Had some trouble with S&W, but they took care of it

[Dieseltech56]

I don't fault the op at all. Do you see every scratch on a car when you buy it? Not usually, it may take some time after you get it home and are really around it for some time. Guns are the same way, I know a lot about what to look for now but that's only after missing some critical flaws during purchase. I recently had a new 610 on layaway and I finally had to cancel it. I originally thought I could get past some small issues it had but after I thought about it for a while I realized I couldn't.

 

[jh9]

I believe this thread itself has one regarding a PC gunsmith stewarding each revolver through production. I could be wrong but I doubt S&W would even be so bold to suggest that's remotely happening.

Basically PC means very little, and only what the website specifically states is meant. I've corrected a few posts over the years on this very thing.
Typically PC means the gun has a few "fancy" features on it that other base and PS models don't have. That's about all it means.

Yeah, I don't know why people aren't getting this.

The Performance Center, at its inception, was exactly what people are thinking. And that was a long time ago.

I sent a revolver back to the 'Performance Center' in 2003; back when they still used forged parts. And the work they did was...competent. Not great. Not terrible. Just...okay.

They received the item. They performed the requested work in a timely fashion, and they sent it back to the customer. That's the good news.

The bad news is that I know more now than I did then and they did even less than a good armorer would have in identifying basic functional problems (endshake, bad front lock). I wouldn't even expect them to fix those issues without cost. They just didn't even bother to inform me they were there at all. They received the item. They did the work as agreed. They shipped it back. The attitude seemed to be "not my problem anymore".

Shipping a barely functioning revolver back to the customer with a better trigger isn't something a self respecting gunsmith should do. Much less the factory gunsmiths.

The Performance Center's reputation as a full house custom shop full of master gunsmiths should have died in the 90s, because they sure as hell haven't been that in as long. To see people sitting here in 2019 expecting PC factory guns to be better than they are is just mystifying. They have been turning out mediocre work for nearly 20 years now. Their reputation needs to reflect that.

 

[ladder13]

Can't wait for them to start those 3rd Gen machines back up.

 

[andyo5]

Ruger is no better. I have had to send several guns back to Ruger for issues both functional and cosmetic. Sometimes a repeat trip was needed.
A few years ago, Chuck Hawks wrote an article entitled "The Dark Side of Smith and Wesson". Here's the URL:
The Dark Side of Smith & Wesson

Chuck is obviously no fan of S&W, but some of his comments ring a bell for me. I recently started a thread about a brand new M686-6 Plus with a ragged extractor that has started chewing up the frame. This should never have left the factory. It is on its way back to the factory as I type this.
Chuck also comments that S&W is not innovative and most of their products are derivatives of other companies' products. I cannot endorse that criticism. S&W pioneered the use of stainless steel in firearms. Not sure about aluminum, but definitely scandium. S&W's lockwork is the best on the market in my opinion. They are capable of producing the finest revolvers on the market. Their designs and engineering are first rate, but their manufacturing quality often leaves something to be desired.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Unfortunately Chuck saw criticisms where there are truly none to be seen.

As he suggested, he did alienate at least one reader.

 

[Rick_A]

As a completely ossified "back-in-my-day-er" fogy and contrarian, I gotta disagree. If guns are better today then it's only because of low-cost materials and economical manufacturing techniques. Far better guns of higher quality aren't being produced, rather only cheaper guns are being produced. A generation of shooters has completely bought into the notion of "less is more," partially due to marketing which perversely paints a false picture of "perfection," a certain "reverse snobbery" that the new stuff is better than the old stuff. It's a case of "The Emporer's New Clothes" Everybody ooos and ahhhs over the wonders of modern arms when there's really nothing there.

I grew up, and throughout most of my adult life esteemed Smith & Wesson revolvers above all others. I bought lots of new ones even back in the Bangor Punta days and still have many of them. They weren't flawless, my beloved late 1970s Model 17-4 has a polish job down its long 8 3/8-inch barrel that'll make one seasick if he looks at it at just the right angle. None were bad though, all giving great function and perfect satisfaction through the years up to the present. Their looks are fabulous compared with current production.

Purchased the last two new Smith & Wesson revolvers in 1996 and 1998 and was especially pleased with the 1996 purchase. Design changes were soon on the horizon though that left me uninterested in new production guns. There's an entire world of fine used "traditional" Smith & Wessons (Colts too) out there waiting to be sampled.

The Forum has both this thread and a thread on the topic of Remington currently running. I am under no illusions that there is anything out there in manufacturers' catalogs superior to the firearms I use and admire. The manufacturers' products and catalogs evolved in the years since I came of age. The market moved as well.

I didn't move. What's more; unless the firearms market "regresses" to the olden days I ain't gonna move. I don't have a consuming desire to sample new guns. I'll happily live with the "guns of my youth" instead.

When it comes to S&W revolvers the new production guns have better metallurgy, are better engineered, are built to tighter tolerances, and are a decent value. The finishes are certainly more spartan and the stocks are not what they were...but that means little to me.

I've seen plenty of vintage and new guns inside and out...and I disagree. Wax poetic about the old times all you like...if your interest is function over finish the new guns have it.

I have personally given away and sold off all of my vintage Smiths. YMMV.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Do we know that the metallurgy's better? Is the metallurgy of a generation or two ago unserviceable over the long term? Is the engineering better from an end user standpoint? Or, does engineering only serve so far as it enables the revolvers to be cheaper to manufacture?

Part of the problem of current firearms offerings is that finish has come to mean little to a generation of shooters who've been induced through marketing to accept less. I've also seen and handled plenty of vintage and new guns, but have a different view of the "plenty" that I observed. It's the older models that have it.

The Smith & Wessons of yore (that's poetic waxing right there) will well serve those who value function as I do and they'll look good while they do it.

PM's are eagerly awaited from any who determine to give away their vintage Smith & Wessons.

 

[Ziggy2525]

I've also been on the receiving end of unsatisfactory S&W customer service with a revolver that now does duty as a paperweight.

For just about any modern manufacturer, it's a statistical problem, not a personal relationship. 3 unresolved customer service complaints per 1,000 inquiries. 5 bad products per 1,000 produced. Etc. It helps them run their business more efficiently and keep prices down, but doesn't do much for you if you are on the receiving end of one the 5 bad products and are one of the 3 unresolved customer complaints they gave up on.

 

[Borderboss]

Moral of the story: spend half the money on a non-PC gun and then send it to a competent revolversmith for the work you want. You'll be into it for less money in total and have a better gun.

 

[TTSH]

I have personally given away and sold off all of my vintage Smiths. YMMV.

Wow! Quote of the day right there.

And here I am doing exactly the opposite.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[686-380]

OP, please keep us updated on the status of your plight.

 

[gnystrom]

An interesting thread and summed up you just have to keep sending it back until you feel it is to your liking.
As a Range officer, I could write a book on "Performance Center" guns as well as S&W master action jobs" come back worse than when they were sent in. The same can be said for other manufacturers as well. I think the expectations of guns coming from a company's "custom department" is 10x higher than actual reality.
That said, If I want a really slick revolver action job, I will save the upcharge from the factory barrel stamp and send it off to a reputable gunsmith and wait the year it may take to get back.
Personally, I have been able to satisfy my needs on some with slight spring changes and a few minutes with an Arkansas stone on any rough internal surfaces.

 

[rwt1405]

I don't fault the op at all. Do you see every scratch on a car when you buy it? Not usually, it make take some time after you get it home and are really around it for some time. Guns are the same way, I know a lot about what to look for now but that's only after missing some critical flaws during purchase. I recently had a new 610 on layaway and I finally had to cancel it. I originally thought I could get past some small issues it had but after I thought about it for a while I realized I couldn't.

Might just me, but if I'm buying a vehicle you can be certain that I'm doing a very detailed "walk around", before I "take" it.

I will also admit, that if I was taking delivery of a simple pistol (Glock, M&P, etc), my inspection might not be as detailed as if I was taking delivery of a revolver, not even to speak of an $1800 revolver.

Again, just might be me, but I just don't get it.

As to someone saying these posts don't help the OP, I agree, HOWEVER they may very well help someone who is new/er to the firearm scene, and hopefully assist the OP of never making such a mistake again (and yes, I learned the hard way, by making such mistakes in the past).

 

[cmj8591]

I would like to know how those marks got in that barrel to begin with. Smith cuts their rifling using an edm system that "burns" the groves into the bore. The broach consists of a plastic plug with copper contacts that is pushed down the bore while it is submerged in an oil bath. An electrical current cuts the groves and remove all machining marks as it does it. The bore comes out mirror smooth. I'd like to know how those marks survived the process and how they got there to begin with. As far as the problem: Smith will make it right. It sucks that you have to send your gun back, but they will fix it for you. Don't fall into the "good old days" trap. There were just as many issues 20, 30, 50 years ago as there are today. You just didn't hear about it and there were no internet experts to wax nostalgic about how they don't make them like they used to.

 

[Rick_A]

Do we know that the metallurgy's better? Is the metallurgy of a generation or two ago unserviceable over the long term? Is the engineering better from an end user standpoint? Or, does engineering only serve so far as it enables the revolvers to be cheaper to manufacturer?

Part of the problem of current firearms offerings is that finish has come to mean little to a generation of shooters who've been induced through marketing to accept less. I've also seen and handled plenty of vintage and new guns, but have a different view of the "plenty" that I observed. It's the older models that have it.

The Smith & Wessons of yore (that's poetic waxing right there) will well serve those who value function as I do and they'll look good while they do it.

PM's are eagerly awaited from any who determine to give away their vintage Smith & Wessons.

As a shooter, obsolete guns that can be difficult to repair or replace as well as losing significant value with high mileage and carry wear are not desirable characteristics.

I gave them away to family, and sold them off on penny auctions.

Anyway, the "Classics" line are my favorite Smiths of all time and I ultimately chose that over a real classic.

Back to your regularly scheduled gun gripes.

 

[Dave T]

I've seen plenty of vintage and new guns inside and out...and I disagree. Wax poetic about the old times all you like...if your interest is function over finish the new guns have it.

I have personally given away and sold off all of my vintage Smiths. YMMV.

I have to ask what you consider "vintage"? Have you examined a Registered Magnum? How many 5-screw N-frames have you owned and fired?

I've been lucky enough to closely examine a couple RMs and I've owned at least a dozen 5-screw N-frames (45s, 44s, 357 Mags, and 38 Specials) and I find your claim to be unfounded if not baseless.


Dave

 

[TTSH]

Anyway, the "Classics" line are my favorite Smiths of all time and I ultimately chose that over a real classic.

Wow! Second shocking forum quote of the day.

I've got to stop reading this thread before I fall off my chair a third time and hurt myself.

Or maybe you're just goofing on us all. This can't be true... can it?

 

[Rick_A]

I have to ask what you consider "vintage"? Have you examined a Registered Magnum? How many 5-screw N-frames have you owned and fired?

I've been lucky enough to closely examine a couple RMs and I've owned at least a dozen 5-screw N-frames (45s, 44s, 357 Mags, and 38 Specials) and I find your claim to be unfounded if not baseless.


Dave

I have had a 1952 baby chief, 1954 357, and 1980 10-8. The 10-8 was the nicest of those as far as fit/finish despite being a well worn example.

A RM is hardly what I'd call a typical workhorse gun

20160714_191348 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

The baby chief is a little ugly inside and out and the model 357 is only pretty on the outside.

I prefer the new 'uns.

 

[Dave T]

I bet you there's a number of folks who would be interested in taking that 3-1/2" "357" off your hands, it being such a shoddy example of revolver making. (smile)


Dave

 

[Narragansett]

Here is why I had to send it in right off the bat and didn't notice anything when I purchased it.

I bought this from my favorite gun store that's 2 hrs away from my home (I have been going there for 15 years and have moved but like them so much I keep going back). I called them asking if they had one and they said yes we have two so I put it on layaway. They specifically chose this gun because the other one had a HUGE ding in the barrel so they gave me the "better" one.

At first glance you don't notice anything, but when I got home and was staring at it admiring it I started noticing all sorts of little things that were just off and once you saw them you couldn't unsee it. Uneven finish, scratches, a blemish in the rifling, etc.

When I was at the gun store all I needed was a two second look to make sure it was the gun I wanted to purchase. I guess I didn't think that a brand new gun would have so many things wrong with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would a LGS keep a gun for sale with a huge ding, unless he put it there?