The Dark Side of Smith & Wesson

With any review (of anything) it's one thing to say something, another to show proof.
"I bought a ### and it was crap, but I didn't take any pictures (proof) and I just sold it..."
Anyone can knock anything, but without hard proof, I have to take it with a grain of salt. I'm not saying S&W didn't have some bad years, as most manuf have from time to time, but just because its written on the interweb doesn't make it gospel.
And I too started reading this thread hoping for a pic or two of a new blacked out S&W...instead I learned a little... Stupid learning! Haha
 
Brutus said:
So, with that said, how many S&W revolvers & semi-autos do you own Home3?

You entitled this thread, The Dark Side of S&W, and not The Dark Side of Tikka.
Click to expand...

Presently, One. A Model 27 (which I will keep). How is that relevant to my question? Also, the title came from Chuck Howks's article. Not intended to make a comment (although, I can now see how it make look like a negative start).

But more importantly, I think we gun owners should let go of this strange mentality, where no criticism of a previously loved gun Company is ever allowed. They have proven over and over, that they don't give a damn about us (most of them, not just S&W). Starting when the ownership of many was transferred to a few Wall Street based hedge funds, whose fund managers couldn't care less about us. For them it is all about maximizing their own profit, often at our expense. So why are we obliged to immediately go into offensive to protect them against any criticism, even when it comes from a qualified person like Chuck Howks? I don't understand it. I chose to call it like it is.
 
What utter rubbish, I have never heard of a problem with s&w quality, I own 2 revolvers and they are both well made tack drivers. I'm pretty sure if you heard this guy speak in person you're brain would automatically tune him out like he was a crazy homeless man ranting on the street corner.
By the way if the entire firearms industry ( with a few exceptions) rips each other off all the time. If you don't believe me grab a shovel and a flashlight and go ask John Browning
 
Home3 said:
Presently, One. A Model 27 (which I will keep). How is that relevant to my question? Also, the title came from Chuck Howks's article. Not intended to make a comment (although, I can now see how it make look like a negative start).

But more importantly, I think we gun owners should let go of this strange mentality, where no criticism of a previously loved gun Company is ever allowed. They have proven over and over, that they don't give a damn about us (most of them, not just S&W). Starting when the ownership of many was transferred to a few Wall Street based hedge funds, whose fund managers couldn't care less about us. For them it is all about maximizing their own profit, often at our expense. So why are we obliged to immediately go into offensive to protect them against any criticism, even when it comes from a qualified person like Chuck Howks? I don't understand it. I chose to call it like it is.
Click to expand...

You really think that Smith & Wesson doesn't care about there customers? You are badly mistaken! Go on the Smith & Wesson forum and read the threads of what S&W does for there customers when a problem comes up that ;ive in the USA.

They pay postage both ways and in a lot of cases replace guns that are defective rather then fix them. We can't get this service anymore becaise of the border restrictions but years ago we as well got this kind of service.

If you want to beleive this rubash that some writer writes then that is your right but I as well as many orthers know what it is really worth.

As to your remark about criticism, it is good when it it is good criticism but when it is just ramblins from someone who justs wants to listen to themselves then it is not good. Remember you asked the question here and it seems to me you do not like the answer you are getting. If a person does not want to hear the answer then they should not ask the question.

Graydog
 
op-If you want a true target revolver, there are lots of very nice gently used PPC revolvers out there for a fraction of the price they cost to build and less than a Performance Centre gun. These revolvers, if treated properly and fed the right ammo will outshoot even experts. If I was looking for a target revolver these days, that's what I'd look for.
 
I personally am horrified by the reliability, functionality and value of my 686 and M&P 9. Flawless, gorgeous and effective. Disgusting.

Not for sale.
 
Home3 said:
That is a peculiar statement!..
Click to expand...
Indeed! Hard for me to accept an article where basically everything Chuck has seen from S&W is garbage to him. It hasn't been my life experience with S&W revolvers and a few 41's/52's I've owned since the 1970's. When he went on about a shipment of K22 Masterpieces he lost me there. I own one of those and it is the most accurate factory revolver I've ever owned and built like a Swiss Watch.

Does Chuck really get the time to inspect shipments of guns from all the companies? Let's hear about Remington, Savage and Winchester then.
 
Chuck has no idea what he is talking about. All the S&W's I own must be garbage I guess.:rolleyes: Good thing he told me as I would never have figured it out on my own.
 
I'm not sure offhand how many S&W's I have at the moment, but the number is about 20ish, and the only one that isn't superb is a brazilian contract in 45 acp that has seen some very rough use. They regularly outshoot everything else I have. I am reminded of the Colt fanboys who have nothing but hatred for S&W. I have handled and shot my fair share of Colt's, and none of them warrant the excessive adoration heaped upon them. Are they good? Yes. But not that good. Pythons have a nice action, But no better than a dozen smiths I have used. I guess you have to justify paying twice as much for the same thing somehow.
 
Nothing new about S&W's issues. However, you don't need a Smith Performance Centre anything. Just find a 6" Model 14, 19 or 66 in decent condition. Used is ok. If a 'K' frame doesn't fit your hand(too big for mine), a Ruger GP100 will fit perfectly. Any of 'em, if BNIB, will require a trigger job. Have a smithy do it if you're in the least bit concerned with doing it yourself. Rocket science it ain't.
If you opt for the .357(the M14 is a .38 Special only. Long been the go-to for revolver users in formal target shooting.), use .357 brass loaded to .38 Special velocities. Think a 148 grain WC with 2.5 to 2.8 grains of Bullseye, no crimp, and you'll be fine. All this assumes you mean serious bullseye target shooting vs any of the shooting games.
 
Read the article, no surprises that S+W isn't always as "elite" as their owners seem to claim; especially when they talk about rugers as if they're a downgrade.

I'm more than happy with ALL of my ruger firearms, especially my wheelguns.
 
Well he's mostly right, but partially wrong.

The reason (modern) S&W D.A. cylinders rotate the opposite direction of the (modern) Colt D.A. direction is (simply?) because the original experimental 1899 .38 caliber (Military & Police)revolver which became the m.1899 was actually (and literally) built on a Colt .38 m.1892/95 revolver.

Having said that, S&W were angling for the US army contracts and Colt always claimed that the new army/new navy cylinder direction was forced onto them by the US Ordinance Dept.

When Colt created the new civilian lines starting with the New Pocket (1893) and eventual New Service (1898) they were introduced with their cylinders rotated as Colt determined best from an engineering standpoint.
 
Last edited:
I read some of Chuck Hawks stuff from time to time and always find it useful. I'm sure he isn't right about everything and I don't always agree with him, but it can still be useful.

Any manufacturer making as many things as S&W has made will have made some bad ones. Any manufacturer that has been in business as long as they have must have made a lot more good stuff than bad.

I've only ever owned one S&W gun, a Model 17 I bought used. It works just as it should and it is nicely finished. It shows me why S&W enthusiasts like their guns and why they say S&W does a nicer finish than Ruger. (I have a Ruger Redhawk, too, that I like just as much and there is nothing wrong with the finish, the S&W is just nice in that respect.)
 
I've had about 30 or so S&W's, probably the same number of Colts. So far no major problems with either brand. Rugers (10 or so) are of equal quality, but not as well finished. Taurus and Rossi's I've owned are not as well built, but not the worst guns I've ever owned. Chuck must have some in really bad luck to hit that many bad Smiths. - dan
 
I have several S&W and Ruger revolvers of varying vintage and the finish on them is about equal. Don't let anyone convince you the fit and finish on a S&W revolver is superior because it isn't.
 
SW has gone down, if you fanboys can't accept it, it's just sad, because guess what? quality will remain low if you don't complain.

The article is not talking about revolver made 15/20 years, it about those made in the last 6-10 years. Those claiming 60K round in their revolvers, I really doubt those revolver are from 2000. I really, really REALLY, doubt it.

So instead of sugar coating a brand because you have a revolver made in the 60 that you like, go and grab the garbage they are making now (in comparison to those manufactured some years ago) and see it for yourself.
Accepting low standards as a clients, makes nothing more than EXTRA profits to a company that has clearly changed it's manufacturing and QC process.

Cheers.
 
Every company goes through cost cutting exercises where CFO's are bean counters over engineers, Smith is no exception.

I'm happy with the few I have but understand guns in general don't have the hand finishing they used to years ago.
 
Avenida said:
SW has gone down, if you fanboys can't accept it, it's just sad, because guess what? quality will remain low if you don't complain.

The article is not talking about revolver made 15/20 years, it about those made in the last 6-10 years. Those claiming 60K round in their revolvers, I really doubt those revolver are from 2000. I really, really REALLY, doubt it.

So instead of sugar coating a brand because you have a revolver made in the 60 that you like, go and grab the garbage they are making now (in comparison to those manufactured some years ago) and see it for yourself.
Accepting low standards as a clients, makes nothing more than EXTRA profits to a company that has clearly changed it's manufacturing and QC process.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

it seems like this article's been kicking around since at least 2008- found a link to it in a forum post dated 2008 (other board) and in the article on his board Chuck mentions the date of 2009. Think he says on his web page that he revises his posts. Fair enough.

He's claiming that S&W problems have been aroun since the 1950s, as shown by this line...

"S&W has gotten a pass from the big outdoor media since the 1950's..."

So I dunno. It's hard to believe that they've been producing crud for that long and he's the only one who's figured that out. as silverfoxdj points out, companies have their ups and downs, but for 60 years... ?
 
Avenida said:
...Accepting low standards as a clients, makes nothing more than EXTRA profits to a company that has clearly changed it's manufacturing and QC process.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was trying to say (or ask) by starting this thread. I am prepared to extend that Skepticism to any other gun manufacturer if warranted. I have started another thread here asking about the quality of the new Ruger arrivals. Doesn't mean I dislike either or I won't buy another one, but simply inquiring to catch possible Quality cheaters.

Aside from general lower quality of many guns, I honestly believe some gun manufacturers (and their distributors in Canada) have targeted Canadians as "suckers" who will take any product no matter how crappy it is, and never complain. I agree with a poster in another on-going Ruger complain thread who is convinced many gun Companies in the US set aside their Q.C. rejects/returned....etc. for Canada. And why not? We always take them, don't we? And there are always those of us who will try to justify it no matter what.

The so called "Canadian Edition" 929's batch last year was an eye opener to me. Many of these "brand new" guns arrived in Canada with cylinders carrying obvious signs of usage, not test firing but serious usage, indicating the use of salvaged (used/returned/rejected/repaired..) cylinders in these "new" guns. Not a peep from the Distributors, dealers and more importantly, not a peep from us the Canadian consumers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom