S&W Stainless Factory Finish Horrid - Page 2

buck460XVR · September 14, 2011, 08:59 PM

The brushed finish on my two month old 686-8 looks the same as on my 20year old 686-2 and my 15 year old -4. The finish on my ND629 looks the same as on my two year old PC629-7 Magnum Hunter and the X-frames finishes look no different than the previously stated. Maybe I'm just lucky.

8shot357 · September 15, 2011, 01:18 AM

The gun store I went to today only had a used S&W 500, looked good, it also had a lock.

Looks like people in Las Vegas don't buy revolvers anymore. In fact the range hooked to the store only had about 1/3 of what they used to for rent, no 44s or 500s. I guess that's why I just got a mint Redhawk 44 for just over $400 from a gun store.

Clifford L. Hughes · September 15, 2011, 02:37 PM

Dragline45:

I find the polished stainless guns impractical: there's to much glare when shooting in the sun shine. I agree that they they are attractive; however, the brushed finishes are superior in the hunting fields. As for smith & Wesson producing inferior guns is a fallacy: Smith sets the stndard for the revolver industry. I agree that Smith's blue finished revolvers are not as rich as they were fifty years ago, but they are still attractive. Look at a blue DX model. I read a lot of unwarranted Smith bashing on The Firing Line but each is entitled to his opinion. To each his own said the old lady when she kissed the cow.

Semper Fi.

Gunnery seergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retired

Dragline45 · September 15, 2011, 04:38 PM

Here are some examples of the sloppy brushed finishes I have seen. Granted I have seen a few that don't look so bad, but compared to other firearm companies their brushed finish is just sloppy and unattractive. I am not some anti S&W guy, the only revolvers I have ever owned have been smiths. I just absolutely hate the cheap finishes they put on their revolvers.

S&W 686

S&W60

zombieslayer · September 15, 2011, 05:22 PM

Im not particularly worried about the finish on a stainless gun. Unless its gouged or ground.

Dragline45 · September 15, 2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

WESHOOT2 - I only care about how a gun shoots; it must be reliable, and offer me controllable accuracy.

Quote:

zombieslayer - Im not particularly worried about the finish on a stainless gun. Unless its gouged or ground.

So your alright with paying $600+ for a brand new gun with a bad finish. Would you buy a brand new work truck with a bad paint job just because the truck performs well? Dont know about you guys but I like to get my moneys worth.

aryfrosty · September 15, 2011, 07:03 PM

I have been buying/carrying and shooting handguns since 1970. SMith was probably the foremost maker for a time...but that time ended in the 80s. The finish on these modern Scandium framed guns is garbage and does not hold up to any sort of use or carry. The blued guns I have owned and handled suffer from the crummiest polishing and fit I have seen this side of Taurus. I hate that...but it's true.

Gman56 · September 15, 2011, 07:11 PM

I bought my GP100 in august.Looked great had to go to a couple shops to find it. Shot indoors acouple times fun.Any way first time shooting in bright sunlight the finish looked bad real bad.Finish did not match barrel and frame right side was better than left side that side matched! Sent it packin back to ruger!Got her back today it is nice!!Both sides match.They told me when they assemble no one looks to see if the finish is good.It is all about dollars and time spent to make dollars.If you spend to much time making a beautiful finish they lose money.If you complaine they will make it right.

8shot357 · September 15, 2011, 10:34 PM

Dragline45

#31

Quote:

Dont know about you guys but I like to get my moneys worth.

Maybe you buy a Tuarus.

8shot357 · September 15, 2011, 10:35 PM

You can't even spell Taurus!

Dragline45 · September 15, 2011, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Dragline45

#31
Quote:
Dont know about you guys but I like to get my moneys worth.

8shot357

Quote:

Maybe you buy a Tuarus.

Don't see how buying a Taurus relates to expecting my moneys worth from a reputable gun company like S&W. Sorry if I expect to have a nice finish on a $600+ firearm, it really isn't too much to ask for and I cant see justifying it either. S&W owns Walther now and manufactures the Walther PPK which has a very nice brushed finish on the frame and flat parts of the slide. I got my PPK for under $500 and it has a beautiful finish, so why wouldn't a revolver costing significantly more have just as good a finish.

8shot357 · September 16, 2011, 04:25 AM

Dragline45

#36

Quote:

Don't see how buying a Taurus relates to expecting my moneys worth from a reputable gun company like S&W.

At least you didn't open a can of worm's.

Taurus isn't a reputable gun company, Like S&W?

They are still in business!

Maybe because they have a better finish for less?

What's your point?

If you don't like it, buy something else, and stop bashing my favorite gun company's, like Ruger also.

GM2 · September 16, 2011, 05:24 AM

The last S&W I bought was my 686 the finish on it looks good to me. I have never been disappointed with any of my S&W revolvers

.22lr · September 16, 2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

If you don't like it, buy something else

No one is forcing you to buy anything.

Heck WRITE S&W. But arguing on the internet won't get anyone very far.

~Matt

abber · September 16, 2011, 09:52 AM

They're guns. Buy em and shoot em.

coop2564 · September 16, 2011, 09:58 AM

Looks like someone has taken sand paper to that gun! That is not the same finish I see on most new models I have looked at lately. But I agree the finish on that gun is near Horrid.

BlueTrain · September 16, 2011, 10:25 AM

This all reminds me of a comment I made when I was admiring a new Colt Python (about 20 years ago), one that had one of their special finishes: "Yeah, it really shows the scratches well."

Not all older guns had high polish finishes, although I cannot speak to the bluing, which I believe may have been a different process (any company, not just S&W). In fact, I owned an old long-action M&P, the ones that so many were made of, yet seem to be quite rare, and it had what I call a satin finish. Not shiny at all, yet quite attractive. I also like the matt finish found some of their later stainless guns but I don't remember having noticed any brushed stainless guns lately. But you should see my 20-year old Model 13. It has a finish that looks like--it's 20 years old. That's what you call a patina.

Dragline45 · September 16, 2011, 01:24 PM

Quote:

8shot357 -Taurus isn't a reputable gun company, Like S&W?

They are still in business!

Maybe because they have a better finish for less?

What's your point?

Whats my point?? Whats your point.... You are the one who brought up Taurus in the first place, which I still don't understand why seeing how it has nothing to do with my dissatisfaction in the finish on S&W stainless revolvers. Also I never once mentioned they were not a reputable company so once again whats your point?

Quote:

If you don't like it, buy something else, and stop bashing my favorite gun company's, like Ruger also.

Sorry I talked bad about your "favorite" gun company I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. I own a number of S&W revolvers and like I said before they are the only revolvers I own. But just because I am a fan of S&W I am not going to let it blind me to the decreasing quality in products.

8shot357 · September 17, 2011, 12:32 AM

To many Bourbons.

BillCA · September 17, 2011, 02:30 AM

There are a lot of factors at play other than S&W wanting to "cut corners" just to make a profit.

- Legal challenges by anti-gun groups cost the company millions in litigation costs.
- Tighter environmental regs increased the cost of bluing guns.
- Rising labor rates for skilled workers
- Purchase of newer CNC machines and computers to reduce labor costs
- Rising costs of steel and aluminum
- Product liability insurance costs skyrocketed
- The impact of "our" boycott after Tompkins PLC capitulated to the Clintons
- The increase in lower-cost imports (e.g. Taurus & Rossi specifically)

The only "good" news for S&W's revolver business was Colt's exit from the market. Colt left the market when it could not produce a cost-competitive revolver and still make a profit. But then, Colt was also forced to adopt union workers under the UAW banner.

Thank the lawyers and anti-gun groups for sub-standard triggers on today's guns. Thank them also for the lack of leading-edge innovation by U.S. gun makers since they spent R&D dollars on legal defenses.

8shot357 · September 17, 2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

- Legal challenges by anti-gun groups cost the company millions in litigation costs.
- Tighter environmental regs increased the cost of bluing guns.
- Rising labor rates for skilled workers
- Purchase of newer CNC machines and computers to reduce labor costs
- Rising costs of steel and aluminum
- Product liability insurance costs skyrocketed
- The impact of "our" boycott after Tompkins PLC capitulated to the Clintons
- The increase in lower-cost imports (e.g. Taurus & Rossi specifically)

Also to add to the list, if it aint broke, don't fix it.

Gman56 · September 17, 2011, 11:33 AM

Yes s&w should have a better finish for the money you pay. I looked at a new 686 yesterday terrible finish!!!I bought a ss GP 100 in august $600 otd the ss finish is GREAT! I want a 686 but not until they improve the finish on them.Or Ill have to buy a used -1 or-2 blued pistol!S&W should be ashamed of themselves for the high price junk finish they offer now.

skidder · September 17, 2011, 11:58 AM

Agreed

old bear · September 17, 2011, 12:40 PM

I bought my first S&W, a model 10, in 1970 and I still remember the deep blue finish on it, I also remember that I paid MSRP for it, $85.00. The last S&W I looked at was a 686 priced a little more than $700.00, and the side plate was covered with angle scratches, so many that I bought a matt finish Taurus 617 for ½ the price of the Smith. I also bought a can of Mothers Mag Polish and with two hour's work I had a revolver that looked better than the S&W and functioned as well as the Smith.
A rather sad commentary from a lifelong Smith fan and owner.

BillCA · September 18, 2011, 12:12 AM

The real problem, IMHO, is not the fine scratches in the finish. For me, it's the lack of a matte or "frosted" finish. As Old Bear said, he used some polish and had a pretty gun. Sure. A pretty reflective gun. To me, that's a problem on a carry gun, especially one I might use at night.

On the Model 67 below, someone tried to "fix" a scratch with a 3M ScotchBrite pad and made the gun ugly below the cylinder release. Polishing it out left half the frame shiny, so I took the plunge and polished all but the cylinder. It's pretty and I've had people mistake it for a Nickel Model 15.

If S&W keeps this up, I might invest in a bead blasting cage and create a frosted finish for stainless gun owners.

September 15, 2011, 02:37 PM	#28
Clifford L. Hughes Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2011 Location: Southern Californis Posts: 795	Dragline45: I find the polished stainless guns impractical: there's to much glare when shooting in the sun shine. I agree that they they are attractive; however, the brushed finishes are superior in the hunting fields. As for smith & Wesson producing inferior guns is a fallacy: Smith sets the stndard for the revolver industry. I agree that Smith's blue finished revolvers are not as rich as they were fifty years ago, but they are still attractive. Look at a blue DX model. I read a lot of unwarranted Smith bashing on The Firing Line but each is entitled to his opinion. To each his own said the old lady when she kissed the cow. Semper Fi. Gunnery seergeant Clifford L. Hughes USMC Retired Last edited by Clifford L. Hughes; September 15, 2011 at 02:59 PM.

September 15, 2011, 04:38 PM	#29
Dragline45 Senior Member Join Date: November 30, 2010 Posts: 3,513	Here are some examples of the sloppy brushed finishes I have seen. Granted I have seen a few that don't look so bad, but compared to other firearm companies their brushed finish is just sloppy and unattractive. I am not some anti S&W guy, the only revolvers I have ever owned have been smiths. I just absolutely hate the cheap finishes they put on their revolvers. S&W 686 S&W60 Last edited by Dragline45; September 15, 2011 at 04:45 PM.

September 15, 2011, 05:22 PM	#30
zombieslayer Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,198	Im not particularly worried about the finish on a stainless gun. Unless its gouged or ground. __________________ "An angry prophet, denouncing the hypocrisies of our time"

September 15, 2011, 07:03 PM	#32
aryfrosty Senior Member Join Date: September 14, 2010 Location: Concord, NH Posts: 209	S&W Fit and Finish I have been buying/carrying and shooting handguns since 1970. SMith was probably the foremost maker for a time...but that time ended in the 80s. The finish on these modern Scandium framed guns is garbage and does not hold up to any sort of use or carry. The blued guns I have owned and handled suffer from the crummiest polishing and fit I have seen this side of Taurus. I hate that...but it's true. __________________ 'At the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased...And the epitaph drear, "a fool lies here who tried to hustle the east."'

September 15, 2011, 10:35 PM	#35
8shot357 Junior member Join Date: September 7, 2010 Posts: 1,740	Maybe you buy a Tuarus You can't even spell Taurus!

September 14, 2011, 08:59 PM	#26
buck460XVR Senior Member Join Date: December 28, 2006 Posts: 4,342	The brushed finish on my two month old 686-8 looks the same as on my 20year old 686-2 and my 15 year old -4. The finish on my ND629 looks the same as on my two year old PC629-7 Magnum Hunter and the X-frames finishes look no different than the previously stated. Maybe I'm just lucky.

September 15, 2011, 01:18 AM	#27
8shot357 Junior member Join Date: September 7, 2010 Posts: 1,740	The gun store I went to today only had a used S&W 500, looked good, it also had a lock. Looks like people in Las Vegas don't buy revolvers anymore. In fact the range hooked to the store only had about 1/3 of what they used to for rent, no 44s or 500s. I guess that's why I just got a mint Redhawk 44 for just over $400 from a gun store.

September 15, 2011, 07:11 PM	#33
Gman56 Member Join Date: September 14, 2011 Posts: 43	I bought my GP100 in august.Looked great had to go to a couple shops to find it. Shot indoors acouple times fun.Any way first time shooting in bright sunlight the finish looked bad real bad.Finish did not match barrel and frame right side was better than left side that side matched! Sent it packin back to ruger!Got her back today it is nice!!Both sides match.They told me when they assemble no one looks to see if the finish is good.It is all about dollars and time spent to make dollars.If you spend to much time making a beautiful finish they lose money.If you complaine they will make it right.

September 16, 2011, 05:24 AM	#38
GM2 Senior Member Join Date: March 31, 2011 Location: Southeast, USA Posts: 350	The last S&W I bought was my 686 the finish on it looks good to me. I have never been disappointed with any of my S&W revolvers __________________ Good character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking.

September 16, 2011, 09:52 AM	#40
abber Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2008 Location: PRK Posts: 735	They're guns. Buy em and shoot em. __________________ I ain't got no safe queens. I shoots em all...

September 16, 2011, 09:58 AM	#41
coop2564 Senior Member Join Date: March 4, 2011 Location: Frisco, TX Posts: 330	Looks like someone has taken sand paper to that gun! That is not the same finish I see on most new models I have looked at lately. But I agree the finish on that gun is near Horrid.

September 16, 2011, 10:25 AM	#42
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	This all reminds me of a comment I made when I was admiring a new Colt Python (about 20 years ago), one that had one of their special finishes: "Yeah, it really shows the scratches well." Not all older guns had high polish finishes, although I cannot speak to the bluing, which I believe may have been a different process (any company, not just S&W). In fact, I owned an old long-action M&P, the ones that so many were made of, yet seem to be quite rare, and it had what I call a satin finish. Not shiny at all, yet quite attractive. I also like the matt finish found some of their later stainless guns but I don't remember having noticed any brushed stainless guns lately. But you should see my 20-year old Model 13. It has a finish that looks like--it's 20 years old. That's what you call a patina. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

September 17, 2011, 12:32 AM	#44
8shot357 Junior member Join Date: September 7, 2010 Posts: 1,740	To many Bourbons.

September 17, 2011, 02:30 AM	#45
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	There are a lot of factors at play other than S&W wanting to "cut corners" just to make a profit. - Legal challenges by anti-gun groups cost the company millions in litigation costs. - Tighter environmental regs increased the cost of bluing guns. - Rising labor rates for skilled workers - Purchase of newer CNC machines and computers to reduce labor costs - Rising costs of steel and aluminum - Product liability insurance costs skyrocketed - The impact of "our" boycott after Tompkins PLC capitulated to the Clintons - The increase in lower-cost imports (e.g. Taurus & Rossi specifically) The only "good" news for S&W's revolver business was Colt's exit from the market. Colt left the market when it could not produce a cost-competitive revolver and still make a profit. But then, Colt was also forced to adopt union workers under the UAW banner. Thank the lawyers and anti-gun groups for sub-standard triggers on today's guns. Thank them also for the lack of leading-edge innovation by U.S. gun makers since they spent R&D dollars on legal defenses. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)

September 17, 2011, 11:33 AM	#47
Gman56 Member Join Date: September 14, 2011 Posts: 43	Yes s&w should have a better finish for the money you pay. I looked at a new 686 yesterday terrible finish!!!I bought a ss GP 100 in august $600 otd the ss finish is GREAT! I want a 686 but not until they improve the finish on them.Or Ill have to buy a used -1 or-2 blued pistol!S&W should be ashamed of themselves for the high price junk finish they offer now.

September 17, 2011, 11:58 AM	#48
skidder Senior Member Join Date: August 17, 2008 Location: Montana Posts: 640	Agreed __________________ Gun permit?? A bread crumb tossed to a sleeping society awoken by the sound of complacency. "They are for your own good", and "you will understand when you see all the lives they save". Yes master, what else will you toss me from your bag of infringements?? Do you want me to roll over and play dead? I do that very well. --skidder

September 17, 2011, 12:40 PM	#49
old bear Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 2009 Location: Not close enough to the beach Posts: 1,477	I don't like the brushed finish either. I bought my first S&W, a model 10, in 1970 and I still remember the deep blue finish on it, I also remember that I paid MSRP for it, $85.00. The last S&W I looked at was a 686 priced a little more than $700.00, and the side plate was covered with angle scratches, so many that I bought a matt finish Taurus 617 for ½ the price of the Smith. I also bought a can of Mothers Mag Polish and with two hour's work I had a revolver that looked better than the S&W and functioned as well as the Smith. A rather sad commentary from a lifelong Smith fan and owner.

September 18, 2011, 12:12 AM	#50
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	The real problem, IMHO, is not the fine scratches in the finish. For me, it's the lack of a matte or "frosted" finish. As Old Bear said, he used some polish and had a pretty gun. Sure. A pretty reflective gun. To me, that's a problem on a carry gun, especially one I might use at night. On the Model 67 below, someone tried to "fix" a scratch with a 3M ScotchBrite pad and made the gun ugly below the cylinder release. Polishing it out left half the frame shiny, so I took the plunge and polished all but the cylinder. It's pretty and I've had people mistake it for a Nickel Model 15. If S&W keeps this up, I might invest in a bead blasting cage and create a frosted finish for stainless gun owners. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) Last edited by BillCA; September 18, 2011 at 08:44 PM.