22 target pistol technology advanced after the M41 was put in production. Why didn't S&W keep up for US competitors to us?















[IMG]https://topwar****/uploads/posts/2019-05/1558474163_081.jpg[/IMG]

The pistols you have shown were all designed for international shooting which is different from US bullseye. They all cost more than a model 41 and though some international shooting is centerfire, none are .45 caliber which is one third of the NM course. Bullseye was passed it's peak in 1990 as shooters began to seek more action oriented matches. So I don't see that a publicly traded company would feel the need to create a flagship firearm with such a limited market.

__________________
Made it, Ma! Top of the world!

Rowlf,
It's an excellent question.
High Standard continued to innovate and test the marketplace for high end target pistols.
The effort included a number of designs for International Target shooting, including an electronic trigger free pistol.

There was a time when S&W, and other US makers, realized that making a specialized high end target pistol lent their brand prestige. These guns are rarely high profit items. But they were vital in establishing confidence amongst the shooting public that the manufacturer knew what they were doing.
After all, High Standard also made budget priced revolvers, etc. that still enjoy a good reputation for what they are.

Sadly, this is really a reflection on mass consumer domestic marketing that has ruined so many industries.

Is the International 22 market larger than the US market? Why did the European manufacturers devote resources to making these pistols?

Not true!
Pardini markets several models specifically for the U.S. Bullseye match rules/format. These include 5" and 6" barrel models in .22 LR, 32 ACP (specifically rifled for 50 yd NRA slow fire), and the GT 45 in 45 ACP (which is not permitted in ISSF matches). All of these are fully and easily compatible with various optical sights, none of which are permitted in ISSF.
In fact, the overall rules governing trigger weight, sights, grips, overall dimensions, etc. are much tougher for ISSF than for NRA Bullseye. So, a pistol designed for the former is entirely suitable for the latter, but not vice versa.

Nonetheless, yes, good point about publicly traded companies not being interested in catering to a demanding and specialized competition-based market.

We shoot a lot of ISSF matches here in Australia with European Target pistols being quite common on the shooting line. The majority of licensed Handgun owners have Target Shooting as to why they need a handgun. Handgun shooters need to be members of Pistol Clubs in order to retain their licenses as well as having to compete a minimum 6 matches a year.

When I compete in a ISSF match, it's usually with my .22lr Pardini.

Why?

Smith and Wesson probably looked at the idea, and determined that there was no money in it.

Smith and Wesson is not in business to make competition pistols or heirlooms.

They are in business to make money.

How they make it is providing products people want.

No demand... no money... no product.

How do the European companies stay in business then if there is no demand for high end target pistols?

One of the characteristics of the European target pistol manufacturers is that at large events in the US they will have service representatives to help shooters get the best performance from their firearms. In the US I have seen Morini, Walther, Pardini, Steyr and Feinwerkbau factory support stands ready to help shooters stay in competition.

They get busy sometimes after tech inspection getting trigger adjustments above spec.