Jackal
Member
It took S&W 5 weeks to install a new spring in a customers Shield pistol.... Thats why I try to sell customers on Ruger's now.
S&W gripe and vent
- Thread starter swampcrawler
- Start date
- Status
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,087
Same can be said for the Ruger Forum I belong too and most any other gun forum. Considering the millions of guns sold over the last few years, having a few "lemons" turned out by any major manufacturer is likely to happen. The more guns produced, the more warranty work and custom work done on them. Turn around time suffers. Turn around time for even a simple trigger job at my local gunsmith is over a month due to the back-up from demand. While I can identify and sympathize with the OP, I've been there too, but not with S&W. Today's firearm are some of the most affordable, accurate and reliable firearms ever made. But they are not perfect. While older guns were good too, they were not always perfect either. Just did not have the internet around to hear the whining, nor did many of those older guns get the range time many of the new guns get. I have heard tho, more than a fair share of issues with the 686 pro-series which is surprising considering the amount of well built regular 686s out there. Myself, I'd rather have S&W(or Ruger or anyone else) take their time with my firearm and get it right. It is a shame tho, that they can't(or won't) always get it right the first time.
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,577
I won't buy a brand-new gun without examining it personally for potential flaws; I learned that in the early 80's when a friend got a brand-new S&W with timing issues from the factory. I also tend to deal with a gun shop that examines every gun themselves and returns the bad ones.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,309
Tinker
Yep S&W and Colt turned out quite a few less than satisfactory revolvers (a.k.a. "lemons"), back in the '80s. Never had any problems with Rugers during this same time period but that's not to say they weren't out there too; just that I never encountered them.
Yep S&W and Colt turned out quite a few less than satisfactory revolvers (a.k.a. "lemons"), back in the '80s. Never had any problems with Rugers during this same time period but that's not to say they weren't out there too; just that I never encountered them.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I solved mine before they got started -- I bought and occasionally carry a Colt Detective Special.
Triggernosis
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2010
- Messages
- 499
How about the Kimber revolvers - what's the quality reports on them?
I have had mine since they came out. No issues. A well thought out revolver with a recessed cylinder, a lot of "flat spots" which makes it really easy to clean, a wonderful trigger, great low profile sights, and an extra round to boot. Mine has factory CT Lasergrips. The K6s has replaced all my Smith snubbies with the exception of my 340pd which is the best pocket carry revolver I own.
thomas15
Member
I have a 686 and two 929s.(also a few misc. J-Frames). All three are set up as competition guns. The 686 when new, the cylinder was not true to the frame so it would bind. No problem as my plans were all along to have a revolversmith go over it and lighten up the trigger, chamfer charge holes, bob the hammer and cut for moons.
Second was a new 929, same as the 686 except this is already cut for moons. My third, (my second 929) was used and the cylinder was also not true. To make a long story short, all three of the revos are now competition worthy and shoot much better than my abilities warrant. All of them had at least 1 issue when new but none of them were sent back to S&W. True I paid for it but if I had let the factory do the work I would still have a revolver with a 14+ pound trigger.
I know two (2) people that have the new PC 686 7 shot. These seem to come from the factory with a lighter than normal trigger. It is very unlikely that most revolver shooters are going to get reliable ignition with those revos using CCI primers, they are simply too hard. You can argue that it shouldn't be that way or that your trusty model *** eats anything but in most cases forget CCI primers on DA revos with light triggers in the 6- pound area.
Most of us that are heavy invested in S&W PC revos refer to them as "kit guns". But it really comes down to the intended use of the revolver. If just for occasional range use or plinking or SD then a stock factory configuration is fine. If you intend to use it for USPSA, Steel Challenge, IDPA or ICORE then there really isn't much out there with the exception of Ruger GP series and really the best home there is in IDPA using a 6 shot 4" gun. In ICORE which is 100% revolver you will see 99.9% S&W. It is true that Ruger is hinting at some new models for the competition shooter but we shall see.
My main point is that for L and N frame S&W if you accept that a $1,000.00 +/- gun will need additional work before you start shooting it you will be rewarded with a fantastic shooting revolver. So instead of thinking of it as a $1,000.00 revolver, think of it as a $1,500.00 gun and plan accordingly. I'm chatty with many good competition revolver shooters and without exception, as of this time, all of them shoot S&W and have their revolvers worked post sale. Personally I'm a piker but in the last 3 years have on average shoot 10,000 rounds through my revos each year. Others may see things differently but there you have it. Some like to bitch about the lock hole. A drop on blue lock tite and problem solved. Again, I know a lot of high volume revo shooters using late model S&W and never hear about issues with the lock. Not saying that it (problems) don't happen, just saying that it doesn't happen often if ever.
The same thing can be said about a comparison between S&W Victory 22 RF and Ruger Mark IV 22 RF pistols. It took Ruger how many years to come up with a RF pistol that was easy to field strip? Out comes the Victory and Ruger decides it's time to fix that problem. Don't misunderstand me I have S&W and Rugers and both are good shooters but for a little bit of tinkering my Victory out shoots/performs my Mark IIIs and at quite a bit less money and considerably less frustration to field strip.
Nothing out there is mechanically perfect and firearms as a hobby are not inexpensive.
Second was a new 929, same as the 686 except this is already cut for moons. My third, (my second 929) was used and the cylinder was also not true. To make a long story short, all three of the revos are now competition worthy and shoot much better than my abilities warrant. All of them had at least 1 issue when new but none of them were sent back to S&W. True I paid for it but if I had let the factory do the work I would still have a revolver with a 14+ pound trigger.
I know two (2) people that have the new PC 686 7 shot. These seem to come from the factory with a lighter than normal trigger. It is very unlikely that most revolver shooters are going to get reliable ignition with those revos using CCI primers, they are simply too hard. You can argue that it shouldn't be that way or that your trusty model *** eats anything but in most cases forget CCI primers on DA revos with light triggers in the 6- pound area.
Most of us that are heavy invested in S&W PC revos refer to them as "kit guns". But it really comes down to the intended use of the revolver. If just for occasional range use or plinking or SD then a stock factory configuration is fine. If you intend to use it for USPSA, Steel Challenge, IDPA or ICORE then there really isn't much out there with the exception of Ruger GP series and really the best home there is in IDPA using a 6 shot 4" gun. In ICORE which is 100% revolver you will see 99.9% S&W. It is true that Ruger is hinting at some new models for the competition shooter but we shall see.
My main point is that for L and N frame S&W if you accept that a $1,000.00 +/- gun will need additional work before you start shooting it you will be rewarded with a fantastic shooting revolver. So instead of thinking of it as a $1,000.00 revolver, think of it as a $1,500.00 gun and plan accordingly. I'm chatty with many good competition revolver shooters and without exception, as of this time, all of them shoot S&W and have their revolvers worked post sale. Personally I'm a piker but in the last 3 years have on average shoot 10,000 rounds through my revos each year. Others may see things differently but there you have it. Some like to bitch about the lock hole. A drop on blue lock tite and problem solved. Again, I know a lot of high volume revo shooters using late model S&W and never hear about issues with the lock. Not saying that it (problems) don't happen, just saying that it doesn't happen often if ever.
The same thing can be said about a comparison between S&W Victory 22 RF and Ruger Mark IV 22 RF pistols. It took Ruger how many years to come up with a RF pistol that was easy to field strip? Out comes the Victory and Ruger decides it's time to fix that problem. Don't misunderstand me I have S&W and Rugers and both are good shooters but for a little bit of tinkering my Victory out shoots/performs my Mark IIIs and at quite a bit less money and considerably less frustration to field strip.
Nothing out there is mechanically perfect and firearms as a hobby are not inexpensive.
Next time examine the gun carefully before buying it and leaving the store. This will prevent disasters like this.
Master Blaster
Member
What you are looking at here is a self selecting sample, people who have a problem with a Smith & Wesson Product are going to complain. Folks who have no issues will most likely not post anything, or even be a member of this forum. If I based my decisions on what to buy from the posts here, I would definitely buy a 50+ year old Colt because clearly from the "Evidence posted here they are perfection and never have a mechanical issue. But as a person who has owned a few old colt revolvers in the past, and inspected many in the shops, I can tell you that they do have problems with timing and other QC issues. If you get one that is perfect, it will last you a long time so long as you do not abuse it. If you do have a problem with an old Colt good luck finding anyone who will be able to fix it properly.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
OK, let's all take a deep breath.
First off, I would like to have Sewer Pipe defined. I have looked down a few real sewer pipes, and they are not something I ever want to look down again. I also have lots of old revolvers and rifles from the Black Powder era, many of them have pitted bores for their entire length, and they fairly well resemble sewer pipes. Incidentally, most of those old bores still put a good spin on the bullet as long as the rifling is still strong. But I digress.
Traditionally, when a barrel was made, the first thing that happened was a hole was bored the length of the barrel with a gun drill. A gun drill is a long, thin drill with holes running through it to deliver cutting fluid to the tip of the drill. This is so the hole can be bored in one long stroke, without needing to remove the drill over and over again to remove chips. Once this step has been completed a hole has been bored the full length of the barrel. It was/is common to have circular tooling marks left behind by the drill in the hole. I suppose one could also call them chatter marks. Next the rifling grooves were cut, using one of several different methods. Sometimes the rifling tool only removed metal in the area of the grooves. The remnants of the original hole that were left behind thus became the lands of the rifling. If only the grooves had been cut, the tooling marks would still be visible on the top of the lands, as these were all that was left of the original bore hole. I know I have seen tooling marks on the lands of a couple of firearms in my collection, but right now I can't seem to lay my hands on them.
I just went to my safe and pulled out lots of old S&W revolvers. And I do mean old, most of them at least 50 years old. Or more. I squinted down the bores and did not see any tooling marks on the tops of the lands. When I toured the Smith and Wesson plant a few years ago, I remember taking a good look at some of the reamers used to cut rifling while I was in the rifling department. I seem to remember these reamers not only cut the rifling, but also may have taken a slight finish cut off the top of the lands. In any event, any tool that removes metal by being pulled through the barrel will leave tell tale tooling marks running the length of the barrel. In a rifle that has had special care taken, those length wise tooling marks may have been polished away, but with most run of the mill production models, a close inspection will reveal slight lengthwise tooling marks.
Next I grabbed a S&W Model 686-8 that I bought brand-spanky new a couple of years ago. I have a couple of quality issues with this revolver, but did not remember what the bore looked like. I fully expected to see milling marks left behind on the lands. Surprise, surprise, there were no milling marks on the lands. So when this one was made a couple of years ago, that skim cut had been made to bring the lands to the final bore diameter, eliminating any tooling marks on top of the lands.
There is no question in my mind that S&W has cut down on in process quality checks as a way to reduce manufacturing costs. For one thing, I only see one inspector's mark on the frame of the 686-8. A letter C stamped on the left side of the grip frame in the area under the grips. In the 'old days', whatever those were, there were multiple inspection marks stamped on the frame. Each inspector had his own stamp, and when he inspected a revolver in process he would stamp his inspection mark on the frame before passing the revolver on to the next step. If something was wrong, I'm sure the managers would come have a chat with that inspector. I believe S&W has decided it is cheaper in the long run to cut down on in process inspections, and pay the rework costs of however many revolvers get sent back by owners who think there is something wrong. I have no idea at what point in the assembly process that letter C was stamped on my 686-8. Presumably at some point before it reached the shipping department. But I believe S&W has made the conscious decision to let the consumer be the final inspector, and if he does not find any issues, or does not know what to look for, so much the better for the company bottom line.
I have stated in other posts that this particular 686-8 had enough quality issues, along with a used Model 617-6 that I bought a few years ago, that I will not be buying any more new Smith and Wesson revolvers. There are plenty of high quality old Smiths out there for me to be concentrating on. But at least the bore looks OK.
Regarding 'lemons' turned out back in the 70s and 80s, I have several and none of them are lemons.
Regarding the capability of CNC machining, take it from a former CNC programmer and operator. The one thing CNC can do that the old hand cranked machines could not do is generate a curved tool path. Hand cranked machines could only cut a straight tool path. In days before CNC, the only way to generate a curved tool path was to use a pattern following miller. A pattern was bolted to the machine, and the operator used a pair of handles to keep a stylus pressed against the pattern. The machine then cut a tool path identical to the pattern. This technology goes way back to before the Civil War. It was to some extent operator dependent. A more skilled operator did a better job of keeping the stylus against the pattern, and he also controlled the feed rate with the handles. However time has always been money, and if a pattern following miller operator did not produce enough parts per day, his supervisor would probably have a chat with him. The other thing CNC can do is cut the exact same part all day long, one identical to the next. Operator fatigue does not enter into the equation. However tool wear and tolerance stack ups still apply. And garbage in is still garbage out. That day on my tour at S&W I saw a pile of cylinders that had been incorrectly indexed. Somebody put the wrong program in the machine, and a bunch of cylinders with six chambers had eight flutes on them. Or the other way around, I don't quite remember now.
OK, let's all take a deep breath.
First off, I would like to have Sewer Pipe defined. I have looked down a few real sewer pipes, and they are not something I ever want to look down again. I also have lots of old revolvers and rifles from the Black Powder era, many of them have pitted bores for their entire length, and they fairly well resemble sewer pipes. Incidentally, most of those old bores still put a good spin on the bullet as long as the rifling is still strong. But I digress.
Traditionally, when a barrel was made, the first thing that happened was a hole was bored the length of the barrel with a gun drill. A gun drill is a long, thin drill with holes running through it to deliver cutting fluid to the tip of the drill. This is so the hole can be bored in one long stroke, without needing to remove the drill over and over again to remove chips. Once this step has been completed a hole has been bored the full length of the barrel. It was/is common to have circular tooling marks left behind by the drill in the hole. I suppose one could also call them chatter marks. Next the rifling grooves were cut, using one of several different methods. Sometimes the rifling tool only removed metal in the area of the grooves. The remnants of the original hole that were left behind thus became the lands of the rifling. If only the grooves had been cut, the tooling marks would still be visible on the top of the lands, as these were all that was left of the original bore hole. I know I have seen tooling marks on the lands of a couple of firearms in my collection, but right now I can't seem to lay my hands on them.
I just went to my safe and pulled out lots of old S&W revolvers. And I do mean old, most of them at least 50 years old. Or more. I squinted down the bores and did not see any tooling marks on the tops of the lands. When I toured the Smith and Wesson plant a few years ago, I remember taking a good look at some of the reamers used to cut rifling while I was in the rifling department. I seem to remember these reamers not only cut the rifling, but also may have taken a slight finish cut off the top of the lands. In any event, any tool that removes metal by being pulled through the barrel will leave tell tale tooling marks running the length of the barrel. In a rifle that has had special care taken, those length wise tooling marks may have been polished away, but with most run of the mill production models, a close inspection will reveal slight lengthwise tooling marks.
Next I grabbed a S&W Model 686-8 that I bought brand-spanky new a couple of years ago. I have a couple of quality issues with this revolver, but did not remember what the bore looked like. I fully expected to see milling marks left behind on the lands. Surprise, surprise, there were no milling marks on the lands. So when this one was made a couple of years ago, that skim cut had been made to bring the lands to the final bore diameter, eliminating any tooling marks on top of the lands.
There is no question in my mind that S&W has cut down on in process quality checks as a way to reduce manufacturing costs. For one thing, I only see one inspector's mark on the frame of the 686-8. A letter C stamped on the left side of the grip frame in the area under the grips. In the 'old days', whatever those were, there were multiple inspection marks stamped on the frame. Each inspector had his own stamp, and when he inspected a revolver in process he would stamp his inspection mark on the frame before passing the revolver on to the next step. If something was wrong, I'm sure the managers would come have a chat with that inspector. I believe S&W has decided it is cheaper in the long run to cut down on in process inspections, and pay the rework costs of however many revolvers get sent back by owners who think there is something wrong. I have no idea at what point in the assembly process that letter C was stamped on my 686-8. Presumably at some point before it reached the shipping department. But I believe S&W has made the conscious decision to let the consumer be the final inspector, and if he does not find any issues, or does not know what to look for, so much the better for the company bottom line.
I have stated in other posts that this particular 686-8 had enough quality issues, along with a used Model 617-6 that I bought a few years ago, that I will not be buying any more new Smith and Wesson revolvers. There are plenty of high quality old Smiths out there for me to be concentrating on. But at least the bore looks OK.
Regarding 'lemons' turned out back in the 70s and 80s, I have several and none of them are lemons.
Regarding the capability of CNC machining, take it from a former CNC programmer and operator. The one thing CNC can do that the old hand cranked machines could not do is generate a curved tool path. Hand cranked machines could only cut a straight tool path. In days before CNC, the only way to generate a curved tool path was to use a pattern following miller. A pattern was bolted to the machine, and the operator used a pair of handles to keep a stylus pressed against the pattern. The machine then cut a tool path identical to the pattern. This technology goes way back to before the Civil War. It was to some extent operator dependent. A more skilled operator did a better job of keeping the stylus against the pattern, and he also controlled the feed rate with the handles. However time has always been money, and if a pattern following miller operator did not produce enough parts per day, his supervisor would probably have a chat with him. The other thing CNC can do is cut the exact same part all day long, one identical to the next. Operator fatigue does not enter into the equation. However tool wear and tolerance stack ups still apply. And garbage in is still garbage out. That day on my tour at S&W I saw a pile of cylinders that had been incorrectly indexed. Somebody put the wrong program in the machine, and a bunch of cylinders with six chambers had eight flutes on them. Or the other way around, I don't quite remember now.
Last edited:
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,577
Driftwood Johnson has a point- the problem guns stand out because we remember them. But for every gun we remember how many hundreds- or thousands- of guns were produced that were just fine? I said in my earlier post that I learned early on to carefully examine even brand new guns before purchase, but honestly I can't recall seeing many new guns- of any brand- with flaws over the course of three decades.
- Status
