Quality issues with current S&W revolvers?

[Elmer]

I have a few of the new S&W's, and in my opinion, they are about as near perfect as a factory produced gun can be. The triggers are great, and the I.L. debate is a lot of crying about nothing.

Historically, Ruger has not been a friend of gun owners' rights, so I do not buy their products.

Newsflash:

Bill Ruger remains dead.

Film at 11.....



Like S&W management has always been on the right side of 2A issues.

 

[RonS]

"Ruger Donates First "Million Gun Challenge" Donation to NRA
July 28, 2011
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is proud to announce that it has donated $279,600.00 to the NRA as part of Ruger's "Million Gun Challenge to Benefit the NRA" campaign. Ruger is trying to make history by selling one million firearms to the commercial market in a 12-month period, and is pledging to give the NRA one dollar for every gun sold during that time period with the goal of donating $1,000,000. At the close of the first quarter of the challenge, Ruger has already achieved nearly 28% of its one million gun goal. . . ."

Bill Ruger made, as I recall, one stupid statement, which was seized upon by by anti gun people to blacken his name with gun owners on the principle of divide and conquer. While I believe in telling firearms companies about it when they do something stupid, running down a company to potential customers for something that they did decades ago and continuing to boycot them simply helps anti gunners in their efforts to isolate and attack the industry one company or segment at a time. If the antis manage to harm Ruger, it hurts Barrett and S&W and Remington and every other company in the industry because it hurts the industry as a whole.

As far as quality goes, I have recently passed on a S&W product based on issues that I saw with a particular gun, but the fact is that the majority of their products are as good as can be had for the money and they make good on 99+% of their problem children at no expense to the customer. While the COPQ must be high when they do that rather than perfecting the manufacturing and assembly processes to stop defects from happening perhaps their cost analysis says that it is in fact cheaper to fix one gun every ?-hundred rather than trying for near perfection in the process.


Not an ideal quality policy, no customer should see a defective product, but in the real world it seems to be working for them.

 

[G.T. Smith]

I only have 2 S&W's left. A model 65 and a 37. They are great as were all I have owned. I only kept these 2 because they are all I really need, although I would like to own one of each model ever made. I think that the number of defects compared to the number of guns manufactured is relatively small.
Peace,
gordon

 

[Elmer]

"Ruger Donates First "Million Gun Challenge" Donation to NRA
July 28, 2011
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is proud to announce that it has donated $279,600.00 to the NRA as part of Ruger's "Million Gun Challenge to Benefit the NRA" campaign. Ruger is trying to make history by selling one million firearms to the commercial market in a 12-month period, and is pledging to give the NRA one dollar for every gun sold during that time period with the goal of donating $1,000,000. At the close of the first quarter of the challenge, Ruger has already achieved nearly 28% of its one million gun goal. . . ."

Bill Ruger made, as I recall, one stupid statement, which was seized upon by by anti gun people to blacken his name with gun owners on the principle of divide and conquer. While I believe in telling firearms companies about it when they do something stupid, running down a company to potential customers for something that they did decades ago and continuing to boycot them simply helps anti gunners in their efforts to isolate and attack the industry one company or segment at a time. If the antis manage to harm Ruger, it hurts Barrett and S&W and Remington and every other company in the industry because it hurts the industry as a whole.

As far as quality goes, I have recently passed on a S&W product based on issues that I saw with a particular gun, but the fact is that the majority of their products are as good as can be had for the money and they make good on 99+% of their problem children at no expense to the customer. While the COPQ must be high when they do that rather than perfecting the manufacturing and assembly processes to stop defects from happening perhaps their cost analysis says that it is in fact cheaper to fix one gun every ?-hundred rather than trying for near perfection in the process.


Not an ideal quality policy, no customer should see a defective product, but in the real world it seems to be working for them.

Exactly right.

At the same time Bill Ruger was saying some stupid things, he was also the largest donor to the NRA.

I'd like to see the donations to 2A organizations made by those who still run him down, years after he's dead...

 

[Tyrod]

Not wanting to stir the pot even more (oh yeah!), and before you throw Billy Ruger too far under the bus, wasn't S&W involved in controversy some number of years ago?

For those of you not familiar with these issues, follow the links:

The Gun Zone RKBA -- William B. Ruger, Sr.'s dirty little secret

Gunmaker Smith & Wesson Bought by American Company - Will it Make a Difference?

 

[pacific keeper]

WOW ! I have a 625 mountain with a lock that I bought a few years ago that I have had ZERO problems with and I shoot the daylights out of this thing . However , I was not terribly impressed with my 620 but I am a huge 66 fan .

 

[Rio Vista Slim]

I bought my first Smith & Wesson revolver on my 21st birthday in 1971. Since that time I've owned a bunch of S&W revolvers, as well as a few semi-autos.

All the older guns are gone now (thanks to a messy divorce), but I began buying new ones in 2007. The first was my 686-6 Plus, with a 3 inch barrel. I was getting a lot of failure-to-fire issues, so I called Frank Smith at LGS Manufacturing. Frank is the owner of one of the authorized repair centers. He immediately offered to send me a pre-paid Fed-Ex shipping label, but I asked if I could come to Comanche, TX instead. I live south of Fort Worth, so it's not much of a drive. He told me to come on down.

He immediately diagnosed the problem, fixed it, and I was on my way.

While I had never had any problems with previously owned S&W guns, I understand that sometimes things happen. The experience with Frank was worth the drive.

I have nothing but good things to say about the S&W revolvers I own, and, if something should be amiss, they stand behind their product.

 

[stevieboy]

Not to rain on everyone's parade but I just took my vintage 1972 64-2 into a local Smith. Why? Because the barrel is definitely canted to the right, albeit by a few millimeters. That causes the gun to shoot consistently to the left, 2-3" at 10 yards. Now, if it was an adjustable sight gun, I'd just move the rear sight right a few clicks and fuggedaboudit. But, with its fixed sights, proper barrel alignment is a must. Hence, the trip to the smith.

So, QC issues are not a new issue with S & W revolvers. What a surprise! I'd betcha anything that if we could turn the clock back to 1972, and there was such a thing as this forum back then, it would be filled with complaints that the quality of Smith's revolvers weren't what they used to be.

 

[stantheman86]

+1 for the above........I'll go one further, if there were internet forums back in 1947 or so, there would be people trashing S&W for "going to this crappy short action" and "they aren't made like they used to be"..........

Or when S&W stopped making Triple Locks people would have been on the internet like "S&W is cutting corners and cheapening their product"

People are gobbling up the "good old S&W's" that probably have the same amount of QC issues as the new ones, while they ignore the new production because of a 10 cent lock that can be removed and the myth that MIM parts "are no good" while the same buyers are drooling over Kimbers that are loaded with MIM parts.

 

[bsms]

I have no objection to someone who prefers to buy older guns. I have no objections to them praising the finish, trigger, etc on the used guns they buy. I just have problems with folks bashing the new guns, when I'm 3 for 3 in getting excellent guns bought sight unseen, and know that S&W would do whatever it took to make a bad one good.

I've never gone to a thread where someone is boasting about their 1967 Model 27 and attacked them for enjoying an older gun. And I think everyone knows that the days where S&W built guns using the Keebler elves is gone...so what is the point?

Buy what you want, and enjoy what you buy. Why is that hard?