Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by actionflies, Mar 15, 2008.
This is an interesting article.
I've only owned one Smith and Wesson -- and that was a K-38 found in the wreckage of a C-130. But I have a safe full of Colts.
Ol Chuck... If he didn't have something to pi$$ and moan about I don't know how he'd function. You ever see Dana Carvey's old man from SNL? "I'm old, and unhappy!" "In MY day...."
He scrapes up a few examples of malfunctions and decries S&W as sloppy while ignoring the 99.99% of their product that has stood the test of time. Whatever. I'm going to take my terrible, hideous, can't-believe-it-even-works, Performance Center 629 with the *gasp* internal lock out and have some fun. (It's never malfunctioned, should I even mention that to ol' Chuckie?)
This is not to say that a manufacturer shouldn't be held accountable for their product's fit finish and overall quality, but I've never even heard a FIRSTHAND account of someone who has been dissatisfied with the service from S&W. (Talking revolvers, not the Sigma pistols)
Please say more about that--I'm guessing it's not the kind of story we hear every day.
Wow, I have read Chuck Hawk's stuff on rifles and enjoyed it, but man is he out of his head here and beyond his depth.
There are more than enough unsupported assertions, wild-ass-guesses and plain untruths in there to fill a whole season of X-files, including the Lone Gunmen.
Sure, there have been poor quality control at times, particularly during the mid 70s by poor management, but just to make stuff up to drive home a point is silly (that the L frame is a Python copy - I mean, has he never looked inside one?) or that the media has "conspired" to keep this quiet. You always gotta wonder when someone shouts "conspiracy" in a free market situation.
Sounds like some company didn't ship him the free gun he wanted, so it's off to bellyache about it...
My Momma taught me that if you can't say something nice... So I won't say it.
Take it with a grain of salt. I own 2 S&W 686 plus - pre lock and lock model and it's the most accurate and enjoyable revolver to shoot.
Chuck is a dork with an ax to grind.
This defaming article has been out there a long time. Yes, S&W has had its ups and downs. Right now, their quality is up, in my opinion.
I have owned a bunch of S&W revolvers, they are all high quality and I have been a happy camper.
I have been subscribing to Gun Tests for over 15 years, they rarely get a bad Smith. Some other brands, like AMT, I was able to verify their consistent bad ratings.
Commerical gun mags, you can't trust them. The articles are product promotions paid by the manufacturer. So of course the guns are great.
If S&W really had quality issues like Chuck suggests they do they would be out of business. Nobody would be paying what they ask for their revolvers if it was really that bad.
Also, I don't know why he makes such a big deal of S&W ripping off the designs of others. The whole industry does that. Ruger makes a blatant copy of Kel-Tec's P3AT, Taurus and Rossi copied S&W's revolver designs, and anyone who builds a breech lock auto is ripping of John Browning. Big deal.
Chuck is a self proclaimed expert and a fool....is that redundant? And this has been discussed before.
Is that supposed to imply something about the quality of S&Ws?
Nothing wrong with Colts but they don't seem to be producing or servicing too many revolvers these days.
I don't think Chuck makes a secret of his disdain regarding Smith & Wesson. With that being said, I do like the Smiths that I own and would own more if I had the money. I have even thought about selling a gun or two just to get another revolver in the .357 variety.
"Phydeaux, bad dog....no biscuit!"
That article's a drink of bitter wine.
Anyone who has one of those horrible guns (especially pre-lock versions) should send them to me at once. I will be sure and dispose of them properly
I can not think of any firearms company that hasn't had a bad era.
No need to list them as anyone who has been around for more than a couple of years should be able to recount the miseries.
Total BS. Chuck is just venting and needed another article.
His rant makes me want to go out and buy another S&W...
The words full of crap spring immediately to mind. Especially the model 41. At bullseye matches its one of the most common guns, because you have to spend $2500 on a european gun to beat a model 41 for accuracy. If his friend had a problem S&W would have replaced the gun to make him happy.
hmm, while I did have one 6" 686 that I sold because it was farily inaccurate and could compete with the 4" Taurus at the time, which seemed sort of sad given the price difference, in general I have had pretty good luck with smith's over the years. Certainly I have never had one that didn't function properly, and all of the model 10's I have owned or shot were dreams--sweet triggers and very good to excellent accuracy. I own two model 10 snubbies from 1967 and a 4"hb from the 80's now, and they are all keepers, with the one snubbie in particular being amazing. I also have a couple of j frame snubbies in 38 and 32 that are perfectly functional (unremarkable triggers, but not horrible). I've had much worse luck with used colt revolvers being badly out of time myself, but never got a bad smith. OTOH, I have also had excellent luck with any Taurus revolver I have owned, and many like to lambast them, as nothing but crap--maybe I've just been lucky. All my 1911's are reliable too! I'm a freak of nature! haha
I actually own one of the guns he claimed had a crooked barrel frrom way back. The .22/32 kit gun, Mine is a 1974 model 43 which is the airweight .22 kit gun, 1974 was the last year they made themodel 43 guns . Mine is a 3.5 inch barrel with adjustible sights aluminium frame and cylinder, I have owned it for 10 years and its the most accurate Jframe I have ever fired. This is also the gun I taught my 7 year old son, and daughter to shoot with. The barrel is straight on mine, and the sights center perfectly.
I have had lemons from, SIG, Glock, Ruger, my redhawk is an unreliable pos with a 10 pound SA trigger pull, a lighter spring results in 6 misfireing cylinders every time in DA. Its been back to the factory Ruger put the 20 lbs spring back in, and tells me its in spec.
Gee, if this fellow's got such an axe to grind with S&W, he shouldn't be a hypocrite and should now follow through with damning "exposes" of the "dark sides" of Colt's Mfg., Ruger and Taurus.
What a load of doo-doo. Out of curiosity, who is this guy and what makes him such an expert in the field?
Article kind of reminds me of many years ago I was watching "60 minutes" with the parents and at the end Andy Roony went on a 2 minute tirade against ballpoint pens, "randomly" pulling these old crusty used pens out of a container, and trying to write with them, acting all flustered that he spent money on such inferior products...then at the end of his segment he endorsed Not fountain pens...but quill/dip pens, commending them on their reliability.
I never watched Anything by him again, and my S&W 686-6+ has never given me any troubles.
P.S. 200 posts?! You all are too easy to talk to. Thanks THR!
On one hand, the quality control on the S&W-made Walther PPK/S is shameful at times. It seems to be a crapshoot, at best, as to whether you'll get one that a) works, and b) fits (as in the parts actually fitting well together). On the other hand, S&W has superb customer service. They are good on the phone, good in the shop, and good getting things back to you. Nobody is perfect, to be sure. But I sure wish that more companies emulated S&W's customer service ... even if better quality control at the outset would often eliminate the need for it much of the time.
Not a lot I can say about Chuck that's High Road.
But I would like to hear Vern's story about the K-38 he found in the C-130
I know, right? C'mon, man, you're killing me! I gotsta know!
Separate names with a comma.