S&W could do better

[bobsguns]

I’ve heard about their questionable QC more and more in recent years. My “newest” Smith was made in 1997 and I’m apprehensive to buy anything new from them but would love for that to change.

Visit the Colt forum & read their tales of woe. You'll find virtually the same thing.

Now, who are the two biggest US sellers of firearms? S&W & Colt.
But there are two companies who are coming up fast, albeit one much faster than the other one. That's FN & CZ.

FN is limited in sales numbers in that they don't make revolvers at all. They only make one model .22LR pistol, no rifles aside from their AR line-up & no shotguns. Yet, they do very, very well in total sales numbers.

CZ also doesn't make revolvers, no ARs, no rimfire pistols AT ALL & all their shotguns are double barrels only of some sort. Yet they're now #3 on the sales according to what I've read. They're now ahead of Ruger in the pecking order.

But what really sets FN & CZ apart is the low numbers of QC issues. Couple that with exceptionally accurate firearms & you've got a company who is stealing customers from other companies.

I would contend it's easier to steal customers than it is to find first time buyers. Experienced customers know what quality is in a gun & what to look for. The latter is what's fueling their growth, IMO.

My .o2

 

[bobsguns]

I don't understand why people still buy new smiths. It's no secret that quality control is non existent and customer service sucks.

I made this mistake once, never again.

"Non-existent" is a bit harsh, IMO.

I bought a new 648 last year. It's been perfect so far. Small example, I know.

Smith parts department sent me free recoil buffs & springs for my .22 semis last year as well.

 

[audi403]

So much for test firing each gun.

I will say at least it was test fired, not once but twice, two of the chambers had powder residue. Who knows for sure but maybe that firing pin caught on the case so they fired it again to see what was up but still missed what was wrong.

 

[AveragEd]

I really hate to bash anyone whose job I couldn't do better but I have to agree with most of the posters to this thread. My S&W revolvers are all older ones and are great and I even have a Talo edition Model 22A-1 that is a wonderful piece, cracking frames aside as mine is still holding up well under standard velocity target ammo.

But in 2023, I bought a new Model 41 that wouldn't return fully to battery so I sent it back. They returned it fairly promptly stating that it had functioned properly using the same ammo I was, CCI SV. But it still exhibited the same condition so I took it to my gunsmith, who acknowledged right up front that he was far from an expert on those usually fine guns.

He worked the slide a few times and commented that while he assumed these guns would be fit tightly, he could feel what he thought to be excessive resistance so he removed the slide and laid a small straight edge along its rails and found high spots. Not wanting to remove more material than absolutely necessary, he just worked the slide back and forth while we talked and after about ten minutes, we took it outside and ran a magazine through it without a hitch.

I can't help but wonder how a technician more familiar with that model than my gunsmith would not feel that himself. Even more puzzling is how it test-fired properly for him.

Ed

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

It's a crying shame when a Taurus revolver is likely to be more reliable than a new production Smith.

Don't worry about that. Taurus is still producing junk.

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

Well, revolvers arent cool anymore. Who cares about revolvers?

DA revolvers became passe in 1990 - 1995 when most of LEOs had gone to pistols.

Now I can see a market for SA revolvers with CAS or SASS competitions and everybody likes to play cowboy.