Honestly! What is S&Ws problem?

[SIR WILLIAM]

Why is Smith and Wesson not into CAS at all?  It seems that CNC machines could make modern breaktops in I frames anyway.  The Schofields, Russians and #3s would make interesting firearms.  32 S&W Long, 38 Special, 44 Russian and Special, 44-40, perhaps 38-40 and 45 Long Colt or 45 Schofield would be competitive calibers.  A S&W revolving rifle would be a great offering.  Why has S&W completely abandoned the CAS market?

[Manatee]

Economics.  There is not enough volume to justify tooling, testing, regulatory approvals and market introduction.  Ruger has half the market.  If you can't be a category killer nowadays, and have a corporate overhead structure, you can't effectively compete.

[J.D.Cayhill]

It has been a while, but I remember S&W saying that the front half of the Schofield was too complex to completely CNC machine. There was too much hand fitting and finishing involved for the pistol to be profitable. That is why it was discontinued. Also there was not enough sales volume for that style pistol in that price range.

This is probably the same reason we will never see a reproduction Merwin & Hulbert.

[Advertising]

[SIR WILLIAM]

SHOT show may surprise people.  There are many new introductions for the CAS market.  S&W seems intense on experimenting with exotic metals and seems to be failing miserably.  CAS has room for S&W, USFA, Uberti, Colt, Taurus, Pietta and a few specialty niche manufacturers of revolvers.  The Winchesters, Marlins, Taurus and Pedersolis are competing with Ubertis.  The market is open or Ruger wouldn't be redesigning and producing the new XR3 style gripframed revolvers.  I just wonder if S&W is seeing something WE aren't or, if they are blind?

[Trapdoor Billy]

Sounds to me more like you just don't like S&W.  You got a couple of good reasons why - yet you continue to complain.  Their attempt at a Schofield was expensive - not enough sales to keep in the line.  They did try though.

 

[SIR WILLIAM]

Except for the last few new S&Ws I bought that had to be returned for repairs,  I have no axe to grind with S&W.  They are a major American manufacturer, they were around in the old days,  they tried with the Schofield 2000 and now they are out of CAS completely.  It raises questions.

[Marshal Will Wingam]

I agree it's just a matter of cost/profit. If you can't make 'em cheap enough to make a decent profit, there's no reason to try competing in the market. Like JD said, the machining is just too difficult on them.

I also heard that Remington would not reproduce their 1875/1890 pistols, either. I don't think their issue is machining, but they aren't currently manufacturing pistols of any kind and I suspect it would be rather costly to gear up a production line just for them. How many would they need to sell to recoup the initial investment? Maybe we'll see these conditions change in the future as CAS grows. One can hope.

[Terry]

I think the problem is overhead.  If their equipment is up to the latest high-tech stuff, the costs of tooling up is not that much....I have experience in this area and have things prototyped quite often.  The shop I deal with is extremely reasonable as they are as high-tech as you can get.  Rapid-Prototyping can get me a rather complex part in a few days at minimal costs.

Difference is is that they are non-union.  It's not hard to remember not all that long ago I bought a brand new pre series 70 Combat Commander for $210.00.  What happened was employee health care costs and insurance went through the roof.  Not sure about now, but years ago Colt workers were UAW union members.  So, the cost of the gun itself is the least of the costs involved.  Same reason more and more TV shows are shot in Canada.    Just saving health care costs slice the prices considerably....

[Irish Red O'Toole]

Price per unit on the S&W 2000 Schofields was too high for the average CAS shooter to afford.  The market votes with it's wallet.  It's simply economics.  If S&W could make Schofields (or Russians, Model 1s, or anything else) for less and charge less....and sell more of them, they would.  Obviously, their unit price was set were it was so S&W could turn a decent profit on the guns.  We didn't buy alot of them because it was too high.  Realy simple when you think about.  No deep, dark secrets here.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Occaisionally I get a chance to shoot with a young S&W engineer. He told me S&W just could not compete with the Italian imports for the Schofield market. S&W actually needed to further RAISE the price of their Schofield to make it profitable. With Italian imports selling for about half as much, there was no way they could do that.

CNC machining has been around for a long time now. It is not the end all and be all of cost control in modern manufacturing. There is a lot more involved than that. Italian gunmakers use CNC equipment too. But Italian labor is cheaper than American labor.

One of the greatest costs of any modern manufactured product is something loosely called 'manufacturability'. If it's hard to make, it costs more. If it's easy to make, it costs less. Colt SAA, S&W Schofield are quintessential 19th century designs. They were hard to make but the extensive hand fitting required to assemble them was relatively inexpensive. Sam Colt's and Oliver Winchester's employees probably lived in tenements in Hartford and New Haven. Thankfully, modern industrial employees don't have to live in such conditions anymore. (Yet). But if you pay employees a living wage, the cost of hand fitting of parts goes up disproportionally with the rest of the manufacturing costs.

CNC equipment making parts designed in the 19th century is not much of a cost saver. As a matter of fact, it's dumb, and a waste of equipment. But we insist our guns be true to the originals and that's the only way to do it.

The real genius of Ruger is that they completely redesigned conventional looking firearms, like the Blackhawk and the Vaquero, with modern technology in mind, not 19th century technology. A lot of people complain that Vaqueros are not very authentic, and when you take one apart and compare the parts to a SAA's parts there's no denying it. But when you caompare the cost of stamping out a cylinder stop for a Vaquero to the cost of machining a bolt for a SAA (analogous parts), there is just no comparison. And then top that off with the fact that the RUger part just pops in place with no hand fitting while the Colt part needs special hand fitting, it's no wonder that RUger is blowing away th competition.

I have no doubt that if they wanted to Ruger could make a cost effective likeness of the Schofield. But no purists would buy it.

Smith and Wesson's bread and butter is Double Action revolvers. These are mature products and nobody makes them better. Starting all over again from scratch with faded blueprints from the 19th century and nobody alive today who remembers the tricks to assembling them was a loosing propostion from the start, unless customers were willing to pay for it. S&W's customers were not. It will be interesting to see how Hartford Armory fares, attempting to make a 19th Century design today but with updated technology. They are not going to be cheap.

[Bear Rider]

Occaisionally I get a chance to shoot with a young S&W engineer.
...
...
...

Smith and Wesson's bread and butter is Double Action revolvers. These are mature products and nobody makes them better.
...

Yet they have destroyed their bread and butter line by adding BS internal locks on them. When I decide to get another revolver for defense or any other use, it will NOT be a new S&W. I will not waste my money on features that I do not want, that may indeed impede the function of the weapon. Insofar as I am concerned, S&W may as well shut its doors, except for the fact that having new models out there will enable me to buy older ones from the gullible.

[Prof. Bullspit]

Driftwood Johnson, I want to recognize your words. Thanks for the thoughtful and well written discussion of the topic. You have identified some of the key points that needed to be considered.

[Owlhoot Hardin]

Yep, Driftwood, ya done real good.  I enjoyed it.

[SIR WILLIAM]

Hmmmm?  S&W Schofield 2000=FAILURE  Heritage Series=FAILURE S&W Thunder Ranch 21-4=FAILURE  If I had made 3 duds in a row,  I wouldn't blame prices, fickle customers or manufacturing methods.  Something is strange at S&W.  How is it that other manufacturers are tooling up and bringing out new single action designs while S&W is out-abandoned the CAS market?  I must be thickheaded.  I see CAS offerings from Taurus even.  Ruger brought back the smaller XR3 gripframe and Colt even lowered prices.  ?

[Trapdoor Billy]

Again, you seem to have a problem with S & W in general, why beat around the bush about it with BS postings, just come out and say it.

[Trapdoor Billy]

Yet they have destroyed their bread and butter line by adding BS internal locks on them. When I decide to get another revolver for defense or any other use, it will NOT be a new S&W. I will not waste my money on features that I do not want, that may indeed impede the function of the weapon. Insofar as I am concerned, S&W may as well shut its doors, except for the fact that having new models out there will enable me to buy older ones from the gullible.

While I also appreciate the older S&W revolvers,  I suspect you will have a hard time buying any new DA revolvers in the future.  Does this also hold true for SA revolvers?

[Book Miser]

Ya gotta remember that the CAS market is pretty small, compared to the overall market for firearms, and as somebody said, Ruger has tied up half of that. Pretty expensive to design, test and tool up to produce a new model for a market that might buy no more than several tens-of-thousands of guns in a year.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the companies that are already in CAS keeping things up to snuff. Don't get me started on Winchester, for example. 

Seems to me that there's plenty to choose from in this sport already, most of it pretty dang nice, and over a fairly wide range of prices. What's the dif whether one particular manufacturer enters or avoids the market?

[RRio]

As a CNC Machinist for almost 30 years, I will have to disagree with Driftwood. I guarntee that S&W's overhead is not from the CNCs. More likely the hand fitting, which tells me that their engineers need to look at their processes better. More than likely, it is more of a matter of not enough demand.

But when you caompare the cost of stamping out a cylinder stop for a Vaquero to the cost of machining a bolt for a SAA (analogous parts), there is just no comparison.

I know of two American companies that are using CNC Wire EDM to produce their bolts that are constant from bolt to bolt with very little deviation if any, thus making hand fitting minimal.

Quite frankly, I think it boils down to the fact, that S&W has never been very customer oriented and has always taken the easiest road for a profit (as in selling out to the anti-gun crowd).

[Book Miser]

Quite frankly, I think it boils down to the fact, that S&W has never been very customer oriented and has always taken the easiest road for a profit (as in selling out to the anti-gun crowd).

(emphasis added)

T'ain't fair to keep blaming S&W for that. That piece of business happened while the company was under British ownership.

[SIR WILLIAM]

I think it a sad day when an American manufacturer abandons an American iconic market.  If Chevrolet stopped making Corvettes,  would you NOT ask, why?  I am in the market for a new pair of single action revolvers.  I prefer to spend my money with American companies.  I just think it odd that I only have two American revolver manufacturers to choose from.  I may just be waiting to compare the Rugers retro XR3 and a Taurus Gaucho.  Two ne offerings from CAS manufacturers.  Sad day.