Posted: 11/19/2004 6:41:43 AM EDT
|
I have noticed a long-term trend here that bothers/confounds me - many Arfcommers vehemently & vocally despise S&W pistols. [ NOTE: I'm not talking about the politically motivated "Boycott S&W!" crowd & I don't intend to discuss/debate that issue here. ] I'm talking about the derision of their technical merits: design, features, function, reliability, etc. The high quality of S&W revolvers is almost universally acknowledged here, but very few here seem to appreciate any of their pistols. I own several S&W pistols (and revolvers, FWIW) and have for years. In all of that time, I have only had a problem with one - the tiny S&W Sigma .380 pocket-pistol, which was an admittedly flawed design which went out-of-production pretty quickly. And even with that one - when I sent it back to S&W for repair/replacement, they replaced it with a NIB, more-expensive model 910 (after calling me, telling me it was not repairable & no longer produced, and giving me a choice of a few models to replace it with - pretty good customer service IMHO). All of my (and my wife's - she has a pair of 469s that have been her purse-guns for years) other S&W autos have been utterly reliable. So again - Why all the hate?... 
|
Absolutely - to each his own. Yours is not the attitude I am addressing, of course - there are many here with an intense dislike (if not hatred) of them. FWIW, they are not my personal first choice, either - but in my experience they are well-made, reliable pistols... |
|
I have and have owned several S&W pistols. I guess it all falls into the to each his own catgorey. I carried a S&W 6906 for a long time. I liked it but after trying Springfield XDs, Glocks, and other pistols I realized that the 6906 was not the gun for me. To me it had more felt recoil in 9mm than my 1911 does in .45 ACP. It was bulky and for as small as it was somewhat hard to conceal on my body. It was far from the most accurate handgun I have ever shot and I started carrying it less and less. My 5906 TSW is a nice gun and I kept it. The larger size of the pistol compared to the 6906 seems to make it feel better in my hands but it is by far not my choice for carry and has not been fired in a long time. Are they well made and reliable; the answer is hell yes. Neither of these pistols has ever failed me and I fed them some crappy 9mm through the years and didn't clean them regularly. They just aren't the #1 choice in pistols for me. My local gun shop has a few used ones 6906s that have been in the display case a long time. They just aren't popular anymore when you can get a other pistols with better ergonomics and other features for less. |
|
Hi Hardshell, I won’t claim to definitively answer your questions but I will put a few thoughts forward. Some might even be surprising, some not. To be honest and straight to the point I am probably one of the least likely defenders of S&W semi-autos, well at least until I got to shoot one. I used to be a euro-snob. Here are some of my random superfluous thoughts; 1) They are generally DAO or DA/SA in their triggers systems. To become damn good with these it requires more discipline and training than most seem to be able to muster. Think of the great Lawmen of the past in their prime like a Bill Jordan or G.Gordon Liddy. They were great double action shooters, better shooters than probably 99.9 of the lawmen today, because they practiced like hell. 2) Grip Angle. To the 1911 purists any deviation from this “perfect” grip angle is an abomination. I think that possibly that the Smiths angle *might* have been designed for better trigger finger leverage, and position in the double action mode, which probably makes it a less than optimal position during single action shooting. I could be all wrong about the grip angle reasoning, but it makes some sense to me though. 3) Slide controls. Most of the non-DAO Smiths have the safety/decock on the slide. I personally don’t mind it there; I don’t think it is the “Perfect” place for it either. I really don’t seem to see too many people screaming about the same arrangement on Beretta’s or Walther’s but they make a point of pointing this flaw out on S&W’s. 4) It has a mag safety. This drives some people nuts. It doesn't bother me much. If it does I know that just as with the Browning Hi-Power it can be removed if it is so bad. 5) No matter how you slice it, the ass kiss that the previous S&W ownership performed for the Clinton Admin will be a bitter memory for a lot of people forever. I imagine that it is emotionally rendering enough that that it cloud’s the rational judgment of many, no matter what S&W’s pistols are capable of doing. I can understand that somewhat. 6) A big reason, I honestly think, for the derision of (the S&W’s) is “Snob Appeal”. I know that seems absurd but it was a big reason for me and some of the shooting members of my family to never even consider a Smith semi-auto. Beretta’s, HK’s, SIG’s, Glock’s, were all subject to my desires and lusts, not necessarily due to any performance advantages over say a similar S&W. Even if it were proven in a Ransom Rest test a S&W would give the same or better results, it wouldn’t matter, the “Domestic” just will never be as exotic or sexy as the euro-import. I mean yeah a Cadillac might be a very comfortable, luxurious ride but I bet scads of people would never look twice because it is not a Mercedes. Why would you buy a Mustang when you could get an entry level BMW? Bud or Heineken? (Disclaimer; I have no problems with any motor vehicle, or beer manufacturer, I am sure they all put out a decent product and I currently don’t own any Cadillac’s, Mercedes, Fords or BMW’s nor do I have any beer in my fridge…they are merely examples) To drive this point home I was lucky enough to examine and shoot at my local outdoor range a S&W 3913 and a SIG 225 side by side. Both pistols were excellent, each with some features better in one than the other. Example, the SIG’s DA trigger pull seemed a touch lighter (a plus) but it didn’t seem as consistent or “linear” (I am lacking for a better word) during the entire travel. This just didn’t seem “right” to me and I liked the S&W’s pull for its consistency, it seems to reach peak weight at the right point of trigger travel. Between the two I would rate the Smith as *closer* to my now well dry fired S&W Model 19. Plus there were two additional bonuses with the 3913, one it is a little more compact than the 225, and it seemed to shoot the heavier bullets better than the SIG were as the SIG did better with the 115’s. To someone that wanted a concealment piece and wants to shoot 147 grain bullets the Smith won. It surprised me too. (Disclaimer; I was very impressed with the SIG 225, and to be honest when it comes down to a slim line 9mm for CCW, it was the other finalist. I would love to have such firearms in the future as the SIG 225, 226, 228, and 220.) Hardshell, sorry to ramble so much, but does any of this stuff sound reasonable to you? Chissel |
|
To me, holding a semi version of their Chief's Special is like holding a 2x4. I once owned a 6609 or some such, a DAO 9mm. Accuracy SUCKED. Their integral grip panels did them no favors either, IMO. On the flip side, my Model 52 fits my hand like a 1911, almost like it molds to my hand. Most old timers (am I one yet?  ) will tell you the models 39/59 felt better to their hands.I also love my model 41 but that's probably not the same class here. I also like my SW99 .45acp but that may or may not be considered a S&W design? Reliability has never been a problem for S&W semis, just their accuracy & ergonomics, IMO. |
|
I have a couple S&W autos and have shot others. For the most part what was said above is correct, snob appeal and peoples intense hatred of what S&W did under the former owners clouds their judgment (sounds like liberal think to me). For me the controls are fine and they have never failed me or been inaccurate. They are the best bang for the buck out there. That being said, they do have some ugly ducklings in the round up like the small chiefs specials that really are like holding a 2x4. They are like rugers in reliability, they just keep going. I'm very happy with mine and will buy more and use the extra$ for ammo and other guns The only HK pistol I'll likely ever own is the P7 series. S.O. |
|
I will say emphatically that Smith & Wesson makes an incredible Revolver.I am a Big Bore fan and have a particuliar fetish for the 29/629 Pistols. There has never been another double action revolver "In my opinion" that has the feel,quality and accuracy potential of the Smith & Wesson revolvers. I have owned many 29/629 variants with various barrel configurations and can say that they are definitely shooters in the purest way. I am in the process of obtaining the 500 S&W Magnum as well !! |
|
Like many here, I am a fan of their revolvers and have been for a long, long time. I have, however, seen even the revolvers go through some pretty severe ups and down in redesign trying to save money as well as in quality control...that is correct, not all S&W revolvers are "excellent" by a long shot! Their DA autos are a very old design that still requires some amount of hand fitting although they have made several changes to make this less of an issue than it was only a few short years ago. Given this, these guns simply have not held up as well as many others in some circumstances. I was closely associated with a LE academy where we had some 40+ S&W 3905 and 5906 handguns for several years. These guns got shot a lot and were a constant pain in the ass to keep running, but they lasted for probably 200,000+ rounds each until we finally traded them off for Beretta 92FSs. The Berettas are by far the better guns and they have had mostly zero problems with them for well over 100,000 rounds each now. These guns get shot a LOT with factory ball, and under these conditions the DA S&W autos...steel or alloy frames... just don't seem to hold up. I can say with pretty good authority that more than one agency has been given frame after new frame at no cost by S&W just to keep them "in" their pistols in the past! Before you ask, the Beretta was chosen because its design was the most complicated of the other big name service pistols at the time other than the S&W. The feeling was that a recruit trained on a Beretta could easily be transitioned to a Sig or Glock, but not as easily vice-versa. During the Military 9mm trials, the S&W...459, I believe or the prototype for it... was tested only because everyone knew S&W would sue if they refused to test it...it never came within a mile of passing. I had a 645 I wish I had back, and a 1076 that I also wish I still had, but in general I do not use nor prefer their autopistols. On the other hand, I really WOULD like to see S&W get back into the service pistol game with a vengeance...which will take an entirely new design costing megabucks...and, frankly, may no longer be do-able by the grand old company. |
|
Thanks for that response, ikor. I haven't shot my S&W autos nearly as much as my Glocks or Berettas, so I haven't seen the problems that you did with academy-level usage - good to know. The only ones we have that have seen many thousands of rounds have been my wife's 469s (her carry-guns) - and I had each of them, in turn, massaged and refinished a few years ago. We hadn't had any problems with either - they were just starting to "show their age." (FWIW, I've tried to get her to "upgrade" to something newer/better/etc., but she loves those two pistols and shoots them very well indeed so I'm not going to win that argument...) [ BTW, I know what you mean - my 645 is one of my favorites.  ]Based upon all of the reasonable and polite responses above, I guess (1) I overestimated the hatred I had perceived for these pistols, (2) the hatred was for the company/policies more than the pistols, or (3) the real "haters" just haven't seen this thread yet. 
|
|
|
Have had several S&W revolvers and they can't be beat for trigger pull or overall shootability. The older 39/59 series pistols are fine weapons in every way and the newer models are ok too. I've bought my last S&W auto though. 2000 rounds through a 40f sigma and the engagement points on the bottom of the barrel are rounding over. S&W says theres nothing wrong with this. I know better. Nine were bought for the department I work for, and I bought my own. All have had issues with failure to feed/fire; extract and eject. All with 2-4000 rounds and mostly when they have been shot 50 or so rounds. Cleaning them works but you can't expect to clean your weapon in the middle of a gunfight and besides a duty weapon should feed a rock! My Glock will, my S&W (wouldn't). Sold it to another LEO with the privision he wouldn't use it for duty work. Boycott S&W because of their stance? Maybe. All they did was kiss a little a$#. But they are a busness and it made sence to them. I don't hate them for it. Didn't hate Yugo either. |
Well Bob, no snide reply intended, but I think you and lots of others did miss quite a bit during the 1970s, 80s and early 90s, because S&W went through a series of owners who raped, robbed looted and pillaged the company several different times, most recently it was the Brits. Almost all of their senior fitters left during the early to mid 1970s and they had another exodus a few years later as well. These were caused mostly by A) S&W cutting down time allowed for fitters to build the revolvers "right" according the their older standards...you may recall there was once a time when you could guarantee a S&W was correctly fitted, but not since the early 1970s. Acceptable tolerances were enlarged, then enlarged again. Barrel / cylinder gap USED to be .003 to .005 when I first learned the S&W from an old senior armorer, they enlarged it to .004 to .006, now it is IIRC .005-.007 or maybe even greater. There are many other such examples of sloppiness being not only allowed, but encouraged in the interest of production, including hiring fewer fitters, and completely inexperiencerd fitters to do more work. I will agree that some of those Union guys in that part of the country used to whine about everything, but S&W...actually it was Bangor Punta and the rest... really did create some major problem issues with these and other changes. B) They also began to screw around with the older basic design (four screw and early three screw) and with stuff like the gas ring and the cuts to the yoke of magnum revolvers which created a situation where the cylinder would freeze up solid from expansion when firing and / or there would be so much gas and gunk blown back into the barrel of the yoke that the cylinder would no longer turn (note...this was not the same issue as the cylinder freezing up. They actually sent out a field repair bulletin showing how to recut the slots on the yoke to redirect the gas...sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not) There are many other specific issues i could relate but these should show you that I am not just trying to slam a great old company. All experienced armorers will have many stories of entire shipments of S&W revolvers being sent back for serious QC issues during all three of the decades mentioned above, and all will be able to tell you how to look at and choose a really good one for yourself. (hint...if there are more than a couple of fitter's marks on the gun pass it by...it is probably a loser.) Don't read that wrong, I realize that there were severe market pressures on S&W as well as the need to re-engineer revolvers designed to be fired only once in a great while with magnum rounds to guns that would stand up to thousands of rounds of full bore 125gr, JHP loads. (Which, of course, is when the "L" frame design began tio be developed.) etc. The adoption enmasse of autopistols pretty much also seemed to catch them by surprise as well around the early-mid 1980s when it started. Lots of other stuff there as well. Yes, you read that right, the Beretta was chosen because it was the MOST complicated in operation. Remember, we were...and they still are...training recruits for a number of different agencies as well as some who had not yet been hired. If we had picked the "easiest" design to use, we would have dumped retraining back on to the agencies, and in many cases a small agency does not have the time or money to do that. Much easier for them to relearn, say a Glock... you agree? I have shot the Walther P99 in both 9mm and .40 but not the S&W. I feel the design shows some promise, but that they need to rework or re-engineer the trigger mechanism to be similar to the Sig DAK or H&K LEM triggers. They also have a ways to go, apparently, with reliability issues. I do not know the details, but at least two or three big State Police agencies cancelled contracts with S&W over the earlier 99 series guns because they would not work correctly...or that is the story I get from some pretty good sources. This, I believe, was when the Brits still owned them. I really do not hate S&W or their products, I just believe they have missed the boat so damned many times for so many poor reasons...many of them coorporate decisions made by "efficiency experts", bean counters or BOD types who know or care nothing about firearms, that they really really need to bring out a strong candidate for a duty sidearm. One that is simple, high quality, strong, reliable, and affordable, and they will then need to pretty much give several thousand away before US cops will again become true believers in that old "S&W and nothing else" line you once heard from the old dinosaurs who taught me. |
|
|
I have a S&W Sigma 40C (compact) and the newish SW1911. As far as the 40C, it has never had a failure. I will say, however, that I only run quality ammo through it. It could be more accurate, but it's a fine carry piece. It's become my floorboard/trunk/tackle box gun since I got the SW1911. The SW1911: I can't say enough good about it. It's VERY accurate. I was told the model can chamber empty cases, and mine does indeed. In fact, the only failures I ever had were operator-induced (during my first attempts at reloading). It has many "custom" features. I popped an ambi safety on it and have run 3000+ rds through it in IDPA competition without a failure. Next up will be a set of tritium Novaks. I highly recommend that anyone who is looking at a Kimber or SA also give the SW1911 a chance. Not on the payroll, just a satisfied customer. Dawg |
|
S&W is my favorite make of pistol. I think many people, especially "tactical" folks, are turned off by the slide mounted safety (or any manual safety for that matter). I also like the magazine disconnect safety. I personally love the sturdiness of the pistols. I like the Springfield XD and Glock pistols, as well as the Sigs, but polymer and aluminum frames just don't seem to compare to the stainless steel frames. The stainless finish that many S&W's have requires less care than a blued finish. I don't like the trigger pull, the size/"look" of the slide release, and the fact that the newer autos have blued components on the otherwise stainless pistols (hammers, triggers, etc.). Also, the prices are currently too high to compete with Glock, etc. However, over all, I think they will remain my favorite. I am surprised at the lack of consideration this pistol receives when folks are pistol shopping. |
I had never been a fan of S&W Semi-Autos before last year. I never found a model that I felt comfortable with the controls or the grip ergos. But then they came out with the SW1911. I love this pistol! Of all the 1911s I own (S&W, Kimber and Colt) this one is hands down the best. As soon as they come out with a CCO, I will buy it and a Gov. model with a rail would be a sure seller as well. 
|
I have to agree with Lumpy... I have a 4506 (see my range report in the General Handgun forum) and its a great shooter, but the SOB is HEAVY. Its also kind of a pain to field strip compared to a Glock or XD. Other than that its very accurate and very comfortable to shoot. |
I had one (SW1911) and sold it on a whim... worst gun mistake I ever made... Miss it badly. |
|
I love their revolvers, especially big bore snubbies The S&W autos (except their 1911 style guns) have what I find to be horrible ergonomics. The guns simply do not point well for me. And if I have to do extra work to put the gun on target, it's a bad design to me. |