Just when you thought it was safe to buy a new Model 36...

[Mercury]

They sent it back with a b/c gap of .015!!
Are they kidding? That is shameful.

It's evident that S&W no longer has competent gunsmiths/armorers. They employ assemblers that put together a gun from parts and out-the-door it goes. Their CS dept has part-changers that know nothing of how a particular gun should function, they just take a guess at which part looks defective, change it out and send it back.

Back in the day, the b/c gap would have been checked after installing a new barrel...and the rest of the revolver would have been checked over to make sure that there weren't any other issues. They might have apologized and may have even thrown in some swag for your troubles.

They should now replace it with a perfect specimen if they even know what that is.

Good luck to you and please keep us updated on this saga.

 

[Model 15-4ever]

Final Update: Finally resolved after 4 months and three returns.

S&W emailed me a week after they received it, and said it would be replaced. I had to go (way) up the chain, but it was handled. And just in time for Christmas, my LGS received the replacement revolver from S&W two weeks ago.

Only got time to inspect and shoot it this past week. I have to say this one is really good.

Perfect timing, SA 3.2 lbs, DA 11.5 lbs, nice finish with no flaws, very nice stocks, B/C gap .0045. It shoots exactly to the sights for windage, rare. Two of my favorite loads - Winchester 110 grain STHP and GT 145 SWCHP/5.0 grains W231 - shoot inside 2" offhand at 50 feet, and within 1" of the POA. A little TLC and the DA is now 10 lbs.

Carries very nicely in the Lobo IWB Offset Belt Clip.

What's not to like? Wish they all left the factory this way the first time.

PS. If I had to nitpick...S&W get rid of the raised laser engraving or whatever that is for the seal and Marcus Registradus. Looks cheap, impossible to make to look clean.

 

[Dvus]

I've been watching this thread from the start and was just appalled by the absence of any kind of quality control. I'm happy to hear that you finally got a good one. It just reinforces my decision to only own Smiths made before 1986.

 

[cometpx4]

New 637PC

I violated my "only buy older Smith" rule and picked up a new 637 performance center (kind of a joke now) 2 weeks ago. I have about 400 rounds thru it. The fit, finish and trigger are fantastic, and it shoots great. I actually gave it a pretty thorough exam at the shop before deciding to buy it.
I generally agree with everything in this thread and have really been disappointed and sad at what Smith has become.
I live and work 45 minutes from Smith and used to drive up at lunch time 25 years ago with a gun, drop it off and it would be returned in days at most. If it was a PC pistol (real ones-shorty .45, CQB, 686 PC, etc..) they would call in the back "we have a PC customer here" and Vito would come out, take the gun, work on it (night sights, trigger job, etc..) and I would be driving back with a beautiful work of craftsmanship. Every once in a while they would have to keep it delending on what i wanted done and ship it back.
So, its really been hard to watch what the present day Smith has become but for many different reasons, some discussed here, (profit, no more skilled workers, plastic, politics, ) its pretty clear it will never be what it was.
I think all we can get is an occasional good product like this 637 I just lucked into and the fun process of finding and buying older Smiths.

 

[max503]

Here in Illinois you can't try out the action on a gun before you buy it, if you buy it from a store. They won't let you remove the trigger lock before it is yours and you get it out of the store.

 

[Luke Duke]

Been there more than once with S&W! Petty sad state of affairs. Does their CEO's not read this Forum?? I had a 649 that looked like a smear for rifling. Told me it was in spec! Ridiculous. Found a barrel on line and had my gunsmith replace it. My problem is that even if its fixed I can't get the bad taste out of my mouth. Even though it shoots good I end up selling it. Ruger knows me by name, sent back alot of guns to them. Bought a Glock Gen5 17 because my boys shot so good. Mine was a total Lemon..I've put enough money in this stupid Glock to make it shoot right I could have bought a H&K! Its just sad. Figured this technology should be easy by now. A company should put out perfect every time. The Germans did it in the early 1900's

 

[JohnRippert]

PS. If I had to nitpick...S&W get rid of the raised laser engraving or whatever that is for the seal and Marcus Registradus. Looks cheap, impossible to make to look clean.

First thing I thought when I saw the new revolver pics.

 

[Drm50]

Help me out here. What do you call it when you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results? All the American gun companies started circling the bowl in late 70s. With exception of Ruger, they waited to cut quality until Bill croaked. They all started a race to the bottom, putting out junk before they went under. Then reappearing under ownership of new owners, run by bean counters.
The only way to get a good gun is buy an old one. Who would have thought that Savage would have major share in rifle market and Mossberg in shotguns? Who's going to be tops in revolvers ? Henry?
There is thousands of good S&W and Colts on used market to pick from.
Why mess with new? New S&Ws and Colts aren't worth their price.

 

[smoothshooter]

Try a Taurus next time.

 

[cometpx4]

Taurus

Never thought I would write this but Smoothshooter may be on to something with Taurus. I have handled a couple and they actually look pretty nice. Add to that the fact that they have one of the few 6 shot lightweights on the market. The barrels look straight, and the parts all look well fitted. The triggers feel a little heavy but smooth.
The one question mark I have is the materials. No idea if their materials used are of good quality.
Its the materials question and the fact I just can't embrace " Taurus" that stops me from buying one.

 

[Greyman50]

Reading this confirms what friends and I have seen And heard at shows for several years. We All agree to hold on to what we have and Not buy Any new revolvers. Have seen some older S&Ws, Colts, Rugers and DW's at shows but more $$$$ so guess the " issue" is affecting the market.

 

[AJ]

Never thought I would write this but Smoothshooter may be on to something with Taurus. I have handled a couple and they actually look pretty nice. Add to that the fact that they have one of the few 6 shot lightweights on the market. The barrels look straight, and the parts all look well fitted. The triggers feel a little heavy but smooth.
The one question mark I have is the materials. No idea if their materials used are of good quality.
Its the materials question and the fact I just can't embrace " Taurus" that stops me from buying one.

My Granddaughter bought a Taurus 4" .32 H&R Magnum. It shot well for her and she could handle it easily.

 

[Green Frog]

Well, I am not going to bash S&W. I have the option not to buy, and I exercise that right. Many of the complaints about QC start off with " I picked this up today", and then a QC rant starts, because the gun was not looked over well enough.

I hate to say it, but I am just dumb enough to say, I really don't know how the lock came to be, and why S&W? Nobody else does it?

What would happen if they just said, we ain't doin this no mo?

The attitude in board rooms seems to be that if a "safety feature" is ever installed into the design of a product (especially a firearm) to remove said feature would invite immediate product safety law suits from ambulance chasing lawyers, especially in anti-gun states.

This is probably a myth but once it takes hold, it is almost impossible to root out. It becomes "common knowledge" and is accepted without question.

Rant over!
Froggie

 

[steelslaver]

What did they do, tale a file to it........

Apparently not, although I have the correct tools and bushings for trimming the face of the barrel extension, once I have it close, like .003 or .004 I use a file to finish it as it gives a much smoother finish than the tool.

Those chatter marks show on post 45 say, that's good enough, send it out, and take a coffee break.The smooth face and sharp edges with the huge gap shown on the next return post 51 were the result of completely filing off all the chatter marks.

When I fit a barrel I like the shank to be a bit long With previously fit barrels you usually don't get that though. But if it is long or I set the shoulder back, I work the cutter fairly hard till cylinder just clears, the make a few turns with light pressure to smooth it out as mush as possible with cutter, then make a few passes with a fine tooth file that has the edges safed (teeth ground off) to get it nice and smooth. You must hold and stroke the face of the file dead flat on the case of extension.

 

[Model 15-4ever]

Well, I am not going to bash S&W. I have the option not to buy, and I exercise that right. Many of the complaints about QC start off with " I picked this up today", and then a QC rant starts, because the gun was not looked over well enough...

You're not going to bash S&W, but you did anyway. Along with some bizarre victim shaming.

Do you only make purchases of goods you can handle beforehand? If so, good for you, but the world of commerce has moved beyond that methodology for quite some time now.

I agree examining ANY firearm before buying is the preferred method. BUT... the way the modern market is, in many cases the buyer cannot "look over" a purchase before making it. Demand outstrips supply, and revolvers in particular have become a much smaller produced firearm. Many dealers stock very few revolvers, for a variety of reasons, including a smaller market and perceived quality issues. So the buyer ends up ordering one - and paying for it - for one, sight unseen, on the reputation of the manufacturer.

Poor quality firearms costing close to $1000 retail, and more, are never to be expected, nor accepted, regardless if ordered sight unseen.

 

[Drm50]

If I had to by Taurus I would just quit and take up collecting Beanie Babies.

 

[Luke Duke]

This shouldn't become a Taurus bashing discussion. I recently bought a 627 Tracker and it has proven to be a really good gun. I "used to" poo, poo on Taurus myself but from what I've seen I've changed my tone. Mine is very solid. And from the ones I've seen in the gun shops they are equally nice. Maybe they should take over the revolver market. Leave S&W to make plastic guns. Maybe its some secret between the two we dont now about. Maybe S&W just dont want to deal in revolvers anymore?

 

[smoothshooter]

Never thought I would write this but Smoothshooter may be on to something with Taurus. I have handled a couple and they actually look pretty nice. Add to that the fact that they have one of the few 6 shot lightweights on the market. The barrels look straight, and the parts all look well fitted. The triggers feel a little heavy but smooth.
The one question mark I have is the materials. No idea if their materials used are of good quality.
Its the materials question and the fact I just can't embrace " Taurus" that stops me from buying one.

I don't recall hearing anything about Taurus materials being substandard, or at least in the last 20 years.
You should be so lucky to be able to afford to wear a gun out.
If you do, just buy another one, just like you would a weed-eater,
power saw, chainsaw, etc.

 

[AJ]

If I had to by Taurus I would just quit and take up collecting Beanie Babies.

I guess an Iver Johnson is not in your future.......

 

[LostintheOzone]

It was alluded to in an earlier post, but it looks like there is no one left in Springfield who knows how to build a revolver!

Or do any quality control. Or maybe they just don't do that because most of them would have to go back to the same people who built them to begin with.

All of my revolvers are pre lock except one and I wish I had never bought that one. For what I paid for it I could have had a nice pre lock.

I think I would be looking at Colt now for a new revolver.