S&W Quality worse than Taurus

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Webleymkv

New member
The only difference between the S&W and Taurus complaints seems to be that "S&W's service will treat you right". But you still roll the dice with S&W when you buy a new revolver.
Click to expand...

You roll the dice with any handgun from any manufacturer. I suggest you use the search function as you will find accounts of Ruger barrels falling off, Glocks blowing up, Colts cracking frames and any number of other problems from just about any maker you can think of. Anyone can have a lemon. The measure of a company is how they treat you if and when you do have a problem. I can say from personal experience that S&W treats their customers very, very well. For that reason, I continue to buy their products. If you look at the Taurus complaints, however, they're not just limited to the gun itself. The biggest complaints that I see with Taurus is that their customer service is lacking, specifically it may take many months to get your gun back.

Having owned both S&W and Taurus revolvers (as well as Ruger and Colt revolvers), my take on it is this: neither is a bad gun. The extra money for a S&W gets you better fit and finish, typically a better trigger, better resale value, and better customer service. I, personally, quit buying Taurus guns after I found out what dismal resale value they have, I can afford to buy S&W and the benifets I mentioned earlier are well worth the extra cost to me.
 
J

James K

Member In Memoriam
I fully agree that guns (and many other products) were made better in "the old days." But I don't think many of the complainers would be happy with the price of a gun made "just like they did back then."

How about $2500 for a 642? (Think I am off base? Check the prices of the few precision made, hand fitted guns on the market. They ain't cheap.)

Jim
 
H

hartlock

Moderator
smith & wesson quality

I bought a new .500 8 3/8's back in 04. Supposed to be two compensators in
the box, but someone at gun shop had filched one. I called Smith & Wesson and they sent me a new one for cast bullets and also I had asked them bout a higher front sight blade. They sent me one of those, too, and all for no
charge! I dont have anything bad to say bout Smith & Wesson!
 
6

6onthehip

New member
re

yep - the title to this thread is just a flame starter:rolleyes:

your weapon had a malfunction - big freakin deal
is there a real shooter on here who hasn't?? i doubt it

if weapons were perfect you wouldn't have a place to post-geez
 
N

N.H. Yankee

New member
Ironically the only S&W guns I ever had to ship back were both semi's. A S&W P99 45acp that kept wearing out the recoil spring because it was rubbing on the barrel. After under 100 rounds the spring was visibly worn and the frame was filled with metal flakes. I sent it back and all they did was replace the spring and guess what, same problem. The dealer refunded my money.

The second was a full size M&P 9mm that would fail to extract about 3 out of 5 rounds, after about 50+ rounds of various ammo I sent it back.. There were tool marks in the chamber, they polished it and replaced the extractor. Then the gun functioned but I discovered it grouped 8 inch's at 25 yards. I then took a good look in the barrel and yup, massive tool mark from one end to the other. I sent it back again and they replaced the barrel, why didn't they see that when they cleaned the chamber? Duh if the chamber is junk you'd think they'd have checked the barrel.

I did have a new Mauser M2 that was that was a jamamatic, wouldn't feed anything reliably, I returned it to the dealer for a refund. Last but not least I had a new EEA witness 40cal that couldn't get through a magazine without the safety falling out of the gun, that went back to Davidson's. Out of over 100 NEW pistols and numerous revolvers those are the only ones I ever had to send back. I've bought used guns that had problems, but being used that can be expected.

Personally, I don't think S&W is the company it used to be, I feel Q/C has diminished. I've seen this happen to some other industries and gun companies, and it seems to be a Q/C roller coaster. Q/C goes down, they feel the pain, then it goes up, they get comfortable, and it goes down again.
 
M

madmag

New member
I mostly said only good things about S&W back on my post #18. As I said, I own S&W's and did own one Taurus. I also said that my reason for selling my Taurus was not due to relibility....actually it was very reliable.

Having said that, I always detect a little difference in threads about a defective Taurus and a defective S&W. When it's the Taurus there is a lot more of the "get what you pay for" than "failures can happen to any gun".

I do not know what the actual failures are due to poor quality control for either brand. I simply have never seen a complete un-biased quality control test of both brands. I admit this is hard to do because it would involve buying a fairly large number of guns for a good sample size then doing a controlled test. But, even as a S&W owner I find some unfair bias when Taurus and S&W are discussed. As usual, I think the truth about quality probably lies somewhere in-between for both brands.

Not counting my Smith's....they are "perfect" old pre-lock versions.:)
 
W

Webleymkv

New member
Having said that, I always detect a little difference in threads about a defective Taurus and a defective S&W. When it's the Taurus there is a lot more of the "get what you pay for" than "failures can happen to any gun".

I do not know what the actual failures are due to poor quality control for either brand. I simply have never seen a complete un-biased quality control test of both brands. I admit this is hard to do because it would involve buying a fairly large number of guns for a good sample size then doing a controlled test. But, even as a S&W owner I find some unfair bias when Taurus and S&W are discussed. As usual, I think the truth about quality probably lies somewhere in-between for both brands.
Click to expand...

You're right in that there is a bit of bias. With the Taurus-haters, I suspect that there's a good bit of gun-snobbery abounding and with the S&W-haters, I sense a split between the reactionery "don't make 'em like they used to" crowd and the sour-grapes "ain't worth the money" crowd. The way I look at it is this: both are by-and-large quality weapons that will typically be reliable and reasonably accurate. A Taurus will not be as finely fitted and finished and the customer service will not be as good as a more expensive gun. I don't really understand people who get all bent out of shape about it because you do get what you pay for, you're not going to get a $700 dollar gun for $400. A S&W on the other hand will usually be better fitted and finished and the customer service will be excellent. Then again, it had darn well better have these benefits as that's why I paid more for it.

Basically, I think it's a case of people having unrealistic expectations. Someone who buys a Taurus can't really expect S&W-level quality and support, you have to pay S&W prices to get that. Likewise, someone who buys a new S&W is being unrealistic if they expect it to be made the same way as an old one, when inflation is taken into account new S&W's are actually quite a bit less expensive than older ones were (you can't go by MSRP as S&W's is much higher than actual retail, moreso even than other makers).

That being said, if one pays a premium price for a gun and the maker doesn't deliver the type of service that was paid for, then I can understand getting upset. However, in my experience as well as the vast majority of those I've heard from, S&W backs up their products with the type of service you'd expect given the price you pay.
 
B

B.N.Real

New member
You are angry.

That's understandable.

I'd be angry too.

Check the internet-you'll read that EVERY gun manufacturer has guns at one time or another that have to go back for repair right off the assembly line.

Smith seems to take good care of their customers.

At least you have that in your corner.
 
C

crimsondave

New member
Management has changed at least four times in the last 20 years at S&W, bean counters run it now.My 686 I bought in 90 was an awesome gun. Chuck Hawks has written they have gone downhill since.http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm
Click to expand...

Chuck Hawks is biased. That article has been sliced to pieces on this very forum more than once, so I'll just say he is FOS and leave it at that.

Honestly, does anyone REALLY believe that S&W < Taurus? REALLY???:eek:
 
E

Elvishead

Moderator
totaldla


S&W Quality worse than Taurus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really loved my S&W 329pd for the 14rnds it worked. Developed light primer strikes. So off to S&W for who-knows-how-long. And people say Taurus ships crap....
Click to expand...

To the OP, how much did it cost to ship it to S&W?
 
E

Elvishead

Moderator
I hear lots of Taurus bashing, but I purchased a lemon from S&W. I can point you to the S&W forum where people complain about S&W screwups - if you just want anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

Define lemon. Just because it has a miner problem doen't make it a lemon, and if I've ever heard of a lemon it would be a Taurus.

TBS, my Taurus 608 was pretty darn nice and reliable. But I did replace it with a S&W x2.:D

KAK

Smith makes the Sigma. That is reason alone not to buy a firearm from them.
Click to expand...

That's a real smart thing to say sense you didn't back it up with any fact's.:rolleyes:
 
T

totaldla

New member
elvishead said:
To the OP, how much did it cost to ship it to S&W?
Click to expand...

Just time. Time to document the problem. Time to wait around for the FedEx pickup. Unknown time until my pistol is returned. And time to wait around to sign for delivery. That "time" is my life - valuable to me.
 
T

TDK

New member
As a person who sells a lot of handguns I can tell you Taurus has the worst quality control issues. No evidence needed.

If you know what to look for just go to your local store, take 5 Taurus out of the box; then take 5 smiths and tell me what you find...Garantee Taurus will have a lot of variances in the finish and machining marks gun by gun. With that being said there are a lot of Taurus gun out there with no issuess at all and happy owners.

And BTW...Every gun manufacturer will have quality control issues at some point, be it Smith, Taurus, Browning, Sig, Glock, Kimber, Kreighoff, Perazzi, etc...
 
N

N.H. Yankee

New member
I have owned at least 6 Taurus guns semi's and three 41 magnum revolvers and never had a problem. I have shot numerous reloads and factory ammo through them all and the semi's functioned as good as any Sig, H&K S&W, Colt etc I have owned. I have bought one new Taurus in about 8-10 years,a 24/7 OSS and the gun functions fine and I have put well over 1000 rounds of reloads and factory ammo through it. The gun is more accurate than the last 3 S&W semi's I bought of which two went back for repair, NIB after less than 100 rounds.

I do know Taurus sells a boatload of guns around here and the local gun shop usually has about 8 Judge's on display and they sell like crazy. The local gun shop has quite a few Taurus semi's and revolvers and the inventory is always moving. I do remember when Taurus first came out and the rep came into the gun shop with a sample, I took one look and :eek: What a POS, it was a S&W clone and you could have fit a herd of cattle through the side plate and the gun's fit and finish was horrid! Taurus has come a long way since it first came on the scene. Taurus is not the Lexus of the gun world, but they are not the Yugo either.
 
W

woad_yurt

New member
Do you have real data to prove my title wrong? I'd love to see real data showing that S&W's defect rate, (or sheer magnitude of defects), is less than Taurus.
Click to expand...

Even if they both had the same percentage of lemons, S&W will probably get your gun back to you in a more timely manner than will Taurus. I know some people who have gotten miserable customer "service" from Taurus. It took months and months to get their guns back; 2 had to send them back again because the problem had not been fixed the first time.

Just for that reason alone, I'd avoid a new Taurus. At least, as a company, S&W is relatively responsive and accessible.

Although I am a rabid K-frame lover, I wouldn't buy a new S&W either. They're too much money, they have that frickin' lock and the QC has dropped off a bit. I'll go used.
 
Last edited:
S

Sarge

New member
18DAI said:
My measure of the "quality of a company" is that their product works properly, as advertised, without having to return it. No contact with customer service is what I expect.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

I wouldn't say that S&W's QC is as bad as that of Taurus, based on my conversations with FFL's I know who have had to ship 25% of a shipment of the latter back- before it even made the display case.

No, the problem with S&W is that their mission has changed. At one time, you could buy a S&W revolver secure in the knowledge that it didn't have a feature on it, which didn't enhance its function or appearance. Reliability and smooth function just oozed from them.

Now, practically all of them contain either a political statement or a fashion statement and reliability, it seems, is less important to the company than complying with the wishes of idiots who think a handgun, like a Yugo, should require a key to make it run.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top