Ran into one of the new Smith 1911s the other day.  Had to check it out.  The fit and finish were VERY good.  The slide was tight but not overwhelmingly so.  Sights were better than I thought they would be.  Trigger was a nice crisp 18 or 20 lbs.  Almost IMPOSSIBLE to dry fire thanks to that goofy new grip safety, safety system..  Why Kimber can do this reasonably but S and W can't is beyond me.  The first thing I would do is rip that sucker OUT. and replace everything with series 70 stuff.

18 to 20 pounds!
Something don't sound right.
The one I saw looked good, except for the trigger.
It was too far forward, actually leaving a gap behind it.
I didn't dare pick it up, things I like tend to "stick" to my hands.

 On the 1911 boards this seems to be the bitch about S and W 1911's and I purposely goofed around with that one just to experiment.  I wonder if that stupid schwartz safety ( or whatever it is ) can be yanked out and series 70 stuff put in.

I think that if I were to buy a new one, I would look for one w/o needless safeties, however, when you buy a gun that has a safety, and then remove it, what would happen if you ever went to court for a justifiable shooting? They might not yell at you if you didn't buy the safest gun in the world, but I would think that you would hear something if you bought one and then started "trying to make it less safe."

It probably was the safety system or a tight sear that caused the trigger problem. Ned Christiansen on pistolsmith.com wrote this about his first encounter with a S&W:

have one in the shop that I'm kinda evaluating for a guy. My impressions pretty much match what's been written. They have a few finer points to work out but it's a good start. This one had a 6+ trigger pull, due it turns out to the sear being tight in the frame. Not sure if it was the sear or the frame cut, which is done in a different but efficient manner. I just surface ground the sear down about .004 thinner and the trigger went 4.25 and nice. Is the overtavel screw in backwards on your guys' guns? I figure it's on purpose. The "timing" of the passive firing pin block on this one is good, in other words, at the point where the grip safety will let the trigger drop the hammer, the FP safety has been moved enough to pass the FP. Will be running about a case o' CorBon through it in a week or so.

www.pistolsmith.com/viewtopic.php?t=15487&start=10

We all know why they didn't make it Series 70 parts (starts with a big "L"). More importantly though, I don't think one can replaced the grip safety and mainspring housing altogether. I called Novak's about their extreme duty adjustable sights (S&W uses a 9 mm slide cut by the way), and they said that the S&W uses propreitary parts for those components. If you notice on one of their custom S&W 1911s, everything is still there (grip safety, etc.).

Hmmmmmmmmm, although a lot of people have been happy with theirs, I'm upset you can "gunsmith" those parts to get it the way I want it. It's a great .45 though, but I think I'll invest in a Sig P220 Stainless for now. I can get it tuned to the way I want it with night sights, trigger job and a Bar-Sto stainless steel barrel at a decent price. The S&W is probably a great gun, but I don't like the fact certain parts are propreitary.

Smith and Wesson has never made a semi-pistol
that has been worth a damn (with exception of the 945).

They couldn't even copy the 1911 and get that right.

I'll stick to Colt, Kimber, Springfield, and Wilson.

 Interesting comments, guys.  I think, after quite a bit of trouble with everybody but Kimber and Colt I will stick to them myself.  I do admit I am glad Smith gave it a shot I just wish they would've kept the gun a bit simpler.  If they had turned out a G.I. looking and functioning gun I think it would have been great....but that's how it goes.

Quoted: 18 to 20 pounds! Something don't sound right. The one I saw looked good, except for the trigger. It was too far forward, actually leaving a gap behind it. I didn't dare pick it up, things I like tend to "stick" to my hands.

 Me too!!!!  I don't dare pick up certain guns for I know sure as hell, I'm weak and will buy it.

BTW, excellent post guys for I'm looking for another 1911 and found your comments pertinent. Thx

Quoted: Smith and Wesson has never made a semi-pistol that has been worth a damn (with exception of the 945).

Au contraire. They did good on Models 52, 41 & 39-series.

Quoted: Quoted: Smith and Wesson has never made a semi-pistol that has been worth a damn (with exception of the 945). Au contraire. They did good on Models 52, 41 & 39-series.

Yeah right,
haven't seen anything there that a Browning Buckmark
or a browning HP or a Colt can't do much
better.
Sorry, just my opinion.

I just don't like double-action autos.
They are an answer to a non-existant problem.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Smith and Wesson has never made a semi-pistol that has been worth a damn (with exception of the 945). Au contraire. They did good on Models 52, 41 & 39-series. Yeah right, haven't seen anything there that a Browning Buckmark or a browning HP or a Colt can't do much better. Sorry, just my opinion. I just don't like double-action autos. They are an answer to a non-existant problem.

First of all, I own a Buckmark & I am a huge fan of them. However, it will NOT be anywhere as accurate as a S&W 41.

Secondly, the Model 52 is a single action, NOT double. Strictly as a bullseye gun, it has NO peers, Gold Cup included.

With these exceptions, I have yet to want any other S&W semi. But those two are also the best that's ever been made.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Smith and Wesson has never made a semi-pistol that has been worth a damn (with exception of the 945). Au contraire. They did good on Models 52, 41 & 39-series. Yeah right, haven't seen anything there that a Browning Buckmark or a browning HP or a Colt can't do much better. Sorry, just my opinion. I just don't like double-action autos. They are an answer to a non-existant problem. First of all, I own a Buckmark & I am a huge fan of them. However, it will NOT be anywhere as accurate as a S&W 41. Secondly, the Model 52 is a single action, NOT double. Strictly as a bullseye gun, it has NO peers, Gold Cup included. With these exceptions, I have yet to want any other S&W semi. But those two are also the best that's ever been made.

You are correct , my mistake.
But how about a SIG 210, I'd say that woud give the
52 a run for I'ts money.

I also have a Buckmark.
They are exceptionally accurate as you and I both know.
A 41 would have to be a real piece of work IE.
a custom job, to be any more accurate.

I should have said production guns.
I have a friend that has a 945, yes a great gun
but not worth the $1600.00 he paid for it,
when it dosen't shoot that much better than my
$600.00 Colt 1991A1.

Didn't mean to offend, just my $.02

Quoted: A 41 would have to be a real piece of work IE. a custom job, to be any more accurate. They're the closest thing to a custom job, IIRC they now come out of S&W's Performance Center. I would like to see a 52 go against a P-210, that'd be something, IMO. I should have said production guns. Both the 52 & 41 are production guns, the 52 ofcourse is no longer made. Didn't mean to offend, just my $.02 You'll have to try a lot harder than that!

Belleville Shooting Range (in IL) finally got a S&W 1911 in, and I must say the trigger is ruined only by that stupid safety system. You can actually see the trigger move back a little bit once you depress the grip safety. The grip safety by far requires more force to depress than any other I've ever tried. Once the safety's depressed, the trigger itself isn't all that bad in my opinion, but you do feel the take up from the safety. When you depress the grip safety alone, you can see the trigger move back a little bit due to the safety being disengaged.

All in all, S&W did everything right about this gun, except for the stupid and strange safety system. They put a stainless steel bushing, barrel, slide and frame on it, along with an external extractor (non-Glock though...). The barrel/bushing fit was very tight, and there's no doubt that the gun is a damn tack driver. However, I don't understand why anyone perceives the need for an extra safety on a gun like the 1911, since it's impossible to fire the damn thing unless you depress the grip safety to begin with and unlock the thumb safety!!!!!

I think someone quoted Col. Cooper over on the 1911forum about the Series 80 type safety thing as a "solution to a problem that does not exist". I wholeheartedly agree with this remark, and I advise someone looking into a 1911 to seek out a Series 70 system. A Springfield Mil-spec or a Caspian slide and frame with an external extractor would be a great starting point.

Quoted: the 52 ofcourse is no longer made.

Not true. They are making them again through the Performance Center. I bet it's a great gun, but I rather have a Sig P210.

Quoted: Not true. They are making them again through the Performance Center. I bet it's a great gun, but I rather have a Sig P210.

What's your source on the model 52 being made again? The S&W rep never mentioned them when I was buying my 41.

A P-210 is a damn fine gun, indeed. But it's like owning a High Power in addition to a 1911, it's a companion piece, IMO.

S&W of course! The gun's in their 2003 catalog, and it's online!

www.smith-wesson.com/Products/Firearms/pc/m952.htm

They put a stupid safety system on it though: "Hammer Block Safety System Independent of Trigger Pull".

They're mucking every damn little but important thing up, and it's pissing me off. Even my "tuned" 627 has that stupid built in lock. I didn't pay $850 for a revolver with a built in lock dammit.

Sigh. Perhaps both of us should raise money to buy out S&W. The only problem is, I don't admire any of their own pistols, only their revolvers.