An interesting rant on Smith and Wesson

Will_M wrote:Glocks are better than old Smith and wesson revolvers anyway.

No way

RON55 wrote:I don't understand the statement that a new model gun, by any manufacturer, needs the kinks worked out. When I buy a new firearm I expect it to have the kinks already out.

Exactly! We aren't talking about a computer!
---
I had an 500 with no problems. I now, as of last week, have an Airweight .38 and hope I don't

Will_M wrote:Glocks are better than old Smith and wesson revolvers anyway.

Will_M wrote:Glocks are better than old Smith and wesson revolvers anyway.

............"and that's when the fight started."

To tell you about getting the kinks out of a "new" handgun. I had a friend that brought me a new Colt 1911 .45. It was cocked and the hammer would not fall when the trigger was pulled. I took it apart and the center leaf of the trigger spring was not long enough to activate the disconnector. I replaced the it with a USGI spring and the pistol functioned flawlessly.

There is no reason an $800 handgun should leave the Colt Factory in a condition where it cannot be fired. It is inexcusable. I have had a 642 S&W .38 come in my shop that had double action trigger pull of about 20 pounds. It was rough inside and it was corrected by judicious polishing of the internal parts. There is no excuse for this problem, either.

Doug

I have two S&W 686 Pro Series revolvers and I love both of them but, as Doug states, they are not of the same quality as when S&W built their old flagships.

I shot my brand new 686P yesterday.....flawless.... so maybe they aren't as good as the older ones, I wouldn't know. But, so far at least, this one appears to function perfectly, and shoots accurately...perfect... I'll report back after another few hundred of 357mag rounds..... for now, I'm 100%