clem
Member
Your right! I have the wrong picture! It is a .22lr, I'll try and get up a picture of the right revolver.Yes, and S&W is to art as is Andres Serrano.
Ever wonder why the S&W fan-boys always recommend "earlier versions"? Perhaps it's because, over the past 20 years, the usual QC versions have been weeded out? I can remember, back in the 1970's and 80's, the dire warnings about S&W and their "Model of the week" and the Terrible QC accompanying the products. Today's younger crowd of Internet Experts routinely recommend guns from this period. Truly, "one man's treasure is another man's trash" applies much more to S&W than the fan-boys and Internet Commandos think.
I use my guns to teach with, and have for decades. The last thing that I want is to hand someone a gun that isn't going to work. I use Taurus, Sig, HK, Ruger, and the occasional, well-vetted, S&W/ I have a number of them, but the last two I purchased new have had to quickly be returned for lock-work failures. That is, too me, an example of poor QC. Worse, I check ALL guns that I buy for obvious problems BEFORE I pay for them. I'm not silly enough to walk out of a store with poorly machined charge-holes in a gun, or an out of time revolver. I also make sure that sights are correctly aligned, and so on. I can tell you that S&W is as prone to stupid assembly mistakes as anyone, even Jimenez.
Nobody, even HK and Sig, is today capable of 100% QC. Unless, and until, a person takes the total number of guns imported by Taurus in a single year, and the number of guns sent for repair, can you come up with any factual information. Even then, they would need to compare it to several other gun-makers to even approach an idea of what is normal.
Until then, we have traveling bashers like clem, who identified a Taurus Model 94 as a Model 941. That particular photo had already made the rounds months ago, attached to a different tale of woe. The Model 94 has NINE charge holes, and is a .22 long rifle. The Model 941 he identified, is a .22 WMR, and has B]EIGHT[/B] charge-holes. As an owner, he should, at the least, know what he bought. I would also question the proficiency of someone who would fail to check the gun over prior to buying, as he most obviously didn't. It's like buying a new car with bad paint, and then blaming the manufacturer for the mistake.
It's people like this, who manufacture "evidence" to support their infantile claims, that are trying to build evidence. Fortunately, they are rarely competent enough to actually fool too many people.
Sorry folks!