You think it would've been easy: just make a J frame .. the same J Frame you've been making for 70 years...but chambered in 32. Then have Lipseys put on new grips and glowy sights because that appeals to the casuals (never mind the larger sights and fat grips are contrary to pocket-carry which is where J Frames shine).
but people had ideas.... and changes were made to the internals....and things went sideways.
Except that isn't true. The idea with the UC isn't to "appeal to the casuals" it was to make a better J frame for a reasonable price. I've known Bryan Eastridge since the late 90s and he is a stand up guy that knows his stuff. I don't have that relationship with DB but some people here do and can vouch for his experience. S&W didn't make the UC exactly as they spec'd it, the grips aren't exactly what they wanted either but those are easy to change.Originally Posted by Singh
And how's that going for them?
For S&W? Their quality control has been an issue for years. Aside from the grips, which are easy to switch, the feedback I'm seeing is once any issues with individual revolvers are corrected people are really happy with the UC revolvers. Do you see something different?
For American Fighting Revolvers, Bryan and DB? I think the collaboration with Lipsey's has worked out very well for them.
The changes made to the internals are largely a carry over from the Ti-studs-and-standoffs that have been on the more expensive Scandium guns for years. Over the last 70 years S&W has had plenty of missteps and fuckups when making J-frames of any caliber and frame material. The grips, if not to taste, can be removed (which I've done with CTs). The sights aren't a meaningful impediment to pocket carry.
This is low-effort shitposting that isn't even that well informed.
sharps54 - you beat me to it with your response - very much appreciated! From everything I've read from many sources, especially the SME's here, your analysis is fact.
Has anyone posted similar ammo issues with the 442UC? If this was already discussed, I apologize and will use my standard excuse: I was going too fast and....well, there ain't no purty way to say this: being lazy.
"We are the domestic pets of a human zoo we call civilization."
Laurence Gonzales - "Deep Survival."
Yep. I had a few qualms about getting one after my new 66-8 fiasco, but as my dad's neighbor used to say: "Lord hates a coward."
Still haven't made it to the range, though.
Keep your hands to yourself, leave other people's shit alone, and be kind to one another. In other words, do not do unto others what is hateful to yourself.
I've said before that I want to be wrong, and I'll gladly defer to those here who know a lot more than me.
So if the cognoscenti here say the gun is 100% fine as designed, and any problems with the gun (light-strikes, etc) are purely QC related, then I'll gladly accept that. Is that what's being said?
If all I got to worry about is QC, then I can wait until my local dealer has a half-dozen or so on hand so I can get my pick of the litter. It's what I had to with my other J Frames, so that's fine by me.
@Singh I've been extremely pleased with mine. Once my father gets a chance, and if he likes it, I likely will pick one up for him.
Also of note, my flash gap measures .003 IIRC. It is extremely capable of some excellent shooting in the right hands. Revolvers aren't for everyone, and it's been enlightening to watch the striker generation try to shoot it as such.
In my opinion, Smith does have some QC issues, but they are most certainly headed in the right direction.
Participation does not equal Proficiency
- Mike Pannone
It may have been answered here before, but has anyone had light strike/QC issues with the .38 Special UC? Or is this purely a .32 phenomenon?
Reply With Quote