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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Most people agree S&W revolvers are outstanding.
Well I'll tell you that their M&P line is "outstanding" too
I find this hard to believe I have several S&Ws and have not had a minutes problem with any of them.
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.
Last edited by GERasputin; 05-27-2013 at 04:33 AM. Reason: Corrected typo
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
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!
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."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?"