The Dark Side of S&W

I read and believed his website before I knew any better, before I lived in a place that allowed ownership of firearms. He was one of the first online. When I moved from Chicago and could actually own and shoot firearms, I treated his website like gospel. I followed several of his recommendations, like buying a Browning BAR and Leupold scopes. I can't say that these were bad recommendations, but I sold the BAR out of boredom in less than a year. Leupold does make good gear. This is obvious to everyone and you pay for it.

But this S&W hit piece it just total balloney.. It is undoubtable that S&W has been one of the most innovative and preferred manufactures of firearms for 150 years. They continue to command values above and beyond anything Ruger has produced, Colts being valuable because of their rarity more than their quality.

I have had several autos and revolvers from S&W and have greatly preferred them over anything else and I have tried. S&W has never been much of a long-gun company, and I think looking S&W long guns is really just a diversion. Their business has been (since Volcanic dissolved) and continues to mostly be handguns.

This article is simply dripping with half-truths and non-truths, and I would appreciate it if others can add to my analysis. I will try my best.

I think Bill Ruger's foot-in-mouth with the 10rd magazine thing was certainly on par with the blunders mentioned in the article. Advertisement in general is misleading. If it was honest it would be an encyclopedia article. Chuck Hawks needs to take a course in marketing.

Note that every single Brazilian revolver is a knock off a S&W (NOT A COLT OR A RUGER which also have expired patents). Does this suggest something?

The Rem 700 is not even that great to begin with, and I fail to see how it has any advantage over a Savage 110 or a humble Mauser 98! So is Remmington knocking off Paul Mauser? Didn't Paul Mauser just knock off Drysse's Needlegun?

Of all the firearms I have owned, none have approached the quality of S&Ws except some fine Swiss rifles. I am a hobby machinist and have taken enough metallurgy and machining classes to recognize good from bad. Of course I have seen some duds S&W has produced, I think the 22-A is a good example. But they cost $200. What does one expect for this price?

Has Chuck Hawks been to a .22 bullseye match? The ones I go to are dominated by S&W 41s, especially since Hi-Standard magazines cost $40! Accuracy is unbelievable. I feel non-competitive with my Browning Buckmark, which is a cheapened copy of the Colt Woodsman by the way, so I guess that Browning Company he loves so much is a copycat, too. Oh and the Browning BPS is a copy of the Ithaca 37 (and a heavier, cheaper copy), which is a copy of the Rem model 17. I guess they are all copycats.

Look, this someone that wanted a smaller-framed .357 was Bill Jordan who knew what the heck he was talking about. The Combat Masterpiece utilized heat-treatment and alloy technology that Colt either didn't have or was unwilling to use. I know people that think the Masterpiece was exactly that--a masterpiece and unrivaled to this day.

Sorry, pulling at little bulb backwards instead of pushing a knurled knob forwards is not the same. This is important and the major ergonomic advantage to the S&W system. Ruger's push button systems is good, too. Try pulling that Colt bulb back with gloved hand! The lock-work of S&Ws is not the same as Colts, and it is objectively better for the ergonomic reason I mention. Who cares about a stupid rib or underlug or styling. Are these essential or important characteristics?

Never was it suggested that the K and L frames were supposed to digest a diet for full-blown or over-blown (which is what I suspect caused the problems) .357. There is a reason why the N-Frames were marketed at heavy-duty as opposed to the Ks and Ls. One does not put a one ton load into a half-ton truck or even a heavy-half-ton truck with regularity. The reason why heavy-half ton truck (which is a half ton frame with a one tons springs) is so one can load one ton OCCASIONALLY when the need comes up. For that you get the one ton (aka the N-FRAME). I've examined a (horribly nickel plated) Colt Trooper, Ruger Security Six and a GP100, and compared them to my S&W 28. They are for all practical purposes the same size and weight and all can handle full power .357. To me the trooper is not the same size as the L-frame, though it may be smaller than the N-frame. They are all really too large to conceal (at least for me). The smaller framed S&Ws at least gave one the option of using .357 in a concealable package.

And people have been ripping off S&W, too. Ever heard of Taurus and Rossi which pretty much make their business copying other designs. Why not attack them? How about Ruger where every one of their designs is basically a copy that is redesigned to be made through less expensive investment casting processes instead of machining or forging processes. The Mark I/II/III is about the only original design and I think it is lousy compared to the Woodsman, Hi-Standards, etc. And it copied the look and operation of the Japanese Nambu and German Luger. The Ruger bolt actions are copies of Mausers. The Ruger No1/3 are copies of certain English falling block guns. The Blackhawk looks just like a Colt Single Action but it is stronger, better, and can have all six-chambers loaded. Congrats to Ruger for rehabilitating (or copying) a classic design so we can use it for hunting that we can also afford!

Ever heard of the hand-ejector? Ever heard of the internally lubricated cartridge (44 Russian was the first)? Ever heard of the MAGNUM cartridge (38HV/.357 Mag was first)? The moon clip? I guess anyone who uses these things is a copy cat. Frankly these things define the concept of a revolver outside John Wayne movies.

I know there were double action revolvers before the S&W but S&W undoubltely perfected such an action and to this day none compare in smoothness, trigger feel, etc. out of the box. And it is a sad criticism of Colt that the S&Ws 1911 is better, not a condemnation of S&W. It just is. I think the S&W 945 was better than the 1911 anyway.

So, exactly what do they need to do to be forgiven. Does the Pope need to be involved? How many Mea Culpas? The current leadership seems good and committed to surviving (the most important responsibility of any organization) and making a profit for shareholders (the fiduciary responsibly of all corporations). All gun makers are NOT in business to make pet projects for some know-it-all gun writer wannabe or to be political organizations to advance some political cause or ideology. They are in business to make profits for shareholders or owners. If that means making golf clubs (as Ruger does) that that means making golf clubs.

Yea, and Rugers rotate the same way as Colts. So are they a bigger ripper offer? WHO CARES? Someone tried making a revolver the rotated like a merry-go-round. It blew up (chain fire) during a demonstration. That leaves us with two directions one can make a revolver rotate. If there are more than two companies, then somebody is going to be a copy cat I guess.

The 1911 is the oldest auto-pistol design in widespread use and it seems to be a reference point for comparison. It's reliability never rivaled that of revolvers until the last several decades, which explains why the revolver continued in popularity into the 1980s. The first truly reliable auto-pistols came from Europe in he 1970s. They were the Walther P5, Sig P6, and the H&K P7 all subjected to the same brutal German reliability testing.Ever heard the phrase "six-for-sure?" There is a reason for this saying.

The S&W Auto platform is half the 1911's age approximately and the 2nd and 3rd gens are as reliable if not more. I have never had so much as a hiccup from my 3rd gens even. I can tell you that the 3rd gens are stronger and have a longer lockup delay than 1911s do. They also last longer it seems. I fact I cant think of any breech-lock auto-pistol stouter than the S&Ws.

At least S&W does recall and fix problems. My 1076 was one of the ones that needed to be sent back. I never had a problem with it, but I sent it back, it came back to me two weeks later, and this is two decades after the recall was issued, problem (that was never there as far as I could tell) solved. I've heard bad stories from Charter Arms, from Ruger (had a friend send one off and come back with all stock parts, and the custom parts he had in there were "discarded," from Glock, from Mossberg (really bad one here). I have been treated better by Thompson/Center and their parent company S&W than any other.

Just about every great wheelgunner I know loved the S&W. Ed Mgivern. Bill Jordan. Miculek. These three represent early, middle, and late periods in S&Ws history. Are these people all fools loving inferior products?

I don't know Chuck Hawks, never heard of him before this post. I followed the link and I read his "Dark Side" article. I did not want to pass judgment on one article so I read a couple more and finally decided I had spent enough time on that. I must say I disagree with most of his writing in the "Dark Side". The accusations against S&W "knocking off" designs don't hold any water with me.

Many years ago during an interview Israeli firearms designer Uzi Galil said he was not a true designer like John Browning but merely took pieces of designs and put them together. "This from an AK, that from an AR" etc.. (I have also paraphrased as I don't remember the actual verbiage.)

Your rebuttal seemed well thought out and written.