Smith & Wesson missed opportunities

[RAM Engineer]

Modern S&W seems to be swinging and missing a lot (from my point of view) with their round-gun offerings. But the following is the top of my charts:

The current 19-9 4" seems to be well designed and reviewed. There is also a PC Carry Comped version in both 2.5" and 3". But I'm baffled why there is no comp-less 2.5" version? Considering this was one of the top concealed carry and off-duty guns back in the day, it's baffling to me. A 19-9 2.5" with a matte finish is high on my "they need to make this" list. And don't give me one of those 2.75" barrels like the 66-8. It just looks weird.*

*(although I have considered buying a 2.75" 66-8 and getting it C&S to Cerakote it.)

[fatdog]

Their great lost opportunity is not deleting the stupid lock from the entire product line followed by failing to get a clue about the need for bringing back an airweight K frame line in .38 special.

I have been convinced for decades that nobody who works for S&W either in engineering or marketing actually ever carries a gun.

[Dave T]

DITTO and Right On to the overweight dog. You Sir have struck the nail upon the flat part!

Dave

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Bringing back a lightweight 32, 327 J frame. The round and 6 shots is attractive. Shooting a full bore 327 mag in a lightweight gun might be unpleasant but the wide variety of round would be attractive to many who want an easily concealable revolver.

[okie john]

5" N-frames, starting with the Model 29 and 629. Most people buy guns for the way they look and there is no more beautiful revolver than a 5" N-frame.

3" K-frames, especially Airweights. If the Supreme Court continues on its current path, then some states will impose tougher handgun restrictions. A new version of the Model 12 would check a lot of boxes for a lot of people.

Better sight options. Every S&W revolver should have a pinned-in front sight, and the factory should sell tritium blades and the semi-fixed rear sights that screw on to their adjustable-sight guns.

Get rid of the lock and go back to pre-lock styling.


Okie John

[jtcarm]

We could fill a Russian novel about S&Ws missed opportunities.

A great opportunity would be if Smith sold the revolver line to a private company that cares about building quality revolvers.

[gato naranja]

Even Ruger - RUGER, for crying out loud - gets it WRT replaceable front sights, so S&W has no excuse at all for not "going thou, and doing likewise."

No more fixed hog trough rear sights; use Novak-style replaceables on the duty guns and adjustable sights for the balance. Sights (and grips) should be easily changed.

Get rid of the locks and don't make me say, "even Ruger gets it" again. I dang near bit on a dandy J-frame today until they moved the price tag and I saw the lock- it made that decision easy.

A lockless, 2.5" K-frame with a Novak-style rear and a pinned front should be a given in the S&W line, and ditto in stainless would be nice. But no. We're more likely to see a .600 S&W Magnum built on a new Y-frame instead. Some distributor will eventually get "the R word" to make a GP-100 that fills the bill but is ever-so slightly too large... in fact, they almost make one now.

[Polecat]

Not to mention the snub market! Don’ t tell me a . 22 / .32 in titanium, or super airweight in a bodyguard no lock configuration wouldn’t fly off the shelves. How about some innovation! Like a true pocket revo, downsized a bit like the Taurus no views or old .32 Colt Pocket Positive! I remember back in early 2000s or bit later, S&W was on fire, they had 2.5” J frames in all configurations, Ported out wazoo, pro series, moon clips, And performance center versions. I especially liked the 2.5” guns amd the carry ported 642 and 637.

Here’s to dreaming.

Dave

[Stephanie B]

My take on it: When it comes to revolvers, Smith & Wesson, like their competitors about 30 miles to the south, seem to be living on their past glories. Which is maddening, considering S&W's "revolver of the month" days.

If Taurus ever gets their act together (QC and CS), Taurus will eat their lunches.

[RevolverRob]

My take on it: When it comes to revolvers, Smith & Wesson, like their competitors about 30 miles to the south, seem to be living on their past glories. Which is maddening, considering S&W's "revolver of the month" days.

If Taurus ever gets their act together (QC and CS), Taurus will eat their lunches.

Is there another revolver maker in Tennessee? (I got what you meant, I'm just being obtuse on purpose).

Smith & Wesson has an easy path forward.

Remove the lock from all designs. Afterall, after leaving Mass, why do they care anymore?

Eliminate the Airweight Line. Eliminate the Pro Line they suck anyways.

All J-frames will be Scandium J-Frames, in .22LR, .327 Mag, .38 Special, .357 Mag with steel cylinders, and proper rear front and rear Novak dovetail sights.

Rework the stupid Poly Bodyguard to not suck and it will now fill in the gap for all former Airweight J-frames.

Bring out a fixed sight K-Frame in .38 in 3-4-6" barrel lengths; Novak Sights

Bring out an adjustable sight L-Frame in .22LR and .357 in 3-4-6" barrel lengths.

Turn every x27 and x25 into a 327 (.357), 325 (.45ACP), 329 (9mm). All of them with a proper swappable rear sight that makes them low-mount optics ready. Barrel lengths 4-5-6"

Classic Line Model 10, 19, 27 and 25 in .38, .357, and .45LC in classic barrel lengths 2.5-3-4-6"

Keep the X-Frames, because only weirdos buy those anyways.

PC versions of each model with bobbed hammers, chamfered cylinders, factory trigger jobs, and a comprehensive multi-point factory QC inspection.