What was the time frame of Bangor Punta's Ownership of S&W?
- Thread starter Matt King
- Start date
- Status
Black_Talon
Member
1965 to 1984.
Black Knight
Member
Texas, I believe this is just an old wives tale. I have several from that time period. I carried a few of them on duty as an armed security officer and private investigator and never had any problems from any one of them.
CMcDermott
Member
Bangor Punta were the owners in 1982 when S&W stopped doing recessed cylinder chambers for the magnum calibers and stopped pinning barrels. They also encompass the "Dirty Harry" time frame in the 1970's when demand for Model 29's soared, and the factory QC often suffered as a result of trying to get more guns out to the dealers. This is what I think caused the common opinion of quality suffering in general under Bangor Punta. Most of the guns made by Bangor were just fine, and the ones that weren't typically have already been sent back and fixed by the factory.
I believe this is an echo started by shill gunwriters. I recall reading an article in American Handgunner which was very critical of the bad old Banger Punta days at Smith and Wesson.
As I get on my soap box, I have observed gunwriters and magazine editors are extreme shills for the firearms industry. The articles you read are not objective, they were commissioned; the purpose of which is to get you out to the gunstore to buy the latest and the greatest. Gunwriters always shill for the new, new. They never criticize the recent new. Old products are only downgraded when the company needs a promotion or when the information on old defective products won’t hurt an advertiser.
From my recollection, the author of that American Handgunner article just castigated the Bangor Punta days, everything produced then was just awful. Now, of course, now that the company has new owners, the resurrection of Lazarus was a small blip compared to the resurrection in progress at Smith and Wesson.
However, when I read old issues of American Handgunner, written in the bad old Banger Punta days, numerous articles just extolled the S&W’s coming off the production line. “Best pistols ever made”, the “pinnacle of perfection”, etc, etc. So what had happened?, Just the market needed a kick. An editor needed a boat payment.
I do believe that every manufacturer has benefited from computer aided design and manufacturing, and that the pistols made today are the absolute best that have ever been. I purchased two new Smith and Wessons this year. They are fine revolvers.
However, a number of my Smiths were made in the bad old Banger Punta days. They are great pistols.
Don’t believe everything you read from a commercial publication.
wolfe28
Member
Just a few thoughts.
Now, I'm not going to hold myself out to know much of anything about what went on at S&W while Bangor Punta owned the company, but the guy's reputation does not speak well of any company he bought. In the early 80's, he tried to buy Harley Davidson from the folks that set up the leverage buy-out from AMF. He had the reputation for taking a company and parting out what ever parts of it were profitable, and trashing the rest. That is a big factor in what made Vauhn Peebles (sp) and G. Willie Davidson (and others) take the leap and go public with Harley Davidson. If Bangor had got control of the company, there would be no Harley Davidson now.
So, am I going to say that S&W products from that era are bad; no. I haven't shot enough S&W's to be able to make that statement. Nor have I studied the in's and out's of S&W like I did for Harley Davidson (it was for a report in college), but the guy didn't do much for any company he was associated with.
D
Now, I'm not going to hold myself out to know much of anything about what went on at S&W while Bangor Punta owned the company, but the guy's reputation does not speak well of any company he bought. In the early 80's, he tried to buy Harley Davidson from the folks that set up the leverage buy-out from AMF. He had the reputation for taking a company and parting out what ever parts of it were profitable, and trashing the rest. That is a big factor in what made Vauhn Peebles (sp) and G. Willie Davidson (and others) take the leap and go public with Harley Davidson. If Bangor had got control of the company, there would be no Harley Davidson now.
So, am I going to say that S&W products from that era are bad; no. I haven't shot enough S&W's to be able to make that statement. Nor have I studied the in's and out's of S&W like I did for Harley Davidson (it was for a report in college), but the guy didn't do much for any company he was associated with.
D
samtechlan
Member
I have a model 19 built in 1969 and it is a fine gun.
Hawk
Member
It's not bull but neither is it worth fretting over.
No revolver should be exempt from the "check out" sticky. Just don't give something an automatic "pass" because it's pinned and recessed and you'll be fine.
There's a small chance of getting a stinker from any era but that chance is less small if it's Bangor Punta from the mid to late 70s. S&W was struggling to ramp up production and, in some minority of cases, it shows. That was a relatively short span of BP ownership and most will still be fine.
No revolver should be exempt from the "check out" sticky. Just don't give something an automatic "pass" because it's pinned and recessed and you'll be fine.
There's a small chance of getting a stinker from any era but that chance is less small if it's Bangor Punta from the mid to late 70s. S&W was struggling to ramp up production and, in some minority of cases, it shows. That was a relatively short span of BP ownership and most will still be fine.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Bangor-Punta-
I agree with my ole' friend and southern'ner Big G on this issue~!
,
as he is absolutely correct.
I agree with my ole' friend and southern'ner Big G on this issue~!
,as he is absolutely correct.
Again, HOLY THREAD REVIVAL, BATMAN! This one had been to bed about 18 months it appears.
But now that it's out of the crypt and appears to have a life of its own, Yes, Bangor Punta models need to be treated carefully, not fully avoided, but at least treated with more suspicion. I will give some actual figures to back up my statement, and some theories I've heard from credible sources and seem sensible.
The facts:
"Bangor Punta" was in fact a conglomerate, based out of Maine ("bangor" should give that clue). They were known for buying companies cheaply, wringing as much as they could out of them, and disposing of the parts. They were NOT good owners of the S&W brand. They took over in early '66 (they made a hostile take over in late '65) and sold the company in January '84. They controlled the company from '66 to end-'83, more correctly than the previous thread stated and adopted.
That does not mean all years of bangor ownership is to be avoided. For the first years, they did little/could do little to influence quality. Through 1970 or so, little changed in staff and operations. In the latter years, operations were made better, but more on that later.
The observable facts:
I am breaking my observations on modern S&W's down into three phases:
1) Modern Handejectors to 1970 (1900 to 1969)
2) "The Bad Ole' Bangor Punta days" (1970 to 1979/80)
3) The rebirth (1979/80 to 1997)
I have owned about equal amounts in each period (8 to 10 in each period), and examined double that amount or more in shopping and buying. I am basing my comments on grading the quality of the gun not so much on finish, but the qualities the factory imparts on the critical components like Barrel/Cylinder gap, the evenness and uniformity of that gap, the polish and fit and finish of the internals (rebound slide polishing and finish, trigger and hammer fit, barrel crush fit quality, etc.). Based on these criteria, I've found the "average" build quality for period to be:
1) 1900 to 1969 - 8.9
2) '70 TO '78 - 7.4
3) '79 to '97 - 9.0
To back up these observations, I've measured the above mentioned dimensions on these guns, and also subjectively judged how well they were fit. To the degree possible, the wear and tear of years has been minimized as I've collected mostly "little shot" guns that have original finish in a high condition, excellent barrels, and little to no turn line on the cylinder. Not all of my guns uniformly fall into this grading, but 90% or better do.
I have found NO gun before '69 or after '80 that wasn't really well-built, with nice tolerances and good fitting. Between those dates, I find it about a 50% proposition if the gun is well built and to the standards of before and after. Why?
What I have heard and believe is that when Bangor Punta took over, it didn't change things on a dime, so production continued on it's previous course for a number of years. But by about 70, things were starting to fall off. Some attribute it to a drain on personnel from the Vietnam War, others to a lack of re-investment by the new owners. I do agree that by 1970, things were not up to snuff. I have a virtually unshot 27 model from 1971 that left the factory with a beautiful finish, but a forcing cone that Barney Rubble would have ground - uneven, out of spec, and just flat nasty. Being their flagship revolver, this should not happen under any circumstance. But it did, and it did routinely. Numerous models of the J, K, and N frame varied greatly in build quality like this through out the 70s. Excellent examples were turned out, but poor examples were almost as common. A telling fiscal example is that in 1977, according to my memory, S&W under Bangor Punta reported 18.4m in net profits on like $84m in sales. That's a ridiculous amount of retained profits without re-investing it into the business. Something was being strangled, and it wasn't a Springfield, Mass. chicken.
By the very late 70s, these problems were getting known and grumbled about by customers and dealers, and the company invested much money into CNC machinery, as well as launching a competitive product to fight the Colt Python. Launched in 1980 on new machinery and to tight standards, the 586/686 was a new flagship and standards were ramped up to deliver a great product. The implementation of CNC techniques throughout the assembly line meant, despite less individual attention, the quality of produced guns started to go back up.
These observations I've repeated from gunsmiths, factory workers and collectors conforms to what I've seen. I treat any gun from the very late 60's to about 1979 as very suspect and won't by one sight unseen unless I know the seller is very knowledgeable and can describe it's condition to high standards, or I examine it in person. Lastly, the '70s era guns also labor under the burden of having been shot quite a bit - agencies were more liberal with their ammunition and training budgets, and it requires you be able to sort out the guns that were shot to the point of wear, or left in the holster and used infrequently. That requires a practiced eye.
I think Bangor Punta guns need check-out like any gun, but you will find the '70s era guns to fail more often. Be careful when buying, but don't run away.
But now that it's out of the crypt and appears to have a life of its own, Yes, Bangor Punta models need to be treated carefully, not fully avoided, but at least treated with more suspicion. I will give some actual figures to back up my statement, and some theories I've heard from credible sources and seem sensible.
The facts:
"Bangor Punta" was in fact a conglomerate, based out of Maine ("bangor" should give that clue). They were known for buying companies cheaply, wringing as much as they could out of them, and disposing of the parts. They were NOT good owners of the S&W brand. They took over in early '66 (they made a hostile take over in late '65) and sold the company in January '84. They controlled the company from '66 to end-'83, more correctly than the previous thread stated and adopted.
That does not mean all years of bangor ownership is to be avoided. For the first years, they did little/could do little to influence quality. Through 1970 or so, little changed in staff and operations. In the latter years, operations were made better, but more on that later.
The observable facts:
I am breaking my observations on modern S&W's down into three phases:
1) Modern Handejectors to 1970 (1900 to 1969)
2) "The Bad Ole' Bangor Punta days" (1970 to 1979/80)
3) The rebirth (1979/80 to 1997)
I have owned about equal amounts in each period (8 to 10 in each period), and examined double that amount or more in shopping and buying. I am basing my comments on grading the quality of the gun not so much on finish, but the qualities the factory imparts on the critical components like Barrel/Cylinder gap, the evenness and uniformity of that gap, the polish and fit and finish of the internals (rebound slide polishing and finish, trigger and hammer fit, barrel crush fit quality, etc.). Based on these criteria, I've found the "average" build quality for period to be:
1) 1900 to 1969 - 8.9
2) '70 TO '78 - 7.4
3) '79 to '97 - 9.0
To back up these observations, I've measured the above mentioned dimensions on these guns, and also subjectively judged how well they were fit. To the degree possible, the wear and tear of years has been minimized as I've collected mostly "little shot" guns that have original finish in a high condition, excellent barrels, and little to no turn line on the cylinder. Not all of my guns uniformly fall into this grading, but 90% or better do.
I have found NO gun before '69 or after '80 that wasn't really well-built, with nice tolerances and good fitting. Between those dates, I find it about a 50% proposition if the gun is well built and to the standards of before and after. Why?
What I have heard and believe is that when Bangor Punta took over, it didn't change things on a dime, so production continued on it's previous course for a number of years. But by about 70, things were starting to fall off. Some attribute it to a drain on personnel from the Vietnam War, others to a lack of re-investment by the new owners. I do agree that by 1970, things were not up to snuff. I have a virtually unshot 27 model from 1971 that left the factory with a beautiful finish, but a forcing cone that Barney Rubble would have ground - uneven, out of spec, and just flat nasty. Being their flagship revolver, this should not happen under any circumstance. But it did, and it did routinely. Numerous models of the J, K, and N frame varied greatly in build quality like this through out the 70s. Excellent examples were turned out, but poor examples were almost as common. A telling fiscal example is that in 1977, according to my memory, S&W under Bangor Punta reported 18.4m in net profits on like $84m in sales. That's a ridiculous amount of retained profits without re-investing it into the business. Something was being strangled, and it wasn't a Springfield, Mass. chicken.
By the very late 70s, these problems were getting known and grumbled about by customers and dealers, and the company invested much money into CNC machinery, as well as launching a competitive product to fight the Colt Python. Launched in 1980 on new machinery and to tight standards, the 586/686 was a new flagship and standards were ramped up to deliver a great product. The implementation of CNC techniques throughout the assembly line meant, despite less individual attention, the quality of produced guns started to go back up.
These observations I've repeated from gunsmiths, factory workers and collectors conforms to what I've seen. I treat any gun from the very late 60's to about 1979 as very suspect and won't by one sight unseen unless I know the seller is very knowledgeable and can describe it's condition to high standards, or I examine it in person. Lastly, the '70s era guns also labor under the burden of having been shot quite a bit - agencies were more liberal with their ammunition and training budgets, and it requires you be able to sort out the guns that were shot to the point of wear, or left in the holster and used infrequently. That requires a practiced eye.
I think Bangor Punta guns need check-out like any gun, but you will find the '70s era guns to fail more often. Be careful when buying, but don't run away.
Well the Old Fuff was around, and working within the industry during the Bangor-Punta era, as well as before and after.
Bangor-Punta did not start out with any intention of cheapening S&W products, but during their tour of duty two important things happened.
The first was the Viet Nam war, and related anti-war protests and riots on the home front. Also throw in the side affects of the President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations. The net effect of all of this was a demand for handguns unlike anything ever seen before. The pressure on Smith & Wesson was also increased by the fact that no other handgun maker of that time – Colt and Ruger in particular – offered competing models such as stainless steel handguns, high capacity pistols and large-bore double-action revolvers. Thus some of the more popular S&W guns sold for well above suggested list price.
Smith & Wesson tried to meet this demand by hiring more workers and increasing the factory’s manufacturing capacity, and they did this several times. However it was to no avail, and demand continued to increase faster then they could catch up. In this environment it would be foolish to expect that quality wouldn’t be impacted, and because the number of guns produced was so much greater, the number of those with manufacturing defects would also be larger even if the percentage of defects vs. total production remained the same.
Second, labor costs kept increasing, and there was little or no time for the new hires to gain the experience and knowledge that was typical in older S&W employees.
So what’s the bottom line? Were defective guns produced in larger numbers during this period? Yes they were. Were a higher percentage of guns defective? Yes, but only by a small margin. Are all Bangor-Punta guns sub-standard? Not at all. Most of them were equal to those made during earlier post-war years, and most of the defects were minor in nature. I would much rather buy a gun made then, then one being made now. But I would carefully check it out on an individual basis. If I found it to be good it would probably turn out to be very, very good.
Bangor-Punta did not start out with any intention of cheapening S&W products, but during their tour of duty two important things happened.
The first was the Viet Nam war, and related anti-war protests and riots on the home front. Also throw in the side affects of the President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations. The net effect of all of this was a demand for handguns unlike anything ever seen before. The pressure on Smith & Wesson was also increased by the fact that no other handgun maker of that time – Colt and Ruger in particular – offered competing models such as stainless steel handguns, high capacity pistols and large-bore double-action revolvers. Thus some of the more popular S&W guns sold for well above suggested list price.
Smith & Wesson tried to meet this demand by hiring more workers and increasing the factory’s manufacturing capacity, and they did this several times. However it was to no avail, and demand continued to increase faster then they could catch up. In this environment it would be foolish to expect that quality wouldn’t be impacted, and because the number of guns produced was so much greater, the number of those with manufacturing defects would also be larger even if the percentage of defects vs. total production remained the same.
Second, labor costs kept increasing, and there was little or no time for the new hires to gain the experience and knowledge that was typical in older S&W employees.
So what’s the bottom line? Were defective guns produced in larger numbers during this period? Yes they were. Were a higher percentage of guns defective? Yes, but only by a small margin. Are all Bangor-Punta guns sub-standard? Not at all. Most of them were equal to those made during earlier post-war years, and most of the defects were minor in nature. I would much rather buy a gun made then, then one being made now. But I would carefully check it out on an individual basis. If I found it to be good it would probably turn out to be very, very good.
The history lesson is interesting and appreciated.
Most of the S&W's I own were built in the middle to late eighties. They are fine pistols and have the hammer mounted firing pin and no internal lock, features which I prefer compared to the modern product line.
As a consumer, it was obvious that S&W was upgrading its product line. I can remember a special S&W "gun of the month" each month. Some interesting and fun models came out then, like my 45LC M25-7.
At least S&W responded to its customers, unlike Colt which simply got out of the market.
Just looked on line at a new S&W 45LC Mountain gun, $900+ dollars. Glad I got mine when I could afford it.
Most of the S&W's I own were built in the middle to late eighties. They are fine pistols and have the hammer mounted firing pin and no internal lock, features which I prefer compared to the modern product line.
As a consumer, it was obvious that S&W was upgrading its product line. I can remember a special S&W "gun of the month" each month. Some interesting and fun models came out then, like my 45LC M25-7.
At least S&W responded to its customers, unlike Colt which simply got out of the market.
Just looked on line at a new S&W 45LC Mountain gun, $900+ dollars. Glad I got mine when I could afford it.
Hawk
Member
History is fun stuff. I'm old enough to remember the period but strictly as a consumer whose primary interest wasn't handguns.
Still it was hard not to notice when you call the local shop looking for a .375 and the nice lady says "WE CAN'T GET ANY .357s - NONE". A strange sort of audible dsylexia that indicated to me that .357s were hard to come by generally, S&Ws particularly and that Western New Yorkers got little call for .375 H&Hs.
Naturally, M29s were only sold at ransom prices using gold as currency. Rumor abounded that legions of M29s, most having fired only 1 to 6 rounds, will soon come out of closets as the estates auction them off.
Good old Dirty Harry was not to be discounted as a market mover.
American Handgunner has released a couple 1978 issues in PDF format and it's fascinating in a "time machine" sort of way.
http://www.americanhandgunner.com/1978.html
The industry insider column by Mas Ayoob touches on QC issues, what to do when you get a lemon, black market pricing, etc.
It also mentions Colt dropping the "D" (was it that long ago?) and worries that S&W's "J" would fall to the SNS witch hunters. Some things are different - check out who gets "A" grades for customer responsiveness - at least one of those names surprised me.
Given the increased production and new (read: unskilled) hires, some bowsers slipping through S&W's doors would be as inevitable as the tides both in absolute numbers and rate as Fuff noted. As he also noted, most will sail through the check-out and provide excellent service. For myself, I've discontinued the practice of buying any from that era sight-unseen. Locally is fine or if I know the dealer and he doesn't mind checking it out for use as a non-collector.
Still it was hard not to notice when you call the local shop looking for a .375 and the nice lady says "WE CAN'T GET ANY .357s - NONE". A strange sort of audible dsylexia that indicated to me that .357s were hard to come by generally, S&Ws particularly and that Western New Yorkers got little call for .375 H&Hs.
Naturally, M29s were only sold at ransom prices using gold as currency. Rumor abounded that legions of M29s, most having fired only 1 to 6 rounds, will soon come out of closets as the estates auction them off.
Good old Dirty Harry was not to be discounted as a market mover.
American Handgunner has released a couple 1978 issues in PDF format and it's fascinating in a "time machine" sort of way.
http://www.americanhandgunner.com/1978.html
The industry insider column by Mas Ayoob touches on QC issues, what to do when you get a lemon, black market pricing, etc.
It also mentions Colt dropping the "D" (was it that long ago?) and worries that S&W's "J" would fall to the SNS witch hunters. Some things are different - check out who gets "A" grades for customer responsiveness - at least one of those names surprised me.
Given the increased production and new (read: unskilled) hires, some bowsers slipping through S&W's doors would be as inevitable as the tides both in absolute numbers and rate as Fuff noted. As he also noted, most will sail through the check-out and provide excellent service. For myself, I've discontinued the practice of buying any from that era sight-unseen. Locally is fine or if I know the dealer and he doesn't mind checking it out for use as a non-collector.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
My Model 686 was manufactured in that time span and it's a GREAT revolver. Both the fit-n-finish and the operation of that revolver are of the highest standards. (and it has no lock either!)
- Status
