The Airweight Line? The single best-selling revolver line (volume) they have are the Airweight .38 Special models, also the least expensive options in their line due to volume of production and sales. You think they should drop that line?Originally Posted by RevolverRob
Yeah. No. They will not do that.
I have never had a poly bodyguard, so I don’t know what I don’t know about it, except the cylinder release is wrong, so it cannot replace my steel or Airweight J frames.
I haven't been interested in anything S&W makes for a long time, except the M&P 22's and AR's. Handguns? Nope, nothing made interests me. Last one I bought was made in 1988, before that, I bought 28-2's made in 1977, 1979, and 1967. I have owned 3rd Gen Semiautos for many years and don't plan on adding anymore to my collection. About the only thing I might buy is a no-lock 686. IF they made a new 686, it doesn't have to be anything changed from a early dash one or two, I would be looking for one. If I had to buy a new revolver, I guess it would be a Python, but I've already had one and don't miss it at all.
I have thought about sending out my 686 to have the lug machined off. The only gun, IMO, that looks good with an underlug is a Python.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
It isn't the Clinton/HUD thing.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sa...th-wesson-deal
The Saf-T-Hammer thing has been relatively common knowledge for decades now. Without digging through SEC documents and patent filings (again) the cynic in me thinks "Fuck dividends. Fuck stock price. Licensing your IP and getting a cut of practically every revolver S&W made over the last 20+ years is a much better deal." In a world where the obvious conflict of interest between companies like WeWork leasing real estate from its own CEO going practically unnoticed by the market at large until it was too late who would notice a lock deal?The acquisition represents an opportunity to build Saf-T-Hammer products into Smith & Wesson-manufactured firearms, he said.
Who would care?
It seems like it would be a very easy argument to make that it would be a liability or unnecessary expense to remove the locks en masse. That argument doesn't have to be made in good faith. It doesn't have to hold water. It just has to be a fig leaf so the principal investors that bought S&W for less than a quarter a share 20 years ago can keep collecting a rent check. Yeah I know the Shields, etc. don't have a lock. Call it an engineering problem that doesn't even have to exist in this reality. Call it the difference between new product design and legacy revolver design. Call it a case of market research indicating that regardless of what people on the internet are saying the difference in sales wouldn't pay for the new dies. The argument itself doesn't matter. Fig leaf.
My pet conspiracy theory, anyway.
It’s funny you mention that as I just shot with a small town PD Lt. who is running an RMR equipped TRR8 as his duty gun. So not 100% gaming.
While obviously a tiny minority, he’s the 3rd or 4th LEO I’ve seen carrying a TRR8 and the second running a red dot on one.
Based on what I’ve seen people actually carrying in real life, my guess is Smith sells more Airweights (642 and 442) than the entirety of the rest of their revolver catalogue combined. Every other revolver they make is a niche product. The percentage of people actually carrying a revolver larger than a J Frame/LCR for duty or defensive use is so small it might as well be a rounding error. I entirely agree with every post saying Smith needs to remove the locks from the Airweights and give them good sights.
I sure wouldn’t mind better QC. It’s ridiculous that Stephanie had so many problems trying to get a functional 66-8 out of the box. Take the locks out and spend a little extra money on QC. Otherwise, they’ll keep losing market share to Ruger and Colt.
For actual wishlist guns, bring back the aluminum framed K Frames but with the upgrades that the current 66 and 19 series guns have with better lockup, stronger forcing cones, full length ejector rods with barrels as short as 2.75”. That would be a great gun. Or if Ruger could just upsize the LCR into a 6 shot K Frame sized gun. For the tiny amount of people actually carrying a revolver on their belt to protect themselves, something like that would be the best thing since sliced bread.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
That’s why I said, they’d have to drop the revolver line and have a private company pick it up.
Aside from the lock deal, the negative media coverage of removing the lock would have shareholders soiling themselves and selling as fast as they could.
I’ve seen the shenanigans public companies pull to make the next quarterly statement. They care about investors, not customers.
Same goes for the GP100
Yep, same here.
LET'S GO BRANDON!
I think most S&W large frame revolvers including some -4 and later can be easily adapted for a RDS using the factory drilled top strap and something like an Allchin plate.
https://allchingunparts.com/
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
The DA revolver was perfected decades ago but Smith is still trying to innovate designs in a field where design no longer matters--that's how we got the .460, the .500, the .350 Legend, and the Governor. Now the differences between S&W, Colt, Ruger, Taurus, and Kimber revolvers have more to do with quality control and customer service than anything else.
Every Smith that we’ve described as a missed opportunity has already been built. We're asking them to fix quality control and customer service. We also want revolvers that are as usable as semi-autos: more alloy guns, more bobbed hammers, better grips, and better sight options. Enable the Performance Center provide bespoke options for those who have the scratch, and we’re done.
But for the love of God, drop the lock.
Okie John
“The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
"Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's
Reply With Quote