- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 489
- Reaction score
- 588
I especially agree with this!
Sad manufacturing
- Thread starter TRK@
- Start date
I especially agree with this!
Bought this 351c a few weeks ago. Never fired it. Back at S&W. It was in time and the trigger was smooth. The cylinder gap matched on all chambers. Shells dropped in with no resistance.
The rachet arms are chewed up and have burrs. If I don't get it back 100% its going back. Bummer.
The rachet arms are chewed up and have burrs. If I don't get it back 100% its going back. Bummer.
Attachments
If 25% of new S&W revolvers have to go back, a person might as well buy a Taurus. I just sent a Taurus back after owning it for 25 years. We'll see if they fix it. It's got a canted barrel and it was that way when I bought it.
They don’t worry that much about it because they are pretty much selling everything they can make. I don’t agree with the philosophy but the proof is in the pudding. I’d love a 327 2”, just try and find a new one. Until they have guns piling up because people aren’t buying them, this will continue.
max503
Member
I hate to say it but very few US manufacturers have learned the lesson the auto industry learned back in the 70's, 80's and 90's when the Japanese imports the Big Three used to laugh at started eating their lunch and dinner too. After their defeat in WWII, the Japanese economy and industry was in shambles and they struggled to get back on their feet by producing cheaply made items that became called Japanese junk, because it was. An American by the name of Dr. Deming was brought in. The lesson he taught was that quality didn't cost, it paid. The money spent to ensure a product was flawless helped the manufacture to gain customers instead of loose them. The Japanese not only ran with the idea, they helped refine it to empower each worker to stop the work flow if he/she discovered a flaw. They would examine the flaw, decide what caused it, then fix the cause so it couldn't happen again. The results were soon Japanese cars began to attract buyers because they developed a reputation for quality, cost and economy - both in the delivered price as well as operating costs. The Big Three nearly went under before they succeeded in mending their ways. Still, they lost so much market share, they will never be the powerhouses they once were.
Much of the remaining US industry still is operating under the old ways. While the firearms industry has foreign competition, most of it remains in the semi-auto sector and fortunately, those are easily enough produced so that competition from outside the US, at least after we got over the "Glock-Shock" is nowhere near the boogie man the Japanese had become to the Big 3.
Revolvers are different matter however. The US remains the largest manufacturer and consumer of wheel guns in the world. Outside of a small segment of producers of historic relics and the rather handsomely priced Korth, there really is no competition other than what resides in the US. And since the market is relatively small, there isn't a huge incentive for manufacturers to spend the money training workers and then paying them high wages/benefits to retain them in order to make the changes needed to increase the quality of the end product. On top of that, wheel guns are far more labor intensive to make, therefore more costly. It is doubtful we will see much improvement in the coming years, especially when corporate leaders are profiteers rather than enthusiasts.
That's $.02 on it!
Yes. The sad thing is, Deming tried to sell his ideas to Detroit and they told him to get lost. Some Japanese auto manufacturers were in the audience at one of his presentations and they invited him to Japan.
The rest is history.
max503
Member
My 638 had to go back for a replacement frame because the bolt hole was too big. It came back almost a year later with a used frame replacement. My next new revolver will most likely be a Taurus.
The "phase" S&W is going through started in the mid 20th century. It was at that point when their philosophy of building the best possible product for the price began to change------------to building the product at the lowest possible cost. I suspect most will agree the transition from the "5 screw" hand ejectors to the "4 screw" version was harmless enough----and it was hard to find anybody who had their knickers in a knot over it.
Well maybe, but then again, it depends on their education. If their education included a stint at Problem Solving School, they probably experienced a little twinge----might well have ignored it.
The very first thing presented to you as a student in Problem Solving School is make sure you know, and are focused on the REAL problem---lest you spend valuable resources trying to solve symptomatic or apparent problems. So---doing away with one little bitty screw--is that a problem---or a symptom? Like I said, it depends on your education---and your station in the hierarchy of the organization that writes your check. The higher up, the more time you spend just sittin' and starin' and wonderin'---I wonder what this screw business is all about? If you wondered about how much they saved by dumping one little screw---and one little screw hole------against the added cost of altering the configuration of the sideplate such that that screw and its hole wasn't needed---times the number of hand ejector revolvers they were making, then maybe---just maybe you were on the right track.
The track you were on would lead you to thinking about history-----the first hundred years when they were focused on making the best possible product for the price---and were doing a fine job of it! That in turn would lead you to thinking maybe they're starting to think about making more money by spending less money---by building their products at the lowest possible cost.
In the highly unlikely event you could see then what you can see now, you might have shed a tear. I don't know of anybody who shed a tear at the advent of the "4 screws". On the other hand, those who didn't then might very well be doing it now. It most certainly seems so, given all the fussing and fuming we read about here about the lousy this and lousy that.
Somebody said something up above about the CEO gettin' off the dime and shaping things up. Who do you think is in charge of creating and sustaining all that leads to our fussing and fuming? You think it might be the CEO---and the folks who tell him what's expected of him? If so, you just might be on the right track again.
Pretty sad tale, right?
Ralph Tremaine
Well maybe, but then again, it depends on their education. If their education included a stint at Problem Solving School, they probably experienced a little twinge----might well have ignored it.
The very first thing presented to you as a student in Problem Solving School is make sure you know, and are focused on the REAL problem---lest you spend valuable resources trying to solve symptomatic or apparent problems. So---doing away with one little bitty screw--is that a problem---or a symptom? Like I said, it depends on your education---and your station in the hierarchy of the organization that writes your check. The higher up, the more time you spend just sittin' and starin' and wonderin'---I wonder what this screw business is all about? If you wondered about how much they saved by dumping one little screw---and one little screw hole------against the added cost of altering the configuration of the sideplate such that that screw and its hole wasn't needed---times the number of hand ejector revolvers they were making, then maybe---just maybe you were on the right track.
The track you were on would lead you to thinking about history-----the first hundred years when they were focused on making the best possible product for the price---and were doing a fine job of it! That in turn would lead you to thinking maybe they're starting to think about making more money by spending less money---by building their products at the lowest possible cost.
In the highly unlikely event you could see then what you can see now, you might have shed a tear. I don't know of anybody who shed a tear at the advent of the "4 screws". On the other hand, those who didn't then might very well be doing it now. It most certainly seems so, given all the fussing and fuming we read about here about the lousy this and lousy that.
Somebody said something up above about the CEO gettin' off the dime and shaping things up. Who do you think is in charge of creating and sustaining all that leads to our fussing and fuming? You think it might be the CEO---and the folks who tell him what's expected of him? If so, you just might be on the right track again.
Pretty sad tale, right?
Ralph Tremaine
My 442UC and 43C, both purchased new, left the factory with properly marked, but still incorrect, barrel shrouds. The 442UC shroud was flat, the 43C’s ramped. Supposed to be the other way around. Of course the 442 shot high and the 43 low. S&W provided the shipping labels and fixed both guns in a timely fashion. But I have to think there are others out there with the same problem. It defies logic to suppose otherwise.
Fortunately I haven't had to sent any S&W's back, but I haven't purchased a new one in 15 years. That's how much I like the road the once great revolver company took. Actually, the only one I've considered selling was the new one I bought in 2009.
Model 15-4ever
Member
Unlike some of you, I see nothing wrong with innovation in manufacturing, including making production less costly, in furtherance of delivering a quality product. These companies are in business to make money; they are not non-profits organized for charitable work.
"Mid-20th Century" and the removal of a frame screw are rather ridiculous milestones, as some sort of a beginning of quality problems at S&W. They've ALWAYS had varying quality issues since the company's inception, from the Indian Wars right through WWII.
What has happened in the past 15 years is a shockingly dramatic downturn in revolver quality, and the reasons are myriad. The LEAST relevant reason is re-engineering of the design. While one might disagree with the aesthetics, the new guns are stronger and better than ever, if properly manufactured and assembled.
The problem is that they are not being properly assembled, nor quality inspected, with any degree of consistency. Blame that on bean-counting, the lack of a motivated/skilled/adequately paid and trained workforce, a "cheaper to replace than make right in the first place" philosophy, the fact of easier and more profitable to crunch out low-skilled poly pistols, etc.... but the reasons are there.
I watched an interview with the CEO last year, and his connection to firearms generally seems rather sparse. He's a numbers guy. He supports the 2A because, well business depends upon it. When asked to name his favorite S&W, it seemed like he had to pause to recall the talking point he was told on the topic, "Model 629". I doubt he's ever shot one.
If the fan bois and shills would stop the ignoring the problems with S&W products, and get some integrity, maybe something would change. Can't see that happening. The "Ultimate Carry" debacle is just one laughable example of marketing, money and ego substituting for real quality: pay a premium for an exclusive "Ultimate", and immediately return it for defective manufacture.
Only the market can force change, and while Colt is now making some inroads, the management there seems to be cut from nearly the same cloth as S&W.
Sad indeed.
"Mid-20th Century" and the removal of a frame screw are rather ridiculous milestones, as some sort of a beginning of quality problems at S&W. They've ALWAYS had varying quality issues since the company's inception, from the Indian Wars right through WWII.
What has happened in the past 15 years is a shockingly dramatic downturn in revolver quality, and the reasons are myriad. The LEAST relevant reason is re-engineering of the design. While one might disagree with the aesthetics, the new guns are stronger and better than ever, if properly manufactured and assembled.
The problem is that they are not being properly assembled, nor quality inspected, with any degree of consistency. Blame that on bean-counting, the lack of a motivated/skilled/adequately paid and trained workforce, a "cheaper to replace than make right in the first place" philosophy, the fact of easier and more profitable to crunch out low-skilled poly pistols, etc.... but the reasons are there.
I watched an interview with the CEO last year, and his connection to firearms generally seems rather sparse. He's a numbers guy. He supports the 2A because, well business depends upon it. When asked to name his favorite S&W, it seemed like he had to pause to recall the talking point he was told on the topic, "Model 629". I doubt he's ever shot one.
If the fan bois and shills would stop the ignoring the problems with S&W products, and get some integrity, maybe something would change. Can't see that happening. The "Ultimate Carry" debacle is just one laughable example of marketing, money and ego substituting for real quality: pay a premium for an exclusive "Ultimate", and immediately return it for defective manufacture.
Only the market can force change, and while Colt is now making some inroads, the management there seems to be cut from nearly the same cloth as S&W.
Sad indeed.
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree with this. I believe that ever since CZ bought Colt, their QC has been inspiring. They have turned out new products, and seemed to take care of early problems quickly.
Larry
Jerry in SC
Member
Colt is not immune, I sent my King Cobra Target .22 back twice for broken parts. This was a new replacement gun I got directly from Colt when I sent my first King Cobra Target .22 back for excessive endshake.
Colt offered me a full refund, I got the check about two weeks after I sent the gun to CT. After a year of dealing with it, I was happy to cash that check.
One thing I have noticed also, is when an old line company known for quality moves to a new state ( can say I blame them with so much anti 2A behavior in the northeast) quality goes down.
When Remington moved ammo from Bridgeport to loanoke is a prime example.
Some mostly smaller companies seem to be able to get it right, however. In 22 rifles vudoo makes a terrific and very expensive rifle. Despite the price and wait times, they can’t sell enough of them. But this small company refuses to jeopardize quality to increase production, which is the S&W model.
In any industry for multiple reasons, there are very few proud craftsmen anymore.
Colt and Ruger both have a good share of QC problems as well.
When Remington moved ammo from Bridgeport to loanoke is a prime example.
Some mostly smaller companies seem to be able to get it right, however. In 22 rifles vudoo makes a terrific and very expensive rifle. Despite the price and wait times, they can’t sell enough of them. But this small company refuses to jeopardize quality to increase production, which is the S&W model.
In any industry for multiple reasons, there are very few proud craftsmen anymore.
Colt and Ruger both have a good share of QC problems as well.
Autonomous
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 1,112
- Reaction score
- 1,716
Left hand thread and locking feature on the chamfer?
Id like to think I got the experimental model thats threaded for choke tubes
Hope you feel better now.
He posted he same thing over on another forum, didn't get much sympathy and resorted to name calling. Never hear from again.
Autonomous
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 1,112
- Reaction score
- 1,716
New 640 pro I just picked up
I think I was too distracted by the sights being obviously off. The front was way left. The rear way right. Hammer and punch fixed the sights but probably going back to smith for this
WOW! That is some rough machining! It really does look like they are threaded.
Are the throats the correct size, despite being so rough?
Do they lead up?
Looks like a replacement cylinder is definitely in order.
11 days since he started the thread and TRK@ hasn't been back to update it since.
Hopefully not another one-hit wonder...
