Chuck Hawks Perfect Review of Smith and Wesson Policy

[birch]

I have been researching my Recent ********* Bodyguard .380 and found this amazingly accurate description of the current Smith and Wesson Company philosophy. Granted, there are a few Smith handguns that I would like to own someday, but all that I want are at least 30 years old.

You might have to copy and paste this link into your browser. ENJOY!!!!!!

chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

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

[rintinglen]

No one hits a home run every time. I would point out that the worst period for S&W was back in the Bangor Punta days. Mr.Hawk's observations on bad quality parallel my own experiences. I saw a shipment of 9 Highway Patrolmen that included 5 that were so defective out of the box that they had to be returned. I saw a Model 57 with a .44 magnum Cylinder. However, 35 years is a long time to carry a grudge and I have seen a heck of a lot of good guns bearing the S&W label since then. Their 80's and 90's guns are wonderful. Some of his points are simply ballshoi, the 5 shot frame was selected to make the gun smaller and to harken back to the million odd five shot break top revolvers made. Cops wanted small, light, 38's so S&W obliged them. Cops wanted light handy .357s so S&W made them. They responded to the market and made good guns. S&W was making 2 inch snubbies long before the Detective Special saw the light of day. Mr. Hawks opinions, however eloquently expressed are not facts, even if they resemble your own prejudices.
You don't like the fact that the cheapy, entry level Smith Bodyguard you bought has a MIM barrel. Well, it is what it is. Does it fail to feed, fire or eject? Does it fall apart when fired? Is it wearing out before your very eyes with each shot you fire? If so, you've got a legitimate beef. But if the gun fires when you pull the trigger, and hits reasonably close to point of aim, then you've got no kick coming. 419 bucks for a laser sighted pistol is cheap. If shortcuts or economies in manufacturing techniques were made, well that's how they get the price down. My Colt Pocketlite 380 costs 180 dollars more, has no second strike capability. and no laser. Yeah, you can buy several guns for less, but not without giving up some features (Laser?).

[MtGun44]

Mr. Hawks has some factual errors in addition to a fairly serious case of cranial-
rectal inversion at times in this piece. Time and space permit rebuttal of only
one of the broad blast of slams. The claim that the Model 60 is a knockoff of
the Detective Special is hilariously BS. The DS is NOTHING but a Police Positive
Special with a 2" bbl, basically a slight frame stretch on the old Police Positive from
the 1905 era or so, for the .38 Spl instead of .38 S&W. And the Model 60s roots
run back as far or farther - it is on the J-frame, which was originally made for a 1905ish
.32 caliber police revolver, and just like the Colt, slightly too short for the .38 Spl. So, the I-
frame was stretched to become the J-frame. The fact that the original cylinder was
sized for six .32 cartridges meant it could only hold five .38 cartridges. Since the DS
was a short bbl version of a .38 S&W stretched to .38 Spl length, it had a bit larger
diam cyl and retains the six cartridges.

So, basically, both designs are slight modifications to VERY old designs that had
been in the companies' catalogs for many decades. Mr. Hawks is appallingly ignorant of the
history of these two guns to make the embarrassingly foolish claim that the M-60
(just a stainless M-36, really) is a copy of the Detective Special. The rest of the
screed is a similarly error-strewn blast, and probably most of the shoddy guns he
refers to were built in the bad old Bangor Punta period, acknowledge by all as
a quality disaster, but FAR, FAR in the past. The "L-frame is a Python ripoff" is similarly
mis/un-informed nonsense. Has the underlug on the Python been copied? Yes,
it adds weight to minimize muzzle flip. They didn't copy the vent-rib (thank goodness!).

I saw a brand new 8 3/8" S&W M27 that was overpressuring on starting loads and took
about all of the rear sight adjustment to get on the paper at 12 yds! A general
inspection was SHOCKING. The barrel was screwed in about 3 degrees to the left! The
quality in the Bangor Punta days was abysmal. I have a significant number of S&W revolvers
made in the last 15 years, since the Brits got booted out by the customers, and they
are all at least very good, some are extremely good guns like my 586 from about 2007 or
so. S&W today is not remotely like S&W of the 80s.

The fact that the Bodyguard barrel is made by a new method apparently overrides the fact that it works
fine and costs less to make. Irrational prejudice against a manufacturing method is something
new to me. :bigsmyl2: Pretty hilarious, too!

Bill

[dubber123]

Bill, I am kinda enjoying reading your posts in the last few days.. I am an admitted S&W fan, I'm not sure how many I own, somewhere around 40 I think. The vast majority I have dealt with have been very good to flat out excellent. I even have a few Bangor Punta guns that fell into the excellent category, all mistakes I'm sure. :)

I have gotten or handled a few that were pure garbage, a limited run 5" model 27 was so abysmal when it arrived new I kept it a few weeks and traded it for a Chinese made SKS. I got the better end of that deal. I have only 1 S&W with MIM parts, a newer 625. I dislike them due to the small molding lines that are visible, they just aren't as "pretty" as the old parts. That gun got used hard for years shooting competition, and I never once had a problem. I have a disdain for the new locks on the revolvers, and avoid buying them if an older pre-lock model is available, but that is also a personal prejudice, not based on inferior performance.

I would not consider a MIM barrel an "upgrade" but I certainly could see S&W using the process to keep the cost low on a gun intended to compete in a market flooded with similar firearms. If I read correctly, the Bodyguard is $419 with a laser? I just paid more than that for an old M&P .38. I would expect less expensive manufacturing techniques to be employed on anything selling new for $400 these days.

[birch]

I posted this link to highlight the fact that I am not a raving lunatic to feel that Smith and Wesson is cheapening their brand name.

Chuck Hawk obviously has the right to his opinion, however, 99% of this article is based on his personal feelings.

The bodyguard in my hands has FtF 3 times out of 100 rounds. That is too much and even after I send the gun back for an inspection it will be sold and I will hopefully have enough money to buy the Ruger lcp I was going to buy, althought I will probably loose almost 100 dollars on this **** pistol.

I have the right to complain for paying topshelf prices for a pocket gun and getting low shelf quality. I don't care if my gun lasts someone 10,000 rounds. I was told that the bodyguard had a stainless barrel and slide, and Smith and Wesson lied to me. Nowhere on the product specifications page of their website say that the .380 bodyguard has a MIM barrel. That is an ommission and therefore a lie. Say what you want, but I was lied to.

This is different than Chuck Hawks giving his opinion on Smith and Wessons copywright infringement without specifics and primary documents to back him up.

I have a primary document--It is sitting in front of me and is a real piece of ****. I know I won't get anything through a diehard Smith lovers thick skull, but my hope is to stop someone from buying a piece of **** .380 bodyguard. You see, I am a helper. If I can help one person out by having them by a Ruger, Taurus, or Sig, then that is one less Smith and Wesson gun beign bought and one less dollar out of their corporate bank account. If any of you are Smith shareholders, I suggest you call and tell the board of directors to stop allowing **** product out of the warehouse. After all, I can take a **** and a box and put a guarantee on it, but if the company who owns the box is not worth its salt, it is a guaranteed piece of ****.

[shorty500M]

have owned many handguns from all the major players down to some that only a true handgunning nut has ever even heard of, mr. hawks is well to be gentlemanly an arrogant full of himself egotist who rarely has never been willing to admit that far better EXPERTS than himself exist on many of the subjects he has so controversally spewed out his rhetoric

[saz]

mr. Hawks has some factual errors in addition to a fairly serious case of cranial-
rectal inversion at times in this piece.
Bill

bawhahahaha!!!!!!!

[ReloaderFred]

Most handguns require several hundred rounds to break in. All the corresponding parts need to wear together. Just about every manufacturer of a semiauto pistol says that in the owner's manual. As for not liking a manufacturing process, that's a personal thing. I really don't care one way or the other about how a part was made, as long as it works after the break-in period.

I've shot several of the Ruger LCP's in .380, and I won't have one. I own a lot of Ruger handguns, but the LCP is one I won't own. I've seen people use two fingers to pull the trigger, since it's so hard and rough. I like good triggers, and the LCP has one of the worst I've ever shot, so my suggestion to the OP is shoot one before you buy one, if you can.

My pocket gun is a Sig P238, which I like. The controls are the same as the 1911, which I'm very familiar with. While it's more money than the Colt Mustang, it at least has sights you can actually see, and comes standard with night sights, but uses the less expensive Mustang magazines.

To each his own, as the saying goes.........

Hope this helps.

Fred

[MtGun44]

No question that a buyer of a self defense pistol that has a failure to function of any type
as frequent as 3 times in 100 has a cause to be unhappy. But, this is not too uncommon in
the first 100 or 200 rounds in a brand new pistol, but usually clears up as the gun "breaks
in". An important point is that some semi-autos are pretty darned picky about what
ammo they will feed. I would suggest that about 200-300 rounds be run through the gun,
with a diligent effort to shoot different brands and bullet styles and keep careful notes if
a particular magazine (if you have two) or a particular brand of ammo is related to these
failures more than the other mag or other ammo. Also, be sure the gun is properly lubricated
with a good synthetic oil - although I prefer a light synthetic grease because it will stay in
place better.

Once you have gone through about 300-400 rounds of different types and the gun is still malfunctioning
with many different brands/styles of ammo - I think you have exhausted the "reasonable" testing
and need to send it back to the maker to correct, assuming you still want the pistol. It is probably
easier on the conscience to sell a gun that is known to work properly, so even if you plan to sell
because you no longer want this model, it is probably best to return it and get it working.

I want the OP to be sure that I have huge sympathy for the frustration that happens when you
go out and buy a new product and find that it malfunctions. This is extremely frustrating for you,
and you can bet that it is pretty frustrating and counterproductive for the company that made it.
My only point is that focusing on the manufacturing PROCESS used to make the barrel is probably
not an accurate source of the problem. The barrel may well be improperly made, but it is unlikely
that the root cause is MIM, per se, but some sort of production error.

As to "stainless barrel" somehow being incompatible with MIM, this is just incorrect. It is perfectly
possible to make a barrel by the MIM process using stainless steel. So it is perfectly possible for
the specs to be correct, it is not correct to assume that there is some subterfuge unless it says
"forged barrel".

Best of luck on the Bodyguard. I have handled them and they seem to be a nice small .380. I have
two friends that have them and report great satisfaction in shooting them a good bit, so it wouldn't
seem that the design is fundamentally problematic, probably your particular example - and it should
be something that is fixable.

As to the folks getting good guns during the Bangor Punta period at S&W, that is certainly to be expected.
Even when the quality process goes "seriously off the rails" probably 90% or more of the guns made
were just fine, functionally. But if 10% of guns are faulty, it means a LOT of stories out there of bad
guns and blows a company's reputation to pieces.

As to the MIM parting lines -YUCK! I do NOT like them, and wish that the makers had a good way to
'pretty up' the parts. OTOH, as an engineer involved in production of precision small metal parts for
weapons systems, I know that the cost of this hand work is going to double the price of the part. The
reality of modern fully-burdened US labor rates is that manufacturing processes always focus on ways
to reduce labor content. Just a fact of life unless you want to send the parts to China or Bangladesh
where the labor rates are lower to get them worked over to remove the parting lines OR -----
pay twice as much for the gun.

Bill

[Larry Gibson]

Yup, Glock started the trend with butt ugly throw away guns. Ruger and now S&W have joined in. Many consider the current crop of plastic guns (less expensive ones) to be right up there with the best of the old "Saturday night specials".........S&Ws current entries are not to me confused with the J frame Chief Special of the late '70s called the "Billy Martin Special"............

Are you ready............

it was called that.........

because you could fire it 5 times..........:shock:

Larry Gibson

[KCSO]

I bought my first S AND W's pre Bango Punta and still have a couple of very fine guns. The quality in S and W has went both up and down over the years, but all in all I will take a Smith over a Taurus every time your chances are way better. Whear as Colts have been a fraud for a good number of years living only on a reputation made in the dim past.

[dubber123]

Birch, if you believe buying a Ruger or (choke) Taurus will somehow 100% guarantee satisfaction, by all means ditch the Bodyguard and go for it. I got 3 bad Rugers in a row, 2 were repaired on Rugers dime to my satisfaction, the third went down the road. Do I bash Ruger? nope, they produce junk on occasion like all makers, just at a greatly reduced rate compared to some.

If having S&W as a preferred handgun manufacturer makes me a "Thick skulled, diehard Smith lover" in your book, thats your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I will freely admit S&W has made junk. I don't like the locks, I don't like the MIM lines on hammers and triggers. I think the X-frame 500's are total junk based on personal experience. I just don't buy them, and if I end up with an occasional lemon, I fix it, or get rid of it. I surely don't waste my time crying about it. Lifes too short.

[birch]

Bill, (mtgun44) thank you for a very constructive post. It was crafted beautifully and really made me critical of my criticism. I will PM you when I get 3 or 400 rounds down the pipe to keep you informed of the progress.

again,
thank you

[MtGun44]

Birch -

Best of luck with the pistol. I know that you have to feel frustrated - and I would TOO. I hope that
this sorts out into one of the common, but pretty easily fixed issues with semi-autos. Bad mag,
breaking in or some sort of ammo issue that is specific to one or two brands. Semi-autos always
have more potential for things to go awry, revolvers with excessive friction when new "has a
heavy/rough trigger pull" and it gets better with time. If some part or parts are slightly rough or have
a burr, you can pull harder on the revolver, but the SA will just stop working.

Best of luck, and please understand that there was never any animosity in any of my comments,
just trying to point out that while MIM is sorta new, it is not necessarily a process which cannot produce
high precision, strong, durable parts - - - - - unfortunately with parting lines ! Which nobody thinks
adds anything to the beauty of the gun, I'm sure S&W wishes they were not there, too. My bet is
they hear about them about 10 times every day!

Frankly, I was slightly skeptical of MIM when I first heard about it. I have owned a Kimber since the
late 90's and it has way over 40K, probably even 50K through it. I put a 2 lb trigger pull on the gun
with the original hammer and sear when I got it and 14+ years and many tens of thousands of bangs
later, it is still 2 lbs and reliable. That is a severe test as the precision fit necessary to get a consistent,
reliable 2lb trigger is significant. The fact that there has been no wear on this tiny, heavily loaded,
precision parts proves that Kimber had the process under control and was (probably is) producing
top grade parts with the process. The more applications that have succeeded across industry has
more than proven the process to my satisfaction. Plus, I have seen plenty of conventionally made
(forged and milled, etc) parts that were soft, out of tolerance and just junk.

Keep me apprised of your luck, and I'll do what I can do advise you to try to solve this.

Bill

[birch]

Thanks again Bill,

I'll let you know when I get enough rounds down the pipe and consider it "broken in".

Take care.

[9.3X62AL]

I'm not a reader of Chuck Hawk(s). I have no idea of his qualifications, but he has rights to his opinions. I have a generally good opinion of S&W revolvers, all of mine still in hand are excellent machines, and there are no recent glory-hole examples. My opinion of S&W autopistols is model-dependant. 41s and 52s are excellent, 1st and 2nd Generation metal-framed examples vary, 3rd Gen pistols tend toward roughness of trigger but are sturdy and strong as tanks. Sigmas, Bodyguards, and M&Ps need not apply. If you want something Glock-like, get the real thing--they are good pistols. I have one S&W 3rd Gen pistol remaining, and once I'm done emptying out its ammo the pistol will go down the road. It is unrefined, obsolescent, and somewhat collectible (Model 1026, 10mm with 5" barrel and SIG-like decocker. I will turn proceeds from its sale into something useful that is authorized for me to CCW.

[MtGun44]

Al,

Try out the new M&P 45 from S&W some time. I can't abide a Glock and this one actually works for me pretty darned well.
Not going to trade in my 1911s, but it has a good feel and some drop in parts can give it a superb trigger pull.

Bill

[Petrol & Powder]

Not to stray too far from where this all started, but I agree with 9.3X62AL. Generally speaking, S&W makes good revolvers but their semi-auto pistols are a different story and very model dependent. I've seen and shot some 3rd generation S&W pistols that I wouldn't use as a door stop. I don't think they ever really learned how to make a semi-auto and banked on their name and brand recognition. S&W's association with Walther may have been more necessary than voluntary.
And to quote, "If you want something Glock-like, get the real thing--they are good pistols." - Two big thumbs UP!!
Every polymer framed, striker fired, high-capacity pistol with a square profile slide that is not a Glock,... is a Glock wanna-be. Just do yourself a favor and buy a Glock if that's what you want. Glocks are good pistols, they work and they are almost always simpler than the copies that want to be Glocks in all but name.

[9.3X62AL]

Not gonna happen, Bill. Sorry. The early examples my agency approved in the several calibers broke critical lockwork parts far too often for my comfort, and that Sigma-esque articulated trigger leaves me cold and is a reminder from where the M&P was derived. I dislike them intensely, right along with the Sigmas.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Not sure how many semi autos I've bought but I recently counted purchasing 27 revolvers in 27 years and found the ********* plague is not brand specific. There was day when any purchase of any handgun assumed a trip to 'smith before going it to the range. That is not the case now. I have heartburn over some of the shenanigans Smith has pulled and love Colt's but carried a 4506 as a peace officer for almost 10 years and found it functioned flawlessly. The four digit model numbers were Smith & Wesson's apology for the guns they made previously. Smith makes different tiers of quality and prices them accordingly. The difference can be illustrated by a gun kept in a bed stand versus a gun riding on a motorcycle officer's belt day in and day out in the elements. Those Smith four digit model number guns really hold up.

Talking about the quality produced by various factories and pocket guns in the same breath is a stretch. The failure rate of pocket pistols in actual shootings is statistically very high, and the rounds pocket pistols digest are comparatively anemic so I do not personally partake in this practice. Any step down from full frame size handgun, I default to the wheelgun. The snub nose .38, even full of lint does have a track record of going bang when the trigger is pulled, the .38 round is superior to the .380 and there is no risk of failure to fire from out of battery in contact shots often encountered in pocket pistol fights. A buddy of mine didn't get bang out his full sized Glock model 17 when a mental stuck a knife in his chest. His multiple layers of SWAT vests saved him from injury. Years ago I carried a couple of Walthers, PPK and PPK/S both and found neither reliable. I wouldn't trust a pocket pistol from any company to save my hide from any body or anything so bad I have to use a firearm to protect myself. My back up gun is a Bulldog .44.

Please do not post that full sized semi auto's also do not fire when out of battery.

[warf73]

birch,

If you do sell the bodyguard look at the p238 before you drop cash on Ruger or Tauras. The Sig is 2x the gun that lcp and tcp are, granted its almost 2x the cost but worth it.

[9.3X62AL]

birch,

If you do sell the bodyguard look at the p238 before you drop cash on Ruger or Tauras. The Sig is 2x the gun that lcp and tcp are, granted its almost 2x the cost but worth it.

Extending this comment a bit.....I am very impressed by SIG-Sauer's interpretations of the Colt/Browning 1911-series pistols. If they do as good a job of adapting the Colt Govt. Model and Mustang 380 to their P-238 series, it would be quite impressive. I haven't seen or handled a P-238 so far.

[bhn22]

Who is Chuck Hawk anyway? I've never heard of him, nor read any of his work. It often becomes fashionable to gore peoples sacred oxen to call attention to yourself. I've had bad guns from all makers, and they've always been fixed free (so far). A MIM barrels does not a *** make, and my original personal attitude towards MIM is evolving. I do believe that three FTFs out of the guns first 100 rounds is about normal, and much better than some I've owned in the past. I also believe that this is too small an initial cross section to jusde the gun by. Most of the big name writers advise a minimum of 500 break-in rounds before condemning a gun as unreliable. We all know that there are many ways to make a semi-auto choke, and there's no point in repeating them. I simply suggest shooting it a bit more before making the phone call. Seriously, who is Chuck Hawks, anyway?

[357Ruger]

Sorry to hear you are having problems with your gun, that is always frustrating.

Anything I've ever read by Chuck was full of mis-information so I avoid reading his stuff now.

[Ed K]

Who is Chuck Hawk anyway? I've never heard of him, nor read any of his work.

Chuck Hawks describes himself as: "a noted researcher, writer and professional photographer" at http://www.chuckhawks.com/g-s_about_us.htm

However after reading this in the second paragraph of the S&W article cited by the OP I quit reading: The truth is that this rifle is almost completely deritive

[dragon813gt]

Why do people have a problem w/ MIM parts?

[JHeath]

. . . Talking about the quality produced by various factories and pocket guns in the same breath is a stretch. The failure rate of pocket pistols in actual shootings is statistically very high, and the rounds pocket pistols digest are comparatively anemic so I do not personally partake in this practice. Any step down from full frame size handgun, I default to the wheelgun. . . . Years ago I carried a couple of Walthers, PPK and PPK/S both and found neither reliable. I wouldn't trust a pocket pistol from any company to save my hide from any body or anything so bad I have to use a firearm to protect myself.



Could you comment on the reliability of older pocket models like the Colt 1903, Savage 1907, and Remington 51? Do they function more reliably than the newer models?

I spent a lot of time around older-generation shooters who did not seem to question that the old pistols would go bang (but weren't confident about the .380 or .32acp).

There's a heated thread about MIM in this same forum, in which somebody wrote that the new pocket pistols have very short slide overtravel, so are prone to FTF.

(I do note care about MIM either way here, I am interested in design and not how the factory executes it).

Is this a case where 100 years ago we could make a pocket pistol that goes bang every time, but now we can't?

[9.3X62AL]

(I do not care about MIM either way here, I am interested in design and not how the factory executes it).

This sums up my bottom line pretty closely, too.

We ask more things of our pocket blowback pistols these days than we did 80-100 years ago, chief among them being the expectation of reliable function with hollow-point and/or cast boolits. Colt's little 1903s did not get along with most hollowpoints, nor did the Remington 51s I've fooled around with. It was all FMJ/RN ammo, and with the modern pistols that isn't a bad start point at all--it may be where you wind up anyway. (Note--if the SIG P-238 is a close rendition of the Colt-pattern GovMod/Mustang, then it is a toggle-link locked-breech design. As said, I haven't seen one).

I agree that there is no excuse for a company putting out an intrinsically unreliable pocket pistol in this day and age. That doesn't mean that a company won't rush a design to market before sound and thorough R&D shows what works and what doesn't. The classic designs had their problems, too--most of them ran very well as 32 ACPs and were initially designed around that cartridge. Where problems come in is at the point a company wants to up-size the 32 platform to run a 380 ACP......it isn't always successful, and not all responses to market demand are necessarily valid or executed well. We see similar issues with the upgrade of 9mm platforms to 40 S&W--not all 9mm pistols made that leap seamlessly.

The shadow looming over all of this discussion is that these tools are often used in very serious manners--to preserve life and safety. When we plunk down $XXX+ for such a device, we have a right to expect flawless function after a reasonable break-in period. A company operating in these venues should take those facts to heart, and make it a matter of conscience that their products are sound and reliable. Not all makers operate in this way. Glock generally operates along these lines. SIG-Sauer operates along these lines at least as far as their classic-series full-size and compact pistols are concerned. Smith & Wesson revolvers in pre-glory hole and pre-MIM days operated in this fashion. Colt 1911 and Commander series pistols above base model platforms can be so regarded after good break-in runs and fed with proper magazines and tested ammunition. Those parameters govern my carry choices for social interactions that erupt unexpectedly. If such occurrences are expected, I make a point of not arriving now that I'm retired and not required to attend. Given the sub-compact sizes of Glock and Kahr pistols and their demonstrated reliability--and that they are chambered in real calibers--why anyone would opt for any 380 or 32 ACP as carjacker medicine begs some questions, at least from my point of view. Even the 45 ACP is a compromise between portability and stopping power that favors the latter element to some degree. But the final decision is not mine to make--we're all grown-ups here. Just make sure to hit well, hit early, and hit often. Like voting in Chicago. :)

[Rick Hodges]

My experience with the older pistols is limited to one Colt 1903 in 380. Like 9.3x62AL pointed out it was very picky about what ammo it used. FMJ only and it favored Winchester and Federal. It was marginal with Remington. It was not my piece but a co-workers and I watched him try to work though his problems. It is a flat sided weapon but not particularly small or light by todays standards. The sights on the thing were darn near useless and the accuracy was so-so at best.

[MtGun44]

Al,

The 238 uses a cam rather than link, IIRC, but still Browning design, "same difference" if you know what
I mean. In any case, the P238 is pretty nice but my wife's SIG (used) had serious extraction issues, and
ultra inconsistent ejection when we first shot it. After noting that brass went either 10 feet right or
occasionally fell 2" to the side of the gun and lay there :shock:; I stopped her shooting and pulled down the
gun at the range. Typical 1911 problem - the darned extractor had not been set up properly (no doubt
from the factory) and had ZERO tension. I reset the tension there and it has never bobbled again.

So - nice interpretation of the Colt Mustang design, but not exactly flawless execution! Decent little
gun, good trigger, good sights and suits the wife well. She has no patience with poor sights and
triggers, having learned to shoot on a college rifle team. :-)

As to "why do people have a problem w/ MIM" - I presume because it is new and frankly, if you know what it is, it
seems a bit like witchcraft and silly putty to make your gun. The reality is very different, but these
new processes take a while to be trusted, especially by the non-technical types.

I have been in contact with the OP and he is doing more testing and we will see if the gun
just needs breakin or has real problems. I think he posted a pretty good comment about it
and we are way past the 'issues' that came out in the early parts of these two threads.

As to Chuck Hawks - only read a few random, basic bits from him over the years and had no
real opinion one way or the other until I read this ill-informed screed. Not going to waste time
any more. A bit of research would have shown that his fundamental thesis was baloney, but
clearly the facts were unimportant.

Al's point about the critical nature of the problem is well taken. A jam at an inopportune time could
be deadly. As to the .380, after instructing a wide range of shooters over some many years, while
I personally carry a .45 ACP 95% or more of the time, I have had to recognize that not everyone
can handle the size (concealment) weight (convenience) and recoil of the big guns, especially in the
lightweight versions. I have really come to the point where not violating Rule One for a Gunfight* is
far more critical than the caliber of the gun. Some folks need smaller, lighter and lower recoil
guns to fit their situation.

Bill

* Rule One for a Gunfight: "Have a gun."

[9.3X62AL]

Ah, ha--"cam", as in a Browning HP? My point was that the design is locked breech, and can therefore safely contain full-potential European-strength loadings that generate a genuine 900 FPS to a 95 grain bullet--instead of 750 like most USA-made ammo conjures up. And do it for a lot of years and a lot of rounds, too. NICE.

No argument with your position on calibers, and that any reliable arm is better than throwing rocks or dialing 9-1-1. My biases are due to career experience, primarily that most people who get shot in defensive scenarios are anaesthetized to some degree by alcohol and/or drugs, and it takes good hits to dissuade them, at minimum. Eye sockets make great bullet funnels, and taking out some of the eyesight helps on several levels. This is not a gentle course of conduct, and our adversaries aren't gentle souls. I want it all--caliber, velocity, bullet weight. A 10mm with 180s running 1275 FPS was my usual carry arm before HR 218 undid those possibilities. Now it's the 45 ACP, 230 SXTs that get 875-900 FPS from a 4.4" P-220 barrel and a bit more from a 5" Colt. The other option is my 4" 686 with Federal 357B on board--125s running 1425 FPS for real. Anybody worth shooting is worth shooting well, and repeatedly until his or her posed hazard is extinguished.

[HangFireW8]

Ha.... The brits never got booted, They hold all the debt and the "new owners" are just a front. That farce plus a million dollar donation to the NRA bought them forgiveness from the NRA and gun rags eager for advertising dollars after their total betrayal of our 2nd Amnd. rights.

[onceabull]

Given that the "new Owners" of Smith & Wesson Holdings can be you, me, Jerry Brown,and/or any other entity that wants to pony up around $11.xx greenspans/share any day the stock market is open,It seems odd to assume that "the Brits" are still running the company..Especially since,at last reporting,the company had more cash in hand than total debt outstanding(regardless of who actually holds that paper..Shareholders vote, bondholders hope.... Onceabull

[pdawg_shooter]

The finest handguns I have ever owned, (and I still have 2 of them) are both Colt Pythons. One was made in the mid 60s and the other in the early 70s. They are the finest built most accurate handgun I have ever handled. When I see the price they bring, used, on GB and auction arms tells me I am not the only one with this opinion.

[9.3X62AL]

P-Dawg, Colt Python subject matter can get me as lyrical and poetic as a discussion of the 9.3 x 62 Mauser. I'll forego that temptation, so the train of this thread doesn't go completely off the tracks.

[Clay M]

I have two 80's era Smiths that are nice guns too.One is a model 57.It is very tight and the bluing is perfect.I also have a 629 4" that is a nice gun.Both shoot as great.The current production Smiths I have are also good guns.I think a lot of people dis Smiths because they don't want to pay the price for them.I love the ones I own,and they aren't for sale.

[MtGun44]

The Brits sold the company, now owned by a US company. Holding debt is not control in most cases.

Al, yes, just like the Browning HP. As to MY PERSONAL choices of calibers - we are in 100% agreement,
more is better, repeat as required, bad guys are bad and pistols are WEAK compared to rifles. I like
more oomph whenever possible, at least up until the shot-to-shot time starts getting excessive. My std
load is .45 ACP Speer 230 Gold Dots. The mushrooms are amazingly nice.

My point was for "the great majority.. . . ." - my point is to do WHATEVER IT TAKES for a person to
avoid violating the First Rule.

Bill

[Silver Jack Hammer]

JHeath, I'm afraid I cannot comment on the reliability of older pocket models you mentioned. My observations are limited to what I see working police officers bring to the range and then I get some information and training which comes from inside the law enforcement community. I have observed that down through the years the law enforcement community's opinion of firearms has shifted and swung many different directions. The guys only bringing new model guns to the range. I have never owned any of the older models you mentioned.