New S&W M27 broke!
- Thread starter jwise
- Start date
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
Regarding the quality of the 1970s Smiths to the earlier guns.
Here is the frame of one of my 1970s era guns. Notice how beautiful the machining is.
This is the frame of a K-38 made before CNC machining came along. Notice how much rougher the machining is.
Does this necessarily mean the 1970s gun is a better gun than the earlier K-38?
No.
Before CNC machining came along, frames were hogged out on pattern cutting millers. An operator would manipulate handles which would keep a stylus pressed against a template to create the complex curves of the hogged out area of the frame. The feed rate of the cutter was not programmed, the operator controlled the feed rate by how hard and fast he moved the handles. This would result in a rough finish as shown, with random milling marks left behind.
CNC machines have the feed rate programmed in, so a much more consistent finish is possible. It is also possible to take a light finish cut at a reduced feed rate to achieve a beautiful finish. It is up to the programmer how much time to allow the machine to cut the cavity. He has to compromise between a 'perfect' finish, or something slightly less perfect that does not eat up as much machine time.
Time has always been money in the manufacturing world.
The interesting thing about the rougher internal finish of the older gun is, it does not matter. Most of the parts rotate on raised bosses on the studs, so they do not contact the rough machining anyway. In a S&W revolver the only part that rubs on the floor of the cavity is the rebound slide. The photo of the rough finish shows a bit of a rub mark, from the rebound slide rubbing over the rough surface for many years.
Regarding the quality of the 1970s Smiths to the earlier guns.
Here is the frame of one of my 1970s era guns. Notice how beautiful the machining is.
This is the frame of a K-38 made before CNC machining came along. Notice how much rougher the machining is.
Does this necessarily mean the 1970s gun is a better gun than the earlier K-38?
No.
Before CNC machining came along, frames were hogged out on pattern cutting millers. An operator would manipulate handles which would keep a stylus pressed against a template to create the complex curves of the hogged out area of the frame. The feed rate of the cutter was not programmed, the operator controlled the feed rate by how hard and fast he moved the handles. This would result in a rough finish as shown, with random milling marks left behind.
CNC machines have the feed rate programmed in, so a much more consistent finish is possible. It is also possible to take a light finish cut at a reduced feed rate to achieve a beautiful finish. It is up to the programmer how much time to allow the machine to cut the cavity. He has to compromise between a 'perfect' finish, or something slightly less perfect that does not eat up as much machine time.
Time has always been money in the manufacturing world.
The interesting thing about the rougher internal finish of the older gun is, it does not matter. Most of the parts rotate on raised bosses on the studs, so they do not contact the rough machining anyway. In a S&W revolver the only part that rubs on the floor of the cavity is the rebound slide. The photo of the rough finish shows a bit of a rub mark, from the rebound slide rubbing over the rough surface for many years.
ammo.crafter
New member
S&W
I gather that I should hold onto my Smith model 14 and get rid of the rest of them.
I gather that I should hold onto my Smith model 14 and get rid of the rest of them.
Model12Win
Moderator
From all reports, it seems as if current S&W guns are the best made in decades.
OP you got a lemon. Get over it. It happens.
OP you got a lemon. Get over it. It happens.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
I beg to differ.
I bought this Model 686-6 brand-spanky new in 2015.
The first time I took it to the range I had to crank the rear sight way over to the right to get windage correct.
Turns out the barrel was canted pushing the shots to the left. The amount of cant is visible in this photo. The barrel will not allow the crane to close all the way. That is just not right. I have dozens of Smiths, some from every decade since the 1850s. (yes, 1850s) A defect like that would never have left the factory before S&W let their quality control get lax.
The only other MIM and lock S&W I own is this Model 617-6, made in 2003. I bought it used a few years ago because I was shooting a plate match and needed to knock down 8 steel targets in 15 seconds or less. Couldn't do that with a six shooter. It's a nice enough gun, but I hate the full lug barrel.
And the quality inside simply cannot match the quality of my Model 17-3 I bought in 1975.
Yes, I am very biased.
And I will never again buy another brand new Smith and Wesson revolver.
I have 6 Smiths, 3 older and 3 newer. The new ones as a group will out shoot the old ones. I think people who have bad experiences with anything tend to verbalize or post about the problem and conversely if something works well it does not get as much press. I am old enough to remember the "gun experts" saying don't buy anything after Bangor Punta took over. I like the performance of the new Smith & Wessons compared to its contemporaries. They are not exactly the way I like if I made the decisions; for example, the lock on the new ones was not necessary IMHO but I never use it anyway. However for putting shots where you want them, you would have to spend a bunch of money to get something more accurate. YMMV
I find no advantage in the accuracy of new S&W revolvers over the older pre-1980 guns. There may be less overall problems nowadays than with guns during the 1980s and 1990s - the period that I consider Smith & Wesson's dark ages - but despite the greater uniformity that modern production methods like MIM and CNC offer, longevity does not appear greatly improved.
I have a 1952 S&W K-22 and a S&W M14-2 that are among the guns that I use to compare other to when it comes to accuracy - and I expect six shot groups of about an inch at 25 yards from a simple sandbag rest with open sights with two inches being still acceptable.
I have a 1952 S&W K-22 and a S&W M14-2 that are among the guns that I use to compare other to when it comes to accuracy - and I expect six shot groups of about an inch at 25 yards from a simple sandbag rest with open sights with two inches being still acceptable.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Please explain how having to crank the rear sight way over to the right in order to get the windage correct is acceptable accuracy.
Some years ago I competed in silhouette, PPC, Conventional Pistol and International matches so accuracy was (and pretty much still is) my focus when I buy a gun. My older Smiths are a model 14, a 27, and a 52. They all shoot well but not quite as good as the newer models, a 625, a 952, and a 460. The 625 will edge the model 14 head-to-head more times than not at 25 yards but there is not a big difference. The 27 shoots well but the 14 and 625 are usually better. At 50 yards with my competition load the 952 will group under 2". The best loads I shot from the 52 are in the 2.5" range at 50 yards. The 460 is just really accurate and will routinely put 5 shots under 2" at 100 yards with jacketed bullets and a 240 grain bullet I cast myself groups in the 2.5" range at 100 yards. This is as good or better than my Dan Wesson silhouette guns will do.
Everything on the Smiths, both old and new function as they should and they look good IMHO. As far as cranking the sight way over to the right, I had that happen with two revolvers--a Ruger single six and back in the late 70s a Dan Wesson model 15. I returned both guns and got corrected ones back in fact I still have the Ruger that was returned. It is still one great shooting 22. So yes it happens and it is not just with Smith.
Everything on the Smiths, both old and new function as they should and they look good IMHO. As far as cranking the sight way over to the right, I had that happen with two revolvers--a Ruger single six and back in the late 70s a Dan Wesson model 15. I returned both guns and got corrected ones back in fact I still have the Ruger that was returned. It is still one great shooting 22. So yes it happens and it is not just with Smith.
Last edited:
Nice-lookin' revolver.I beg to differ.
I bought this Model 686-6 brand-spanky new in 2015.
The first time I took it to the range I had to crank the rear sight way over to the right to get windage correct.
Turns out the barrel was canted pushing the shots to the left. The amount of cant is visible in this photo. The barrel will not allow the crane to close all the way. That is just not right. I have dozens of Smiths, some from every decade since the 1850s. (yes, 1850s) A defect like that would never have left the factory before S&W let their quality control get lax.
The only other MIM and lock S&W I own is this Model 617-6, made in 2003. I bought it used a few years ago because I was shooting a plate match and needed to knock down 8 steel targets in 15 seconds or less. Couldn't do that with a six shooter. It's a nice enough gun, but I hate the full lug barrel.
And the quality inside simply cannot match the quality of my Model 17-3 I bought in 1975.
Yes, I am very biased.
And I will never again buy another brand new Smith and Wesson revolver.
I bought a 586 back in the 80's to use shooting sillouette. I took it out to try, but it shot way off on the windage. I contacted Smith and they had me send it to a shop that does warranty work for them, in northern California. They said nothing was wrong with it...but you could put a straight edge along the frame, and see the barrel badly canted.
R I Swampyankee
Inactive
Not a Smith story but Colt. Back in the 80s a friend of mine got a python. He noticed on DA it would hang up. We had a ace gunsmith at the time and he called me to take the ride with him to have him check it out. Less than a week later he got a call to pick it up. I again went along, I was dying to see what the problem was. He handed him the pistol and put some snap caps in and had him check it out. It was like glass. Then he handed him a plastic bag with metal shavings. He told him it was all down in the lock works, then he said "So much for Colt quality control".
My Grandfather, back in 74, bought a brand new 39-2 9mm. It jammed twice during the first mag, 124 grain Rem full patch ball. Sent it to S&W, who repaired, polished, and returned it. He never fired it again, but carried it / kept it loaded bedside until his death in the early 90's. His reasoning for not shooting it was "Why waste shells, S&W wouldn't return it if it wasn't working perfectly ". I begged to shoot it, test fire it... he declined. Stubborn man, and it was his weapon, not mine. I later inherited the 39-2, box, papers, ammo, etc, after he passed and quickly shot it, several boxes of ammo, ... without issue. Gramps was right. Although it was fun to shoot, pertaining to my excuse of "testing", it was unnecessary, a waste of ammo, S&W fixed it right. Fast foward, in the past 3 years, I have purchased 6 brand New S&W handguns, 4 of which are revolvers, a 642, 638, 629 Talo 3" and a 4" 29-10. 2 were pistols, a Shield and a M&P, both 9mm's. All function 100% perfectly, fit and finish are superb and although I despise "That Hole", on the Talo 629, 29-10 and 638, thus far, there has been no issue. If offered without a trigger lock, that is my preference, I'll buy without it, hence the non lock 642. I don't even turn them once, I ignore them. Haven't engaged yet. Non issue (although I wish they would stop installing them, reminds me of a certain female politician I do not want to mention, as I'm hoping she will just fade away from my memory as quickly as her career has evaporated). In my opinion, and I have owned allot of older S&W's over the years, these new S&W's are built stronger and much more durable than the vintage ones, even if partially built by machines / MIM, CNC, etc. They keep getting better over time, improving, stronger steel, better design, etc. These new guns will take ALLOT of HOT loads, probably far more than most of us will ever shoot, truth be told. Only gripe I have is they no longer include a cleaning rod with new handguns. I always thought that was a nice touch. Ford, Chevy and even Toyota all produce the occasional lemon. Difference is, back in the old days, no internet existed to complain to about guns (or anything else), therefore I suspect we tend to idolize the quality control of yesteryear, while crucifying any current oversights or flaws. S&W is a stand up American company and have a solid Warranty, 2nd to none. I will continue to Purchase from them without fear and with full confidence, same as Gramps did back in 1974.
Last edited:
coolbreezy
New member
I own 5 Smith revolvers currently, and owned approx. 7 since I first started buying firearms. My current 5 are as follows: early 70's model 28, mid 80's 629-1, current 686+, current 460 XVR, current 629 PC v-comp (I traded a 629-3 for it.) While my 629-1 is my favorite, all of my S&W revolvers are well made, well finished and go boom every time I pull the trigger.
I am speaking as the past owner of three (3) S&W Mdl. 686's that all ended up back at the S&W service center ! Each of them had the same basic flaw, & I must have just happened to get them all ??! To start with they all had fantastic triggers. One of them so exceptional, that my son said it was scary light. He's a Police Officer, & it worried him.
What happened was this ;
They all got to the point that, while firing in single action mode, the hammer would drop off the single action sear, & immediately catch on the double action sear & simply pull the trigger forward, stopping the revolver from firing. (Almost seemed like a de-cocker)
This happened twice on my 6", first time at about a year. And the second time at about 5-6 Months! The second time they fixed it, I sold it immediately when I got it back. Thinking I just got a lemon, I went and bought another new 6". It lasted four months, & had the exact same malfunction. Back to S&W, and when fixed it lasted about 6 Mo. I by that time knew what the problem was & knew what needed to be done to correct it ! I did, & SOLD IT Too ! About 5 years later, I came on a great deal on a 4" 686, & was stupid enough to think they may have solved the problem on the new ones ! NOT !!!
That one began to act the same way within about 8 Mo.
I now own three GP100's a 6", a 4", & a Match champ, & I'll never look back to S&W. None of those 3 S&W's had ever had any modifications done to them leading up to the problem. I was shooting several thousand rounds a year of .38 Spl. & .357 Mag. from them at that time, and I know how many 686'S must be out there, but none of them will ever be mine again. I would not trade my 3 GP's for two dozen 686's, if I had to keep them & depend upon them !
I do have three other S&W revolvers I will keep, one is an 8⅜" 657, also a 6"Mdl. 66, & the other is a 4" 617.
I have a safe full of assorted Ruger revolvers, that have never required repairs of any kind, for many, many years now.
What happened was this ;
They all got to the point that, while firing in single action mode, the hammer would drop off the single action sear, & immediately catch on the double action sear & simply pull the trigger forward, stopping the revolver from firing. (Almost seemed like a de-cocker)
This happened twice on my 6", first time at about a year. And the second time at about 5-6 Months! The second time they fixed it, I sold it immediately when I got it back. Thinking I just got a lemon, I went and bought another new 6". It lasted four months, & had the exact same malfunction. Back to S&W, and when fixed it lasted about 6 Mo. I by that time knew what the problem was & knew what needed to be done to correct it ! I did, & SOLD IT Too ! About 5 years later, I came on a great deal on a 4" 686, & was stupid enough to think they may have solved the problem on the new ones ! NOT !!!
That one began to act the same way within about 8 Mo.
I now own three GP100's a 6", a 4", & a Match champ, & I'll never look back to S&W. None of those 3 S&W's had ever had any modifications done to them leading up to the problem. I was shooting several thousand rounds a year of .38 Spl. & .357 Mag. from them at that time, and I know how many 686'S must be out there, but none of them will ever be mine again. I would not trade my 3 GP's for two dozen 686's, if I had to keep them & depend upon them !
I do have three other S&W revolvers I will keep, one is an 8⅜" 657, also a 6"Mdl. 66, & the other is a 4" 617.
I have a safe full of assorted Ruger revolvers, that have never required repairs of any kind, for many, many years now.