S&W 442 hammer stud failure

[warpedcamshaft]

Just for the sake of conversation...

The hammer stud on my S&W 442 no-lock moon clip model snapped off flush with the inside of the frame sometime during my last shooting session. I noticed a slight grittiness in the trigger and a strange "give" when pressing the trigger while dryfiring after my range session. I dissasembled the revolver and noticed the hammer stud was floating in the frame. I was able to place the sideplate over the stud to re-assemble before shipping off.

It would still fire in this condition due to the slot cut in the sideplate that supports the hammer stud, but I obviously wanted to get the issue addressed.

The revolver had around 4,000 live rounds through it and I'd guess around 12-15,000 dry fire cycles with about 80% of that having a snap caps loaded in the cylinder.

S&W sent a free shipping label and I have sent it off last week.

[SMD]

I also had a 442 (no internal lock) fail in exactly the same way in 2010 or 2011. I had a similar dry-fire tally (no snap caps though) and half your live fire round count. S&W replaced the frame and simply screwed in my old barrel. They also re-used the original cylinder. No problems at all since the repair.

[LSP972]

Stuff like this was simply unheard of back in the days of forged/milled parts. The hammer, trigger, rebound slide and cylinder stop studs are pressed into the frame under tremendous pressure. You would see a bent stud every now and then, almost always the result of Bubba; but breaking off? Once in a blue moon.

At least S&W will handle it, no questions asked.

They've had a lot of practice at that, since the mid-90s...

.

[ST911]

Just for the sake of conversation...

The hammer stud on my S&W 442 no-lock moon clip model snapped off flush with the inside of the frame sometime during my last shooting session. I noticed a slight grittiness in the trigger and a strange "give" when pressing the trigger while dryfiring after my range session. I dissasembled the revolver and noticed the hammer stud was floating in the frame. I was able to place the sideplate over the stud to re-assemble before shipping off.

It would still fire in this condition due to the slot cut in the sideplate that supports the hammer stud, but I obviously wanted to get the issue addressed.

The revolver had around 4,000 live rounds through it and I'd guess around 12-15,000 dry fire cycles with about 80% of that having a snap caps loaded in the cylinder.

S&W sent a free shipping label and I have sent it off last week.

What was your ser#?

[warpedcamshaft]

What was your ser#?

CUA4--- If my memory serves me right.

[warpedcamshaft]

Stuff like this was simply unheard of back in the days of forged/milled parts. The hammer, trigger, rebound slide and cylinder stop studs are pressed into the frame under tremendous pressure. You would see a bent stud every now and then, almost always the result of Bubba; but breaking off? Once in a blue moon.

At least S&W will handle it, no questions asked.

They've had a lot of practice at that, since the mid-90s...

.

It appeared that the hammer stud was milled out of the frame and is aluminum, not an insert type like some of the Scandium models.

[MGW]

So this was stock a 442 pro? No apex kit?

[warpedcamshaft]

Had Apex kit in it for a while, but went back to stock parts because of light primer strikes.

[LSP972]

It appeared that the hammer stud was milled out of the frame and is aluminum, not an insert type like some of the Scandium models.

That would do it. If so, yet another manufacturing shortcut to improve the bottom line/profit margin.

I haven't looked that closely at any recent-production guns; all of my AirWeights and AirLites have pressed-in steel studs.

.

[Isaac]

So the insert version are stronger than the milled from versions... I called yesterday to ask if they made a lockless 640, CS guy didn't know if they made a non-pro that was lockless.

I wonder if they mill the new 640s too, or press it. Guessing their CS wouldnt know.

[breakingtime91]

not trying for a derail but at this point, is a 38 lcr a better bet?

[Drang]

So the insert version are stronger than the milled from versions... I called yesterday to ask if they made a lockless 640, CS guy didn't know if they made a non-pro that was lockless.
The S&W website its lockless 442, 642 and 340.

[LSP552]

not trying for a derail but at this point, is a 38 lcr a better bet?

I don't know, but I'd certainly look at all the options if if had to replace my 642 and 442. My small revolver wants are pretty simple. Just give me a 642/442 without a lock and made with quality parts designed to hold up to moderate/heavy use. Wonder if we still have that?

[breakingtime91]

I don't know, but I'd certainly look at all the options if if had to replace my 642 and 442. My small revolver wants are pretty simple. Just give me a 642/442 without a lock and made with quality parts designed to hold up to moderate/heavy use. Wonder if we still have that?

let me know when you find out, I usually defer to the guys that carried BUGs as a job/for a long time for my decisions.

[eyemahm]

I don't know, but I'd certainly look at all the options if if had to replace my 642 and 442. My small revolver wants are pretty simple. Just give me a 642/442 without a lock and made with quality parts designed to hold up to moderate/heavy use. Wonder if we still have that?

Based on advice here, I thought the no lock 642/442 was THE choice for a j frame, and so ordered a 442 last week.

Guess we'll just have to see how it turns out..

[LSP552]

Based on advice here, I thought the no lock 642/442 was THE choice for a j frame, and so ordered a 442 last week.

Guess we'll just have to see how it turns out..

I agree with you. A no-lock 642/442 (I have both) are as good as it gets. I just hope S&W has't made some manufacturing change that will prove to be problematic down the road. LSP972 has forgotten more about revolvers than I ever knew. Hope he has an opportunity to look at some new ones in the lap or elsewhere and chimes in again.

[JodyH]

The LCR has its own issues. Two right off hand are the cylinder release button screw that will fall out if you don't Locktite it and the frame screw by the rear sight that will do the same. There's also the issue of them locking up occasionally if you short stroke and skip a cylinder.

[Isaac]

I'm not saying OP did this, but since we've seen the Apex kits, and the locks being taken out, there are prob a few cases were it wouldnt have happened if not tampered with. If people did it incorrectly of course.

[LSP972]

I agree with you. A no-lock 642/442 (I have both) are as good as it gets. I just hope S&W has't made some manufacturing change that will prove to be problematic down the road. LSP972 has forgotten more about revolvers than I ever knew. Hope he has an opportunity to look at some new ones in the lap or elsewhere and chimes in again.

I'll keep an eye peeled at the lab. I don't know for sure, but I really kind of doubt that they are milling the studs when hogging out the frame.

These frames have two sides. The right side, where the side plate fits, is called the "plate side". The other, solid side is called the "frame side". These studs are pressed in from the frame side, just before final finish-machining of the complete frame. The stud is turned down to the proper diameter and height, the end rounded, and in the case of the hammer and trigger studs, the boss that the part actually rests on is turned/finished.

This is the way its been done since the 19th century. While its entirely possible that S&W is using their HSLD CNC mills to produce the studs from the raw frame stock while its being formed… well, I have a hard time seeing that, for several reasons.

During the final polishing operation, the factory takes great care to polish out any sign of these studs on the frame side. But you can generally see the little circles in the newer guns, because of the dissimilar metals involved.

As an example; here is a 2002 vintage M-360PD titanium cylinder/scandium black anodized frame revolver. The swab dead ends are pointing to the cylinder stop, trigger, and hammer stud ends. The larger black circle above the cylinder latch is The Plug.

4347

Continued next post.

.

[LSP972]

Sorry for the out-of-sequence photos. Still getting the hang of this.

Next is a 1998-vintage M-342; titanium cylinder, clear anodized 'regular' aluminum no-lock frame revolver. The stud ends are less prominent, but clearly visible.


Continued next post.

[LSP972]

Here is a 1990 vintage all-stainless M640. Find the stud ends on this puppy. Ain't happening. My point to all of this is that you might be able to check your individual revolver, but the bottom line is either the studs are going to hold or they aren't.

The moral of the story, of course, is don't let anyone who doesn't know their business go mucking about inside your revolver frame; regardless of its age or pedigree.

For my part, I'll keep an eye out for a recent-production J frame and try to determine the 'status' of those studs.

There was a time I could pick up the phone and have the final word on ANY aspect of S&W firearms. Sadly, those days are gone.

[JodyH]

On my 442-2 (CUZ5*** serial number) you can see the stud but you have to get out a flashlight and shine it at an angle to highlight the contrast in the finishes.

[breakingtime91]

Here is a 1990 vintage all-stainless M640. Find the stud ends on this puppy. Ain't happening. My point to all of this is that you might be able to check your individual revolver, but the bottom line is either the studs are going to hold or they aren't.

The moral of the story, of course, is don't let anyone who doesn't know their business go mucking about inside your revolver frame; regardless of its age or pedigree.

For my part, I'll keep an eye out for a recent-production J frame and try to determine the 'status' of those studs.

There was a time I could pick up the phone and have the final word on ANY aspect of S&W firearms. Sadly, those days are gone.

that is a sweet little revolver.. nice job sir

[LSP972]

that is a sweet little revolver..

Yeah, they aren't building them like that anymore... haven't in quite some time.

Its my "practice" J frame. I never kept track of how many rounds it has fired, but the number is large. Its too heavy for continuous pocket carry, of course, but you can shoot target loads in it all day long without the slightest bit of discomfort.

That 360PD, OTOH, is distinctly unpleasant to shoot with anything. I shot it regularly the first ten years I owned it, because I was a staunch proponent of the "practice with what you carry" dictum. Funny how time and age can change one's attitude...:D

.

[Lester Polfus]

I'm not saying OP did this, but since we've seen the Apex kits, and the locks being taken out, there are prob a few cases were it wouldnt have happened if not tampered with. If people did it incorrectly of course.

Can you expound on that? What was done incorrectly. I've got both a plug and an APEX kit in my 638...

[warpedcamshaft]

On my 442-2 (CUZ5*** serial number) you can see the stud but you have to get out a flashlight and shine it at an angle to highlight the contrast in the finishes.

I'm guessing mine must be the same then. I've honestly never thought or cared about what the studs were made of until this one broke, and I never busted out the magnet to check.

[warpedcamshaft]

Can you expound on that? What was done incorrectly. I've got both a plug and an APEX kit in my 638...

One example of a big no-no is dry firing the revolver with the side plate off. The side plate supports the far end of the hammer stud. That can bend/break the studs.

I've also heard of people trying to pry the hammer out of the frame... you should never have to pry on a S&W for anything that I know of. Other than that, as long as you don't force parts in or file on stuff they go together very consistently and with little effort. They are well designed revolvers.

[Lester Polfus]

One example of a big no-no is dry firing the revolver with the side plate off. The side plate supports the far end of the hammer stud. That can bend/break the studs.

I've also heard of people trying to pry the hammer out of the frame... you should never have to pry on a S&W for anything that I know of. Other than that, as long as you don't force parts in or file on stuff they go together very consistently and with little effort. They are well designed revolvers.

Thank you. So other than doing obviously stupid shit, is there anything about owning a 638 with The Plug and the APEX kit that I should know about.

I always use dummy rounds when I dry fire.

[warpedcamshaft]

S&W is sending me an entire new revolver. I wish they could have fixed my last one instead... but they are handling all of the shipping and transfer costs.

I also confirmed with the tech that the 642/442/638/637 series use a pressed in steel stud and are NOT machined out of aluminum. In hindsight, that was a ridiculous assumption.

[warpedcamshaft]

Thank you. So other than doing obviously stupid shit, is there anything about owning a 638 with The Plug and the APEX kit that I should know about.

I always use dummy rounds when I dry fire.

Reducing hammer spring and rebound spring weight should not impact durability as long as installation is handled properly.

I do not know for sure if changing the firing pin and firing pin spring could impact durability.

Keep in mind this info is coming from someone who broke a J-Frame... :rolleyes:

[warpedcamshaft]

S&W sent me a new gun after a discussion over the phone. They don't replace the steel pressed in hammer stud (confirmed with tech) on the aluminum guns. My old revolver was shredded and a new serial number was transferred.

[LSP972]

Glad you got taken care of. But it took a month?

They're usually a lot quicker than that.

.

[Chuck Haggard]

Here is a 1990 vintage all-stainless M640.

I had one of those and still kick myself for selling it.