Comments on the Thunder Ranch .44 Special?
- Thread starter croyance
- Start date
Quality varied on the Model 21s, some were good, some were bad. I returned the two I had unfired & gave up on the gun.
One poster on the S&W forum had to return his to S&W, it was so bad they couldn't repair it & told him they couldn't support it because it was an "obsolete" model.
You'd be gambling, could turn out alright, could go the other way.
One poster on the S&W forum had to return his to S&W, it was so bad they couldn't repair it & told him they couldn't support it because it was an "obsolete" model.
You'd be gambling, could turn out alright, could go the other way.
I looked at one at a local dealers shop. I was mostly interested in the grips which fit so poor it was disgusting. I asked him what the price was without the logo and he bit off a piece of his cigar and put the gun back in the counter.
.44 spl and .45 acp are fine calibers. The problem is S&W doesn't care for your life as much as their profit margin.
.44 spl and .45 acp are fine calibers. The problem is S&W doesn't care for your life as much as their profit margin.
The problems with the 21s were strictly quality control issues that should never have gone out the doors at the factory.
The first one had an over-tightened barrel with sight canted left, the cylinder had to be forced shut, there was an engraved drag line on the cylinder from a sharp edge left on the bolt stop, the forcing cone failed the No-Go gauge, and there was almost enough room in the gap between the Ahrends grips at the front to get a dime in.
The second had the overtightened barrel & canted sight, a radial burr on the muzzle crown that wouldn't let a range rod in at first, a barrel constriction inside that the rod picked up when it finally did go in, the engraved drag line on the cylinder, and also failed the No-Go gauge on the forcing cone.
I heard from reliable sources (one of whom was a proud parent of the project) that many of the guns were not well regulated in their sights, shot either left or right, and were not regulated to point of aim/point of impact with the Black Hills loads that one magazine said they were. I also talked to an insider at S&W who told me the guns were dropped when they were because of QC issues.
The current 22s seem to be doing much better overall, aside from early sight regulation problems.
The first one had an over-tightened barrel with sight canted left, the cylinder had to be forced shut, there was an engraved drag line on the cylinder from a sharp edge left on the bolt stop, the forcing cone failed the No-Go gauge, and there was almost enough room in the gap between the Ahrends grips at the front to get a dime in.
The second had the overtightened barrel & canted sight, a radial burr on the muzzle crown that wouldn't let a range rod in at first, a barrel constriction inside that the rod picked up when it finally did go in, the engraved drag line on the cylinder, and also failed the No-Go gauge on the forcing cone.
I heard from reliable sources (one of whom was a proud parent of the project) that many of the guns were not well regulated in their sights, shot either left or right, and were not regulated to point of aim/point of impact with the Black Hills loads that one magazine said they were. I also talked to an insider at S&W who told me the guns were dropped when they were because of QC issues.
The current 22s seem to be doing much better overall, aside from early sight regulation problems.
Since it's inception, S&W's Thunder-Blunder has been receiving it's share of negative feedback, but for what it's worth I fired a few cylinders-full through a friends gun, and while not overly impressed, the revolver did what a revolver is supposed to do. No high praise, but it did not evoke comparison to a shot-out Rossi or the like.
Thinder Ranch S&W revolver problems
Terrible. Just terrible. S&W needs to be taken behind the powder locker and beat with a 1980's Dillion plastic flexible larger pistol primer tube for screwing-up a perfectly good concept.
Now I know why used N frame revolvers are way past $500.
Terrible. Just terrible. S&W needs to be taken behind the powder locker and beat with a 1980's Dillion plastic flexible larger pistol primer tube for screwing-up a perfectly good concept.
Now I know why used N frame revolvers are way past $500.
How many problems did the original model 21 have?
Smith & Wesson is trying to make up for poor sales by resorting to "gimmicks". They didn't need Clint Smith or anyone else to endorse their products as they sold themselves. And the mere fact that Mr. Smith Chose an "old outdated revolver" like the 21 to copy is testimony to that. They used to make the finest revolvers in the world, period. Now they just want your money. I saw a statement on another thread where the poster stated rugers were built like trucks. That is true, and old S&Ws were built like Porches, see the difference? Some of the old production revolvers came off the line better than their "Performance Center" guns now.
Their revolvers are no better than anything else on the market now, revolver or semi. Remember when Lee Iacocca took over Chrysler when they were about to go under. One of the first things he did was to design better looking cars. Many government agencies were pushed to buy their cars because they were bailed out by a federal loan. Then their rear ends fell off in high speed pursuits. Don't be fooled by looks or some celebrity putting his name on the product. God I'm starting to sound like Ralph Nader, I'm outta here.
Smith & Wesson is trying to make up for poor sales by resorting to "gimmicks". They didn't need Clint Smith or anyone else to endorse their products as they sold themselves. And the mere fact that Mr. Smith Chose an "old outdated revolver" like the 21 to copy is testimony to that. They used to make the finest revolvers in the world, period. Now they just want your money. I saw a statement on another thread where the poster stated rugers were built like trucks. That is true, and old S&Ws were built like Porches, see the difference? Some of the old production revolvers came off the line better than their "Performance Center" guns now.
Their revolvers are no better than anything else on the market now, revolver or semi. Remember when Lee Iacocca took over Chrysler when they were about to go under. One of the first things he did was to design better looking cars. Many government agencies were pushed to buy their cars because they were bailed out by a federal loan. Then their rear ends fell off in high speed pursuits. Don't be fooled by looks or some celebrity putting his name on the product. God I'm starting to sound like Ralph Nader, I'm outta here.
I do like the old S&W's. Recently, to my surprise, I have found I like revolvers and already have two. I am also looking at a 586-1 (M). I guess I am going this way.
Part of the blame is not just S&W but people's buying habits. On another thread, a recent post said that America is becoming a country where companies pay the minimum and get the resulting quality.
True, but we are also a country where a lot of people will pay a little less to get a lot less in quality. Quality has always cost more.
Well, I guess I have to see if the L-frame is still there (different store). Costs less and sounds like it is probably built better. A shame really. I am one of those who will pay more to get that quality.
Part of the blame is not just S&W but people's buying habits. On another thread, a recent post said that America is becoming a country where companies pay the minimum and get the resulting quality.
True, but we are also a country where a lot of people will pay a little less to get a lot less in quality. Quality has always cost more.
Well, I guess I have to see if the L-frame is still there (different store). Costs less and sounds like it is probably built better. A shame really. I am one of those who will pay more to get that quality.
Smith & Wesson problems.
Gentlemen, it was a pleasure reading your responses about S &W. Not that I 'm the world's gift to revolver opinions, but I must say I strongly agree to current postings. I like the Thunder Ranch concept but their QC issues are of great concearn.
Lately I've been looking to buy a couple of straight 4 inch 1970's 'K' and 'N' revolvers. The prices on the junk pieces are outragious, and the astronomical prices on the decent ones must be worth all the money because the good ones ain't there the next day. An early 5" model 27, 85%-90%, $800. A late 60's early '70's M29, 4", 'no-can-find' at any price. Descent 4" M15, easy $400- when you can find them.
I plan to go out and shoot these guns, alot. I don't want all the QC problems associated with all the new and improved versions.
Gentlemen, it was a pleasure reading your responses about S &W. Not that I 'm the world's gift to revolver opinions, but I must say I strongly agree to current postings. I like the Thunder Ranch concept but their QC issues are of great concearn.
Lately I've been looking to buy a couple of straight 4 inch 1970's 'K' and 'N' revolvers. The prices on the junk pieces are outragious, and the astronomical prices on the decent ones must be worth all the money because the good ones ain't there the next day. An early 5" model 27, 85%-90%, $800. A late 60's early '70's M29, 4", 'no-can-find' at any price. Descent 4" M15, easy $400- when you can find them.
I plan to go out and shoot these guns, alot. I don't want all the QC problems associated with all the new and improved versions.
Prices are rising on the older guns as more people scoop them up in favor of the new ones.
I see a lot of "What's it worth?" & "Did I pay too much?" questions on various forums. The answer to that, in the escalating market, is very simply "It's worth whatever you're willing to pay for it if you want it bad enough before somebody else grabs it." I tell my brother-in-law when he asks if a particular older Smith is "worth it" (he's picking up a few, too) that "It doesn't matter what it's worth, how bad do you want it?"
Prices & availability vary from region to region, and the blue books are not particularly helpful any more.
I've snatched up a Pre-14, a 25-9, and a 586, all six-inchers in 95% or better shape, over the past year or so, and considered myself lucky to find 'em. I'm far from independently wealthy, but I've had to face the fact that the guns I want won't be around much longer, and I have to do what it takes to get some of the classics while they are.
Getting to the point where, if you wait till "someday", or pass on a good one here today because you think you can find one for $50 less someplace else tomorrow, you're going to find yourself high & dry.
I see a lot of "What's it worth?" & "Did I pay too much?" questions on various forums. The answer to that, in the escalating market, is very simply "It's worth whatever you're willing to pay for it if you want it bad enough before somebody else grabs it." I tell my brother-in-law when he asks if a particular older Smith is "worth it" (he's picking up a few, too) that "It doesn't matter what it's worth, how bad do you want it?"
Prices & availability vary from region to region, and the blue books are not particularly helpful any more.
I've snatched up a Pre-14, a 25-9, and a 586, all six-inchers in 95% or better shape, over the past year or so, and considered myself lucky to find 'em. I'm far from independently wealthy, but I've had to face the fact that the guns I want won't be around much longer, and I have to do what it takes to get some of the classics while they are.
Getting to the point where, if you wait till "someday", or pass on a good one here today because you think you can find one for $50 less someplace else tomorrow, you're going to find yourself high & dry.
Thunder blunder
Being a collector of Smith guns (2-25’s, 2-29’s, 3-24, and one 5 inch 27) I hate hearing this and want to get up on my soap box and call you all liars and scoundrels for saying any thing this negative about a great American company.
But gentleman your comments are all too true.
I have purchased 2 guns built in the last 6 years and shot several others including a Thunder blunder. The second cylinder fired through the blunder locked the gun up and only opening the cylinder allowed it to fire again. I wouldn’t place it any better quality than the Charter arms bulldog that I have had since the mid 80’s.
And now that Smith is being designed by lawyers (internal locks) I have only two words for Smith.
“I’m done.”
Save your money and get a great gun by a company that doesn’t exist any more. A smith built earlier than the 90’s.
Being a collector of Smith guns (2-25’s, 2-29’s, 3-24, and one 5 inch 27) I hate hearing this and want to get up on my soap box and call you all liars and scoundrels for saying any thing this negative about a great American company.
But gentleman your comments are all too true.
I have purchased 2 guns built in the last 6 years and shot several others including a Thunder blunder. The second cylinder fired through the blunder locked the gun up and only opening the cylinder allowed it to fire again. I wouldn’t place it any better quality than the Charter arms bulldog that I have had since the mid 80’s.
And now that Smith is being designed by lawyers (internal locks) I have only two words for Smith.
“I’m done.”
Save your money and get a great gun by a company that doesn’t exist any more. A smith built earlier than the 90’s.
I actually thought it was kinda funny watching the idea crash and burn.
I've seen some model 22 TR guns selling for well under retail already.
I wonder if Clints ego will force him into trusting S&W to do a butcher job on a model 27 .357 next.
or better yet, maybe they'll turn the 5/620 guns into instant classics by slapping a TR logo on them too.
I'd jump on a model 22 gun in a heartbeat if I thought the quality and CS were going to be there 20 years from now.
I've seen some model 22 TR guns selling for well under retail already.
I wonder if Clints ego will force him into trusting S&W to do a butcher job on a model 27 .357 next.
or better yet, maybe they'll turn the 5/620 guns into instant classics by slapping a TR logo on them too.
I'd jump on a model 22 gun in a heartbeat if I thought the quality and CS were going to be there 20 years from now.
If they have quality, there isn't as much worry about customer service.
And whatever the problems are, I doubt it is Clint Smith's fault.
FWIW, I just saw a Thunder Ranch .45 ACP without all the gold on the side. It would make a nice partner to my 25-2, but I'm passing it up.
Unfortunately, somebody finally decided on getting that 586-1 (M) ibnce I had decided on it. It was sitting there for about 6 months and a whole bunch of revolvers had moved in that time.
And whatever the problems are, I doubt it is Clint Smith's fault.
FWIW, I just saw a Thunder Ranch .45 ACP without all the gold on the side. It would make a nice partner to my 25-2, but I'm passing it up.
Unfortunately, somebody finally decided on getting that 586-1 (M) ibnce I had decided on it. It was sitting there for about 6 months and a whole bunch of revolvers had moved in that time.
I have owned and shot 5 S&W's prior to the TR - 21 that I own now. I just got through loading up another 1000 lot of 240gr swc for it after shooting 2000 rounds in about the 60 days I've had it back from the Gunmith, (nothing wrong with it when I took it in - I just like Wilson spring kits, action jobs and cylinder chamfering on my wheelguns), I try to put in about 200 - 400 rounds a week in each of my "social pistols". I shoot the 21 fairly hard, combat style, double action with a lot of rounds down range per session. I live in rural Wyoming with a range on my property so this is no big deal. I have had no malfunctions of any kind. The gun shoots where I point it with no glitches, hiccups or other issues. Perhaps Smith & Wesson has dropped the political ball in the past but I for one don't mind supporting an American run gun company and the gun culture as a whole by buying their products and based on the performance of the TR- 21 that I own, will do so in the future.
While this is more than likely true. His attitude has done considerable damage as well. Something about calling people who had legitimate complaints "**** suckers" IIRC.
I always thought he had an ego (yes, I've met him) and this is just more evidence of ego run wild. He's about one step away from being a Hollywood personality if you ask me.