SW Shield Slide Cracked

[Stratajema]

Melonite is the process that turns it black. The color is a by product of the process.

Yes, that is true. However, S&W puts a finish on top of the melonite treatment for its M&P line. Glock does the same thing, a finish over the tennifer treatment. If you compare a Walther PPS (which has no finish over the tennifer) to a Glock or M&P, you will see a difference.

At the beginning of this year or late last year, S&W changed the finish on the Shield slide to be a little bit darker than the original one.

 

[droshi]

Seems to me that they had a cutter on their mill that went south and damaged a couple of slides (likely quite a few more) and they made it all the way thru plating, assembly and function check. It happens, and it isn't as infrequent as one might think. The only thing about this scenario that surprises me, is how many of you are surprised it could happen… It would seem that QA and QC at S&W is for all intense and purposes nonexistent, and has been for several years now. In what I believe to be an effort to crank out as much product as possible, they have apparently defaulted to using the customer at the primary QC for their products which results in QA feedback from the CS department to implement preventative measures on the production line. Cost savings gone amok in my opinion.

Also don't forget the human factors here… We aren't talking about the highly skilled craftsman and artists of long ago hand fitting individual pieces together, but a much younger generation of CNC operators tasked with cranking out as much volume as possible. You think there is no way for a machine operator to miss a single defective cutter on CNC gang mill that is whacking out perhaps as many as a dozen slides at a time? Or that the person running them thru the plating tanks dozens at a time is going to catch it? Or even the person throwing in the striker, springs and what not… heck, they are likely doing a hundred or more a day! I can totally see this kind of quality escapement happening and am not the least bit surprised. And that is based off the assumption (and hope) that it was an escapement and got missed.. there is always the possibility that it DIDN'T get missed, but simply got thrown together because someone didn't care or wasn't worried about it…

In regards to the apparent wear that so many are concerned about, I don't see that either. The plating on my Shield is some pretty soft stuff, and I had far more wear than the OP on my pistol before I ever fired a single round, just from racking the slide with dummy rounds, disassembly and reassembly, and then a bunch of dry fire drills.

In short, I would be willing to bet that things are exactly as they seem (aren't they usually?) and that this is a brand new, factory test fired pistol that left the factory with a defect that was never detected prior to shipment. Not a big conspiracy… just a big QC escapement.

I tend to agree with most of this. QC is probably a blanket for a large number of issues, but likely this comes down to pretty simple problems that aren't easily solved except by raising the unit price. After all, the Shield is probably $100 or more cheaper than the PPS I was looking at comparing it with.

How many pistols does a single person assemble a day? After just a few I'd probably miss quite a few obvious things and be in auto-pilot mode.

The main part I don't like, is once the problem happens what is the process. Ideally in this case, the online store that sold to me would have an easy and legal way to simply replace the firearm with a drop-shipped one direct to my door. If not that, the manufacturer should have already replaced my unit. I don't feel I've waited an extreme amount of time, but still, I haven't yet even gotten a return shipping label. Lack of QC doesn't bother me (in an effort to keep costs down) as much as a lack of fixing a problem in a timely manner.

Who knows, maybe tomorrow I'll get the label, and a new firearm will get back to me quick. Luckily this isn't the only pistol I'm depending on.

 

[droshi]

Yes, that is true. However, S&W puts a finish on top of the melonite treatment for its M&P line. Glock does the same thing, a finish over the tennifer treatment. If you compare a Walther PPS (which has no finish over the tennifer) to a Glock or M&P, you will see a difference.

At the beginning of this year or late last year, S&W changed the finish on the Shield slide to be a little bit darker than the original one.

This looks to be correct IMO. Melonite/Tennifer will darken the metal, but it's not the extreme black that most of these pistols come with. The brass rivet from my jeans has worn off a good bit of the black on my Glock slide. Overall it just looks cosmetic, but it does seem to wear fairly easily.

I'm not sure how close the finishes of the two pistols are, but in principle I would guess they are similar.

 

[rwsmith]

I've been saying...

No it doesn't. It has everything to do with faulty quality control.

S&Ws quality control nowadays is to send it out the door and if it comes back, it must be broken so they will fix it.

BTW: That looks TERRIBLE.

 

[Rastoff]

Yes, that is true. However, S&W puts a finish on top of the melonite treatment for its M&P line.

OK, I didn't know that.

The brass rivet from my jeans has worn off a good bit of the black on my Glock slide.

I don't know if the Tennifer is the same as Melonite, but I've heard that it is at least really close.

Most of the time when someone mentions a scratch on their M&P, it's the material that's left on the gun and isn't really a scratch in the gun. A little time with a scrubby pad and some soap has restored what was previously thought to be a scratch.

I don't know about coatings put on the M&P, but it must be a really tough coating. My M&Ps wear better than anything with a coating I've ever seen. So, I never thought there was a coating. Hmmm, I wonder what they use?

 

[turbo38gn]

ok, it's been a few days..... has anyone found anymore of this "run" of bad upper.... or did QC win out....

 

[M&Pmeister]

Yes, that is true. However, S&W puts a finish on top of the melonite treatment for its M&P line. Glock does the same thing, a finish over the tennifer treatment. If you compare a Walther PPS (which has no finish over the tennifer) to a Glock or M&P, you will see a difference.

At the beginning of this year or late last year, S&W changed the finish on the Shield slide to be a little bit darker than the original one.

There are companies that does M&P slide machining, which then require aftermarket Melonite. they look very similar, if not identical to the S&W factory finish. Different QPQ processes might look differently, and even different batches might be slightly darker or lighter or shinier, but I highly doubt S&W would coat over the Melonite. Adding more finishing steps that isn't absolutely warranted is asking for trouble and a potential QC nightmare.

Besides, Melonite does not make a good substrate for additional finishing, unlike parkerizing.

 

[droshi]

ok, it's been a few days..... has anyone found anymore of this "run" of bad upper.... or did QC win out....

Maybe a lot of No Safety models have been sitting on shelves? I've heard a lot of people say that since they already have a regular model, they probably won't sell it just to buy the NS model. If that's the case I would guess it may take a while for them to be discovered.

I wasn't a fan of the safety, so was looking into other options until they came out with the NS model which convinced me the Shield was a good option (with a good kydex cover for the trigger).

Also, how many people who don't know much about guns buy one, load it up, and put it in their nightstand/drawer etc hoping that it will be ready for the time they need it? IMO it takes discipline, time, and money to always test things before they are put into use, so maybe it just gets pushed off till later for lots of people.

 

[turbo38gn]

Maybe a lot of No Safety models have been sitting on shelves? I've heard a lot of people say that since they already have a regular model, they probably won't sell it just to buy the NS model. If that's the case I would guess it may take a while for them to be discovered.

I wasn't a fan of the safety, so was looking into other options until they came out with the NS model which convinced me the Shield was a good option (with a good kydex cover for the trigger).

Also, how many people who don't know much about guns buy one, load it up, and put it in their nightstand/drawer etc hoping that it will be ready for the time they need it? IMO it takes discipline, time, and money to always test things before they are put into use, so maybe it just gets pushed off till later for lots of people.

Not looking for excuses.... just a simple... has any other defective uppers been found?

 

[droshi]

Got the return shipping label today, hopefully all goes well.

 

[kannonvaggon]

I hope you get your pistol back quickly and in perfect order.

Good luck , and let us know how ya make out and if they will give any explanation ...

 

[RalphMP9FS]

S&W better put a new slide and get it back to you in 10 days and also send you two extra mags.

 

[turbo38gn]

S&W better put a new slide and get it back to you in 10 days and also send you two extra mags.

I was thinking they would just wipe a little JB weld on it and call it good....

 

[TTSH]

I was thinking they would just wipe a little JB weld on it and call it good....

You are bad!!! LOL!!!

 

[Prasko]

Not looking for excuses.... just a simple... has any other defective uppers been found?

Possibly one on M&P forum.

 

[Arney]

Seems to me that they had a cutter on their mill that went south and damaged a couple of slides (likely quite a few more) and they made it all the way thru plating, assembly and function check. It happens, and it isn't as infrequent as one might think. The only thing about this scenario that surprises me, is how many of you are surprised it could happen… It would seem that QA and QC at S&W is for all intense and purposes nonexistent, and has been for several years now. In what I believe to be an effort to crank out as much product as possible, they have apparently defaulted to using the customer at the primary QC for their products which results in QA feedback from the CS department to implement preventative measures on the production line. Cost savings gone amok in my opinion.

Also don't forget the human factors here… We aren't talking about the highly skilled craftsman and artists of long ago hand fitting individual pieces together, but a much younger generation of CNC operators tasked with cranking out as much volume as possible. You think there is no way for a machine operator to miss a single defective cutter on CNC gang mill that is whacking out perhaps as many as a dozen slides at a time? Or that the person running them thru the plating tanks dozens at a time is going to catch it? Or even the person throwing in the striker, springs and what not… heck, they are likely doing a hundred or more a day! I can totally see this kind of quality escapement happening and am not the least bit surprised. And that is based off the assumption (and hope) that it was an escapement and got missed.. there is always the possibility that it DIDN'T get missed, but simply got thrown together because someone didn't care or wasn't worried about it…

In regards to the apparent wear that so many are concerned about, I don't see that either. The plating on my Shield is some pretty soft stuff, and I had far more wear than the OP on my pistol before I ever fired a single round, just from racking the slide with dummy rounds, disassembly and reassembly, and then a bunch of dry fire drills.

In short, I would be willing to bet that things are exactly as they seem (aren't they usually?) and that this is a brand new, factory test fired pistol that left the factory with a defect that was never detected prior to shipment. Not a big conspiracy… just a big QC escapement.

as a QE for 38 years in manufacturing, what the consumers do not realize is that quality is not the responsibility of the quality department as is the trend to place responsibility in the manufacturing process/ and people/operators themselves.

The concept is to catch the issues at the process, not after the fact. The idea is based upon an operator with adequate skill sets and education. Often this is not the case, as most processes are not idiot proofed or as the japs call it "poky yoke."

Enough said....**** happens and profitability rules.

 

[Rastoff]

japs call it "poky yoke."

That's poka yoke, but it does mean exactly what you said; perfecting the process. More precisely it means to remove any possibility of a mistake. They understand that perfection isn't obtainable, but it is a worthy effort to strive for. So, they are continuously trying to perfect the process.

 

[Horn]

You Bet Somebody Did!

Melonite is the QPQ process that produces the final finish. The last part of the Quench Polish Quench gives the work piece that black finish.

I just find it hard to believe something this obvious could've slipped past QA/QC. As for this being a one-off slip-up in mfg... I don't buy that either. With everything being auomated CNC'ed these day, you'd typically get a whole batch just like this if the CNC machines were miscalibrated.

Still doesn't add up... Somebody somewhere in the delivery chain had a hand in this.

I think you're right. I purchased a Sig P232 from an on line dealer/Shop in conjunction with an LE Sig discount. It arrived in a large cardboard (But Sig) box and was filthy. The bore looked like it'd had hundreds of dirty Russian ammo fired through it. And it came with one more magazine than it should have. I Had a problem within the first fifty rounds. Called Sig and they sent a shipping label. A week later an email informed me "We're replacing your gun". It took a while but the new one arrived in the normal Sig plastic case with two magazines and was definitely new. I suspect an employee fired the original (never been sold) and maybe even with hand loads. Whatever__this Shield appears to have been used to me. These things can happen. Needless to say I will never order anything from that dealer again. And I had ordered small stuff in the past. They lost a customer.

 

[Horn]

Not A Fresh New Gun

I just bought a Shield in 9mm (no safety model). Inside the slide the metal looks like it has been milled very thin and has cracked and broken away. You can see the white underneath which is the firing pin housing inside.

I've sent an email to S&W, I'm sure they'll fix it under warranty, but it is a bit concerning as it looks like a problem of milling specs. Has anyone else seen this?

The white threads in the picture are from Q-Tip fibers that got stuck while cleaning in the gap. A bit hard to see since it's such a contrast between black and white, but here is the best image I could get.

I agree with a couple of others. If that's a new factory fresh gun I'm an aviator in the Eskimo air force.
Call S&W customer service ASAP. They'll email you a return label
right away after your phone call.

 

[Ofc.JL]

What Turbo said. As far as QC letting it slip; I have seen that before from S&W. Years ago I purchased a brand new 696(? been awhile so I don't quite remember the model number. Double stack alloy frame compact in 9mm) from a dealer. And I had looked at the gun for internal and external defects pretty good before I bought it. Or so I thought. Went to the range and the dang thing wouldn't hit paper at 7yds. I finally got it on the paper with some pretty serious Kentucky Windage. Closer inspection of the gun revealed that the front sight(and this was back when they machined the front sight on the slide of the pistol) was mis-machined to the point that the left side of the front sight was machined way too deep. While the factory paint was there, upon lining up front and rear sights, the pistol was definitely holding hard left. And I didn't catch it before I bought it. My bad. Contacted S&W about the problem and was told, and I quote "It shoots, doesn't it?" and that they would not warranty the gun. Being thoroughly disgusted w/ S&W, I promptly sold the thing, making sure I advised the new owner. He machined off the offending sight and installed another brand of sight(I forget which) and was happy. That incident put me off of S&W for several years. Of course this was long ago, and back then S&W was owned by Bangor Punta. By far the worst owner of S&W, including Tomkins.
Anyway, send that poor thing back, that is a manufacturing defect. Looks like machining bit tear out or split out. One of their CAD machines apparently has or had lost it's electronic mind during machining. Why QC missed it? Who knows, other than they should not have. S&W will make it right, they do take care of their customers nowadays.