"The Dark Side of Smith & Wesson"

[shootniron]

This is posted on Chuck Hawk's website and it points out some of the things in S&W's history that would suggest to him that as a company S&W lacks integrity that is customary of most of the major gunmakers of the world. It is not a new posting, but I think that it is current enough that it is still relevant to S&W in it's present configuration and is at least a thought provoking read...depending on how you view his take. Now, Chuck is noted for being a polarizing gunwriter, but he has always been willing to put his opinion out there and make no apology for it and for that I give him credit that I cannot heap upon a lot of the mainstream printed media types.

What do you think about his take on S&W?

Mods, I am not trying to do a drive-by with this...if I did it wrong, just delete or close.


http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

 

[parsimonious_instead]

It's interesting stuff, but nothing terribly new. One of the issues Paul Barrett brings up that helped drive Glock sales was a lull in Smith and Wesson's quality. Even if S&W had rectified their QC issues by 1985-1986 when Glock debuted in the US, there's always a gap between perception and reality.
Got into a conversation with some fellow patrons of a local hotel lounge. Two pilots, flying in doing some contract work were hanging around until they had to make the return leg. Talk turned to guns, and one of them talked about his Smith and Wesson semiauto. Some years back, the frame cracked. Over the phone they told him they probably couldn't do anything, but encouraged him to send it in anyway. Despite telling him there were no blank frames left, they scrounged one out of a dusty corner, and transferred his slide and some other parts to the new frame. S&W burned the same serial number into the newly reconstituted unit. On top of that, they also gave him two mags stamped "law enforcement only" and included them in the box. Not only did they not charge him a cent for the repairs, but they got it back to him much quicker than initially promised.

 

[wally]

The Smith & Wesson of then is not the same owners and management as now. IMHO they set the standard today.

 

[JustA19D]

I have a lot of loyalty to s&w

 

[Standing Wolf]

What do you think about his take on S&W?

I think the criticisms are entirely legitimate. I'm not sure Smith & Wesson's quality issues are unique to that company, but they're not new, and I've seen with my own eyes quality control is still a hit or miss proposition. I haven't bought a new Smith & Wesson product since the company hopped into bed with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore regime. That agreement still hasn't been nullified. It's not being enforced, but new owners or not, it's still an agreement.

I hope rising competition in the firearms industry will force all companies to improve their quality control.

 

[Cosmoline]

Can't speak to Hawks' personal experiences but I can tell you I have NOT been impressed with S&W's recent production revolvers. They strike me as being closer to "fun guns" or range toys than serious tools.

I also don't like the idea of paying a performance center price to get what ought to be the default quality.

 

[shootniron]

Personally, I think the design and quality criticisms are legitimate. Everytime I see the new Body Guard 38 or Body Guard 380 I think, oh my...what a bunch of crap. And, from what I hear from some folks locally, that is a legitimate thought also.JMO

 

[Walkalong]

He hates S&W, and is entitled to his opinion.

Me? I sure like my S&W's.

 

[shootniron]

He hates S&W, and is entitled to his opinion.

Me? I sure like my S&W's.
__________________

I have a couple that I really like too. But, I certainly wouldn't buy either of the 2 I mentioned above.

 

[wojownik]

Regarding quality control issues, of course a number of major manufacturers have gotten pegged with complaints at various times ... Sig, Kimber, S&W. Market pressures generally cause any manufacturer to respond, one way or another. I can't complain at all about my two S&W revolvers. They have been rock solid. S&W customer support has been friendly and professional. Their products are US manufactured, which I appreciate.

I can visualize some of this from S&W side as well in the 1990s, leading up to the "Agreement of 2000". They are headquartered in a hostile anti-gun state. They were under pressure from an virulently anti-gun Presidential administration, and were under a barrage of federal and state lawsuits. They were - at that time - owned by a British company (Tomkins PLC) with a questionable understanding of and commitment to the S&W business. Let's not underestimate the underhanded backoffice pressures and threats Clinton operatives (and potentially some British politicians) may have been making to the then British owners (remember that the British PM at that time was Tony Blair - a Clinton fan). They made a hard and controversial business decision, probably feeling backed into a corner (maybe a bit more than some other manufacturers?). Also bear in mind that Tomkins decisions were not liked by a number of S&W executives, such as Bob Scott, who resigned in 1999.

In 2001, things started to change. The Bush administration came into office, and voiced support for litigation protection for gun manufacturers. In 2001, S&W was sold by Tomkins to Safe-T-Hammer (headed by Bob Scott). Of course, integration of the Safe-T-Hammer product line (locks and safety devices) into the S&W line wasn't a totally great idea, but S&W management refocused on getting the company overall back into good standing and market leadership. New political environment, new legal climate, new ownership, new (partly) management...

The author of that article might be know for being "polarizing", but his article is compromised by a selective use of facts and incomplete research.

 

[russ69]

What do I think? Times change, companies change. If you don't like a product, don't buy it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I think the criticisms are entirely legitimate. I'm not sure Smith & Wesson's quality issues are unique to that company, but they're not new, and I've seen with my own eyes quality control is still a hit or miss proposition. I haven't bought a new Smith & Wesson product since the company hopped into bed with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore regime. That agreement still hasn't been nullified. It's not being enforced, but new owners or not, it's still an agreement.

I hope rising competition in the firearms industry will force all companies to improve their quality control.

I'm not sure of what you refer to, please explain?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Personally, I think the design and quality criticisms are legitimate. Everytime I see the new Body Guard 38 or Body Guard 380 I think, oh my...what a bunch of crap. And, from what I hear from some folks locally, that is a legitimate thought also.JMO

I'm not sure about today or even in the 1980s. I know that I have a Smith&Wesson M&P revolver from 1940 and I love it to death. It's been a rock solid performer for the years my father, and now I have owned it. fired everything from hollowpoints to +ps to FMJ with no problems whatsoever. I would certainly buy a K frame revolver chambered in .38 special without a second though. as to their semi autos or L frames I'm not familiar with those

 

[Lex Luthier]

@russ69: Ya got that right.

I happen to love two of my SW .40cals, but I cannot shoot the third one and cannot seem to sell it to any of my friends. I assume at close range it would suffice. All bought second hand, two from armslist. One is an old LEO weapon.

 

[wlewisiii]

I read it awhile ago, got a chuckle out of the righteous indignation of it and had forgotten about it until I saw the thread title. Reminded me of something I'd write with a pint or so of whiskey in me.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

The author of that article might be know for being "polarizing", but his article is compromised by a selective use of facts and incomplete research

As is most every other one of his articles. I have yet to see what makes him such an "authority" on the subject. He half asses his "research" and in actuality, has yet to prove to me that he actually knows a damn thing about firearms. I see a lot of people make comments such as "I know I'll like it, Chuck Hawks gave a great review" or just the opposite. Personally, I could care less what the man has to say about anything related to firearms. If you all remember, he said the S&W .500 would never make it out of the gate and was just a passing fad. Well I am an owner of 3 different models of the .500 S&W and love every one of them. Sure, S&W's QC has went down a bit as has EVERY firearms manufacturer on the planet. The economy sucks and every manufacturer has been hurt by it. Their QC isn't as bad as a LOT of others out there.

 

[carbuncle]

I like S&Ws, like any company there have been good times and bad times but their guns perform for me, from all the iterations of the company. I like Rugers: I don't hold the obsession with 10-round mags being "reasonable" against the company, despite it coming directly from Bill Ruger's selfish desire to not see the 10-22 outlawed. There's a lot of water under the bridge in the firearms industry, anyone could write an article using selective fact application and make every company in the business look shady.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I heard Henry Ford had a dark side. What ya gone do? Never know.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Bill Ruger's selfish desire to not see the [strike]10-22[/strike] Mini-14 outlawed.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[gotigers]

I have had good quality and good service from S&W. My M&P15 i bought in '09 has been great. My M&P9 Pro has been a great 3 gun pistol for almost 1-1/2 years and 1500 rounds. It started having a little issue last month. I called, they emailed me a shipping label no questions asked.

With the high volume of sku's they have there will be some QC issues, but i would bet their percentage of issues are much better than the average.

Is there better out, yes, but there are a lot worse.

 

[tinygnat219]

That read like a hit piece to me. Vague examples of when "I was here". He also fails to mention that Ruger, Glock, and about 4 more gun companies were ready to sign up for that Clinton era deal.

 

[1911Tuner]

Years ago, many customers complained that the .44 caliber "N" frame revolver was too heavy and bulky for the .357 Magnum cartridge. (That is the frame size on which Smith & Wesson originally built their .357 Mag. revolvers.) So, they started building .357 revolvers on their smaller "K" .38 Special frame. These revolvers quickly developed a reputation for vicious recoil and also for shaking themselves apart. Smith's "solution" was to recommend practicing with .38 Special ammunition and reserving .357 Magnum cartridges only for "duty" purposes to extend the life of their revolvers!

*cough*

He should do a little research before opening his cake hole.

The mating of the K-frame and the .357 Magnum cartridge came about as a result of a request by Bill Jordan, who wanted more power in the lighter, more portable K-frame for law enforcement. Smith & Wesson gave him what he wanted, with the caveat that the guns wouldn't stand up to much of what was at the time, real .357 Magnum ammo consisting of a 158-grain LSWC loaded with 15.5 grains of a non-canister grade Hercules 2400. I have some of that old ammunition, and...trust me...it's singularly unpleasant to fire in a "Magna" (tm) stocked 4-inch Model 13. It beat the guns up soundly and in short order.

Jordan himself paraphrased Smith's advice:

"Use .38s for practice and .357s for business."

Smith's K-Frames were and are exceptionally fine revolvers, but they're not exceptionally strong revolvers.

After several years of repairing and/or replacing Model 19s, Smith threw in the towel and introduced the L-Frame revolvers that split the difference between the K and N frames, while retaining the smaller K-frame grip size. About the same time, the ammo makers started downloading the .357 cartridge.

The .357 Magnum was designed around and for their large-framed revolver, and the target market was the outdoorsman/hunter...not law enforcement and the self-defense arena. The reason that it was developed was because the warnings pertaining to firing the popular 38-44 ammunition only in large framed Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers wasn't taken seriously, and being fired in...you guessed it....38 Hand Ejector and Victory Models...with predictable results. .38-44 ammunition was first downloaded a bit, and finally dropped from the lineup. People are just hard-headed. They've gotta whizz on the electric fence for themselves, I guess.

 

[rferizano]

*cough*

He should do a little research before opening his cake hole.

The mating of the K-frame and the .357 Magnum cartridge came about as a result of a request by Bill Jordan, who wanted more power in the lighter, more portable K-frame for law enforcement. Smith & Wesson gave him what he wanted, with the caveat that the guns wouldn't stand up to much of what was at the time, real .357 Magnum ammo consisting of a 158-grain LSWC loaded with 15.5 grains of a non-canister grade Hercules 2400. I have some of that old ammunition, and...trust me...it's singularly unpleasant to fire in a "Magna" (tm) stocked 4-inch Model 13. It beat the guns up soundly and in short order.

Jordan himself paraphrased Smith's advice:

"Use .38s for practice and .357s for business."

Smith's K-Frames were and are exceptionally fine revolvers, but they're not exceptionally strong revolvers.

After several years of repairing and/or replacing Model 19s, Smith threw in the towel and introduced the L-Frame revolvers that split the difference between the K and N frames, while retaining the smaller K-frame grip size. About the same time, the ammo makers started downloading the .357 cartridge.

The .357 Magnum was designed around and for their large-framed revolver, and the target market was the outdoorsman/hunter...not law enforcement and the self-defense arena. The reason that it was developed was because the warnings pertaining to firing the popular 38-44 ammunition only in large framed Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers wasn't taken seriously, and being fired in...you guessed it....38 Hand Ejector and Victory Models...with predictable results. .38-44 ammunition was first downloaded a bit, and finally dropped from the lineup. People are just hard-headed. They've gotta whizz on the electric fence for themselves, I guess.

There you go again shooting your mouth off and not knowing what in the hell you are talking about. Why the hell they ever made you a moderator is beyond me with your "I LOVE ME ATTITUDE" while you think you are a legend in your own mind.....100% *******!

 

[308win]

I can only speak from personal experience; I have two S&W revolvers and two S&W pistols and I would stack any of them up against anything I have handled. My Smiths are doing just fine thank you.

 

[rbernie]

*cough*

He should do a little research before opening his cake hole.

It's been my experience that folk with an axe to grind rarely manage to do so without being a bit fast-n-loose with whatever it takes to get them there.

LMGTFY.