Quality Control? Here's how I feel...

[bsms]

I've bought two new 629s in the past year, one with a 6" barrel and one with a 4" barrel. I then read about canted barrels on this forum so I checked to see if the two I bought had this QC problem (no, I didn't look before I bought them as I never expected something like this). Guess what - both have canted barrels and I believe two out of two is 100%. I suppose my two will be left out of the 21st centuries best revolvers made by S&W even though they cost over $1,400.00! No sense in beating a dead horse though!

So...you are saying the Internet has inspired you to catch something that you otherwise would not have looked at?

How do the guns shoot? Can I assume you've sighted them in? Successfully? Two guns with an average cost of $700 each?

My Ruger Alaskan was over $700 new...looks like dog poop, but shoots fantastic. My Model 29 is supposed to finally arrive at the dealer on Monday...guess I'll post then on what I see. But I'll be surprised if the fit & finish isn't ahead of my Alaskan. I sure hope it shoots as well...

 

[stantheman86]

Avoid barrel cant and just buy and shoot Ruger Alaskans There is no way to cant the barrel, since the sights are on top of the frame extension!

 

[WildBillD]

I have bought 3 new S&W's in the last 3 years-M&P 9, 1911 and 686-SSR. The M&P went back to Smith twice and still wasn't right so I traded it for a Model 67 that I love.

My 686 wouldn't shoot anything less than a 10" group at 10 yards. I noticed the forcing cone had some odd looking grooves in it, called S&W and sent it in. Got it back a few weeks later with a cryptic note saying "Honed forcing cone, replaced barrel." It shoots fine now, but I agree that you shouldn't have to send it back to get it how it should have been to begin with. My 1911 wasn't perfect but was minor and I had it fixed locally.

My take on quality control at Smith (or anywhere anymore) is this: They all function, and it's a very small number of people who care about how they shoot. Most guns that are purchased are fired a few rounds, and then sit in a nightstand for the next 20 years. We here on the forum likely put more rounds through our guns on a Saturday at the range than most people will in a lifetime (80+million gun owners, 4 million NRA members). For the majority of gun buyers, the quality is fine-it goes bang when it needs to. But for those of us that shoot because we enjoy it, and try to improve our shooting skills, we notice canted barrels, scratched forcing cones and other seemingly minor imperfections that affect how our guns work.

But it's cheaper for Smith to fix the occasional gun that comes back from one of us than it is to make them all "perfect" before they leave. Problem is too many accountants making decisions. It's all about the bottom line. Most big companies would sell their mother's into white slavery if it would add a dollar to the bottom line. Before you all get upset, I am a CPA and have been for 37 years. However, there is a difference between an accountant and a bean-counter. Too many companies have bean-counters. What got this country into the economic mess we are in is that type of thinking-make it in China because it's cheaper and most people will not notice the difference. However, we on the forum do notice, and generally don't like it.

I love my Smith & Wesson revolvers, but agree that I will not buy a new one. I would like to have a nice Model 66 to go with my 67 (4", no dash, stainless sights).

My $.02, for what it's worth.

 

[rburg]

OK, like all our threads, this one has covered some ground.

I sure wish you guys would come around the next thread that starts and someone rates his gun at 100%. As we see from the minor and not so minor defects, guns don't come from Gawd in 100% condition. Even the best ones are only rarely 98%, but a lot of guns "condition wise" are barely in working condition, surely not show quality.

I think I want to debate the suggestion that the better guns are the survivors, too. Its not uncommon to find a gun that appears to be perfect or nearly so, and its 90 or so years old, and won't work. Those seem to be the ones that sit in the dresser drawer for ever. I had a great old M&P from the 19-teens. It was one of those guns you wonder how it could have survived for all that time without a mark on it. But one day I decided to really look at it. The cylinder wouldn't turn! There was interference between the bottom of the barrel and the gas ring. I just hung up. Depending on how you closed it, it might not rotate.

But I'm an old shade tree mechanic. I did what I figured needed to be done. I filed the bottom of the barrel until I had clearance. Then I used cold blue and promptly sold it.

 

[kas9412]

OK, I bought a new 617 around 6 weeks ago. The barrel alignment is perfect. So is everything else - 100% (after I spent about a half hour polishing it up with Mother's).

In contrast, I bought a four screw M17 in July. The barrel is canted!

Buying old and avoiding new is not always "the way"!

(These are currently my only 2 S&W revolvers, but I am sure there will be more.)

kas

 

[PA Reb]

In response to your questions bsms;

"So...you are saying the Internet has inspired you to catch something that you otherwise would not have looked at?"

Yes, I believe that's exactly what I said.

"How do the guns shoot? Can I assume you've sighted them in? Successfully? Two guns with an average cost of $700 each?"

They shoot just fine and yes, well over $700 each. Your point being?

"My Ruger Alaskan was over $700 new...looks like dog poop, but shoots fantastic. My Model 29 is supposed to finally arrive at the dealer on Monday...guess I'll post then on what I see. But I'll be surprised if the fit & finish isn't ahead of my Alaskan. I sure hope it shoots as well..."

I'm glad you like your "dog poop" looking Ruger Alaskan. Personally, I wouldn't own one and from your description, Ruger's QC must be worse than S&W's. When you say Model 29, do you mean a pre lock 29 or one of the new "wannabe" Classics? Either way, I hope you like it and also hope the barrel isn't on upside down. But then again, it seems like that wouldn't bother you if it shoots well.

I really could care less how you (or anyone else for that matter) feel about the look of a finished gun compared to how well it shoots. Myself and many others here believe S&W has allowed their QC to go down hill over the years and its shameful to say the least. If you don't mind a good shooting gun looking like "dog poop", go for it man and have fun. Personally, I want the best of both worlds!

 

[dwever]

I sure wish you guys would come around the next thread that starts and someone rates his gun at 100%.

I'll say it: I rate the PC 627 5", PC 629 Stealth Hunter, and particularly my most recent PC 627 2.625" as one hundred percent satisfied. Retail ca. $2,500 Melonite PC 1911 in 2008 or 2009 not as much as it was occasionally awesome if you had ammo it liked.

I have put more rounds through the PC 627 2.65" than anything but my duty Glocks, and, if you're bored, you can see me loading sixty-two 8 shot moon clips (500 rounds) for an event this weekend at Doug Wever's Photo Galleries at pbase.com. Warning, I am not a great photographer.

 

[caryg]

New Smith and it is a good one.

Just have to add my 2 cents worth. I bought a 327 Night Guard, it functions and shoots great must have been made on a tuesday? Oh well enough kidding arround, the American worker as far as I am concearned is about as concearned abou t quality control as the brazil worker. If people out there think we Americans build a better gun than others than put your money where your heart is. I personnaly think Americans build better anything better but mistakes do happen. If you want quality buy a Smith if you want a piece of junk buy a Taurus.

 

[bsms]

...Personally, I want the best of both worlds!

What you want is the best of both worlds at the same price you now pay.

My point was that Ruger & S&W are the top revolver manufacturers for their price point - around $700-800 for their 44 Mag DA revolvers. And while my 'dog poop' Alaskan shoots great, it doesn't LOOK great - so why should I expect S&W to be able to put out a refined, not a trace of cant to the barrel revolver at the same price.

If you are willing to pay more, have a nut. But you are demanding that S&W add additional QC and additional steps to ensure each gun is flawless, and to do so at a price equal to or below Ruger.

Ain't going to happen. You ought to be glad that they are willing to fine-tune, for free, revolvers that don't meet your standards.

It comes down to price. And while I like S&Ws, I also think that if Ruger can't beat the price while delivering an unrefined gun, then there is no way S&W can do so while delivering a flawless gun. They would go out of business, and then all those who hate the lock and poop on MIM could treasure their old S&W while knowing the company went broke...

 

[PA Reb]

What you want is the best of both worlds at the same price you now pay.

My point was that Ruger & S&W are the top revolver manufacturers for their price point - around $700-800 for their 44 Mag DA revolvers. And while my 'dog poop' Alaskan shoots great, it doesn't LOOK great - so why should I expect S&W to be able to put out a refined, not a trace of cant to the barrel revolver at the same price.

If you are willing to pay more, have a nut. But you are demanding that S&W add additional QC and additional steps to ensure each gun is flawless, and to do so at a price equal to or below Ruger.

Ain't going to happen. You ought to be glad that they are willing to fine-tune, for free, revolvers that don't meet your standards.

It comes down to price. And while I like S&Ws, I also think that if Ruger can't beat the price while delivering an unrefined gun, then there is no way S&W can do so while delivering a flawless gun. They would go out of business, and then all those who hate the lock and poop on MIM could treasure their old S&W while knowing the company went broke...

That's my friend! Whatever floats yer boat !

 

[cmj8591]

I'm not sure how a revolver could be assembled with a canted barrel. If you have ever seen how a solid revolver barrel is screwed into the frame you would see that it would be very difficult to install it out of square to the frame. As for the two piece barrels, it would be even more difficult as the barrel sleeve is not turned into the frame at all but is indexed by a tab. Not that I'm saying you guys don't have canted barrels, I just have to wonder how it can happen.

 

[ACORN]

I'm not sure how a revolver could be assembled with a canted barrel. If you have ever seen how a solid revolver barrel is screwed into the frame you would see that it would be very difficult to install it out of square to the frame. As for the two piece barrels, it would be even more difficult as the barrel sleeve is not turned into the frame at all but is indexed by a tab. Not that I'm saying you guys don't have canted barrels, I just have to wonder how it can happen.

I don't think we are talking being out of square with the frame. It's the barrel is turned too far or not far enough so that the front sight is in extreme cases at 1:05, or 11:55 o'clock, not at straight up 12:00, when viewed from the rear.

 

[cmj8591]

I understand that. What I am saying is, if you saw how they install a barrel, you would see how difficult it would be for this to happen by accident. I have heard of canting a barrel to adjust windage on a fixed sight gun but I have never heard of that being used as a factory repair. And, again, if it is a two piece barrel, it would be even more unlikely.

 

[mooshoo]

I've got a mod 24-6 44 spl bought new shoots and looks great, had two 625 45 acp shot them alot, sold them for other toys, they were great!!! have a heavy duty and a 34-1 22lr with 4'' barrel and a model 60 that I carry every day all great had lots through the years had some bad one's got some good one's, thinking about a 21-4 sounds fun love em all and I will support S&W 100%!!!!

 

[M3Stuart]

Just a point of information; if you search the internet, you can find an "inflation calculator". You can put in some value, say $100, and the year, say 1981 (just happens to be the year my excellent little 34-1 4" was made) and see what the inflation-adjusted value would be today. For example; $100 in 1981 has the inflation-adjusted buying power of $249 today. So a new $250 gun in 1981 would cost $623 today. Which, surprisingly, is very close to what that same 34-1 (not made of course, you would have to buy a new model 63) sells for today!

 

[Tyrod]

Just a point of information; if you search the internet, you can find an "inflation calculator". You can put in some value, say $100, and the year, say 1981 (just happens to be the year my excellent little 34-1 4" was made) and see what the inflation-adjusted value would be today. For example; $100 in 1981 has the inflation-adjusted buying power of $249 today. So a new $250 gun in 1981 would cost $623 today. Which, surprisingly, is very close to what that same 34-1 (not made of course, you would have to buy a new model 63) sells for today!

While everything you say is correct, manufacturing isn't in some sort of time vacuum where the processes stay the same and the cost of labor and utilities just go up because of inflation. The realities on a relative basis shows that manufacturing costs have gone down. Just take the humans out of the equation and replace them with multiaxis CNC machines. Sure, the machines cost a geat amount of money, but in their lifespans they're way cheaper than the many employees they replace over the same time frame.

What I'm saying is that while the actual cost of maufacturing has gone up due to inflation, the rate of costs increase is far lower than inflation. For instance, a 1965 model 60 was far more expensive to manufacture than a 2011 model 60 adjusted for inflation.

Retail pricing has more to do with what the market will bear, rather than a cost + profit percentage.