# The Dark Side of Smith & Wesson, By Chuck Hawks



## Doberman

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

Anyone read this?

Your thoughts?

Any truth to it?

I have been a S&W fan my entire life, but never heard anything about poor quality and etc....

Looking forward to your replies :watching:


----------



## Rupert

I own four Smiths and love each of them. I don't think I've ever heard someone say something bad about one of their revolvers until I read this.


----------



## mikej997

I hadn't really heard that much about it before. I do have an experience of my own along those lines. I purchased a brand new S&W 637 .38sp. It is my first and so far only Smith. I had to immediately send it back to get a new barrel. There were severe tool marks running in the opposite twist of the rifling. :smt119 I emailed their customer service with pictures and after a couple days I got impatient and called them. The fellow I spoke with on the phone told me that all guns are test fired at the factory and are safe. It won't be accurate anyway due to it being a snubby, just shoot it and be happy I own a Smith! 
Needless to say I was not happy with that response. Luckily someone finally read my email and contacted me. They said to send in the gun right away at their cost. When I shipped it I wrote a letter with the date and time that I had spoken to the guy on the phone about it, I never heard anything on that front but I let them know what I thought of it.:smt076 When I got it back a week later it had a new barrel on it. By the way, it has turned out to be a suprisingly accurate gun for being a snubby. I can shoot .410 hulls at 10 yards with it.:smt023


----------



## legionrider

S&W has been around a long time. The people who spend hard earned dollars are not stupid, nor are they easily deceived. No matter how good a PR campaign a company ran, word would circulate about these issues, and the consumer would stop buying their products. ANY manufacturing process has its high points and low points, The current recall of toyota? How about the Ford Pinto? The O-rings on the space shuttle? the point is Longevity is not driven by ad campaigns but by consumer confidence and reputation spread by word of mouth.


----------



## dondavis3

It's easy to write negative articles.

Every manufacturer has had a gun or two that were not "right".

I've owned 4 or 5 S&W's in my life (I currently own 2).

I've never had a problem with any of them.

I think they are an excellent "brand" and their customer service is great.

:smt1099


----------



## Specialed

It's easy to say that a machined part is not a good quality part. I have been in machining for about 15 years and quality is subjective. When it comes to quality, I listen to owners of whatever I am looking to buy. Do some reading. Smith and Wesson has an awesome track record when it comes to quality. As far as copying other designs, this has been done as long as people have been building anything. Or should every company that has made a mini van other than Chrysler (because they did it first) be considered cheaters and charlatans. When ever some one says they have no motive for the statement that they make, it sets off a red flag "This guy has a hidden agenda". Maybe the things he stated are correct as he remembers them. He is a writer and his JOB is to get people to read what he writes. So he accuses a company of something where the public opinion is the opposite of what he is saying. My final thought is that this is the first thing I have read that makes statements like this about Smith & Wesson, so I figure this guy is a moron.:mrgreen:


----------



## Tuefelhunden

Interesting read no doubt. I think thier is a fundamental difference between taking someone elses basic concept and improving upon it to the point were you've made it your own versus outright copying or plagerizing under a different label. Imitation may be considered the highest form of flattery but it is still cheap, lazy and often unethical especially if patents are involved. I can't confirm the numerous problems he sited other than I think he does know his fire arms when it comes to quality.

I have owned a few Smiths. Only problem I can recall was a 638 snub that the enclosed hammer and trigger would intermitently stay locked rearward after firing. Checked it, cleaned it lubricated the springs, problem persisted and I dumped it for a 642 that did not do that. Had a 629 44 mag that was awesome. I know the revolvers are sweet shooters but in 357 they do have a long standing reputation for not being anywere near as tough as Rugers with full house rounds. I have never put 15000 rounds through a single S&W 357 before so I can't confirm nor deny but do know that Ruger revolvers are built like high end bank vaults and historically for much less mulla.

Whether that is a major issue or not I guess is up to the consumer. I know the M&P series is sure highly regarded by those who know what they are talking about in terms of quality no BS fighting handguns so it appears S&W got that right and to my knowledge it is not a knockoff of anyone else. In fact the M&P is a great example of what I was trying convey above. A company taking into account what everyone else is or has done and significantly improving upon it or at least putting their own very distinct interpretation into it. I did notice, unless I missed it, that Chuck did not reference the M&P one way or the other.

I am interpreting this as not so much of a jump on the S&W hate wagon based on Chucks say so but rather food for thought and an FYI to keep my eyes and ears open concerning them going forward. Nothing wrong with that .


----------



## Teuthis

There are a number of hearsay accusations in the article, but no documentation. The entire article resounds of condemnation rather than facts. It flies in the face of the long, respected family business that was Smith and Wesson for so long. 

I cannot speak for the most modern Smith and Wesson handguns, but there was a time, up to 90's that I know, when it seemed that every Smith and Wesson revolver was a masterpiece. I collected them for decades and I never encountered a single problem such as those mentioned by the author of the article. I was also, and am still, much enamored of the Models 39 and 59 semi-auto pistols. They were, and mine still are, reliable to a fault. I would rather have my Model 39's than any Glock I have ever shot or owned. 

I have the same respect for that author and his diatribe as I do for gunwriters in general. That is, none.


----------



## Rogelk

I think the guy is a self proclaimed expert on just about everything. I heard he has real issues with copying his writing and posting it as well.


----------



## TheReaper

Chuck Hawks = Jerk.


----------



## Bisley

Most of the specifics he mentions probably have some basis in fact. S&W has been around a long time and have had a lot of different corporate leaders, each with their own ideas about what was efficient, profitable, and ethical. They have plenty of 'warts,' as do a lot of other businesses that have managed to survive as many economic ups and downs.

When I look at a S&W with an eye for purchasing, I give it the same 'going-over' as I would any other brand. Some I like, and some I don't, but they do a good job with the old stand-by revolvers which I favor, so I have no complaints. They have made some bad shotguns, and had some problems with some of their AR type rifles, and some semi-autos, but I have found their service after the sale to be excellent, and I'm glad they have survived.


----------



## rccola712

I have very little experience with Smith & Wesson, but I've heard a lot of good things about them, and not many bad things. I would have no issues purchasing an S&W weapon and using it, assuming it met all of my needs, ect. I've never heard of Chuck Hawks before now, but I think he's just upset and trying to tell the world about it and get everyone to agree with him. Also, part of business and product development is seeing, analyzing, and responding to what they competition is doing. If company A comes out with a new product and it's the best out there, you bet all the others are going to do their best to mimic that product, or improve on it and steal market share. The business world is not an 'I called it or thought of it first (without patent :numbchuck' environment.


----------



## deputy125

i ain't too worried about the rant.

smith revolvers still rule the roost in competition. MY "j" frames have been solid performers for back-up/ccw. 

most everything today is a copy or slight change of another design while trying to step around patent laws. patents have long since expired on 1911's, and probably the 700 as well. 

as far as the clinton mess.......it's history...... smith has changed owners since.......you don't punish the child for the sins of the father..............same goes for ruger and the AWB ban on mags. Bill Ruger is gone....may he rest in peace.....and the company is under new leadership.


----------



## Sully2

After reading the "report"..I remember back to my old days..sitting in a saloon...smelling beer farts mixed with hard boiled eggs. LOTS of stinky smelling gas is all it is.


----------



## cwl1862

*S&W a Bad brand??*

I regularly read and enjoy Chuck's articles but on this one I'll have to disagree. I have owned numerous S&W firearms over the years (10 total) and currently have seven in the safe. (M66-0, 629-0, 625, 686-0, 39-1, 642, the most recent purchase a near perfect used 908) and those that I've sold to make room for others I wish I still had! All of them have functioned flawlessly. As you see I own one of the dreaded model 39's rumored to only function with FMJ ammo and even then be a bad jammer, all I can say is I must have one of the perfect ones as it feeds everything HP's FMJ's, +P, and +P+ ammo without so much as a hiccup. The only time I ever had an issue with it jamming was found to be the aftermarket magazine I was using and not the gun. I own both no lock and Hillary hole models, and have not had issues with any of them. Do I like the locks? Hell no, but I fear they're here to stay, (blame the lawyers for that one) but I wont stop buying S&W firearms because of it. I have complete confidence in S&W as a brand. As I do with SIG, Colt, Kimber, Ruger (yes I own an SR-9 & an LCP & never an issue with either) even Bersa and Taurus make good weapons. (Yea I got quite a few handguns) 
My only issue with new S&W's of late is the cost! I think S&W is pricing themselves right out of the market. Why would somebody buy a new smith when you can get a comparable ruger or taurus for $100 to as much as &300 cheaper than a S&W? 
My question for the guy who bought the J frame with the tool marks on the barrel, and then became angry with S&W about it. If you knew about the tool marks and bought the gun anyway. Why did you buy it? Especially if it was a new firearm?? If I were your dealer I wouldn't have even put it out on my shelf for sale. It would have went back to the distributor/factory as defective to begin with. But I wouldn't have sold it to one of my customers. However if it was used, and you bought it with the tool marks on the barrel, how is that S&W's issue?? Yes I agree their customer service dropped the ball when communicating with you,(unusual for S&W). But they did fix the problem didn't they.


----------



## mikej997

When I bought the gun (brand new) it was oiled heavily. I couldn't see the marks in the barrel and I was excited enough about getting it that I didn't slow down and look close enough. I learned a lesson about that and it won't happen again in the future.
I didn't get angry with Smith about it, I reckon that sometimes things like that can happen. The only real issue I had that irritated me was with one of their customer service reps on the phone. The person I was able to contact via e-mail got the issue resolved very quickly. I was pleased with the gun repair and the speed with which it was done. 
I love my little Smith revolver and have absolutely no doubts about it or it's accuracy. I also wouldn't hesitate to buy another Smith revolver in the future. I will however take a much closer look at it before I buy, though that will be with ANY firearm, not just Smith.


----------



## cwl1862

Got ya. & I understand I'm kind of the same way when I get a new toy for my collection:drooling: Like I said S&W dropped the ball when they were conversing about with you about your issue, and the guy who said live with it deserves to lose his job, or at the very least get a demotion to floor sweeper for his actions (inaction)
But in my experience this is very uncharisteric of S&W. I'm sorry you had bad the experience. But alas there are bad apples everywhere you go! Hopefully S&W will find that one and throw it outta the basket before he's had an opportuinity to do more harm! I Hope you enjoy your S&W! :smt023


----------



## Hiram25

I have carried S&W revolvers both as a Military Police Officer in the Air Force and as a Delaware State Trooper. I would stake my life on the S&W and have done so.:smt1099


----------



## cougartex

S&W repaired my 1911 at no cost. Great customer service.


----------



## buck

He showed his real knowledge of Smiths with this statement......



> Smith L-frame revolvers are the same size as a Colt Python. L-frame revolvers will--surprise, surprise--fit perfectly in holsters formed for the Python. They even have the Colt full-length barrel under lug and a rib on top. This is because Smith simply copied the Colt Python's frame size and styling clues


Has anyone else ever seen a Python "rib" on any L-frame unless it was a custom barrel or a PC gun? I know I haven't. Doesn't history tell us that Elmer Kieth and S&W created the .357mag cartridge? Same with the .44mag. S&W and Remington developed it. S&W designed the first prototype .44 mag with the model 29. I believe Colt made their revolvers to handle the cartridges innovated by S&W, so who copied who?


----------



## PX

cwl Why would somebody buy a new smith when you can get a comparable ruger or taurus for $100 to as much as &300 cheaper than a S&W?
:-)[/QUOTE said:


> cwl:
> 
> Respectfully, for me anyway, I would buy the new Smith vs the Ruger or Taurus because:
> 
> I've owned S&W firearms, pistols and revolvers, for over 50 years, and of all of them I only had one bad one. The bad one was a "Victory" revolver bought well-used (obviously) that had initially been a 4" (maybe 6?) blued 38 Special shipped to England during WW2..
> 
> Apparently it was never issued, and after the war someone bought the batch, cut the barrels down to 2", "chromed" 'em, put fake pearl handled grips on 'em and sold em here in the U.S.
> 
> Pretty sucker, but whoever cut off the barrel never took the "crowning" section of gun-smithing because it was so inaccurate you couldn't hit the side of a barn, from inside, with it.
> 
> Since that experience I've owned, or still own, a small pile of Smiths and never had one with a problem.. In fact at present I own a J-frame 49,and 638, and a 3rd Generation 5906/6906/3913/3913LS/CS9/CS45, all of which perform just fine.
> 
> I like Ruger revolvers, but generally don't care much for their bulky, heavy centerfire pistols.. I have recently purchased an LCP and it's turned out to be a very, very good little mousegun.. I'm really high on my Ruger LCP.
> 
> I don't like Tauri anything.... A continuing reputation for poor build quality, and even tho they come with a lifetime warranty I keep reading posts on the various firearm forums complaining about the quality and turn around time for those services.
> 
> Actually I believe most of us make up our minds about what we consider "good" or "bad" depending strictly on our personal experiences with any specific thing...
> 
> You buy a new Smith firearm and it works fine, SMITHS are WONDERFUL, forever..
> You buy a new Smith firearm and it is a piece of crap, SMITHS are all crap, forever...
> 
> Add whatever firearm brand here _______________ and the story will be the same.
> 
> Just the way the human mind works..
> 
> Again, just my semi-senile old fart opinion, no offense intended.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Jesse


----------



## rambler

*I read that article*

and still bought a newer Model 60 anyway.

I've had good luck with Smith & Wesson - I've got 4 right now...and would have more if I had more money to throw around.


----------



## wjh2657

I own 8 S&W's. They date from 1951 (M&P, pre-Model 10) to a J-Frame made in 2008. I have owned at least a dozen more throughout the years. I have never had a problem with a S&W pistol or revolver. The only other handgun that I own that I trust as much as my S&W's is my Glock 23. I am sure that a very small number of bad guns have gotten through the S&W line as they have in every other manufacturer. I had two absolutely terrible Colt MKIV 1911s (Blasphemy!!!) that unfortunately fell into my possession, I have also owned at least half a dozen outstanding Colt 1911s. I still believe the S&W line, particularly the revolvers, to be as good a gun as you can buy.


----------



## EliWolfe

Well old Chucky sure had an ax to grind in this piece. The only part that kind of bothered me was the QC problems he mentioned. As far as copying other guns, or changes in management, I don't give a good rip, and I wonder if it was one of those guys who POed Mr. Hawks. Taking a look back I came up with a list of [email protected] products I have owned or have fired and can still remember . Deep breath here:
Model 317 .22 Kit Gun, Model(?) J-Frame .22mag., Models 442 @ 642 .38s, Model 649 J-frame .357, Model (?).32 [email protected] "hammerless" J-frame, Model 629 .44 mag., Model (?) .41 mag., Model 60 in both .357 and .22, Model 10 .38, Model 340 .357 mag., Model 696 L-Frame .44 spl., Model 686 L-Frame .357, an older Model 3913 9mm semi, etc. Sorry about missing model numbers, I am to lazy to look 'em all up! So, how many problems did I experience over the years shooting these various firearms, and how many of my buddies complained to me about the poor quality of their guns? Nada, zip, as in zero. My guess is there are a whole bunch of folks out there who could form there own list of "no failures", especially with the revolvers. Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it! Come to think of it, I think they used to make a small semi-auto. That thing jammed all the time! :smt082
Thanks for the thought provoking post, God help us if Chuck ever hooks up with that crazy KBoom Glock guy!
Happily picking up a new [email protected] 686 plus tomorrow.


----------



## wiredgeorge

Smith & Wesson stand behind their products through the best customer service in the industry. All manufacturers of any product can sometimes fall short with quality control but if they are willing to make it right with out argument, they are a stand-up company. As far as copying designs, this is fairly common practice in ANY industry where one product proves to be very popular. Then the company puts their own twist and innovations into the original design and the design is strengthened and all consumers benefit. Mr. Hawks, thanks for starting this thread as it proved a lot of useful opinion.


----------



## nrd515525

It seems like this guy has some king of grudge against S&W. I've had problems with many manufacturer's guns over the years, but strangely, no S&W guns at all. I can't say the same for Colt, AMT, and several others.


----------



## Overkill0084

I thought it was an interesting aticle.
S&W copying another bolt action. Well gosh, there's news. When was the last real innovation in bolt action rifles? How many different companies copied the 98 Mauser action for decades? Shocking.
The L-frame was a copy of the Python? Perhaps. When was the last time a revolver was truely revolutionary? The Python is a stong & good looking design with an antiquated lock work. It could probably reasonably argued that the L-frame is an improved version of the Python. My dad always preferred the looks of Colts but thought that the actions of S&Ws were a superior design. He shot and owned a number of both, I am not inclined to argue.
Bulky or not, I like N-frames and I will have one eventually.
Political sucking up. Not really new, but shameful nontheless.
Walther PPK/S - mine's a 2010 model, so I'm not familiar with the issue. That aside, how is licensing and producing Walthers with the permission and cooperation of Walther a bad thing? Ok, yeah they screwed the pooch quality wise. But the joint venture, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

You produce millions of anything, and I bet you have some quality issues along the way. What sets a company apart is how they deal with the problem. While they aren't the heart of darkness, it appears that S&W is a bit of a mixed bag. 
I still want a N-Frame though.


----------



## gpo1956

So, S&W waited 30 years to "copy" the Python? The underlug is the only thing copied from the Python. Also, he obviously never actually did holster an L Frame in a Python holster. They are a loose, at best, fit.


----------



## firediver

Some people just like to complain this guy appears to be one, I have owned many S&W revolvers and pistols over the years and they have all been quality guns with the exception of one and that's the Sigma but you get what you pay for. S&W is like other companies in a competitive business and they had to make a gun that could compete in the lower price handgun market, thus the Sigma. Regardless, I still plan to own and buy S&W handguns IMO there top of the line.:smt066


----------



## dondavis3

+1 firediver

Amen


----------



## texgunner

It seems to me that he has an axe to grind. I've bought, sold or traded 23 different Smiths in the last 16 years and only one problem. An M17 that broke a firing pin. I shipped it to Smith & Wesson on their dime and had the gun back in 10 days.


----------



## ozzy

Who the heck is Chuck Hawks anyway's??? I've owned three and sold one that I wish I didn't. I plan on getting a few more.


----------



## wjh2657

I have owned at least three S&W revolvers at a time since I was 21 years old (47 years ago) I now own six of them. None have ever failed me.


----------



## Iron

Iv never had a problem with any of my S&W revolvers, like mentioned before their customer service is great! I had a problem with my model 64 awhile and they took care of it free of charge.


----------



## tkroenlein

I joined this forum just to reply to this thread. WHATEVER CHUCK!!! If their revolvers are such a poor "copy" of the original Colt, where can I get me a new Colt? Why are so many poor, uninformed LEO's carrying Smith's? I've owned/own over a dozen, revolvers and auto's alike, each one worked flawlessly, and shot great to boot. My oldest is a 4th model Safety Hammerless and newest 337-1 AirliteTi. BG380 if they can make enough for me to finally get my hands on one. That rambling makes me think Mr. Hawkes may have a hidden agenda. Only a bafoon would slam a company who sets the benchmark for quality production guns.


----------



## ozzy

tkroenlein said:


> I joined this forum just to reply to this thread. WHATEVER CHUCK!!! If their revolvers are such a poor "copy" of the original Colt, where can I get me a new Colt? Why are so many poor, uninformed LEO's carrying Smith's? I've owned/own over a dozen, revolvers and auto's alike, each one worked flawlessly, and shot great to boot. My oldest is a 4th model Safety Hammerless and newest 337-1 AirliteTi. BG380 if they can make enough for me to finally get my hands on one. That rambling makes me think Mr. Hawkes may have a hidden agenda. Only a bafoon would slam a company who sets the benchmark for quality production guns.


 I have a BG 380 that I carry everyday, you will love it. I just think Chucky has tried to procure product for review and was turned down on his reputation. What a cry baby. LOL.


----------



## PM

legionrider said:


> S&W has been around a long time. The people who spend hard earned dollars are not stupid, nor are they easily deceived. No matter how good a PR campaign a company ran, word would circulate about these issues, and the consumer would stop buying their products. ANY manufacturing process has its high points and low points, The current recall of toyota? How about the Ford Pinto? The O-rings on the space shuttle? the point is Longevity is not driven by ad campaigns but by consumer confidence and reputation spread by word of mouth.


This is my first post, as I have come here to talk and learn about my 642CT and .380 BG, but I wanted to clarify one myth that you referred to. The booster o-rings on the shuttle that exploded were not defective. They were not designed to operate at the starting temperatures the shuttle saw that day. A very good man lost his job for blowing the whistle on Morton Thiokol and their refusal to tell NASA NOT to fly the shuttle that day. NASA was advised as part of the documentation of the product not to fly in those temperatures, but the Whitehouse, under tremendous pressure, told NASA to fly anyway. Sadly, Ronald Reagan, a great man and an American hero in my eyes, ultimately bore the responsibility for that disaster. He of course was not aware of the details, but by the nature of his position was responsible for the actions of his staff. I studied that disaster for a week during engineering school in an ethics course.

Actually, you can argue the design was defective, but it was not defective as long as it was operated above 53 degrees F, and NASA knew that and was repeatedly advised not to fly under that temperature. However, there's no publicly-accessible documentation that the part was to function at a given range. I suspect, given the fact that NASA management was crucified for the accident, that they were told that the part had only been tested down to 53 F. Why would Thiokol only test down to 53F if that was not part of the design requirements? I blame NASA, not Thiokol.


----------



## wjh2657

Far too many posters expect perfection in their weapons. Any mechanical device, no matter how well designed or manufactured will possibly have components that ultimately will fail early. As a former armorer, I periodically check any of my "critical" (carry or HD) weapons for early wear or failure. I do the same with my automobile. I carry S&W revolvers almost exclusively. I disassemble , clean and inspect any of them I have designated for defense purposes. I do the same with my Mossberg shotguns that are for HD. If I find unusual wear, cracks or anything else "funny" with a part, I replace it.

I am aware that not everybody has been trained as an armorer. It would behoove gun carriers to become acquainted with an armorer or gunsmith and have their weapons checked periodically. The same advice is sound for mechanics and automobiles.

The argument that this "shouldn't be necessary as the gun should be made to last" argument flies in the face of mechanical reality. SIGs and Kimbers can break down as well as Taurus and Rossis. They may not break down as often, but they possess the same potential.

I have a lot of faith in the design and workmanship of S&W, but I still check them. If a part breaks, I contact them and _we_ work out a way to remedy the problem. I don't go around telling everybody what a "POS" they manufacture, _we_ fix the gun.


----------



## Bob Wright

O.K. Here's my take on Smith & Wesson revolvers:

I own maybe a dozen of so Smiths, .38 Specials, .357 Magnums, .45 Colts, and .44 Magnums. So, my experiences.

I have an early Model 29, 6" barrel, bought from a friend with maybe 1,000 rounds fired. I experienced some parts breakage, notably the trigger pivot pin. This using factory and heavy handloads. Also had the cylinder unlock when firing, and the hammer deliver a double strike on the primer. I complained to Smith about this and was told my gun needed the "endurance package" installed. I returned the gun to Smith and this was done free of charge. At the same time I had a full lug barrel installed, getting an 8 3/8" barrel. Shortly afterward I had my gunsmith cut the barrel to 6". No further problems, and having fired in excess of 10,000 round through the gun.

A second Model 29 I had fitted with 5" full lug barrel. This barrel turned in the frame, so I had my gunsmith pin the barrel. After about 8,000 rounds the barrel stub split. Smith replaced the barrel with a new one.

These two .44 Magnum revolvers are the only ones I've had break down, and for a DA revolver, Smith wins hands down with me.

In addition, I might add, I've had Colts and Rugers experience similar break down. Most of my guns have seen heavy use, most have in excess of 10,000 rounds fired, one Ruger .45 Colt Blackhawk nearing 20,000 rounds. And, yes, I keep a count of rounds fired in my log books.

Bob Wright


----------



## cwl1862

Hey PX think ya better go back and re-read my post I'm not knocking anyones quality, especially S&W. I own several New and old. Just saying Smith & Wessons are a little overpriced of late. jmo


----------



## wjh2657

cwl1862 said:


> Hey PX think ya better go back and re-read my post I'm not knocking anyones quality, especially S&W. I own several New and old. Just saying Smith & Wessons are a little overpriced of late. jmo


So is everything else. The cheapest Chevy I can buy new cost $7,000 more than my Dad paid for a his three bedroom house. Don't go shopping for a Buick and expect to pay Hyundai prices! I agree that the prices for the "exotic metals super flyweights" are insane, but you can still buy the standard Stainlessss Steel and Airweights at a competitive price.


----------



## S&W M&P

I own several models of S&W handguns and one carbine. I have only experienced one malfunction on any of the S&W firearms. It was actually a friend of mine that was firing my Sigma. He limp-wristed the pistol when firing it and it failed to feed one round. That could have happened on any pistol. The S&W products definitely show a long history of firearm manufacturing experience. They show attention to problems and the needs of gun owners. The external extractor on their 1911s is a good example of that. I cannot speak on their customer service because I have never needed to contact them for any issues. I would definitely recommend their firearms for anybody looking to pick up a quality gun in the mid price range.


----------



## Snubshooter

I get and read about 6 different "GUN" mags . I've never heard of this Chuck guy, so he must be some "Minor nobody" who's really upset about his less than zero stature in the world. I mean really... "let's complain about things that might have occurred decades ago" When the Brit's or Bangor-Punta ran the shop. I have and do own many Smith revolvers and I shoot them alot and have since the 70s and for the most part I am pleased with their products. Others must likeways be happy or they would cease to sell enough products to stay in business( like when the brits made their deal with Bill and his gang of thugs in the 90s) So I'll keep on shooting my Smiths and Rugers and chuck can keep on crying about the unfairness of(his) life......


----------



## Packard

Revolvers require far more exacting machine work than semi-auto pistols.

When I got into shooting it was a toss up on where to get your gun: S & W or Colt.

Chief's special, or Detective's special? Five rounds or six rounds?

The quality was about the same.

Only the Python stood out.

Colt is out of the revolver business. To my mind S & W is at the top of the pile in terms of quality; followed by Ruger, and then either Charter Arms or Rossi. With the tail end carried by Taurus.

As for copying, I think you can make a case for Ruger filching ideas from all over the place. The LCP and the LC9 come to mind. I can't recall which made the first resin framed revolver. Certainly one of them copied the other.

Glock is considered the father of resin framed pistols. But is stole the idea from H & K who produced one about a decade earlier.

Certainly S & W stole the "Judge" idea from Taurus and came out with the Govenor.

Taurus seems to have the most good ideas lately but then they sabotage them with their shoddy production quality.

I think it is OK to borrow ideas if you execute very well. Certainly the Govenor will be a better quality revolver than the Judge.

How many companies have ripped off Browning's designs?

How many companies have ripped off AK47 designs?

How many companies have ripped off AR16 designs?

I'll stick with S & W for revolvers. I like the dark side. I live there.


----------



## dcopper

*Chuck Hawk*

Who the hell is he? Never heard of him! S&W Rules. Revolver and Semi's!!!!


----------



## ozzy

dcopper said:


> Who the hell is he? Never heard of him! S&W Rules. Revolver and Semi's!!!!


 He's a TROLL !


----------



## hideit

i don't want to get another S&W except maybe the 629
anyway these idiots put a cylinder mark on a gold engraved west point commerative class pistol all the way around
i was so ticked off
this was a case gun and the idiots fired all chambers and made a ring all around the cylinder
so much for spending $1500 for a gold engraved case gun from S&W


----------



## crescentstar69

I have loved every S&W I have ever owned. (about 10) in fact, I could kick myself for selling most of them, but as a young man, I had to sell one to buy one. I bough a couple through our PD trade-in's and stole them. (new in the box 2.5 inch model 66 for $170) I sold the 66 for $350 and kick myself every time I think about it. 

Anyway, this guy obviously has some kind of grudge. As for me, a S&W 5906 saved my life on a couple of occasions, including an on-duty shooting, so who cares what he thinks?


----------



## LePetomane

The author of this link obviously has an axe to grind. I have two S&W revolvers, a 629 and a 686. I'm always carrying one or the other into the back country for fly fishing. I've never had to fire one and I hope I never do. I've put a lot of rounds through both at the range and never had an issue.


----------



## bassjam04

Wow-old thread,but a good one.Im a Huge Smith fan and own a 686-1.If Im not mistaken those were made somewhere in the mid to late 80's?? Many many many rounds and never a problem.It is still tight and shoots better than it ever has.Anything that has moving parts will eventually need fixing/servicing and things always have a chance of breaking.What is more important to me- S&W are awesome when it comes to customer service.Though Ive never dealt with them a friend of mine has-they took care of him no questions asked.And more stories like that are well documented.Though I prefer the older S&W handguns,I wouldnt hesitate to pick up a newer one I liked it.


----------



## Nanuk

The guy is so full of himself it is leaking out. The "I" is because S&W bought Thomson Center who made an "ICON" rifle.

Send me a PM and I will give you my FFL info so you can send my your junk S&W's.


----------



## TheReaper

Nanuk said:


> The guy is so full of himself it is leaking out. The "I" is because S&W bought Thomson Center who made an "ICON" rifle.
> 
> Send me a PM and I will give you my FFL info so you can send my your junk S&W's.


Don't hold back......Tell us how you really feel.


----------



## RB60

I own 3 S&W revolvers, two .38's and a .22 - all K Masterpieces. None have ever malfunctioned and the quality is top notch. I sent one .38 back for reconditioning a few years back, it was returned with a note saying please accept this at no charge from S&W. I have no complaints whatsoever about S&W.


----------



## Sgt45

I've shot out 2, 6" M19's a 2 1/2" M19 to the point they wouldn't work. That took about 2500 rounds of .357 loads, I also shot out a Taurus whatever, basically a M19. The K frame is fine of .38 Specials but no more (unless you don't shoot much). The N frame .357 is great, a little heavy, but great. I don't own a Smith now, probably won't ever again. I'd have to agree with the article and I DO remember the deal made with Clinton. Not good. The M39 and 59 were abominations by the way.


----------



## redtail

Who's Chuck Hawkes?

Smith & Wesson does not "machine" their frames, they are castings. So much for being a gun expert.

The whole, entire, 38 Special +P thing is a bunch of hogwash. Period. In any gun. If you don't think so, then without going in to lots details ask yourself: with the number of lawyers eager to take up liability cases in this country, why would any gun maker market a 38 Special that was not safe to shoot 38 Special ammunition? Or, why would any ammunition maker produce and market 38 Special ammunition that produced pressures in excess of the SAAMI maximum specified for the caliber? Would the lawyers representing such an ammunition manufacturer allow them to do this? 
This whole "is my gun safe with +P ammunition" thing has to stop (unless you're talking some of the cheap imported guns) A lot of the so-called +P ammunition being made today chronographs right around, or sometimes even less than 900 fps out of a 4 inch barreled revolver, *this I know first hand as a fact*. Open up the cylinder after firing and many of the empties of so-called +P ammunition will shake out of the cylinder. Idiots like CH perpetuating this myth ought to do some real research once in a while instead of parroting what they hear from others.


----------



## Bisley

redtail said:


> Who's Chuck Hawkes?


He's a gun guy with a web site who manages to write long articles without coming off as obnoxious.


----------



## shouldazagged

I'm through buying guns, but only because I live on Social Security and can't afford to anymore. Only one Smith I owned, a 411, was later than 1990 vintage. I currently own only two, a 1990 Model 640 (my EDC) and a 1966 Model 10-5. I like the older ones. And no Smith handgun I have ever owned has ever given me the slightest trouble. A Model 15-8 I have since given to my son and his boys was single sweetest handgun, pistol or revolver, I've ever owned. As for the copying thing, look at the innumerable copies of S&W revolvers that have been manufactured forever in Argentina, Spain, Belgium and heaven knows where else. Take a stroll through A. B. Zhuk's _Illustrated Encyclopedia Of Handguns_, which arranges them by country of manufacture. It'll be an eye-opener that Hawks probably hasn't experienced.

In fact , you should get a copy of that book anyway if you're interested in handgun history around the world.


----------



## just for fun

Gettin a little long in the tooth and will be 68 this coming Aug. Will never be known as a big gun collector or owner as total is around a dozen. Most are are revolvers and with few exception all are Smiths. Every brand of firearm will have it's followers. Never forget that one man's rose is another man's poison. Really don't care enough to challange anyone's veiwpoint on guns! I'm more than satified with Smith's products and will continue to purchase them. Should you think that I'm just an old fool because I didn't purchase another brand that you think is better, best I can think of is "Well, Bless your heart". (now go play)


----------



## dondavis3

Most people agree S&W revolvers are outstanding.

Well I'll tell you that their M&P line is "outstanding" too

IMHO

:smt1099


----------



## onebilly43

I find this hard to believe I have several S&Ws and have not had a minutes problem with any of them.


----------



## GERasputin

Hawk makes some good points and no, I don't believe he has an axe to grind. He's just telling it as it really is. 

I love S&W, or at least some of it. I was literally raised on S&W handguns. My father had an old 6" Model 10 that he and my mother helped me hold as a child and learn to shoot on. Mom carried a Model 36 in her pocketbook, most of the time. At 14, Dad gave me a M-10 he bought from a guy at his job for a good price and at 16, he gave me his 6" M-28, that he had been wearing as a reserve deputy in our home county. He had acquired a Colt Trooper with a 4" barrel and it was an easier carry on his duty belt, although Dad still liked S&W's grip frame and action better, as did I.

Back in 77, I purchased a nickel plated M-36 with 3" barrel and round butt. It was a great little gun, with great accuracy. In 1980, I purchased a 4" M-29, the answer to a long dream of having one of these great guns. It had issues. One was that two chambers (I actually was able to verify which two) would print practically on top of one another at fifty yards. The others, were all over the target. This was during a period when S&W QC was really in the toilet. I sent it back, asking that a new cylinder or whatever the issue was be corrected. About three months later, I received the gun, with the same cylinder and the same problem. I later sold it to a friend who, even though warned of the issue, wanted the gun worse than I did. In 1988, I thought I had found my dream duty weapon, a 686 with round butt. When I went to shoot it after purchasing it, I noted that it was shooting waaaay to the left, even with the rear sight blade adjusted so far to the right, that it was hanging over the edge of the track the blade was seated in. A friend who was with me had the same problem. Our best groups were about eight inches to the left at 25 yds. Upon cleaning the gun at home, the problem became apparent. It was a large tool mark in one of the grooves extending from the muzzle back, about a half inch. A trip to S&W with a note that it was a police duty gun saw it coming back in about two months with a new barrel. It grouped fine but now, the rebound spring on the trigger had something wrong and if you were dry firing it, the hammer might not rebound at all if you let your finger off of it slowly enough. I traded it shortly afterward for a 4" Ruger Security Six.

In 1992, I purchased a M-640 (the TRUE j-frame in all stainless). It was great and I lost it in a divorce settlement. :-(

In 2007, I helped a female friend to get her CWP and bought her a 640 (the steroided .357). It was reasonably accurate but after less than a box of fifty rounds, the trigger was exceedingly hard to pull. I took it home and cleaned it up and it worked just fine. The next day, when she had to go for her CWP range test, she said it was doing the same thing, again. I took it home and cleaned it and found the problem. The gap between the cylinder and forcing cone was so narrow, that firing just a few rounds put enough crud on the cylinder face to cause it to bind up. Sent it back to S&W for that to be fixed. It came back in less than a month and worked fine. The day we sent that one back, I bought her a 642 so she wouldn't be without a gun while waiting on that one to be repaired and also, so she had one that was more easily carried concealed. As I explained to her, she needed to have at least two because the police would confiscate whichever one she used, should such an unfortunate event ever unfold. The new 642 worked just fine, but I noted that on her 640 and her 642, the bore had an exceedingly cruddy finish in them. The clean, smooth, lands and groves of past S&W's was not there. Instead, the new guns' bores looked like some sloppy workmanship or tooling had been used in the process of rifling the barrel. I just read elsewhere on here where S&W has gone to some electro-chemical process to rifle its barrels. FWIW and IMHO, they look like crap and don't clean easily as the old ones did. 

Issues with the lacquer coating on the frames of the 642's are widespread. I later purchased two 642's for myself and was disheartened to find the frames had that crummy lacquer on them which can and does peel at times. Why didn't they just anodize the frames instead of using that lacquer? 

I have a 442 on order, one without the "Hillary hole". I hope it will be a good one, reliable, accurate, and with a better bore than others I have seen.

Hawk was just telling the truth. I love some things about S&W, but they have had and probably still do, much room for improvement.


----------



## RCNY

I currently own a 617 purchased new ,with severe barrel leading issues ,I contacted them and it's going back ,I own several other smiths and love them ,this one not so much yet ? I believe they will make it right ,here's one for you I purchased a Ruger sr22 last year gun was NON FUNCTIONING out of the box,after listening to customer service BS about firing 2 full magazines through every gun before it leaves the factory I told him he was full of .... Prepaid shipping label ,sent back functioning ,I had to dig to find out what the problem was ,defective magizine disconnect ,overall I don't think you'll find a better built mass produced handgun than S&W


----------



## smithnframe

I've had several S&W lemons! The most recent was a pre model 14 from 1948 that I traded into and quickly traded it for something else! Lately I've been concentrating on acquiring Ruger revolvers though I still collect P n R N frames!


----------



## desertman

GERasrutin:


> "Issues with the lacquer coating on the frames of the 642's are widespread. I later purchased two 642's for myself and was disheartened to find the frames had that crummy lacquer on them which can and does peel at times. Why didn't they just anodize the frames instead of using that lacquer?"


I had the same issue with mine, within a month the finish started to blister and flake off, S&W offered to re-finish mine, only it probably would be the same crappy finish. So instead of the hassle of sending it back and waiting God knows how long to get it back, I'll probably strip it and re-finish it myself with "Dura Coat". I have an S&W Model 3913, 669 and a Beretta 92FS Inox which to my knowledge have a bead blasted aluminum frame without any finish. Which makes me wonder why S&W bothered to put any finish at all on the 642? So far I've had no issues with the Model 442 which is all black.


----------

