HOUSTON RICK
Member
Thanks for taking the hit for the rest of us.
New 686 plus with cracked grip frame
- Thread starter Russell420
- Start date
The OP can't lay all this on S&W, and S&W quality assurance has not changed as much as you'd think, and it's changed for reasons the OP may not have considered. The bottom line is that S&W is running a business and the level of QA is determined by costs versus benefits.
In the 1980s it was the norm for good local gun shops to carefully inspect each new firearm that arrived in the shop - and to reject those firearms that had flaws. When a defect was found the wholesaler or the factory would be called to arrange for a return and replacement. However, most of the time the initial response would be an offer to reduce the price on the gun to very low levels,with a credit going to the shop, who then kept the firearm and sold it. Credible shops would say "no thanks" and return the firearm.
Once the wholesaler or factory got it back their response when the defect was cosmetic or non safety related often wasn't to fix it, but rather to offer it up as a factory second to a department store or other big box type retailer, where they'd use the discounted cost to sell it at a steeply discounted price. Remember, you get what you pay for...
Under that business model, local gun shops charged more for the same model firearm, but you were getting not just the firearm, but also the QA and warranty services from the local gun shop. You could buy with a high degree of confidence that it would be perfect, and if a defect surfaced after the purchase, the LGS's response would be to replace it out of existing stock, and deal with the factory on the return and repair issues, rather than stick the customer with that. If the arm was replaced it was sold as new, if it was factory repaired - and met the shop's inspection criteria, it was then sold as used, offering someone with a really good deal. If it did not meet the shop's inspection criteria it was again rejected and sent back.
Today however, local gun shops have greatly reduced the services they offer with the sale of a new weapon. I've bought firearms in some shops where I'll look at the one on the counter very carefully (since the LGS can no longer be relied on to do a thorough inspection) only to have them bring another one out that is still in the unopened box that they actually plan to sell. Their point is the one on the counter is a display model that has been handled. My point is that's just fine, I'll take the one in the box - but only after I do the same thorough inspection, and if I don't like it you'll go get me another one to inspect.
Also, if I discover a problem, such as severe leading from an improperly cut forcing cone, I'm now the person who has to deal with the return and repair issues, as the LGS is probably going to limit its involvement to giving me the customer service phone number.
In summary, S&W's QA isn't all that much worse than it was in the past. In the past, less than perfect QA was back stopped by an inspection by the LGS. The LGS was aware of QA failures, but those firearms never found their way into customers hands - unless they went via the department store route, and those customers tended to be less discerning and never noticed.
If a customer did notice a defect, he'd bitch to his friends, but it quickly diluted to hearsay and never got much distribution as a credible complaint - and he probably already had a replacement in hand from the LGS, so it wasn't a big deal.
Now, there is no LGS QA backstopping the factory, and the customer is the one stuck dealing with return and repair issues. And that customer can reach hundreds or thousands of people with their complaint of poor quality.
Which of course means that more defects are reported to a wider number of people, which creates the impression that quality is worse than it used to be. It isn't. It's just a case of each defective firearm being more noticeable. And that won't bother S&W enough to improve quality, unless it actually starts resulting in losses of sales that are sufficient to offset the costs of a higher level of QA, and rejection of more firearms before they are shipped.
Finally, in my experience S&W is much better at QA than Ruger, and they have better customer service. And Ruger is lighters ahead of Taurus, where I have doubts that any meaningful level of QA even exists.
In the 1980s it was the norm for good local gun shops to carefully inspect each new firearm that arrived in the shop - and to reject those firearms that had flaws. When a defect was found the wholesaler or the factory would be called to arrange for a return and replacement. However, most of the time the initial response would be an offer to reduce the price on the gun to very low levels,with a credit going to the shop, who then kept the firearm and sold it. Credible shops would say "no thanks" and return the firearm.
Once the wholesaler or factory got it back their response when the defect was cosmetic or non safety related often wasn't to fix it, but rather to offer it up as a factory second to a department store or other big box type retailer, where they'd use the discounted cost to sell it at a steeply discounted price. Remember, you get what you pay for...
Under that business model, local gun shops charged more for the same model firearm, but you were getting not just the firearm, but also the QA and warranty services from the local gun shop. You could buy with a high degree of confidence that it would be perfect, and if a defect surfaced after the purchase, the LGS's response would be to replace it out of existing stock, and deal with the factory on the return and repair issues, rather than stick the customer with that. If the arm was replaced it was sold as new, if it was factory repaired - and met the shop's inspection criteria, it was then sold as used, offering someone with a really good deal. If it did not meet the shop's inspection criteria it was again rejected and sent back.
Today however, local gun shops have greatly reduced the services they offer with the sale of a new weapon. I've bought firearms in some shops where I'll look at the one on the counter very carefully (since the LGS can no longer be relied on to do a thorough inspection) only to have them bring another one out that is still in the unopened box that they actually plan to sell. Their point is the one on the counter is a display model that has been handled. My point is that's just fine, I'll take the one in the box - but only after I do the same thorough inspection, and if I don't like it you'll go get me another one to inspect.
Also, if I discover a problem, such as severe leading from an improperly cut forcing cone, I'm now the person who has to deal with the return and repair issues, as the LGS is probably going to limit its involvement to giving me the customer service phone number.
In summary, S&W's QA isn't all that much worse than it was in the past. In the past, less than perfect QA was back stopped by an inspection by the LGS. The LGS was aware of QA failures, but those firearms never found their way into customers hands - unless they went via the department store route, and those customers tended to be less discerning and never noticed.
If a customer did notice a defect, he'd bitch to his friends, but it quickly diluted to hearsay and never got much distribution as a credible complaint - and he probably already had a replacement in hand from the LGS, so it wasn't a big deal.
Now, there is no LGS QA backstopping the factory, and the customer is the one stuck dealing with return and repair issues. And that customer can reach hundreds or thousands of people with their complaint of poor quality.
Which of course means that more defects are reported to a wider number of people, which creates the impression that quality is worse than it used to be. It isn't. It's just a case of each defective firearm being more noticeable. And that won't bother S&W enough to improve quality, unless it actually starts resulting in losses of sales that are sufficient to offset the costs of a higher level of QA, and rejection of more firearms before they are shipped.
Finally, in my experience S&W is much better at QA than Ruger, and they have better customer service. And Ruger is lighters ahead of Taurus, where I have doubts that any meaningful level of QA even exists.
Last edited:
S&W won't fix it - they will replace it. No Ifs, ands or buts.
The one thing We have to give S&W - they back up their product.
If you look at S&W's product line, I think they have bitten off a bit more than they can chew - to our benefit.
I don't know that I have ever seen so many options and variations available to the public - but that kind of mass production comes with inherent challenges.
It shouldn't happen - but we don't live in a perfect world. Buy, inspect carefully, let S&W know if there is a problem. My experience has been that they will back it up.
white cloud
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,139
- Reaction score
- 1,545
You are right about the S&Ws from the 1970s and 80s. Those were pretty bad guns. I had an 8-3/8" M-27 that was really bad. I have had bad Rugers too. I must say Ruger customer service is really top notch however. Recently my bought a model 67. It is a very nice pistol. I bought a Remington 700 and two SIGs this year. All very nice guns. I saw a guy on the range break the thumb safety lever off his Kimber 1911. Defects just get through sometimes and you have to be prepared for them.
Last edited:
Dave T
Member
Arik,
I based my comments about quality on my own personal experience. In 50+ years of handgun shooting I've owned more S&W revolvers than I can remember. The number has to be well over 50 and the majority of them are older guns from the '50s, '60s, and '70s. None of those guns had the problems we're discussing here.
I've owned half a dozen newer (IL, MIM, frame mounted FP) models and at least 4 of them have had problems. I've sold or traded all of them off except for one that I put far too much money into getting it to work. To S&W they were with-in tolerance or spec.
I do not know what the return ratio is now compared the those earlier decades but I do know about the guns I've owned. I will no longer buy a S&W (new or used) with the IL or the frame mounted FP. You and others are obviously free to do as you like but you can't tell me my own experience isn't valid or that it didn't happen.
Dave
I based my comments about quality on my own personal experience. In 50+ years of handgun shooting I've owned more S&W revolvers than I can remember. The number has to be well over 50 and the majority of them are older guns from the '50s, '60s, and '70s. None of those guns had the problems we're discussing here.
I've owned half a dozen newer (IL, MIM, frame mounted FP) models and at least 4 of them have had problems. I've sold or traded all of them off except for one that I put far too much money into getting it to work. To S&W they were with-in tolerance or spec.
I do not know what the return ratio is now compared the those earlier decades but I do know about the guns I've owned. I will no longer buy a S&W (new or used) with the IL or the frame mounted FP. You and others are obviously free to do as you like but you can't tell me my own experience isn't valid or that it didn't happen.
Dave
ejjeff
Member
Just out of curiosity, do you know how many posters / members have said, "Just one more, I'm done!" ? You are delusional, off your meds, or simply kidding yourself, and lying to us. I made that statement more than once. Since December 2016 I have only bought four more good deals -- 2 were S&W revolvers. I did sell two Ruger #1 rifles, though.
Don't disappoint your self. You will buy more, now go in peace and accept that.
Amen! Still best product out there especially @ the price point.
iPac
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,155
- Reaction score
- 1,398
I will agree with those who claim internet communication allows for quality issues to be more easily publicized. However, that doesn't answer whether the quality issues are indeed more prevalent now or not, it's just a theory, and to a lesser extent an excuse.
I personally think the quality issues are more prevalent nowadays. The means of modern production just lends for more issues due to the less hands-on nature, especially when you are striving for certain price points. The numbers game is evidently working out for S&W or they wouldn't be doing the lifetime warranty w/paid postage return.
So I have an opposing theory to the internet communication blowing things out of proportion one. Think of the overall skill/experience level of the average consumer. There are quite a bit of people online who participate in the firearms hobby but are still completely novice when it comes to technical aspects. Now just imagine how many owners are not even serious enough to get online and be active. How much expertise do they have? You can bet S&W is well aware of this too.
So consider the following question: how many quality deficient guns has S&W sold to customers who will never know any better, and therefore never say anything?
It's the opposite question to "how many great guns has S&W made", because I think both questions are very relevant.
Ultimately, it's up to the consumer to make sure they purchase a high quality firearm. Being proficient is part of the hobby. Just how many poor guns are being made or what the percentage is we will never know. What we do know is there are problems being reported and we should use that info to our advantage and learn from it.
I personally think the quality issues are more prevalent nowadays. The means of modern production just lends for more issues due to the less hands-on nature, especially when you are striving for certain price points. The numbers game is evidently working out for S&W or they wouldn't be doing the lifetime warranty w/paid postage return.
So I have an opposing theory to the internet communication blowing things out of proportion one. Think of the overall skill/experience level of the average consumer. There are quite a bit of people online who participate in the firearms hobby but are still completely novice when it comes to technical aspects. Now just imagine how many owners are not even serious enough to get online and be active. How much expertise do they have? You can bet S&W is well aware of this too.
So consider the following question: how many quality deficient guns has S&W sold to customers who will never know any better, and therefore never say anything?
It's the opposite question to "how many great guns has S&W made", because I think both questions are very relevant.
Ultimately, it's up to the consumer to make sure they purchase a high quality firearm. Being proficient is part of the hobby. Just how many poor guns are being made or what the percentage is we will never know. What we do know is there are problems being reported and we should use that info to our advantage and learn from it.
xuout1
Member
I had a new classic 27 that had a warped frame. Smith gave me the option of sending me another gun or a refund of what I paid for it. I took the money and started only buying used guns 10 years or older. The quality issue seems to be started around 2008ish
OP
Russell420
Member
Was just notified today that after the gun spent time in the metallurgy and gunsmithing sections of S&W, they are replacing the frame of my gun under warranty. Should have it back in a couple more weeks (hopefully without anymore issues).
I think that they have never been great at getting barrels dead center straight. I have a .357 Magnum 8 3/8 serial 95xxx from the early 50s that the barrel is just a bit off on. I have to move the sights to the right of center to get it on target. Its such a small deviation that it might be hard to actually get it centered. I have a friend with a Model 34-1 and I have a 63 with canted barrels. You really cannot tell by looking at the sights, but you can tell by looking at the barrel/frame area.
A small deviation is hardly perceptible, until you have to move the sights farther to one side or the other than normal to get it sighted in.
A small deviation is hardly perceptible, until you have to move the sights farther to one side or the other than normal to get it sighted in.
QweekStraw
Member
Maybe Jimmy Cagney or Bogie conked somebody over
the head with it like , Eddie G. or Lloyd Nolan?
Blackie
Similar threads
- Locked
