New S&W quality

[Muss Muggins]

The new S&W pistols I have are fine. I've got a half dozen or so, all models that weren't made back in the good old days, and I haven't had any issues with them. A Governor, a 340PD, a 442, and a 642, and a Shield 2.0. I've purchased some older Smiths recently as well, and several had issues I needed to attend.

It's my not all that humble opinion that the publicized issues are due to the interweb and the easy spread of bad news, which exceeds the spread of good news exponentially. The issues were present from since time began, we just know about them much faster now . . .

 

[gkitch]

Smith autos in the M&P series are excellent weapons. There are dozens of similar pistols out there and I prefer the S&Ws.

Unfortunately, their revolvers are now overpriced "knock-offs" of themselves (with a few passable exceptions).

 

[garbler]

I'm sure many of you recall the late 1980's and the then new S&W president Steve Melvin and his strategy to shift gears at the old Springfield plant. He introduced CNC machinery into production and told the world that such modernization and repeatable accuracy would essentially reduce if not remove the old hands-on part fitting process whereby revolvers were assembled from parts bins. The bench hands had to find and install the best fitting yoke, extractor, hand etc etc. then pass it on to the next stage. This must have driven Melvin nuts to see so much inconsistency and people on the payroll. His vision was CNC equipment turning out identical parts with no fitting, no line of fitters and rows of time card clocks. In his perfect world there wasn't much need for dozens of QC hands not if CNC cranked out perfect parts by the bin full. The theory was better, faster quality, and reduced workforce including the high paid custom shop prima donnas.

Well in many respects the plant and production process has been upgraded and successful but in different ways than end users would prefer. Profit margins are up so the bean counters are happy and the parent company is able to siphon off a little extra cash into other ventures. A much reduced labor force and those sticky labor related problems like unions, benefit packages and management in a state that isn't easy to live with. So the money side of the equation is good but the product ain't so good. Think about the CNC process and it's not hard to fathom a machine developing a problem as simple as broken tooling, interrupted cooling, whatever and as a result filling a parts cart with hundreds of defective parts before somebody catches it and takes the machine off line. A bad operator or milling machine in a line of same is minor issue compared to a big high performance CNC machine. Do you throw these parts out or try to tweak things a bit to fulfill orders ? You know what the bean counters think. And why didn't somebody catch the problem on the first place ? Remember with CNC you don't need QC people walking around on the clock all day.

To the bean counter QC people are a waste of resources ( no value added ) since when things are going good they don't do anything. Fact is they don't do much at all until they catch a problem then they are worth the whole floor. Those little problem parts can be absorbed in the 6000 guns a day and the ever growing sales and promotional staffs. So you ask how can you ship sloppy or defective guns ? And I ask how would they know without a QC department in other words does the worker in the production line or shipping department know the difference, I doubt it. If they had a competent QC department would they have the horsepower to stop the machines to correct a problem. Does management actually want qualified QC people that could just as easily turn into ' whistle blowers '. 6000 guns a days you have to wonder how many buyers actually complain and if enough did would it trip a recall ? So the older revolvers just had more hands on them since parts uniformity was kind of hit or miss. But they were assembled as needed from bins until all the lock-work parts fit up and worked properly. In the final analysis it boils down to production cost vs profit.

 

[OttoLoader]

Even in the old days of statistical process control, machined parts etc are checked per a sampling plan.
As the part variation should get to the established criteria, the tooling setup etc would be adjusted.

The vision that no qc exists is fanciful.

 

[sportbikeco]

Thanks guys,

Interesting ideas being tossed around and I think a lot of correct things being hit one here.


So maybe the QC pass standard is lower due to demand, not acceptable to me I guess but they still gonna sell the units apparently...

Thing is I don't want to be the QC department on an $800 item, I kind of expect it to be damn near perfect out of the box (maybe S&W should have set a lower standard historically, oh wait that's why I'm even a customer...)

If I wanted a "lower quality" product I'd be shopping Taurus et al and putting up with the BS that comes with the lower tier item.

 

[gkitch]

A good friend bought some lottery tickets and told me if he hit it big he was going to "Buy Smith and Wesson". He meant the company itself. He would then demand that they make their guns right again with forged parts and no locks, using modern machining and assembly where practical. High QC and revolvers one would be proud to own and shoot would be his goal.

I think if this ever happens we will all be just shocked to see it is also profitable.

 

[Ackley1952]

While we just keep going back and back to the good old days I hope you'll allow Smith management to continue using stainless steel cause it's much easier to clean the black powder residue off of .

 

[Lobster Picnic]

I like the fact that real craftsmen hand assembled my older revolvers. They earned those paychecks and I hope their families lived well. The guns are still superb.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

The much touted older guns with higher quality are only ones that long ago had someone else fix it's factory flaws.

That doesn't make them empirical, it just means someone else already did the leg work.

.

 

[Bill Raby]

None of my new Smith & Wesson have any problems at all. Sure, some go out with problems. That is because they are mass produced to meet a certain price point. If you want to buy a new gun that you can be sure will be flawless you can certainly get one. All you have to do is save up about $3000 to $5000 and wait a year for it to be built. Do you want guns that are perfect or cheap? You are not likely to get both.

 

[Radny97]

Remember that the Smiths that had quality control issues coming off the line in the past are now either scrapped, fixed, or so beat up you wouldn't notice. So people think that a vintage pristine Smith is how they all were. Not true. They made lemons back then too.
Smith currently makes better quality, more accurate and more tightly fitted guns now than they ever have in the past. And their current QC is just fine. Not perfect, but no worse than the past either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yeti007]

I have had the same problem with Ruger Revolvers. Bought three of them, two went back. Much worse than all the Smiths I have. Also horrible is the quality of Leupold. Bought three FX handgun scopes, all have a canted reticle. Replacement takes weeks.

 

[BigBill]

I built million dollar CNC machines I have no clue how some ran in the field. I think they waved a magic wand over them as they went out the door. I guess our installation guys were good.

I've had poor quality guns in the past. Hunting scopes? I took two rifles when going hunting. I go from a woodstove heated trailer to the frigid cold and that will test any quality scope. I had one cheap scope fog inside. But all my Bushnell scopes never failed that test. I've had them since '94.

 

[slabside2]

Everyone who hates talking about the good old days ask yourself why the guns of yesteryear bring a large premium of the guns today. Is it just nostalgia or were the guns really made better? If you had a choice a model 27 from years back or 686 made three months ago which one would you pick? Me I take the 27 but that's just me.

 

[500SNW]

Plenty of good points on both sides of the floor. Yes, there are variations and QC issues...which is true of all kinds of products and brand names...and there are also a lot of people out there looking really hard to find things to complain about.

 

[GT_80]

Everyone who hates talking about the good old days ask yourself why the guns of yesteryear bring a large premium of the guns today. Is it just nostalgia or were the guns really made better? If you had a choice a model 27 from years back or 686 made three months ago which one would you pick? Me I take the 27 but that's just me.

I prefer older, used guns. Maybe it's nostalgia, Maybe they were made better (or perceived to be made better), or maybe I just like "lightly used" looking guns, and enjoy saving some money.

Most people these days seem to want stainless, I prefer blued. I do have a nice Ruger SP101 that shoots flawlessly, bought used, saved $100+ on it, and put the savings into better grips, and more ammo. I wanted a nice 6 shooter with adjustable sights, went with a nice used 15-2 over a 686. I just like them more.

what does that have to do with the original post? Not much... If it isn't perfect, and you are paying full price, don't accept it. If it's messed up a little, and I wanted it, i would ask for money off, or if it bothered me, I would ask them to get another. Chances are, they will throw it in the case, and the next guy won't notice it's messed up.

 

[68deluxe]

I just picked up a new Classic Model 27, with 6.5" barrel, from Sportsmans. I noticed 3 things when I got home.

There is an obvious gap at the bottom of the barrel to frame. There is a gap at the top but barely noticeable.

The front screw holding down the rear sight bar is too short and will probably result in little round burn marks on the cylinder.

The wood grips are not perfectly matched with the frame, the lower rear corner of the frame protrudes a bit.

I will call S&W customer service later today after I measure the barrel to frame gaps, I will ask them what their limits are.

I will ask them to send me a longer screw. I heard about this issue from a You-tube video but thought they would have corrected the problem by now since they evidently have the longer screws.

 

[Radny97]

I just picked up a new Classic Model 27, with 6.5" barrel, from Sportsmans. I noticed 3 things when I got home.

There is an obvious gap at the bottom of the barrel to frame. There is a gap at the top but barely noticeable.

The front screw holding down the rear sight bar is too short and will probably result in little round burn marks on the cylinder.

The wood grips are not perfectly matched with the frame, the lower rear corner of the frame protrudes a bit.

I will call S&W customer service later today after I measure the barrel to frame gaps, I will ask them what their limits are.

I will ask them to send me a longer screw. I heard about this issue from a You-tube video but thought they would have corrected the problem by now since they evidently have the longer screws.

Those are cosmetic issues viewable on inspection. So why did you buy it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Radny97]

The much touted older guns with higher quality are only ones that long ago had someone else fix it's factory flaws.

That doesn't make them empirical, it just means someone else already did the leg work.

.

This^^^
There were lemons put out in the "good old days" too. But they got beat up or fixed by your gunsmith or by S&W. Or parted out. But they're gone now. Whereas the new production doesn't have that advantage, and never will. It's a complete and total myth that the older revolvers are better than the new.

Controversial opinion: I own many many revolvers from all eras. I lived in and shoot the guns from the "good old days." The stuff S&W is putting out right now is the best quality they've ever done. The bluing may be less deep, but it's more durable. The stainless gets a bead blast finish unheard of in days past. The new barrels are more accurate (fight me on this, I shoot revolvers competitively and have done hours of comparisons with all kinds of factory and handloads). The ball bearing detent lockup on the front of the crane makes them really solid and they don't shoot loose like they used to. Cylinder gaps are tighter. Cylinder faces are more square. Chambers are reamed with more precision. The ejection rods don't loosen up and lock the cylinder like they do on the old versions. The newer ones have target crowns and great triggers. Especially the L frames and N frames. Sorry, but S&Ws "good old days" are an internet myth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smoothshooter]

The point is a slighty offset barrel will not have an effect on its performance. I've seen plenty of older Smith's that aren't perfect either. You're not buying a collector's item. It's a gun that's meant to be used. I'm tired of these posts that nitpick every single tiny thing and make a mole hill into a mountain. Smith's aren't any worse than any other companies offerings and are better than most, despite people trying to make it sound otherwise.

For what a new Smith costs, I expect the barrel to be screwed on straight.
Not so easy to fix, but very easy to at least catch the mistake and set those specimens aside for rework before they leave the factory.