Model 69 smith and Wesson

Little info nugget that I almost put in to the other active thread in the revolver section with regards to carbon rings on the cylinder face... but will put it in this thread instead:

My buddy bought a new Model 69 at a local gun show about a month ago. He still hasn't shot it. But it's a little funny looking because Smith & Wesson shot it... three times. Although, with the evidence, all we can be 100% sure of is that Smith & Wesson shot it a minimum of three times, and we can also be sure of which three chambers they used when they did it...

It's a matte-stainless revolver and on the face of the cylinder, three of the five chambers have a light blast ring around them. :p The others are factory fresh and have zero evidence of ever having been shot.
 
Have 2 M69s. Have a little over 1,100 rounds thru them -- everything from 240gr SWC at 750 fps thru 325gr WLNGCs at 1,182 fps.

Weather hasn't been conducive to accuracy testing, but went out yesterday anyway.

Mounted a 4x Leupold on the M69 to do some load development. It was windy, and even though I had a good rest, it was not perfectly stable.

Loads are marked on the targets. The 265 SWCGC crimped over the front drive band chronoed 1,142 fps and the 310gr Lee FPGC chronoed 1,141 fps (not a typo) seated and crimped in the top grove (short OAL). Both at 50 - 60 deg F and 5 long paces from the muzzle.

The 240gr/6.5gr HP38 is seated deep (1.502 OAL) and runs 883 fps on the chrono.

As most know and the targets show, it pays to test various loads to determine best potential accuracy.
.
P4100018_zpsf5ba9c6d.jpg

.
P4100016_zps96024e17.jpg

.
Stil have other stuff to test, but thought those following this thread would be interested in the accuracy potential of the M69.

FWIW,

Paul
 
Just fired mine again today. It seems to be comfortable to me even with mid-range magnum loads. I think S&W did this one right.

The only bullets I've tested so far were from two of my Lyman molds. 429244 SWC and 429640 "devastator" hollowpoint - both gas checked. The hollowpoints were cast with a very soft alloy, the SWC a harder alloy. Sized to 0.431" absolutely no leading.

Both had the same point of impact and similar accuracy (I guess precision would be a better word). Propelled by IMR 4227.

I'll probably reserve the 300-grain thumpers for the Redhawk.

The more I shoot it, the more I like it.
 
not so good

The ball detention doesn't line up. The DA pull is so heavy it is ridiculous. The whole thing feels like a Taurus... beautiful finish, super tight - computer made. Have a complaint in to S&W... the have assigned me a rep... should hear back in a couple of days.
 
I must have lucked out... mine is fine. The double action trigger is heavy, but not any heavier than my J frame.
 
This is what Smith and Wesson said...

Dear Customer,

Our position is that it is exactly as designed. Yes, we are trying to explain that it is fine the way it is. Yes, we believe it works better than if the ball fit precisely into the seat. It is not fixable, because it is not broken. Yes, your Model 69 is correct, as well as others we produce.

I'm trying to use this opportunity to explain it to you. I agree that I am obligated to explain the engineering to you to protect our reputation.

Again, your Model 69 is correct. We do not pay FFL fees on newly purchased firearms. I hope you do post this letter on the gun forums to help clear up the perceived issue that does not exist.

Onto the explanation: this is not an issue. The ball detent is not supposed to be centered in the “V”. It is in fact supposed to be hitting on one side of the “V” in order to keep the yoke tight to the frame. This is how the detent works.

If the ball detent is not coming into contact with this “V” notch at all, then that would be an issue to send the gun in for.


If further assistance is required please reply accordingly.


Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXX
 
By the way - I shot it today...

In all fairness, it is fun to shoot. It is accurate with both Specials and Magnums, although as you would expect, firing Magnums stings a little. I really like the ergonomics. The DA, while pretty heavy, is consistent throughout and I was able to achieve accuracy within a few rounds. I have to admit I like it a lot... I wish I had known from the beginning of their intended design... Instead of them letting me do their explaining for them.
 
So the harsh complaint was over a ball detent, yet the gun functioned fine and your are not a gunsmith or mechanical engineer to judge a design?

It is wiser to ask questions when we do not understand something rather than launch a full on nuclear exchange as way of introduction.

Kudos to S&W for a level headed, informative reply.
 
My complaint to them

This is what I wrote:


The ball detent lock-up does not line up. I have seen on the gun forums that others have this problem too. What is your company's position on this? Are you trying to claim it is fine the way it is? Do you believe it works as good as if the ball precisely fit into the seat? It appears to me that it is a design flaw... The question is... Is it fixable? Do you have other Model 69 pistols that are correct?

You have an opportunity to correct your flawed product and create a positive consumer experience. You have an obligation to me to provide me with the quality I paid for and protect your reputation.

If you can't fix this design/production flaw I want you to refund my money. If you can't provide me with a model 69 that is correct I want you to refund my money or replace this model 69 with another model in your product line.

I want you to pay for all shipping and FFL fees.

I will be awaiting your prompt response. Please correct your error. I will be posting this letter on the gun forums I am registered on. I will also be ready to forward to the editor of all of the gun publications. If you treat me wrong... I will report that. If you treat me right... I will report that.

Cordially,

XXXXX XXXXXXXX
 
Hahaha

Oh, I see how the tide does turn.

JGLSPRINGS... I got tired of deleting large chunks of type as I copied from the email. Y'all got the explanation, that was the important part.

NWPILGRIM... Call it harsh if you will, can't stop you there. You may note that their informative response was, for the most part, simply answering my direct questions. Others have gotten less-satisfactory explanations. If I hadn't been direct and strong, I don't believe I would have gotten a good, strong answer.

I still don't agree that "a tip grabbing a portion of the ball" is better than a fully engaged detent.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    116.9 KB · Views: 71
Last edited:
Dunno. I might buy one sometime. If I do I'll plug the lock.

A five shot 44 magnum on an 'L' frame? Seems like the answer to a question that's not been asked.

Here's a sample of the plugged lock. I'm toying with the idea of a cylinder release lever that will cover not only the plug, but that idiotic juvenile retarded arrow on the frame. What idiot came up with that?

DSCN0176.jpg
 
Yes, we believe it works better than if the ball fit precisely into the seat
Click to expand...
LOL!
That sure has the ring of "my back is wet, are you telling me it's raining" to it doesn't it?

My only question to S&W @ this point would be"
"If that's such a superior design, do you incorporate it on all your revolvers"?
 
Hal said:
Yes, we believe it works better than if the ball fit precisely into the seat
LOL!
Click to expand...

That sure has the ring of "my back is wet, are you telling me it's raining" to it doesn't it?
Click to expand...


The OP asked about this issue on another forum, and was told by a number of well-informed people the detent is ok and as-designed, so he needn't sweat it. The ball isn't meant to sit within the center of the vee, as it needs to be under tension to work properly.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=750227
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top