlaps the S&W product line head to head in a handful of DA examples. The second is Taurus, which S&W competes with rather broadly on materials design and product line up.

What Smith is not being honest about is that the Company is also in market competition with a third force: Its past product. For many people, there is no compelling reason to buy any current S&W offering when their needs and desires might be better served by their past offerings, some of which are much more sought after than any current offering. It is a sad dynamic when a manufacturing company finds its better products of the past commanding near new prices and a sizeable market share in terms of sales lost to the buying and reselling of those past products. Each "past" (read preagreement) S&W revolver that is resold, is pretty solidly a lost sale of new product. S&W's recent moves remind me of how "New Coke" turned out. Since far more fizzy drinks are sold nationally in an hour than are firearms in a decade just means that S&W's New Coke disaster will take more time to play out should they stay the course of not really giving all but the most brand loyal customers what they might want were their preferences being taken into account.

I might only be a sample of one, but if I could buy a Smith 586 or 19 in even their 1990-91 incarnations, today, brand new, I'd buy one over a used one in a heart beat. The grief comes from knowing that if Smith reissued the 586 tomorrow using their current practices, I would not want it unless it cost about $400, the price of the equivalent Ruger, and probably not even then, because of the extra "feature" that I don't care for.

Then again, maybe Smith will be saved by all of the newbies and such who have never handled or fired a real Smith. :rolleyes:
 
I remember when Harley-Davidson was bought out by AMF. They made terrible bikes. Came out with the shovel head. Lousy. If you wanted something good, you wanted a knuckle or pan head. Time goes by and now the shovel head is reguarded as a classic. What? It happens with time. Tripple lock Smith's were garbage also. How bout now? The gun lock controversy will indeed fade. Many of those who kick about it now will just as enthusiastically tout the workmanship 20 years from now as a classic. A lot unfortunately will be dead. Many who remember things as they were will be a memory themselves, no one here of course. Most people will only remember that old guns are worth more and today's guns will get old. I buy old and I buy new. One thing I do,and am proud of, is keep the shooting spirit alive. So in 20 years, when I hear some "pimple faced" salesman tell me all about the classic design of those old '05's , I'm gonna remember all of us and smile warmly.
kid
 
Hey; all I want is real forged/milled barrels with real cut or hammered or buttoned rifling, that are pin/or other positively secured with correct headspace! :neener:
 
Cortez Kid, Just about the same thing happened with Fender & Gibson guitars.

Those 1970s model that no one wanted when they were new are now "Vintage"* and the prices are obscene.

But at least when Fender reissues a 1962 Telecaster it is made just like an original 1952. Sure it may not be as precisely made but at least it's made from the same stuff or at least as close as possible to the original.


*Vintage is to guitar manufacturers what Tactical is to firearms manufacturers. Marketing hype to drive up the demand/price.
 
I know what you mean on the Fender Guitar's. I didn't like the Japanese versions, although they played nice. The only guitar I have is a 61 SG jr.. Sits in the corner coverd with an afghan. I've seen where someone is trying to start another thread on locks. Here we go again!
kid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Bad Quality
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
bearmgc
B
G
  • Locked
Overall quality: Ruger or S&W
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
Confederate
Confederate
M
  • Locked
S&W 637 quality equal to a taurus?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Gary A
G
H
  • Locked
Are Smith & Wessons diminishing in quality?
2 3 4 5
Replies
108
Views
5K
WVfishguy
W
C
  • Locked
dob s&w 686-4
Replies
2
Views
351
craig
C
Back
Top