Honestly! What is S&Ws problem?

[Tensleep]

Sir Willam, you can always buy two Hartford Armory Remingtons.
Actually, you could buy 4.
A pair of 1875s and a pair of 1890s.
The guns are completely made in America, by Americans.

[SIR WILLIAM]

I have thought about Hartford Armory single actions.  If I lived further west and I could open carry,  I would go for them.  They seem to be ideal.  I sometimes shoot CAS, I have shot pins with a single action and I don't hunt much.  I simply want a quality single action for "sometimes" use.  I carry a Browning Hi-Power daily.  I like quality.  I am willing to pay for it. 

[Trapdoor Billy]

Quite frankly, I think it boils down to the fact, that S&W has never been very customer oriented and has always taken the easiest road for a profit (as in selling out to the anti-gun crowd).

Not sure I agree with the never been customer oriented statement and the reference to selling out to the anti-gun crowd is fair, as Book said, it ain't the same company.  Don't forget - Ruger was the first to "sell out", as you put it, and it is the same company as it was then.

[Trapdoor Billy]

I think it a sad day when an American manufacturer abandons an American iconic market.  If Chevrolet stopped making Corvettes,  would you NOT ask, why?  I am in the market for a new pair of single action revolvers.  I prefer to spend my money with American companies.  I just think it odd that I only have two American revolver manufacturers to choose from.  I may just be waiting to compare the Rugers retro XR3 and a Taurus Gaucho.  Two ne offerings from CAS manufacturers.  Sad day.

I changed my original post a tad as when I went bacik and looked at it the word 'lie' was a little harsh and may have been taken the wrong way.

S&W couldn't beat Colt in the SA business 130 years ago, why do you think they could now.  We are probably very lucky that Colt still makes them, for them that likes Colt.  Actually the SA business is a nich market and they may feel that the necessary returns arn't there.

I have bought one of their light weight 1911 SC's.  Dang fine pistol.

[Trapdoor Billy]

Sir Willam, you can always buy two Hartford Armory Remingtons.
Actually, you could buy 4.
A pair of 1875s and a pair of 1890s.
The guns are completely made in America, by Americans.

Has ya dealer returned? 

[Tensleep]

Sir Willam, you can always buy two Hartford Armory Remingtons.
Actually, you could buy 4.
A pair of 1875s and a pair of 1890s.
The guns are completely made in America, by Americans.

Has ya dealer returned? 

Hail no!!
I hope he gets back here by Christmas.
He can't stay in Florida forever, he ain't got that much money, he's a retired school teacher.

[SIR WILLIAM]

I like S&Ws.  I own some.  I feel that S&W is cutting back in the wrong areas. They are dropping the K frame 357 Magnums, M65s and M66s, they have dropped their reintroduced Heritage Series, they have dropped their Schofield 2000 and they have pretty severely cut back on their excellent blued firearms.  I like S&W,  they simply don't offer me anything to buy.  I really wonder what the execs are thinking.  Ruger and Taurus are filling in for S&W quite nicely though.  I would like to buy S&W firearms.  The only way I can do that is to buy Italian.  I woldn't mind that so much if,  they made the #3 American in 44-40. 

[Sergeant Smokepole]

Remember a few years back when Smith and Wesson had what was jokingly referred to as The Gun of The Month Club? That was more or less a learning experience for them as they had too many irons in the fire at that time to be economically feasable to keep as stocking items. They make a great product, IMHO but they are a business. Ever go to a gun shop that isn't CAS oriented? Most of what they sell are pistols, not revolvers. 30 years ago, the revolver was king and the only pistol in real numbers was a Colt 1911 or it's derivative. Times have changed. Revolvers now comprise less than 10% of their total sales at this time. Dusenburg, Packard and quite a few other car makers made beautiful products but were priced accordingly. Few people could afford them and they were a niche market. They soon folded due to that market becoming saturated.

Ever look at what you buy? Most people would gripe if that revolver cost 100 yankee greenbacks more coming from the factory as a totally handfitted piece of machinery, yet think nothing of sending that so called rough boat anchor that has never been fired to a name gunsmith for a "Tune up" and pay 150 yankee greenbacks. I guess that a name brand job carries more prestige than a factory trigger.

Ever wonder who to blame for less than optimal fitting? Look at your buying habits. Your preferences to send to custom Smiths and wait 6 months or more for something that could have come out of the plant same same for less money has made a boom market for both good Smiiths and butchers, and in the meantime, is slowly dooming the firearms manufacturers to market less than optimal products, and with it, damaged reputations.

There, I've said my piece. Let the flames begin.....

[Fox Creek Kid]

Trapdoor Billy said:

S&W couldn't beat Colt in the SA business 130 years ago, why do you think they could now.

WRONG!!! S&W sold more cartridge revolvers than Colt in the 19th century but most went overseas.

[Trapdoor Billy]

Trapdoor Billy said:

S&W couldn't beat Colt in the SA business 130 years ago, why do you think they could now.

WRONG!!! S&W sold more cartridge revolvers than Colt in the 19th century but most went overseas.

Yep, Kinda like the Remington Roller.  Point being, here in the US they got their butts handed to them in the large caliber SA revolver.

[Book Miser]

I think it a sad day when an American manufacturer abandons an American iconic market.  If Chevrolet stopped making Corvettes,  would you NOT ask, why? 

I sure would. And I think you got some thoughtful answers.

Trouble is, we live in a world where every decision a person makes has to have Dollars factored into it somewhere.    That's not the world I'd hoped to see when I was a kid, and I'd like to think there's the possibility of change. But I'm not bettin' on it.

I prefer to spend my money with American companies.  I just think it odd that I only have two American revolver manufacturers to choose from.  

Not only odd, but sad.

Like Smokepole says, I feel kinda sad when I look in a gun shop and all I see are autoloaders.

And he poses a really good question when he asks why so many of us will pay a custom 'smith, but wouldn't want to pop the extra money for something that was genuinely fine, right from the factory.

The last basic pistol class I taught, two women showed up together, with guns they already owned. One was a new, unfired Mauser .380 autoloader. Beautiful workmanship, a perfect example of a well done mass manufactured gun. The other was a veteran S&W M&P special, parkerized. Lotta holster wear, but still really fine. The difference was that the S&W showed evidence of a LOT of hand-work, not least of which were the draw-filing marks on the frame. This led me to wonder how much of the buying public would accept hand-built work, given that each piece shows, shall we say, individual differences?

[Driftwood Johnson]

Rawhide Rio:

I think you are misinterpreting what I was saying. I think we're in complete agreement. To paraphrase the original question he asked if, among other things CNC machining wasn't the answer to making guns cheaper and more affordable. I simply replied that CNC machining has been around a long time now, as your experience shows, and the Italians are using it too. So that part of the equation equalls out. It isn't the end all and be all of cost containment. The main values derived from CNC machining are part to part repeatability and higher production rates. Don't you agree? When's the last time you made a mistake on one of your parts because you cranked too far? We are in complete agreement that hand fitting drives the cost of parts up. The questioner simply didn't ask about Electro Discharge Machining. Hartford Armory is making extensive use of EDM. They are keeping their feed rates very low and the parts come off the equipment with a mirror finish and no need for further expensive hand smoothing. But it drives the cost up because throughput is very slow.

I further went on to say that I think using CNC equipment to make 19th century parts is dumb, and I will stand by that statement. Maybe I should temper it a bit by saying that it isn't the best use of the equipment. Parts designed in 1851 were designed to be produced by the prevalent technology of the time. That included hand operated lathes and early hand cranked milling machines. To produce those same parts today, we are using state of the art CNC equipment to generate complex tool paths. Oh, I realize that a CNC machine can work wonders producing those parts, but I really think that Bill Ruger exhibited genius when he totally redesigned his parts to be produced by the investment casting process. That's what I'm talking about. Redesigning parts to make the best use of the technology avavilabel today.

I'm the guy who sits in the office all day designing parts and brings you my latest CAD design and you're the guy who points out to me that if I changed this radius, or that surface, you could make the part cheaper and quicker and it would work just as well. That's what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, when reproducing 19th century designs, we don't have the freedom to do that but must slavishly reproduce the parts exactly as they were made over 100 years ago, or nobody  ants them.

I'll go even further and state that CNC machining is a mixed blessing in the modern gun factory. Most companies are driving feed rates so high, in an effort to increase production and thus lower cost, that parts come off the machines with terrible finishes. If they slowed the feed rates down, so that the finish wasn't so coarse, I wouldn't be getting cut by sharp edges and hanging burrs everytime I take a new gun apart, and mating surfaces wouldn't be tearing each other up. But cost containment forces companies to produce parts with a rough surface, and I wind up doing the hand fitting at home.

Nothing wrong with CNC, it just needs to be used right.

[SIR WILLIAM]

American investors.  They aren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier either.  One of their internal auditors was a convicted felon.  I wonder who ran his background check?

[Trapdoor Billy]

American investors.  They aren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier either.  One of their internal auditors was a convicted felon.  I wonder who ran his background check?

You think that doesn't happen at other companies?  When you say American investors aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier I would imagine you are talking about yourself also.  Think about it.

[RRio]

Rawhide Rio:

I think you are misinterpreting what I was saying. I think we're in complete agreement. To paraphrase the original question he asked if, among other things CNC machining wasn't the answer to making guns cheaper and more affordable. I simply replied that CNC machining has been around a long time now, as your experience shows, and the Italians are using it too. So that part of the equation equalls out. It isn't the end all and be all of cost containment. The main values derived from CNC machining are part to part repeatability and higher production rates. Don't you agree? When's the last time you made a mistake on one of your parts because you cranked too far? We are in complete agreement that hand fitting drives the cost of parts up. The questioner simply didn't ask about Electro Discharge Machining. Hartford Armory is making extensive use of EDM. They are keeping their feed rates very low and the parts come off the equipment with a mirror finish and no need for further expensive hand smoothing. But it drives the cost up because throughput is very slow.

I further went on to say that I think using CNC equipment to make 19th century parts is dumb, and I will stand by that statement. Maybe I should temper it a bit by saying that it isn't the best use of the equipment. Parts designed in 1851 were designed to be produced by the prevalent technology of the time. That included hand operated lathes and early hand cranked milling machines. To produce those same parts today, we are using state of the art CNC equipment to generate complex tool paths. Oh, I realize that a CNC machine can work wonders producing those parts, but I really think that Bill Ruger exhibited genius when he totally redesigned his parts to be produced by the investment casting process. That's what I'm talking about. Redesigning parts to make the best use of the technology avavilabel today.

I'm the guy who sits in the office all day designing parts and brings you my latest CAD design and you're the guy who points out to me that if I changed this radius, or that surface, you could make the part cheaper and quicker and it would work just as well. That's what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, when reproducing 19th century designs, we don't have the freedom to do that but must slavishly reproduce the parts exactly as they were made over 100 years ago, or nobody  ants them.

I'll go even further and state that CNC machining is a mixed blessing in the modern gun factory. Most companies are driving feed rates so high, in an effort to increase production and thus lower cost, that parts come off the machines with terrible finishes. If they slowed the feed rates down, so that the finish wasn't so coarse, I wouldn't be getting cut by sharp edges and hanging burrs everytime I take a new gun apart, and mating surfaces wouldn't be tearing each other up. But cost containment forces companies to produce parts with a rough surface, and I wind up doing the hand fitting at home.

Nothing wrong with CNC, it just needs to be used right.

I'm in complete agreement with you, Driftwood. Most managers do not realize that when they bump up the feed rates, they are adding more overhead to that piece. More $$ spent on worn cutting tools and and more TAT because that piece has to spend more time in deburr/handfinish. Some managers think they can beat the deburr time by having the machinist deburr the part. Yeah that works, we pay a $20 an hour machinist to do the work of the $12 an hour handfinisher.  I am one for analyzing the whole process and then making needed changes only we we reduce TAT and Costs.
Some managers cannot see the forrest for the trees. That's one of the reasons I give up being a ME and went back to the floor. Too damn frustrating!

[Joyce (AnnieLee)]

American investors.  They aren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier either.  One of their internal auditors was a convicted felon.  I wonder who ran his background check?

I am curious. What does that have to do with anything? There are hundreds, if not thousands of ways a person can be a convicted felon, most of which have nothing to do with being an auditor. I highly doubt any of their auditors are given free access to their production line.


AnnieLee

[Walt OReagun]

I highly doubt any of their auditors are given free access to their production line.


AnnieLee

Well, dang!  Where's the fun in working for a firearms manufacturer, if ya don't get to sample the products?





ps, Annie - now ya can't say you haven't seen a pic of me.   

[Joyce (AnnieLee)]

ps, Annie - now ya can't say you haven't seen a pic of me.   

<Sells the farm, packs her bags, and moves to Orygon>



AnnieLee

[SIR WILLIAM]

The version of the S&W auditor story I am aware of,  he was an armed robbery convict.  Anybody know more? 

[Trapdoor Billy]

The version of the S&W auditor story I am aware of,  he was an armed robbery convict.  Anybody know more? 

And this is important to you because?