Catalogs - Smith & Wesson

New Products

Attached Images

image.jpg (106.0 KB, 571 views)

If they're only going to have one new gun this year, at least they made it a big one.

Gotta say, none of those interest me

I join the uninterested club.

Yes, they don't do much for me either. Need some nice new revolver offerings besides the hand cannon.

REVOLVERS IS RIGHT! SOME 65 3" AND MORE 6-7-8 SHOT .357's. SS MODELS...YES PLEASE!

I have to say nothing there interests me either. i guess I'll continue to shop from the used sites for the older stuff.

I was hoping for something similar to the model 69 in 41 magnum.

I was hoping to see the new 66 and 69 offered in different barrel lengths.

I was hoping for a 41 mag model 69 or an M&P in 10mm with a 5 or 6 inch barrel. I would have even been happy with a re release of the 610 in a 5 inch barrel.

I just wish Smith would offer their Classics line without the IL. I don't really have an opinion on the locks' functionality; I just hate the way they look. Stepping away from the dead horse . . .

I'd also like to see more "shiny" blued gun choices, at least for revolvers. Stainless has never appealed to me, and it would be nice to have something besides the matte finish. I would be happy with nickle as an offering too.

__________________
Semper Fidelis

Leatherneck0311. I agree. To me it seems like it's either matte or stainless and I'm not fond of either. Whatever happened to blued, shiny Smith&Wesson revolvers? Is S&W trying to save money?

The most amazing Shiny blue I've recently seen was on a Cimarron new full-sized 1911. They tried to make an exact replica, no raised sights, etc. I had one last year. Shot true (even with the sights!) and ate all sorts of bad ammo and didn't care what mags I used.

It was the best blued job I've ever seen.

Unfortunately someone talked me out of it and now I believe the price has risen.

And I don't mind visible holster wear. Shows the owner thinks enough of it to carry it.

You guys don't know how good you have it. Out of the 11 guns shown 6 are unavailable here in Canada because of barrel length restrictions.

I got to play with all of them and was very impressed at the shot show with them. The 460 for being as big as it is, was pretty well balanced and already have one on order.

Unfortunately, it appears 2015 is going to be a big "yawn," not only from S&W, but from Glock, Colt, Ruger, SIG Sauer, and all the rest.

The designers at Taurus are apparently on the gun designer/engineer version of "crack" as they have introduced another group of "freak show" guns which will be discontinued before they even make it to the market. The so-called "View" has been replaced by the "Non-View" purportedly because after firing just a few shots, the inside gets dirty. Really? And they did not discover that during testing? Or, is it that the clear plastic "side-plate" is simply not safe, or that it becomes a nasty yellow color, or because it doesn't stand up to solvents, or because it picks up scratches during cleaning, or because there was simply NO DEMAND. And, what's up with that .380 with "wings" on the slide. If you cannot rack a .380 slide, the go find a Beretta 86, you recall, the one with the tip-up barrel in .380 that did not require you to rack the slide to chamber a round.

Sorry for the rant on Taurus, but the "View" was simply ugly as is that CURVE. It looks like a Taser, only worse, and my apologies to Taser for comparing its product to Taurus. That, in itself, is an insult to Tasers everywhere.

As to S&W, who needs a suppressor ready pistol that is not "ready" as it does not have suppressor (tall) sights? And, what is the story on the LaserMax equipped 642? Market test in anticipation of dumping the unfortunate Bodyguard 38 Special revolver, which occasionally does not revolve?

And Ruger makes durable products, and while I could live with the appearance of the LCR revolver, the 3 inch version is just hideous. And the featherweight 22/45s? Has anyone ever tried to hold a too-light pistol steady to hit a target? Oh, I forgot, few people actually shoot these days, including the designers, apparently, and you would not discover that a too-light pistol is not suitable for a steady hold used with a 22 Target Pistol unless you are a shooter. And those who do shoot these days only "plink," and the manufacturers are only interested in making guns of cheap materials that "look cool" since it is mostly about "cool looks" and price point, as opposed to target shooting and functionality.

And what about Glock. What, for the love of God, is wrong with those people? I remember the 1990 SHOT Show very vividly. Racing on opening day to see the "Perfect Ten," the Glock 20. What we got was a pistol that is too fat in the butt for all but Bill Jordan's hands. Immediately a cottage industry sprang up cutting off those unfortunate grip back straps and building them with add on polymer into a slightly more usable shape. Hats off to Robar for that, but it still isn't right. And 25 years later, we still await Glocks in 10mm and a .45 ACP full size that are usable by people with normal hand dimensions. And then we get the G42, which has had, shall we say, "teething" problems. As did the G36. Perhaps they have not mastered the basics of the single stack as did John Browning over 100 years ago? And everyone is still clamoring for a G42 in 9mm and a single stack duty size .45 and 10mm, and, like the people in the movie Casablanca, "we wait, and we wait."

It is time someone at S&W explain just why we can have a no-lock option on the M&P, but not on revolvers. Is it because NO ONE IN THE FREAKING WORLD would voluntarily buy the lock-equipped revolver if offered side-by-side with a no-lock version? That is what happened with the lock equipped M&P and the lock equipped Glock. Anyone remember the Glocks with the "real" key locks? If you don't, it is because they were on the market for about 14 minutes and 27 seconds.

What the world needs now is some gun designers that have a clue about what the shooting public wants. Oddly, there is an economic system called capitalism where if you provide goods or services the public wants, you sell the daylights out of them. And, companies do well, and stock prices go up, and people invest, and people make money. Apparently, no one at most of the gun companies has heard of it.

End of Saturday morning rant about the unfortunate 2015 SHOT Show.

I'm almost glad to see a "quiet" year from the gun makers. Last year I completely destroyed my gun budget. Six purchases, including a pair of Smiths. This year I can focus on ammo and enjoying what I have. A year from now, maybe I'll be ready to add to the collection.

Shawn - best rant I've read in years. Agree with all you wrote, especially the mini-essay on how capitalism works. And I'm wondering if locks are really federally-mandated or maybe only a sop to gun-haters or an attempt to appear politically correct? Because a couple of months ago I bought a new 442-1 no lock. I would not have bought it if it had a lock.

After reading the OP I had to go look up the Taurus Curve. Found it on the manufacturers website. When I stopped laughing I looked at a couple of links about the thing, and laughed some more when I read this:

"So what is the Curve audience?

While I don’t know the specific details, I suspect that the Taurus Curve is designed for young urban adults who feel the need to own a handgun as a talisman against “evil,” but who don’t intend to become shooters."

Enjoy!

Bearing ArmsWhy You're All Wrong About The Taurus Curve - Bearing Arms

Kind of sad and pales in comparison with what the other manufacturers are coming out with. It seems like Ruger introduces a new gun almost every other week. C'mon S&W. Is that all?

__________________
Ephesians 6 (Armor of God)

What's interesting is that they still haven't corrected the description of the 686 Plus Pro Series. It only lists as enhancements cut for moon clips. However, mine is almost identical to the enhancements on the SSR as it has chamfered holes, precision crown and bossed main spring.