I feel for you in the position that you are in. Personally, I will not buy from a dealer that will not let me check the action of a handgun that I am buying. Having said that, I am sure that Smith & Wesson will take care of you.
Three Strikes...Out?
- Thread starter Sammy75
- Start date
Our Academy Sports are the same way. They have to hold your driver's license while you look at a gun. The trigger lock has to stay on the gun at all times.
I am hoping that the cylinder stop is the only defect with my new revolver. I won't know until I get it back and have my first opportunities to fire it. Dunham's has "No Firearm Returns" signs posted throughout its gun department. I understood that at the time of purchase. My gripe is really directed at S&W. This revolver shouldn't have left the factory.
I'm not sure the laws in his state, but he may not be able to. I've seen a number of stores say that the customer has to take any issues up with the manufacturer. There used to be a local pawn shop that had a sign up "You buy used guns the same way we do. No refunds under any circumstances".
Sorry to hear it Sammy75. You are not alone. Unfortunately I can say I wont ever buy a S&W revolver online ever again. In person with function test is the only way to start the relationship with one.
I am happy to say I have had nothing but great experiences with the other handguns. My M&P's have all been perfect from day one and are wonderful shooters. Granted they are molded parts with simpler machined parts that are assembled versus any fitting, but its nice to know they are still doing something right!
I am happy to say I have had nothing but great experiences with the other handguns. My M&P's have all been perfect from day one and are wonderful shooters. Granted they are molded parts with simpler machined parts that are assembled versus any fitting, but its nice to know they are still doing something right!
S&W seems to believe a good percentage of their customers will bring the gun home, put it in a drawer and never even fire or function test it. If true, then it's apparently cost effective for them to forego a QA/QC process and only deal with problems that are discovered. Seems weird to me but whatever.
Seems to be a good business model these days.
A lot of manufacturers seem to have adopted this way of thinking.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2021
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 888
As mind boggling as it might seem to enthusiasts, probably well over half of new firearms purchased are never fired by the original owner. That obviously does not excuse the disgraceful QC practices of Smith and other manufacturers.
Please Identify the dealer - we deserve a warning
Please Identify the dealer - we deserve a warning
Bekeart
Residet Cynic
Please Identify the dealer - we deserve a warning
Bekeart
Residet Cynic
Once upon a time, people went into business to provide a source of income for the survival of themselves and their family. To insure the business survived, they manufactured durable, well made products and were quick to respond to individuals with issues or problems, or even special requests.
Then came a new breed. A combination of bean counter, pirate and scoundrel with insatiable greed, they couldn't build their own business because they lacked the wherewithal and integrity to provide a reliable product as well as competent service. So instead, they bought up reputable companies using the money borrowed from others with the promise of great returns on investment. Those returns came from cutting costs anyway they could be cost, sacrificing quality and reputation at the same time. When the last amount of money had been squeezed from the company, it was either sold off or closed. Some managed to fight back after being sold, having been bought by people cut from the old cloth. Others just whethered and died. It appears S&W may be somewhere within the lower part of this spiral. Let's pray that they are someday cut loose and bought by someone determined to return it to the company it once was.
Then came a new breed. A combination of bean counter, pirate and scoundrel with insatiable greed, they couldn't build their own business because they lacked the wherewithal and integrity to provide a reliable product as well as competent service. So instead, they bought up reputable companies using the money borrowed from others with the promise of great returns on investment. Those returns came from cutting costs anyway they could be cost, sacrificing quality and reputation at the same time. When the last amount of money had been squeezed from the company, it was either sold off or closed. Some managed to fight back after being sold, having been bought by people cut from the old cloth. Others just whethered and died. It appears S&W may be somewhere within the lower part of this spiral. Let's pray that they are someday cut loose and bought by someone determined to return it to the company it once was.
I would wager they've had more than one urban yout dash out of the store with the store's roscoe. That would get old, quick, IMO.
I can't begin to count the number of guns I own that I've not yet shot. They're not safe queens per se, I just haven't shot them yet.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,526
- Reaction score
- 6,189
That and the fact that the original post says the store refused to take it back.
Actually, this happened in my LGS back in 1992. A prospective customer asked to see a particular revolver, and when the store owner handed it over, the guy loaded it with ammo he'd been carrying and announced that he was going to kill himself.
The owner and his clerk hustled out of the store and called the police, who responded and negotiated for some time with the customer before he finally made good on his threat and shot himself.
Last edited:
This is my 617-6, and I've put many thousand rounds through it without a problem (after reaming the chambers with a Manson finishing reamer).
It times perfectly and will put 9 out of 10 rounds into one hole at 13 yards. I blame the one errant round on the ammo.
It times perfectly and will put 9 out of 10 rounds into one hole at 13 yards. I blame the one errant round on the ammo.
My 617-6 was returned a few days ago (five weeks). S&W indicates that the yoke and bolt were repaired, the forcing cone cut and trimmed. I'm hoping for trouble free performance. I've yet to fire a round in this new revolver. My LGS says I was foolish to purchase it from a big box sporting goods store. He claims his S&W rep told him that second-rate handguns are usually distributed to the chain dealers-- the top quality arms go to dedicated gun shops. Sounds like BS, to me. Anyone heard this yarn, or can substantiate it?
Sounds like self-serving BS to me too.
Model 15-4ever
Member
Yeah, define that as a defective S&W which you repaired yourself.
I've done the same. It's sad. S&W, The New Kel-Tec: owner fluff and buff right out of the box, and more. Maybe they should also just supply the jigs and tools to straighten the barrel or shroud, and files/stones to properly dress the ratchets. However, can't do much about the defective frames, and ham-handed saw-tooth filing on the barrels.
Last edited:
GypsmJim
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,061
- Reaction score
- 7,081
I used to work for a company that did not believe in meeting the government or industry standards. Their philosophy was that they would be the best in the industry and all specifications would EXCEED the government requirements.
I was the manager that was in charge of the specification and complaint process. Then we went thru bankruptcy (thru no fault of our own) and a new owner. The new VP argued that our specs should meet the government specs. I argued that for 75 years we intended to be the best. Also, if we did have a complaint we should resolve it to the satisfaction of the customer.
The new philosophy was that our complaint $ should equal XX% of sales. If we exceeded it we would make a slight improvement in quality. If we were below it, cut the staff and full speed ahead.
Gotta love those Harvard trained MBAs. I went for my MBA in 1972, and things were much different back then.
I was the manager that was in charge of the specification and complaint process. Then we went thru bankruptcy (thru no fault of our own) and a new owner. The new VP argued that our specs should meet the government specs. I argued that for 75 years we intended to be the best. Also, if we did have a complaint we should resolve it to the satisfaction of the customer.
The new philosophy was that our complaint $ should equal XX% of sales. If we exceeded it we would make a slight improvement in quality. If we were below it, cut the staff and full speed ahead.
Gotta love those Harvard trained MBAs. I went for my MBA in 1972, and things were much different back then.
