What are they smoking at S&W?

[jareds06]

Here are some pictures of a new S&W 25 classic. Check out these absolutely amateurish engravings. This is how my 586 classic showed up about a year ago to which I said "absolutely the **** not," returned it, and bought a real one for less money. They must have stopped doing roll stamps last year because I remember looking at some N frame classics that year that actually looked nice (N frame being the only frame that didn't have its shape altered/back broken to fit the stupid lock). They also must have stopped giving a **** because it's simply the most basic task to laser engrave BEFORE surface prep before finishing. Laser engravings will never look as nice as rollstamps or actual cut engraving but it can be made to look decent with the proper font size, laser settings, and surface prep. But I mean we're paying an extra $100-$200 premium just to have a gun that's blue instead of stainless, can we really not expect to have rollstamps instead of these laughable laser engravings? Photo credits to lock stock and barrel on gunbroker.



Google Photos

 

[ZGrand]

Wow. I can't believe that passed someone's inspection.

 

[sophie]

What a shame. That looks pitiful.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

I attended S&W Armorers School about 1993-'94. We were given a factory tour and there was a number of 686 revolvers on the rack for targeting. I noticed the barrel on one must have slipped in the jig (or whatever the tool is called) when being laser engraved and the markings on the barrel had a shadow effect like it was intended...but none of the other revolvers on the rack were like that.

I'm sure it was sent out and someone owns it now...a factory error.

Prior to that my law enforcement agency received a number of new Model 64 revolvers...upon test firing I found one had no rifling in the barrel at all...it was a smoothbore. I was told by a S&W rep that the gun had to have passed through about a dozen hands and inspectors and should have been caught before being shipped.

Things like that happen. You don't want it to but it does.

 

[robertrwalsh]

That is truly hideous. Somebody at QC must have been drunk that day.

 

[Roofuss]

Wow, things look to be really going down hill in the quality dept. Seems like the prices go up, and workmanship goes down...hell of a trade off !

 

[ProCarryNAustin]

Just joined
First post
Photo looks altered

 

[jfd]

Wow thats sad. QC has taken a definite turn for the worse at SW. Will hang on to my great quality old SW's but not sure I would buy anything new from SW…..at least not without a VERY CLOSE inspection.

 

[ladder13]

That is just plain awful.

 

[dmar]

I just bought a brand new 6" 617 yesterday, and the fit and finish is actually really good. The stainless finish has a bit of a brush mark appearance, but it looks good.

I also don't like the shift to laser engraved markings, but unfortunately that seems to be the way with most manufacturers these days. The markings on the new 617 are actually pretty good, fairly deep and prominent for laser work. The S&W logo/shield is a bit slight.

Overall, it's a nice gun. I have a 6" 617-1, but wanted a new one to save wear and tear on the old one. I really like the new one, and looking forward to seeing how it shoots…. I enjoy shooting .22lr revolvers, I always bring a couple when I go to the range, and have several smiths and Colts to choose from.

I don't like the lock, but it honestly doesn't bother me on the 617. As much as I love my old Smiths, I'm really glad that Smith still makes new, quality revolvers. That won't last forever.

 

[LostintheOzone]

That's why the last new S&W revolver I purchased was about 13 years ago. I wasn't happy with the quality of that one but I still have it. Probably because I could mount a dot on it and it became a very enjoyable range toy.

I won't be buying any more new S&W revolvers after seeing your post. Actually I swore off of those after the last one I purchased.

I understand the motivation to cut costs anywhere they can but for the money I'll just drop back about 50 years and buy one that was built when they still had a reputation for quality. I just purchased a 28-2 (1968) last year for less than any new N frame being produced today. That's a no brainer right there. Actually I think S&W would like to just discontinue the N frame altogether. Won't be long now.

I think that's the case with many firearms these days. We're going to see prices for older firearms continue to go up as people realize the new stuff works (mostly) but they're just hard to look at like Russian Lada.

 

[glenwolde]

I'd rather have it unmarked.

This kind of doesn't make sense. Go cheap on the markings but add the top sideplate screw.

 

[rct269]

This sort of thing is simply symptomatic of a manufacturing entity that has altered its philosophy from, We will be successful if we build the best possible product for the price-------to, We will be successful if we build the product at the lowest possible cost.

Damn shame too!

The worse news is such poor judgement is likely to continue until it clearly adversely impacts their "bottom line"-----or they come to otherwise "see the light" they could clearly see from the very beginning up until they couldn't. That point in time will vary from individual to individual, but for me (possessed of very little patience for such staggering ignorance) it began in the latter 1950's. Now I have owned products produced since then (8 out of a total of 60 or so), but I have been VERY selective.

Ralph Tremaine

And speaking of "clearly" seeing things, I suspect we, as a group, are seen as representing the lunatic fringe of S&W owners. As such, I also suspect we are largely ignored.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

S&W's lazer engraving is cheap garbage.......As I have stated before. My 686 mountain gun and my 629 mountain gun are DEVOID of any markings from holster use and shooting. Both are illegitimate as both have NO ID MARKINGS.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

Looks like something that I would buy -for a steep discount.

 

[ameridaddy]

Lousy finish on the frame in front of the cylinder as well. That gun should not have even been assembled with a frame that rough.
The hammer and trigger look like pot metal.
Sometimes I'm glad I'm old, just for knowing about, seeing and using better things than current production, in too many types of goods.

 

[Slufstuff]

That looks pretty bad. It makes me glad my collecting focus is mainly older military S&W revolvers.

 

[rvolvr]

On that barrel engraving, my eyes see cleaning rag lint from a right-to-left swipe.
Can't argue with the logo, though.

 

[scooter123]

That is awfull. Just as a counterpoint here is a sample of Laser Engraving done well.

 

[shovelmike]

Looks Bad

I would not be happy with it either. I see that Smith and Wesson is currently owned by Saf-T Hammer, which is publicly traded.
Publicly traded companies are forced to serve the interests of investors by maximizing profits through continual cost cutting. Failure to do so results in stiff fines. Cost cutting can sometimes be done without negatively impacting quality, but too often quality suffers.
I worked for many years as a rank and file worker on an assembly line, then spent several years as an inspector in the quality control department. Time and time again I observed that when I began to see very few defects in the product the company saw it as a signal to eliminate a few assembly positions, move portions of those jobs to other workers, and speed the line up.
They seemed to feel that maximum productivity wasn't being met unless a certain percentage of junk was going out the door.
To me, this is ignorant and short sighted. In putting quality first, big profits might not be realized in the short term, but in the long term the customer will appreciate an excellent product, and the company will make an excellent profit and endure for generations.
Too many old and trusted companies try to cash in on their name, but are no longer worthy of our trust.