New S&W Revolver QC

[SwampDweller]

With all the excitement about the new lockless Smiths coming out, I'm seriously considering taking the dive into a new production Smith. I don't own any recent production S&W revolvers besides a no-lock 642. It's not had any problems but I haven't shot it that much (and not really sure what round count without problems is sufficient to declare it vetted).

I'm heavily considering a no-lock Model 19 Classic and/or a Model 629 Mountain Gun when those become available, but the various QC issues reported here and elsewhere give me pause.

I'm the kind of weirdo that will never trust a gun that came from the factory with a defect affecting reliability. Yes, I know Smith could make it right, but I'd still end up getting rid of it because I don't keep guns I wouldn't trust.

How likely am I to get a good one vs a bad one? Should I take the plunge and try out a new lockless 19, or should I just stick with older Smiths? I like the idea of getting a current production Smith that has currently-produced replacement parts and more widely available reputable people to work on them vs the increasingly few that work on old Smiths. I also would feel a little less bad shooting the hell out of it, though with the 19 it'd be mostly .38 loads.

[rathos]

I bought a recent 19, but it was on of the performance center ported models. No issues with it really other than I expected the trigger to be a lot better being a performance center gun. While it is better than a production version, I have older 19s that have butter like triggers that feel much lighter than the weight on the trigger gauge shows. Other than the trigger being just ok, I have had no issues. It has handled full power .357 and .38 loads with no issues. I am personally going to get one of the pencil barrel model 10. I have always wanted one and it seems like a crap shoot trying to find a used one that is in decent shape.

[FrankB]

I’ve purchased several S&W revolvers in the past decade, and they’ve all been 100%. All but 2 were purchased in a local shop, so I had a chance to examine them. One shop told me they examine the new shipments, and send back the duds.

The older S&W revolvers I’ve nabbed have all been fine, for whatever that’s worth.

[SwampDweller]

I guess these replies are somewhat encouraging. Part of me wants to get a new 19 and an old 19 at the same time, if I get disappointed by one maybe the other can make up for it!

[WDR]

I'd really like to hear that some of initial UC issues were taken seriously, and things have been corrected for the future... from someone like Jason and/or the top dogs at Smith & Wesson. From what I've seen Smith was pretty good about taking care of folks, but it'd be nice to know they are being proactive and not reactive.

I've been really happy with my UC, despite it needing some minor stuff. I'm very interested in a .357 Mountain Gun... and not to just leave in the box at the back of the safe. If I get one, it will be shot... possibly a lot.

[SwampDweller]

I'd really like to hear that some of initial UC issues were taken seriously, and things have been corrected for the future... from someone like Jason and/or the top dogs at Smith & Wesson. From what I've seen Smith was pretty good about taking care of folks, but it'd be nice to know they are being proactive and not reactive.

I've been really happy with my UC, despite it needing some minor stuff. I'm very interested in a .357 Mountain Gun... and not to just leave in the box at the back of the safe. If I get one, it will be shot... possibly a lot.

I have a Model 19 Classic No Lock in my cart right now. I'm trying to make a final decision.

[DamonL]

If you buy it in a store, you can inspect it before you buy it.

[SwampDweller]

If you buy it in a store, you can inspect it before you buy it.

Unfortunately I can't find it anywhere in my state of residence (let alone within reasonable driving distance in my state of residence), only online at places like Tombstone Tactical, Smoky Mountain Gun Works, etc. However, I would be counting on the ability to reject the transfer and send it back for a refund if there's something obviously wrong with it.

[WDR]

I have a Model 19 Classic No Lock in my cart right now. I'm trying to make a final decision.

For me, I felt like both Lipseys and Smith were trying to get things right... by their responses to issues on this forum and elsewhere. I didn't send my UC in for work, but fixed the minor stuff myself. That said, I wasn't afraid to take the side plate off the gun. Not everyone is willing to do that though. And you really shouldn't have to with a new gun.

I'd guess if you did have an issue, it would eventually get resolved. Those Model 19's are good looking guns. :cool:

Ruger has had their own QC issues, and Taurus too. And both also seem to be willing to make things right.

[SwampDweller]

For me, I felt like both Lipseys and Smith were trying to get things right... by their responses to issues on this forum and elsewhere. I didn't send my UC in for work, but fixed the minor stuff myself. That said, I wasn't afraid to take the side plate off the gun. Not everyone is willing to do that though. And you really shouldn't have to with a new gun.

I'd guess if you did have an issue, it would eventually get resolved. Those Model 19's are good looking guns. :cool:

Ruger has had their own QC issues, and Taurus too. And both also seem to be willing to make things right.

Well, looks like I'm going to be one of the first guinea pigs of the new Model 19 Classic No Lock. I just ordered from Smoky Mountain Gun Works. They have a specific policy that you can reject the transfer and send it back as long as you haven't taken possession of the gun yet.

Can anyone provide me with some kind of checklist to go through to find any potential defects that can be caught before accepting the transfer?

[GT87]

Here is a guide on how to check a revolver.

https://thefiringline.com/Misc/library/Revolver-check.html

[Sarvershooter]

If you buy blind, I'd say your odds are 50/50. You vastly improve your chances of taking home a good one if you give the revolver a thorough inspection. I've looked at many over the last 12 years and found some that were good and many that had one or more potential functional or cosmetic defects that were unacceptable to me that I passed on.

I happened to look at two in the LGS today. A NIB 686+ with 6" barrel that had a B/C gap you drive a truck through and dinged area on the side plate where the tab at the top fits under the frame and a 686+ 3-5-7 series with 5" barrel that exhibited late carry up (hammer cocked before cylinder locked up). Hard pass on both. On the flip side I have a newer production 629-6 4" and 686-6 3-5-7 series with 3 barrel" that were both perfect when I inspected them and bought them both. No problems with either one after hundreds of rounds through each. Good luck with your search.

[SwampDweller]

If you buy blind, I'd say your odds are 50/50. You vastly improve your chances of taking home a good one if you give the revolver a thorough inspection. I've looked at many over the last 12 years and found some that were good and many that had one or more potential functional or cosmetic defects that were unacceptable to me that I passed on.

I happened to look at two in the LGS today. A NIB 686+ with 6" barrel that had a B/C gap you drive a truck through and dinged area on the side plate where the tab at the top fits under the frame and a 686+ 3-5-7 series with 5" barrel that exhibited late carry up (hammer cocked before cylinder locked up). Hard pass on both. On the flip side I have a newer production 629-6 4" and 686-6 3-5-7 series with 3 barrel" that were both perfect when I inspected them and bought them both. No problems with either one after hundreds of rounds through each. Good luck with your search.

Thanks to GT87 for the checklist, I should be able to tell if the one I get is good or not hopefully. I will take my time at the FFL inspecting it before I even begin the paperwork. I just hope everything works out, it'd be a bummer if not.

I've got 1k rounds of Speer Lawman 125gr .38 Special standard pressure on the way, along with 100 rounds of Federal Classic .38 Special +P 158gr SWCHP. I also have a hundred rounds of Gold Dot 158gr .357 on the way, but that's more for my GP100s. I plan to run .38 through this the vast majority of the time, and carry it with Magnums. I will just use my GP100s for Magnum practice to keep acclimated to the increased recoil.

[onehalfmvsquared]

A friend of mine ordered a 632UC a month ago, and when it came in it had a very nasty gouge cut in the recoil shield from the latch pin. Not just a scratch in the finish, but a trench cut into the metal. He sent it back. S&W sent him a different one, and it had the exact same issue. He sent that back too and got a refund.

Buy in person with a full inspection.

[SwampDweller]

A friend of mine ordered a 632UC a month ago, and when it came in it had a very nasty gouge cut in the recoil shield from the latch pin. Not just a scratch in the finish, but a trench cut into the metal. He sent it back. S&W sent him a different one, and it had the exact same issue. He sent that back too and got a refund.

Buy in person with a full inspection.

Thanks, that's something else I will check for.

While we're at it, if anyone has any tips on things to check for before I accept the transfer beyond the checklist posted earlier, please let me know.

[Sarvershooter]

Thanks to GT87 for the checklist, I should be able to tell if the one I get is good or not hopefully. I will take my time at the FFL inspecting it before I even begin the paperwork. I just hope everything works out, it'd be a bummer if not.

I've got 1k rounds of Speer Lawman 125gr .38 Special standard pressure on the way, along with 100 rounds of Federal Classic .38 Special +P 158gr SWCHP. I also have a hundred rounds of Gold Dot 158gr .357 on the way, but that's more for my GP100s. I plan to run .38 through this the vast majority of the time, and carry it with Magnums. I will just use my GP100s for Magnum practice to keep acclimated to the increased recoil.

Be aware that while the list is full of good information the barrel to cylinder gap would be hard to apply to todays S&W production tolerances. If you find a gap of .002"-.003" using an automotive type feeler gauge it would be a miracle. Most S&W new production revolvers are nominal at .006" and the factory considers anything up to .012" in normal range. I personally look for .004"-.008". Also be sure to check both sides as the barrel extension may be cut unevenly. There is no mention in that list of checking for a bent ejector rod. With the gun laying on a flat surface and cylinder open spin the cylinder and watch the rod for runout (wobble). The other potentially critical thing to look at is carry up. It is different from timing though the terms are incorrectly used interchangeably. This needs to be checked in both single and double action on a S&W double action revolver. You are basically checking to see the cylinder is locked up BEFORE the hammer falls in both S/A and D/A. They not hard to check and there are good videos on how to check the ejector rod and carry up.

[SwampDweller]

Be aware that while the list is full of good information the barrel to cylinder gap would be hard to apply to todays S&W production tolerances. If you find a gap of .002"-.003" using an automotive type feeler gauge it would be a miracle. Most S&W new production revolvers are nominal at .006" and the factory considers anything up to .012" in normal range. I personally look for .004"-.008". Also be sure to check both sides as the barrel extension may be cut unevenly. There is no mention in that list of checking for a bent ejector rod. With the gun laying on a flat surface and cylinder open spin the cylinder and watch the rod for runout (wobble). The other potentially critical thing to look at is carry up. It is different from timing though the terms are incorrectly used interchangeably. This needs to be checked in both single and double action on a S&W double action revolver. You are basically checking to see the cylinder is locked up BEFORE the hammer falls in both S/A and D/A. They not hard to check and there are good videos on how to check the ejector rod and carry up.

I really don't have anything to measure it, and I don't even know how to properly do that. There may be a set of digital calipers at the FFL I used to work at, not sure if that'd even be useful.

[SwampDweller]

A friend of mine ordered a 632UC a month ago, and when it came in it had a very nasty gouge cut in the recoil shield from the latch pin. Not just a scratch in the finish, but a trench cut into the metal. He sent it back. S&W sent him a different one, and it had the exact same issue. He sent that back too and got a refund.

Buy in person with a full inspection.

Here's what my 642 (non UC) looks like on the recoil shield. I've only got about 100 rounds through it (can't access my round count log at the moment), but the cylinder has been worked many times. This is the only modern Smith I own.

128885

[Sarvershooter]

I really don't have anything to measure it, and I don't even know how to properly do that. There may be a set of digital calipers at the FFL I used to work at, not sure if that'd even be useful.

https://youtu.be/0QEsDAI44Ns?si=7WWXpVP_DPR_TnIQ

https://www.pistolsmith.com/threads/how-to-tell-if-timing-is-off-on-a-revolver.10351/#:~:text=There%20are%20a%20few%20different,it%20is %20out%20of%20time.

[Navin Johnson]

Serious question: how many people would be willing to spend $500+ more dollars to have a hand fitted vetted Smith revolver?

[Totem Polar]

Serious question: how many people would be willing to spend $500+ more dollars to have a hand fitted vetted Smith revolver?

I would. I’ve bought a pile of older used S&W revolvers, and they’ve all been fine. But 3 new J-frames all had issues. Out of 4. The issues and new purchases have all been well inside the time I’ve been a member here. Data point of one, but I am suspicious of new revolvers in general, and S&W in particular. Given how hard it is to get to a drop center for UPS in my area at this point, sending guns back and forth to S&W (or Taurus, or whomever) for warranty multiple times is a non-starter that makes an extra 500 for a killer example seem fair. JMO.

[RevolverRob]

I would. I’ve bought a pile of older used S&W revolvers, and they’ve all been fine. But 3 new J-frames all had issues. Out of 4. The issues and new purchases have all been well inside the time I’ve been a member here. Data point of one, but I am suspicious of new revolvers in general, and S&W in particular. Given how hard it is to get to a drop center for UPS in my area at this point, sending guns back and forth to S&W (or Taurus, or whomever) for warranty multiple times is a non-starter that makes an extra 500 for a killer example seem fair. JMO.

So...you'd say your cynicism might make you feel less charitable towards new revolvers? Maybe even less...civil? ;)

___

At this point I think the only new revolvers I'd trust to be close to correct out of the box have a pony on the side of them.

[FrankB]

At this point I think the only new revolvers I'd trust to be close to correct out of the box have a pony on the side of them.

I’ve purchased SEVEN Colt Pythons, and they were all fine. All but a couple were purchased online. The most striking feature was the B/C gap, at .004” on all.

[Stephanie B]

I’ve purchased SEVEN Colt Pythons...l.

Do they send you Xmas cards, now?

[FrankB]

Do they send you Xmas cards, now?

They don’t call, they don’t write, nuttin’.

[SwampDweller]

Serious question: how many people would be willing to spend $500+ more dollars to have a hand fitted vetted Smith revolver?

If such hand fitting meant it’d be more likely to be in-spec and not have to be sent in for warranty work, absolutely.

That’s why me buying this new K Frame feels like gambling. If I get a good one, I won and didn’t have to pay for hand fitting QC. If it has issues, I lost and will get it fixed, sell it, and cut my losses.

[jh9]

Here's what my 642 (non UC) looks like on the recoil shield. I've only got about 100 rounds through it (can't access my round count log at the moment), but the cylinder has been worked many times. This is the only modern Smith I own.

128885

About what mine looks like. Aluminum S&Ws aren't really my bag, but it appears to be cosmetic. Using a fingernail I don't feel any depth to it.

Ultimately, it's a steel center pin under spring pressure moving against an aluminum frame. Here's a post (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?56601-S-amp-W-19-9-5000-round-review&p=1466561&viewfull=1#post1466561) comparing my IDPA 686 to vermillionbird's 19, which are both steel frame.

Marking the recoil plate is like a turn ring / drag line around the stop notches. It's to be expected for guns that get used.

[Jacksp]

Since I have had multiple problems with a 640pro and a model 67 I would pay the extra money for a hand fitted revolver. The 67 has had multiple trigger issues that continue after being worked on by S&W. The 640 has a problem with the ejector rod working lose and the cylinder release falling off. Nothing seems to stop this from happening. S&W has looked at it and says it's fine. I don't shoot my older revolvers including my original 1983 dept. issue model 67. After working in a gun shop for 7 years as I retirement job, I have seen how S&W repairs older revolvers. They ruined a beautiful nickel model 25 by drilling through the frame to replace a trigger pin.

[SwampDweller]

I’ve purchased SEVEN Colt Pythons, and they were all fine. All but a couple were purchased online. The most striking feature was the B/C gap, at .004” on all.

If I get burned by this new Smith, maybe I'll try out a new Python. My brother had to send his back for timing issues about a year and a half ago, but he and I also have extraordinarily bad luck when it comes to getting defective firearms.

[onehalfmvsquared]

This is the second, replacement, brand new 632UC my friend ordered. This one again has a noticeable gouge from the latch pin and also a sharp gash perpendicular to it.

https://i.imgur.com/tQD3FPs.jpg

[Totem Polar]

^^^Fugly

[Lex Luthier]

Seeing that level of marring is disheartening. I wonder if it's an air weight frame issue?

At this point I might see about getting a surplus model 31 barrel and cylinder fit into a Model 49 frame.

[MolonLabe416]

I too would pay $500 for a better gun. Perhaps they could setup a separate line for this the way that Remington had a separate line for the Police 870’s.

[SwampDweller]

This is the second, replacement, brand new 632UC my friend ordered. This one again has a noticeable gouge from the latch pin and also a sharp gash perpendicular to it.

https://i.imgur.com/tQD3FPs.jpg

The channel worn in by the pin seems about like normal on Airweights to me, but maybe I'm just not seeing it. However, I do see that big gash going vertically. That's certainly not encouraging.

[Cheap Shot]

Serious question: how many people would be willing to spend $500+ more dollars to have a hand fitted vetted Smith revolver?

Yep, if it gave me an accurate, reliable, and durable revolver.

[SwampDweller]

Be aware that while the list is full of good information the barrel to cylinder gap would be hard to apply to todays S&W production tolerances. If you find a gap of .002"-.003" using an automotive type feeler gauge it would be a miracle. Most S&W new production revolvers are nominal at .006" and the factory considers anything up to .012" in normal range. I personally look for .004"-.008". Also be sure to check both sides as the barrel extension may be cut unevenly. There is no mention in that list of checking for a bent ejector rod. With the gun laying on a flat surface and cylinder open spin the cylinder and watch the rod for runout (wobble). The other potentially critical thing to look at is carry up. It is different from timing though the terms are incorrectly used interchangeably. This needs to be checked in both single and double action on a S&W double action revolver. You are basically checking to see the cylinder is locked up BEFORE the hammer falls in both S/A and D/A. They not hard to check and there are good videos on how to check the ejector rod and carry up.

I will have a pair of feeler gauges with me if that can be used. How should I go about measuring the gaps with that? (if possible)

Also, how exactly do I know if there is excessive end shake? Is there a way to measure that?

[CarloMNL]

I will have a pair of feeler gauges with me if that can be used. How should I go about measuring the gaps with that? (if possible)

Also, how exactly do I know if there is excessive end shake? Is there a way to measure that?

This video may be helpful. There are several others on YouTube but this might be a decent starting point.

https://youtu.be/95xjizDOrcc?si=xE2AHUs667UxNr7B

[Sarvershooter]

I will have a pair of feeler gauges with me if that can be used. How should I go about measuring the gaps with that? (if possible)

Also, how exactly do I know if there is excessive end shake? Is there a way to measure that?

Swamp, Google these questions. There are a ton of both videos and well written articles from basic to in depth that can describe these procedures much better than I can articulate them. I bookmark the ones I find helpful for future reference if needed.

[4RNR]

Weren't people complaining about QC of the Bangor Punta era? I think the only difference you'll find between QC today and years past is the internet.

No, I would not pay an extra $500. Not paying $900-ish for a 442 or $1500+ for the larger frames.

[SwampDweller]

Swamp, Google these questions. There are a ton of both videos and well written articles from basic to in depth that can describe these procedures much better than I can articulate them. I bookmark the ones I find helpful for future reference if needed.

Will do, thanks!

[awp_101]

Weren't people complaining about QC of the Bangor Punta era? I think the only difference you'll find between QC today and years past is the internet.
Bolke and Eastridge pointed out in a recent video that S&W usually had at least 2 warranty centers in most major cities until the late-90s or early-00s.

[onehalfmvsquared]

The channel worn in by the pin seems about like normal on Airweights to me, but maybe I'm just not seeing it. However, I do see that big gash going vertically. That's certainly not encouraging.

That might be normal for a gun with 500-1000 rounds through it. it's not normal for a brand new gun that has never been fired, and perhaps only opened and closed 10 times in its life. Something's wrong

[jtcarm]

Be aware that while the list is full of good information the barrel to cylinder gap would be hard to apply to todays S&W production tolerances. If you find a gap of .002"-.003" using an automotive type feeler gauge it would be a miracle. Most S&W new production revolvers are nominal at .006" and the factory considers anything up to .012" in normal range. I personally look for .004"-.008". Also be sure to check both sides as the barrel extension may be cut unevenly. There is no mention in that list of checking for a bent ejector rod. With the gun laying on a flat surface and cylinder open spin the cylinder and watch the rod for runout (wobble). The other potentially critical thing to look at is carry up. It is different from timing though the terms are incorrectly used interchangeably. This needs to be checked in both single and double action on a S&W double action revolver. You are basically checking to see the cylinder is locked up BEFORE the hammer falls in both S/A and D/A. They not hard to check and there are good videos on how to check the ejector rod and carry up.

.002-.003 would be out of spec even on an older Smith.

When I sent my M24 to David Fink to have the barrel set back (among other things), he set it to .006. I would have preferred it tighter, but I figured arguing was like paying a lawyer $500 an hour and ignoring his advice.

Smith might have build target models that tight back when revolvers ruled bullseye.

[jtcarm]

Be aware that while the list is full of good information the barrel to cylinder gap would be hard to apply to todays S&W production tolerances. If you find a gap of .002"-.003" using an automotive type feeler gauge it would be a miracle. Most S&W new production revolvers are nominal at .006" and the factory considers anything up to .012" in normal range. I personally look for .004"-.008". Also be sure to check both sides as the barrel extension may be cut unevenly. There is no mention in that list of checking for a bent ejector rod. With the gun laying on a flat surface and cylinder open spin the cylinder and watch the rod for runout (wobble). The other potentially critical thing to look at is carry up. It is different from timing though the terms are incorrectly used interchangeably. This needs to be checked in both single and double action on a S&W double action revolver. You are basically checking to see the cylinder is locked up BEFORE the hammer falls in both S/A and D/A. They not hard to check and there are good videos on how to check the ejector rod and carry up.

.002-.003 would be out of spec even on an older Smith.

When I sent my M24 to David Fink to have the barrel set back (among other things), he set it to .006. I would have preferred it tighter, but I figured arguing was like paying a lawyer $500 an hour and ignoring his advice.

Smith might have build target models that tight back when revolvers ruled bullseye.

[jtcarm]

Serious question: how many people would be willing to spend $500+ more dollars to have a hand fitted vetted Smith revolver?

You can burn through $500 very quickly with a revolver-savvy gunsmith.

[Stephanie B]

Serious question: how many people would be willing to spend $500+ more dollars to have a hand fitted vetted Smith revolver?

How many people dump $500 into tuning up a 1911?

[revchuck38]

How many people dump $500 into tuning up a 1911?

IIRC, 40 years ago it was normal to spend $175-200 on a "reliability package". That didn't include sights or accuracy work, though it may have included a trigger job. I have no idea what that would be in 2025 dollars, but it'd probably be north of $500.

[willie]

The high dollar gunsmith is charging by the job and not by the hour. The older revolvers were not complicated, and bringing one up to spec can be done easily. The customer never knows who works on their gun. Others work in these shops. The year before some of these might have been frying burgers.

[Stephanie B]

IIRC, 40 years ago it was normal to spend $175-200 on a "reliability package". That didn't include sights or accuracy work, though it may have included a trigger job. I have no idea what that would be in 2025 dollars, but it'd probably be north of $500.

The Performance Center offers some tuning packages (https://www.smith-wesson.com/customer-service/performance-center-precision-gunsmithing).

[revchuck38]

The Performance Center offers some tuning packages (https://www.smith-wesson.com/customer-service/performance-center-precision-gunsmithing).

I had three of my revolvers (M10-8, M681-2, and M22-4) through there for their Combat Revolver package when the old guys were still there. They came out pretty nice. :) I have no idea how good the place is now.

[DamonL]

Serious question: how many people would be willing to spend $500+ more dollars to have a hand fitted vetted Smith revolver?

If its someone like Gemini Custom or Bowens inspecting and fixing problems, then yes.

[SwampDweller]

How viable is it to have and use, say a M19-6 Pre lock/Pre MIM (or other older Smith) as a primary go-to and carry revolver, in terms of it being able to go the long haul? Is it practicable to amass enough spare parts to keep it going forever, as well as having a couple of spare duplicates?

I know it makes more sense to get a new production revolver that is still supported by the factory and widespread gunsmiths, but if I get keep getting burned by new guns, it makes the prospect of investing a lot in older guns, spare parts and duplicates more attractive.

[jtcarm]

IIRC, 40 years ago it was normal to spend $175-200 on a "reliability package". That didn't include sights or accuracy work, though it may have included a trigger job. I have no idea what that would be in 2025 dollars, but it'd probably be north of $500.

What you’re describing sounds like David Fink’s accuracy & reliability package. That ran me about $275 when I had it done a couple years ago.

[FrankB]

@SwampDweller

Numrich has plenty of parts for older Smiths: https://www.gunpartscorp.com/gun-manufacturer/smith-wesson/revolvers-sw/19-sw

Their inventory changes as they get new get new parts, and sell existing stock.

[SwampDweller]

Well, speaking of getting burned by new-production revolvers, I finally got to take out a new 4" Stainless GP100 I bought a few weeks ago, and it's having timing issues. On at least one chamber, you can only pull the trigger a tiny bit before the cylinder and hammer lock up. It'll be going back to Ruger. I would prefer that they replace it with a different GP100 (but same model: 4" 6 shot stainless .357) that has been properly QC'd. They did that when I had a 7-shot model with issues, replacing it with a 6 shot model. My pre-lock (but MIM-era) S&W 625-7 Mountain Gun in .45 Colt ran fine.

Disappointing to say the least. I hope the Model 19 no-lock I have on the way doesn't have issues, but I'm semi-expecting it to be a lemon.

Maybe I should just buy a few excellent condition Security Sixes (or pre-lock Smiths), amass spare parts for them, and stick with the old stuff that works. I also want to get people's thoughts on my 5" Blued GP100 that has never had a problem shooting for well over 1k rounds, but occasionally gets sticky when trying to swing the cylinder out. However, I think that is more appropriate to discuss in one of the existing GP100-centric threads.

[JWintergreen]

Smith's terrible QC is a far greater problem than the hated internal lock ever was. I live in an extremely rural area, so purchasing sight unseen is the only option I have for most current production revolvers. I'm now wanting to pick up a new 19-9, but I also don't need the headache of potentially sending a new $1,000 revolver back to the factory multiple times.

I'll be very interested to hear from members that pick up these new no-lock classic models. Here is the first video I have found on the new Model 10. Not very encouraging...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv8xoEgTKww

[WDR]

Smith's terrible QC is a far greater problem than the hated internal lock ever was.

That's disappointing... :(

[SwampDweller]

Smith's terrible QC is a far greater problem than the hated internal lock ever was. I live in an extremely rural area, so purchasing sight unseen is the only option I have for most current production revolvers. I'm now wanting to pick up a new 19-9, but I also don't need the headache of potentially sending a new $1,000 revolver back to the factory multiple times.

I'll be very interested to hear from members that pick up these new no-lock classic models. Here is the first video I have found on the new Model 10. Not very encouraging...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv8xoEgTKww

That sure makes me feel good about the new no lock Model 19 I am going to pick up on Monday...
I'm 90% expecting that it will be a lemon that won't even pass pre-transfer inspection. The other 5% expects it to have issues where I take it to the range, and the remaining 5% is it being a good revolver that runs like a top out of the box.

This newest GP100 I got seemed alright in dry practice, but on the 5th round in live fire it immediately displayed it's timing issues.

Like I said, makes me want to buy a brace of old Rugers or Smiths, multiple spare duplicate guns, and a trove of spare parts and just live off that.

ETA: BTW, after getting home in dry practice/cycling, the timing of the cylinder stop was obviously off and I experienced the same issues I did on the range, yet now it's not doing it which is how it was before I took it out shooting. It's like the act of firing it jostles it enough for the timing to become an issue.

[JWintergreen]

That sure makes me feel good about the new no lock Model 19 I am going to pick up on Monday...
I'm 90% expecting that it will be a lemon that won't even pass pre-transfer inspection. The other 5% expects it to have issues where I take it to the range, and the remaining 5% is it being a good revolver that runs like a top out of the box.

This newest GP100 I got seemed alright in dry practice, but on the 5th round in live fire it immediately displayed it's timing issues.

Like I said, makes me want to buy a brace of old Rugers or Smiths, multiple spare duplicate guns, and a trove of spare parts and just live off that.

ETA: BTW, after getting home in dry practice/cycling, the timing of the cylinder stop was obviously off and I experienced the same issues I did on the range, yet now it's not doing it which is how it was before I took it out shooting. It's like the act of firing it jostles it enough for the timing to become an issue.

Ruger customer service took good care of me when I had to send a new GP100 back a few years ago. They still seem to have a great reputation.

Having a new revolver with a factory warranty, and not having to find a gunsmith if I have an issue that I can't fix, are big advantages for a revolver that will see heavy use. Keep us updated on how things turn out. Worst case scenario, we might be able to use no-lock 19s as leverage to get Ruger to bring back the Security Six. At least their Customer Service people are solid.

[SwampDweller]

Ruger customer service took good care of me when I had to send a new GP100 back a few years ago. They still seem to have a great reputation.

Having a new revolver with a factory warranty, and not having to find a gunsmith if I have an issue that I can't fix, are big advantages for a revolver that will see heavy use. Keep us updated on how things turn out. Worst case scenario, we might be able to use no-lock 19s as leverage to get Ruger to bring back the Security Six. At least their Customer Service people are solid.

I am OCD to the point where I will not trust a gun that has proven to be defective, even after it gets back from warranty work. There will always be that doubt in the back of my mind, so I wouldn't keep it. Life's too short for guns you can't trust your life to.

What would make me happy is if Ruger replaces this gun with another GP100 (but same model) that has been properly QC'd.

[03RN]

I am OCD to the point where I will not trust a gun that has proven to be defective, even after it gets back from warranty work. There will always be that doubt in the back of my mind, so I wouldn't keep it. Life's too short for guns you can't trust your life to.

What would make me happy is if Ruger replaces this gun with another GP100 (but same model) that has been properly QC'd.

That's not ocd. That's letting emotions run amuck.

[SwampDweller]

That's not ocd. That's letting emotions run amuck.

I don't deny that. It is what it is.

I now have a stainless 4" Security Six on the way.

[Totem Polar]

I dunno. We’ve had multiple known members here—including myself—send new S&W production wheelies back to the mothership multiple times with no fix. I don’t think it’s either OCD or unreasonable to not trust a gun at that point, after warranty has had more than one shot at it.

The more I think about it, the more wary of new production wheelies I am. My track record of buying used revolvers that act exactly as they should vs new ones that didn’t biases me almost irrevocably towards just buying used. Not hypothetical: I just bought an older 64 snub with pin on the nose and no lock that has bank vault lock up on all 6 yesterday, and there were new UC 32s and plenty of other hotness in the same case.

We are entering a new golden era of knowledgeable shooters spec’ing out dream revolvers (eg. Jason C, Caleb G, et al.) but the production QC just hasn’t caught up to the spec. Put differently, from a shooter perspective, some of the best looking revolvers in over 125 years of DA revolver history are being introduced and made currently, but I’m not convinced that some of the best looking”best” revolvers are being made currently.

At this point, the newest revolver I own is a 5Oth anniversary Blackhawk, and I have a shelf full of J and K frames. It isn’t from lack of trying: 3xCobras, 4 new Js, a K6s (pre-firing pin recontour), an Exec Taurus, and probably some that I’ve forgotten… the juice just wasn’t worth the squeeze on those. The only ones that I had full confidence in were a 640 pro, a Night Cobra (and some LCRs—perfectly reliable, I just didn’t enjoy shooting them), and in the final analysis, I did better with the old J and Ks on a timer doing my best Tom Givens LARP, anyways.

Typing this while thinking about the aggregate results I’ve garnered from some serious wheelie flipping over the last decade, both old and new, is eye-opening. I’ve probably bought my last new revolver, unless something truly stunning springs from the minds of Bolke and Cloesner in the fighting K category. For 1K-1200, I can find something used that really gets my tail wagging, and I’m more confident that it will work at the training junkie class or USPSA fun shoot. I was once squarely in the “if we don’t support companies when they make wheelies we want, then lack of wheelies is on us” camp, but a couple of notable new wheelie purchases exiled me from the choir.

JMO, but I’ve gone through an almost FrankB level of wheelie horse trading during my time on this forum, and my own cost to benefit track record clearly shows the path forward, for me. Sort of a drag, but the days of duty gun reliability and QC passed with the days of wheelies as standard duty guns. OMMV.

*ETA: I’m talking CCW or duty-ish DAs here, as opposed to SA wheelies. I’ve bought a small pile of Lipsey SA Rugers, and they’ve all worked. My comparison is between a stable of used K, J, Speed Six, GNPY, SPNY, etc. vs new production cool guns. All the older cop guns ran great—which simply cannot be said of the stuff coming out of today’s factories.

[SwampDweller]

I dunno. We’ve had multiple known members here—including myself—send new S&W production wheelies back to the mothership multiple times with no fix. I don’t think it’s either OCD or unreasonable to not trust a gun at that point, after warranty has had more than one shot at it.

The more I think about it, the more wary of new production wheelies I am. My track record of buying used revolvers that act exactly as they should vs new ones that didn’t biases me almost irrevocably towards just buying used. Not hypothetical: I just bought an older 64 snub with pin on the nose and no lock that has bank vault lock up on all 6 yesterday, and there were new UC 32s and plenty of other hotness in the same case.

We are entering a new golden era of knowledgeable shooters spec’ing out dream revolvers (eg. Jason C, Caleb G, et al.) but the production QC just hasn’t caught up to the spec. Put differently, from a shooter perspective, some of the best looking revolvers in over 125 years of DA revolver history are being introduced and made currently, but I’m not convinced that some of the best looking”best” revolvers are being made currently.

At this point, the newest revolver I own is a 5Oth anniversary Blackhawk, and I have a shelf full of J and K frames. It isn’t from lack of trying: 3xCobras, 4 new Js, a K6s (pre-firing pin recontour), an Exec Taurus, and probably some that I’ve forgotten… the juice just wasn’t worth the squeeze on those. The only ones that I had full confidence in were a 640 pro, a Night Cobra (and some LCRs—perfectly reliable, I just didn’t enjoy shooting them), and in the final analysis, I did better with the old J and Ks on a timer doing my best Tom Givens LARP, anyways.

Typing this while thinking about the aggregate results I’ve garnered from some serious wheelie flipping over the last decade, both old and new, is eye-opening. I’ve probably bought my last new revolver, unless something truly stunning springs from the minds of Bolke and Cloesner in the fighting K category. For 1K-1200, I can find something used that really gets my tail wagging, and I’m more confident that it will work at the training junkie class or USPSA fun shoot. I was once squarely in the “if we don’t support companies when they make wheelies we want, then lack of wheelies is on us” camp, but a couple of notable new wheelie purchases exiled me from the choir.

JMO, but I’ve gone through an almost FrankB level of wheelie horse trading during my time on this forum, and my own cost to benefit track record clearly shows the path forward, for me. Sort of a drag, but the days of duty gun reliability and QC passed with the days of wheelies as standard duty guns. OMMV.

I tend to agree. Seeing as I will never be able to make myself trust a revolver that has come back from warranty work, and seeing as it very well may need another or multiple more trips back to the factory, I don't see it as worth the money in ammo to keep trying to vet it's reliability.

We shall see if I am lucky with this new Model 19 no lock I'm supposed to pick up tomorrow. After my experience shooting my newest GP100 yesterday with timing issues, I'm not very confident.

I just bought a 1978 or 79 Ruger Security Six 4" Stainless that was unfired after leaving the factory. I'm hoping I have better luck with that. I'm also looking at a blued 4" Security Six for $499 available through my employer. It has some holster wear particularly on the muzzle, as well as a notable turn line, but I don't see anything concerning. This could be my start in going all-in on the Security Six complete with spare guns and parts.

Edit: Here is the 4" Blued Security Six for $499 I'm looking at: https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en/101722891

Seeing as I'm a Gun Vault Specialist (fancy title for "guy who receives and disposes guns and ensures compliance") at Bass Pro in my location, I'd be able to inspect it as soon as it arrives since I'm the one who logs the guns. Plus the modest employee discount (which for guns, really only covers tax).

[Navin Johnson]

It is truly idiotic to keep buying things that are problematic, knowing their problematic and then bitching about it

Manufacturers likely could not sell enough revolvers if they priced them at 2000 and everything was hand fitted

Most revolver shooters don’t put that much ammo down range so it’s easier to slap them together and send them out the door than make them perfect and charge twice as much. It’s just kind of common sense.

The $3000 European import revolvers, I don’t remember their names, probably have no problems.

If you’re buying a used revolver, how the hell do you know it hasn’t been back to the factory eight times

A Glock 23 will do anything that a 357 magnum revolver will do except better cheaper and for longer

I wanted another small revolver but didn’t want to deal with the grief so I got a G 42 and that brought with it its own set of griefs.

[SwampDweller]

It is truly idiotic to keep buying things that are problematic, knowing their problematic and then bitching about it

Manufacturers likely could not sell enough revolvers if they priced them at 2000 and everything was hand fitted

Most revolver shooters don’t put that much ammo down range so it’s easier to slap them together and send them out the door than make them perfect and charge twice as much. It’s just kind of common sense.

The $3000 European import revolvers, I don’t remember their names, probably have no problems.

If you’re buying a used revolver, how the hell do you know it hasn’t been back to the factory eight times

A Glock 23 will do anything that a 357 magnum revolver will do except better cheaper and for longer

I wanted another small revolver but didn’t want to deal with the grief so I got a G 42 and that brought with it its own set of griefs.


Knowing my luck, I'd buy a $3000 Korth and it would be the one lemon ever made that year. Also, IIRC fastfire/Caleb here has or had one of the new Manurhin MR73's and it had issues due to manufacturing. Having issues with a $1k-or-less Ruger or Smith is disheartening and annoying. Having issues with a $3000+ import revolver is head-exploding levels of frustration, much like a colleague of mine's experience with Staccato.

I do agree that most shooters don't shoot enough to know their revolver is out of spec (though in my case with my latest GP100, it showed up by the 5th round), and obviously companies are going to cater to that. It is likely true that they would not sell enough revolvers to be worth it if they instituted a QC program to ensure the guns are built to spec and the attention each gun would receive by competent hands due to the inevitable dramatic cost increase. Then again, maybe they would. I doubt it but I don't know.

As far as used revolvers, my experience has been much the same as Totem Polar's in that the older revolvers made back when they were made to be duty weapons just tend to work without drama or issue. There's no way to know for sure whether it's gone back to the factory or not, but the fact remains that one is seemingly more likely to have a reliable revolver buying an older one than a newer one. Most of the older revolvers I've bought have been unfired or barely shot and thus are unvetted, and still I've not had an issue.

I trust an in-spec small revolver more than I trust a pocket-size automatic. The observations of SMEs like Chuck Haggard, DocGKR, Darryl Bolke, and others speak to this. I seemingly lucked out with the new production 642 no lock I bought a couple of years ago.

Supposedly Bolke, Eastridge, and the Lipseys team have made progress pushing for better revolver QC at S&W over the past year since the UC dropped. I hope it shows, but I'm not holding my breath.

[FrankB]

I just bought another M60 no dash, and love it. My luck with new S&W revolvers has been great, but I always buy in person.

This guy just bought a new no lock M10, and was happy at all:


https://youtu.be/mv8xoEgTKww?si=D5JhpFDQQu23S41A

P.S. Where did the Like button go?

[MountainRaven]

Talking to folks who were at SHOT, Smith didn't bring their A-game to the show: Rough forcing cones, poor finishes, stiff safeties. If they don't care enough to bring good guns to SHOT, do they care enough to ship good guns to dealers?


A Glock 23 will do anything that a 357 magnum revolver will do except better cheaper and for longer

I must have missed the part where you can put 357 Magnum in a 40-caliber Glock. And 38 Special snakeshot. And 38 Special +P Gold Dots. And 148-grain wadcutters. And run all four back-to-back-to-back-to-back with perfect reliability.

[awp_101]

I’ve worked very hard over the past few years to look past minor irritations in my life, not be unnecessarily cynical and generally avoid being a Bobby Buzzkill. But here’s what is sitting in the man hovel waiting for me to contact S&W for an RMA right now:

2007 production 617. Less than 1000 rounds between the original owner and myself. Frequent DA light strikes.

2024 19-9. Less than 500 rounds, all standard pressure .38 except for 10 rounds of .357. DA light strikes even after installing a TK Custom extended firing pin. Fewer than with the original firing pin, but 4/60 yesterday.

2024 M&P Compact .22. Bought new for Grandson’s birthday last year. Quit firing after maybe 100 rounds into his first time at the range. Looks like the trigger bar is slipping off instead of releasing the sear.

I’ve been in one repair field or another since 1997 and I know everyone lets mistakes get out the door. And for every person that swears by a brand, I can find 2 more that swear at it, but in 20 years I’ve had exactly 1 Ruger that needed to go back to the Mothership right out of the box. One of the initial Single Sevens that had the issue of not lining up exactly with the loading gate during loading/unloading. An annoyance but not something that deadlined the revolver.

As much as I really want to be hopeful about the new no lock models, I will not be an early adopter. In fact, I really should be dumping that money into ammunition, reloading components and a class or two.

[PTSDog]

Could it be we are wanting to chase that mythical construct of, “the good old days”?

Older S&Ws were not that great either when used a lot, seems they broke when done more than a few rounds a week. I think it’s like the girlfriend that cheated on us but we just don’t know anything else.

Maybe it’s just us chasing the first high we got when we got our first SW revolver? I don’t know.

[BobM]

We took in around 20-25 5906s in 1990 when we traded in our Security Sixes. The armorer at the time and I went through them and we sent close to half of them back. I don’t remember what the issues were though.

[Totem Polar]

It’s absolutely true that guns had problems back in the good old days, as well. QC issues have always been a thing. The 36-1 that I have went back to the factory for being out of time when my dad first got it in the 70s. What’s different is that guns seemed to come back fixed in one trip back in the “good old days.” With the exception of Ruger, that has not been the case with my own recent wheelies going back in under warranty.

As well, my hunch (again) is that duty guns always got an extra something that consumer guns might not. I’m not in the industry, and can’t prove it, but all my LE trade in revolver purchases have performed brilliantly over the years. They’ve been cheap, too (for the most part).

I really want to believe, I do, but several times burned makes me reluctant to go new until more reviews are in, and they’re mostly positive. I’m watching, for example, the new Lipsey’s mountain gun .44 with great interest, but I won’t be the first to buy one. Previous experience had already taught me not to be the first in line when the .32UCs hit this forum, despite a serious case of the wants on my part, and history makes me even more confident of that decision.

As an aside, I got to look at a 32 UC when I was buying my most recent older M64, since they were in the same case. If the UC had checked out better for me than the old gal, I may well have bought it instead.

I don’t know what the answer is. I get that the companies can’t sell a ton of hand-picked, 2k guns. I also understand that the bottleneck is somewhere between development and production, and that’s a drag for the people putting sweat equity into convincing companies to put out new guns with compelling specs. Let’s see if the social pressures of the internet age can smooth that bridge over with a little bit of time.

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

...As an aside, I got to look at a 32 UC when I was buying my most recent older M64, since they were in the same case. If the UC had checked out better for me than the old gal, I may well have bought it instead...What was disqualifying for you?

[Totem Polar]

What was disqualifying for you?

The lock up on all cylinders, and the trigger action were both tighter and smoother on the old K, respectively. Now, it’s a K vs a J, so there is that—especially on the trigger. Still, the old gal had that historic “welded to the frame” lock up, with great alignment on each chamber.

[SwampDweller]

My friend at the FFL sent me this photo of the new M19 no lock…

Should I care about a turn line? Maybe from test firing?

129139

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

My friend at the FFL sent me this photo of the new M19 no lock…

Should I care about a turn line? Maybe from test firing?Every properly built and function checked S&W wheelgun leaves the factory with a turn line. No one should trust a S&W revolver -- new or used -- without one.

[SwampDweller]

Every properly built and function checked S&W wheelgun leaves the factory with a turn line. No one should trust a S&W revolver -- new or used -- without one.

Thanks. Also, the b/c gap is reportedly .004”

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

Thanks. Also, the b/c gap is reportedly .004”If checked correctly the cylinder was held rearward and feeler gauges inserted left and right side between barrel and cylinder faces, measurements taken for each charge hole; .004" is perfectly fine.

[onehalfmvsquared]

Perhaps the issue with high quality old guns v low quality new guns is that the low quality old guns have all been purged from the system by now. all that's left are the high quality remaining ones.

IDK. but none of the new stuff tempts me.

Except if Ruger brings out a 44 SPL or 3" 32 LCR.... I'd beta test that

[FrankB]

I’d be more concerned about the grunge.

129149

I’m just kidding. 😎

[SwampDweller]

I just picked up and shot the new Model 19 no-lock. I shot 174 rounds, with 12 of those being Magnums and 12 being Federal 158gr +P SWCHP. The rest was Lawman 125gr TMJ standard pressure.

Function was flawless, and I was surprisingly accurate with it. I can’t really find anything to complain about. The DA trigger pull is rather nice. I only shot two shots in SA.

How much more do I need to shoot it before I can conclude that I “got a good one” and that it’s reliable?

I will post pictures when I get home for you all to inspect, as many of you are far more knowledgeable than I.

[revchuck38]

I just picked up and shot the new Model 19 no-lock. I shot 174 rounds, with 12 of those being Magnums and 12 being Federal 158gr +P SWCHP. The rest was Lawman 125gr TMJ standard pressure.

Function was flawless, and I was surprisingly accurate with it. I can’t really find anything to complain about. The DA trigger pull is rather nice. I only shot two shots in SA.

How much more do I need to shoot it before I can conclude that I “got a good one” and that it’s reliable?

I will post pictures when I get home for you all to inspect, as many of you are far more knowledgeable than I.

Like!

You just keep shooting, we'll let you know when it's enough. :)

[SwampDweller]

Like!

You just keep shooting, we'll let you know when it's enough. :)

Will do! ... But how many rounds about do you think that might be? I want to get to where this thing is vetted enough to carry.

Here are some pics:

129153129154129155129156129157129158129159129160

[JWintergreen]

I just picked up and shot the new Model 19 no-lock. I shot 174 rounds, with 12 of those being Magnums and 12 being Federal 158gr +P SWCHP. The rest was Lawman 125gr TMJ standard pressure.

Function was flawless, and I was surprisingly accurate with it. I can’t really find anything to complain about. The DA trigger pull is rather nice. I only shot two shots in SA.

How much more do I need to shoot it before I can conclude that I “got a good one” and that it’s reliable?

I will post pictures when I get home for you all to inspect, as many of you are far more knowledgeable than I.


Another Like!

So glad to hear that everything looks good and that you had a great day at the range! Keep us updated.

[FrankB]

@SwampDweller

Like!

[Cheap Shot]

LIKE!

[SwampDweller]

Thanks, all! Let me know if anything sticks out in the photos. Only thing different I noticed is that the cylinder doesn’t spin as much as my older ones. I also haven’t done any lubrication. Open to any tips on cleaning a modern K Frame.

I’m a little excited but also a little apprehensive because now this gun has my hopes up and I really like the way it shoots and feels. I have some Pachmayer grips on the way. I’m anxious to get to the point where the gun is good to be declared reliable, and I’m not exactly sure what round count I should trust it for carry/defense.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Will do! ... But how many rounds about do you think that might be? I want to get to where this thing is vetted enough to carry.

As a general rule, revolvers don't need to be vetted with as many rounds as autopistols, because the ammunition doesn't function the weapon.

Really, all it needs to do is be able to shoot, to POA, the amount of carry ammo that you will be carrying on your person.

Don't let a bunch of muck build up on the front of the cylinder, the forcing cone, or under the extractor.

Change the grips if the ones that come on it don't suit you.

That's really about it.

[Duelist]

Will do! ... But how many rounds about do you think that might be? I want to get to where this thing is vetted enough to carry.

Here are some pics:

129153129154129155129156129157129158129159129160

Like.

This is making it harder for me to resist the inclination I have to spend money on one this year.

[SwampDweller]

As a general rule, revolvers don't need to be vetted with as many rounds as autopistols, because the ammunition doesn't function the weapon.

Really, all it needs to do is be able to shoot, to POA, the amount of carry ammo that you will be carrying on your person.

Don't let a bunch of muck build up on the front of the cylinder, the forcing cone, or under the extractor.

Change the grips if the ones that come on it don't suit you.

That's really about it.

I have Pachmayer finger groove grips on the way, but that's because it's what I know. I'm up to recommendations for that, as well as IWB holsters. I prefer leather for revolvers, but they're typically to thick for me.

[WDR]

Only thing different I noticed is that the cylinder doesn’t spin as much as my older ones. I also haven’t done any lubrication. Open to any tips on cleaning a modern K Frame.

My UC felt a little sluggish and didn't easily freely spin with the cylinder open. Disassembling the yoke and cylinder and swabbing it out, and re-lubing with Slip EWL30 resulted in a more free spinning cylinder. I think whatever they lubed with from the factory was a little heavy, and it looked fairly dark when I swabbed things out. It was odd that the crane/yoke/cylinder were overlubed (IMHO) and the inside of the gun was damn near dry.

I don't know how S&W feels about yoke removal for cleaning: If you're worried about possible warranty work, I'd just clean it up as best you can, lube it, work it into the gun, and keep shooting until you are satisfied with it.

Glad it seems, so far, you've got a good one. :D

[Totem Polar]

I just picked up and shot the new Model 19 no-lock. I shot 174 rounds, with 12 of those being Magnums and 12 being Federal 158gr +P SWCHP. The rest was Lawman 125gr TMJ standard pressure.

Function was flawless, and I was surprisingly accurate with it. I can’t really find anything to complain about. The DA trigger pull is rather nice. I only shot two shots in SA.

How much more do I need to shoot it before I can conclude that I “got a good one” and that it’s reliable?

I will post pictures when I get home for you all to inspect, as many of you are far more knowledgeable than I.
Outstanding! If it were me, I’d take it to the range one more time, and run some drills with my chosen carry ammo, and then call it good enough to put into duty.

Others have already noted the “why:” I’d be more interested in vetting myself, with regard to POA/POI, and familiarity with carry ammo at this point. JMO.

[revchuck38]

I have Pachmayer finger groove grips on the way, but that's because it's what I know. I'm up to recommendations for that, as well as IWB holsters. I prefer leather for revolvers, but they're typically to thick for me.

If the Pachmayrs work for you there's no reason to change from them. I'm 6'1" with average hands for my height and need an uncovered backstrap for proper trigger reach for DA shooting. I'm okay with most finger-groove grips, but I usually prefer grips without them. I've got these (https://vzgrips.com/products/vz-320-s-w-k-frame-grip-l-frame-grip-square-bottom.html) on my 19-3.

For holsters, leather or Kydex? AIWB. IWB, or OWB? Either material will wear the finish. If you spend a lot of time outside and want AIWB or IWB, I'd go with Kydex because leather will absorb sweat with negative effects over time. I've gone with this holster (https://www.jmcustomkydex.com/p/Q-IWB3-Holster.html) for my 3" and 4" K frames. For leather, I've got OWBs from Privateer Leather (https://www.privateerleather.com/) for my 3-inchers and these (https://www.simplyrugged.com/store/Sourdough-Pancake-tm-p592252513) from Simply Rugged for my 4-inchers. I've also got one of these (https://www.jmcustomkydex.com/p/Q-OWB1-Holster.html) for my 4", but have found that leather pancake-style holsters conceal better for me.

[Rex G]

I am thinking that I need to acquire a Range Rod Kit, from Brownells, for my revolver shopping. A range rod will verify that the bore, chamber, and firing pin hole are in proper alignment. I used to have a .38/357 range rod, but it was in a kit of revolver armorer’s tools that was scattered during the clean-up after Hurricane Harvey.

https://www.brownells.com/tools-cleaning/gun-tools/action-frame-tools/revolver-range-rods/?sku=080616000

As of this writing, P-F reports of S&W’s apparent QC issues, and my lack of a range rod, have stopped me from buying one of the UC-series of revolvers. Of course, using my discretionary dollars buying a couple of Glock 17L pistols, from this recent run of the Gen5 17L, also played a part in my not adding revolvers, recently.

[SwampDweller]

If the Pachmayrs work for you there's no reason to change from them. I'm 6'1" with average hands for my height and need an uncovered backstrap for proper trigger reach for DA shooting. I'm okay with most finger-groove grips, but I usually prefer grips without them. I've got these (https://vzgrips.com/products/vz-320-s-w-k-frame-grip-l-frame-grip-square-bottom.html) on my 19-3.

For holsters, leather or Kydex? AIWB. IWB, or OWB? Either material will wear the finish. If you spend a lot of time outside and want AIWB or IWB, I'd go with Kydex because leather will absorb sweat with negative effects over time. I've gone with this holster (https://www.jmcustomkydex.com/p/Q-IWB3-Holster.html) for my 3" and 4" K frames. For leather, I've got OWBs from Privateer Leather (https://www.privateerleather.com/) for my 3-inchers and these (https://www.simplyrugged.com/store/Sourdough-Pancake-tm-p592252513) from Simply Rugged for my 4-inchers. I've also got one of these (https://www.jmcustomkydex.com/p/Q-OWB1-Holster.html) for my 4", but have found that leather pancake-style holsters conceal better for me.

Those VZ grips are beautiful, and from the ones I've held they feel very nice.

Perhaps it's just a mental hangup, but I've always liked having rubber cover the backstrap because I occasionally want to shoot .357 Magnum (though this Model 19 will be shooting .38 the vast majority of the time, while I will save .357 for my Rugers). Then again, even with the stock wood grips, it wasn't too bad. The VZ grips might add just enough controllability to be viable.

As for holster, I'm not sure what I should get. I got a JMCK IWB for my GP100, I've never actually carried it though for various reasons. However, my method of carrying would definitely be IWB (non-appendix). Usually I carry at about 3:30-4 o' clock, but revolvers are a little different shape and thus may require slightly different orientation. While I like the idea of leather for revolvers, I just want whatever will conceal the best and be reasonably comfortable.

[defilade]

That’s a Beautiful gun man! I have the classic 19-9 (with the lock) and it’s probably my most accurate revolver that I shoot. It definitely shoots better than I do.

I had my cylinders honed because I was shooting lead bullets and it would gum up the cylinder so bad that I could only shoot about 75 rounds. Once that was done, it was way better. I mostly shoot jacketed or coated bullets now and it does okay.

My cylinder is also sluggish compared to my older Smiths. I spray it out with Birchwood Casey’s gun scrubber and get the carbon build up out if it starts to feel sticky and have had good luck.

And like others have said, I don’t think you will need a ton our rounds through it. Make sure to keep it clean if it’s your carry gun and I’m sure you will be good to go.

I keep eying these new no lock guns, so I look forward to seeing how yours shakes out.

Wade

[SwampDweller]

That’s a Beautiful gun man! I have the classic 19-9 (with the lock) and it’s probably my most accurate revolver that I shoot. It definitely shoots better than I do.

I had my cylinders honed because I was shooting lead bullets and it would gum up the cylinder so bad that I could only shoot about 75 rounds. Once that was done, it was way better. I mostly shoot jacketed or coated bullets now and it does okay.

My cylinder is also sluggish compared to my older Smiths. I spray it out with Birchwood Casey’s gun scrubber and get the carbon build up out if it starts to feel sticky and have had good luck.

And like others have said, I don’t think you will need a ton our rounds through it. Make sure to keep it clean if it’s your carry gun and I’m sure you will be good to go.

I keep eying these new no lock guns, so I look forward to seeing how yours shakes out.

Wade
I was really impressed with the accuracy. I've been primarily shooting Ruger GP100s for DA revolvers, so this Model 19's DA trigger is like butter in comparison.

I have a Security Six on the way as well, we'll see how it compares. I think the SS will be used with Magnums more than the M19. I was supposed to also get a second Security Six for a steal, but they sold it out for money. I've got a problem going on, I want to buy another revolver. Hell I find myself looking at the Pythons but my brother's had to be sent back and I still hear of light primer strike issues sometimes.

[03RN]

I have Pachmayer finger groove grips on the way, but that's because it's what I know. I'm up to recommendations for that, as well as IWB holsters. I prefer leather for revolvers, but they're typically to thick for me.

I think I've posted the Pic of my ryan grizzle iwb. With the horsehide it clicks in and I can do cartwheels with it

[03RN]

I've been thinking about picking up a -9 for matches. With the no lock model I think I might have too.

[03RN]

129223

[SwampDweller]

I've been thinking about picking up a -9 for matches. With the no lock model I think I might have too.

Mine is actually marked 19-10, I don’t know if the -10 denotes no lock. I seem to be one of the first kids on the block with one. The guy who curates the S&W 19/13/65/66 database contacted me wanting to add mine as the first 19-10 no lock.

I hope it continues to perform.

How much is “too much” to shoot in one range session of standard pressure .38? I may be spending this coming Saturday at the range, and while I’ll be bringing several guns, I’m particularly excited about putting some serious trigger time on the 19. I can also bring cleaning supplies as well.

[03RN]

Mine is actually marked 19-10, I don’t know if the -10 denotes no lock. I seem to be one of the first kids on the block with one. The guy who curates the S&W 19/13/65/66 database contacted me wanting to add mine as the first 19-10 no lock.

I hope it continues to perform.

How much is “too much” to shoot in one range session of standard pressure .38? I may be spending this coming Saturday at the range, and while I’ll be bringing several guns, I’m particularly excited about putting some serious trigger time on the 19. I can also bring cleaning supplies as well.
Cool

Lead of fmj?

My 66 would get sluggish after iirc 100rds+/- due to lead fouling on the arbor. After getting the throats honed I could go all day. It was not an issue with fmj.

As far as I know the new 19s are just like the -9/66-8. You should be able.to.shoot until your finger falls off.

[SwampDweller]

Cool

Lead of fmj?

My 66 would get sluggish after iirc 100rds+/- due to lead fouling on the arbor. After getting the throats honed I could go all day. It was not an issue with fmj.

As far as I know the new 19s are just like the -9/66-8. You should be able.to.shoot until your finger falls off.

I will almost exclusively be shooting Speer Lawman TMJ. Maybe a little Federal lead hollow point but not more than a couple of cylinders.

[Willard]

129223

Stunning grips. Details. Thanks!

[revchuck38]

I will almost exclusively be shooting Speer Lawman TMJ. Maybe a little Federal lead hollow point but not more than a couple of cylinders.

You'll be able to shoot that stuff till the cows come home. Still, find a .44/.45 nylon bore brush and a non-rotating handle for it and use it to brush out the chambers every so often. You'll need a toothbrush for under the extractor star too.

[SwampDweller]

You'll be able to shoot that stuff till the cows come home. Still, find a .44/.45 nylon bore brush and a non-rotating handle for it and use it to brush out the chambers every so often. You'll need a toothbrush for under the extractor star too.

I've got a thousand rounds of the Speer Lawman .38. A bit of .357 but its all jacketed.

[SwampDweller]

You'll be able to shoot that stuff till the cows come home. Still, find a .44/.45 nylon bore brush and a non-rotating handle for it and use it to brush out the chambers every so often. You'll need a toothbrush for under the extractor star too.

Specifically a nylon brush for the chambers, not copper?

[MountainRaven]

Caleb Giddings recommended using a 40-caliber bore snake for cleaning the charge holes of a 38/357 revolver.


https://youtu.be/Je8hXWO2zdw

[Nick B]

Caleb Giddings recommended using a 40-caliber bore snake for cleaning the charge holes of a 38/357 revolver.


https://youtu.be/Je8hXWO2zdw
I’ve been doing that for years . And for my 44 and 45 revolver chambers I use a .480 pistol brush .

[revchuck38]

Specifically a nylon brush for the chambers, not copper?

That’s all you’d need when using jacketed ammo while at the range. I use a.38/.357 chamber brush when cleaning the revolver at home. The .40 bore brush mentioned above will work too.

[SwampDweller]

That’s all you’d need when using jacketed ammo while at the range. I use a.38/.357 chamber brush when cleaning the revolver at home. The .40 bore brush mentioned above will work too.

I picked up a .40 bore snake today. Unfortunately I could not find any nylon brushes.

[SwampDweller]

I should probably be posting this in the DA revolver general thread, but figured I’d keep going with this one since it already has documentation of my M19-10 journey.

Today I received and installed Pachmayers on the gun, improving the feel dramatically (in my subjective opinion). The thinner wood grips/stocks were surprisingly usable and weren’t bad, but my hands have been accustomed to Pachmayers since I got a 1980 blued Python. I like having rubber covering the backstrap, especially for +P .38 and Magnum loads. I also like the finger grooves same as I like them on a Glock (I know, I’m weird).

I’m hoping to take it shooting tomorrow or Saturday. I want to put another couple hundred rounds or so through it.

129281

[revchuck38]

I should probably be posting this in the DA revolver general thread, but figured I’d keep going with this one since it already has documentation of my M19-10 journey.

Today I received and installed Pachmayers on the gun, improving the feel dramatically (in my subjective opinion). The thinner wood grips/stocks were surprisingly usable and weren’t bad, but my hands have been accustomed to Pachmayers since I got a 1980 blued Python. I like having rubber covering the backstrap, especially for +P .38 and Magnum loads. I also like the finger grooves same as I like them on a Glock (I know, I’m weird).

I’m hoping to take it shooting tomorrow or Saturday. I want to put another couple hundred rounds or so through it.

129281

Like!

[BN]

You'll be able to shoot that stuff till the cows come home. Still, find a .44/.45 nylon bore brush and a non-rotating handle for it and use it to brush out the chambers every so often. You'll need a toothbrush for under the extractor star too.

https://www.brownells.com/tools-cleaning/gun-cleaning/gun-cleaning-brushes/revolver-chamber-brush/

I use these stainless chamber brushes in my 38s. One swipe through each chamber will clean it right out. I've used them for years with no damage to my revolvers.

[03RN]

Looks solid. I'm hoping it's a good one. Seems like it so far.

[SwampDweller]

Looks solid. I'm hoping it's a good one. Seems like it so far.

I’m at the range right now. I just had a light primer strike with one round of Armscor 158gr FMJ. It went off the second time around. I hope it’s the ammo and not the gun. How do you tell?

I’m still shooting and will provide a full report when I get home.

[claymore504]

Late to the thread, but the only new production S&W revolver I have purchased was last year and it was a Model 69. Got it online, looked fine when i picked it up from FFL dealer. Took to the range and put some 44SPL through it. First cylinder and the grip fell apart. Looks like it was probably cracked all ready from the factory.

[SwampDweller]

Here is the data from my range trip today with the Model 19-10 no-lock, as well as data on rounds through the gun total.

Fired 18 rounds of Special, then 6 rounds of Armscor 158gr .357 Mag, no problem.

The next cylinder load of Armscor had a light primer strike on the first round. The rest fired, and the one that failed to fire went off the second time around. I stopped shooting Armscor after that.

The rest of the range trip went without any light strikes or any other issue. I fired another 412 rounds, mostly Lawman .38 and 42 more rounds of Magnums (Federal American Eagle 158gr JSP).

Total Round Counts before, after, and with Light Strike:

412 Rounds Fired this range trip After Light Primer Strike w/ no issues

442 Rounds Total this Range Trip

604 rounds Total through this gun

Total Magnums This Trip: 54 rounds

Magnums after Light Primer Strike: 42

Total Magnums Through Gun: 54

Thoughts? I did have a light primer strike with this Armscor ammo in my GP100 last year, and it never happened again. Possible issue with the M19-10 or just a case of a hard primer?

[Wood]

I’m at the range right now. I just had a light primer strike with one round of Armscor 158gr FMJ. It went off the second time around. I hope it’s the ammo and not the gun. How do you tell?

I’m still shooting and will provide a full report when I get home.

Give the gun a few seconds after it goes click, then pop open the cylinder and take a look at the primer. If the hit on it looks very similar to primers that went off, that suggests it was the primer and less the gun.

FWIW I bought some Armscor last year and it gave me fits as I was running it through my two 856s. Really demoralizing to have new guns immediately have repeated failures to fire. I've bought but not installed some TK Customs firing pins in case I needed to make a replacement but so far I haven't felt the need since moving on from the Armscor.

[revchuck38]

Thoughts? I did have a light primer strike with this Armscor ammo in my GP100 last year, and it never happened again. Possible issue with the M19-10 or just a case of a hard primer?

I'd say it's an ammo issue, especially since you had the same thing happen in the GP100. It sounds like the gun's fine. I recommend you figure out what carry ammo you want to use and put at least 50 rounds of that through the gun to ensure it works with the revolver.

[03RN]

Double check the strain screw but most likely a.primer that wasn't seated 100%

[SwampDweller]

Double check the strain screw but most likely a.primer that wasn't seated 100%

How do I know if the strain screw isn't where it's supposed to be?

For what it's worth, the following 412 rounds that were fired after the light primer strike were without issue.

[SwampDweller]

Give the gun a few seconds after it goes click, then pop open the cylinder and take a look at the primer. If the hit on it looks very similar to primers that went off, that suggests it was the primer and less the gun.

FWIW I bought some Armscor last year and it gave me fits as I was running it through my two 856s. Really demoralizing to have new guns immediately have repeated failures to fire. I've bought but not installed some TK Customs firing pins in case I needed to make a replacement but so far I haven't felt the need since moving on from the Armscor.

Unfortunately I just waited about 10 seconds, then went through the rest of the cylinder including the round that failed to go off the first time, and upon the second try it went off.

This was the only failure, the rest of the 412 rounds were fine.

[revchuck38]

The strain screw is supposed to be tightened all the way down. It probably is, coming from the factory.

[SwampDweller]

The strain screw is supposed to be tightened all the way down. It probably is, coming from the factory.

Doesn't look like it's backed out at all to me.

[SwampDweller]

I'd say it's an ammo issue, especially since you had the same thing happen in the GP100. It sounds like the gun's fine. I recommend you figure out what carry ammo you want to use and put at least 50 rounds of that through the gun to ensure it works with the revolver.

Still trying to figure out what carry ammo I want to use. I'm thinking a mid-range .357 load like the Hornady Critical Duty 135gr, Remington 125gr Golden Saber, or Speer Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel. I don't know how the Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel .357 performs in FBI-spec gel out of a 4" barrel, as I can't find any data on this that isn't Clear Gel, which I am skeptical of.

[Totem Polar]

Still trying to figure out what carry ammo I want to use. I'm thinking a mid-range .357 load like the Hornady Critical Duty 135gr, Remington 125gr Golden Saber, or Speer Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel. I don't know how the Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel .357 performs in FBI-spec gel out of a 4" barrel, as I can't find any data on this that isn't Clear Gel, which I am skeptical of.

Any of those 3 loads will do, and do even better out of 4”, assuming you can find them in stock somewhere. I’m partial to GDHP 135, but I’d buy whichever I could find and not lose a moment’s sleep over it.

[JWintergreen]

Still trying to figure out what carry ammo I want to use. I'm thinking a mid-range .357 load like the Hornady Critical Duty 135gr, Remington 125gr Golden Saber, or Speer Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel. I don't know how the Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel .357 performs in FBI-spec gel out of a 4" barrel, as I can't find any data on this that isn't Clear Gel, which I am skeptical of.

That 135 grain Critical Duty load is a solid performer and readily available, but I don't know if there is a practice load that hits to a similar POA. I haven't seen the 135 grain Speer short barrel load tested in other media, but it is loaded hotter than what is listed on the box. It should be G2G.

[revchuck38]

Still trying to figure out what carry ammo I want to use. I'm thinking a mid-range .357 load like the Hornady Critical Duty 135gr, Remington 125gr Golden Saber, or Speer Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel. I don't know how the Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel .357 performs in FBI-spec gel out of a 4" barrel, as I can't find any data on this that isn't Clear Gel, which I am skeptical of.

There's a thread somewhere either in the Revolver or Ammo section here with a link to Hornady's test of the 135-grain load using 10% gel. It's in their LE section. Other testing is going to be in clear gel; .357 Magnum isn't used by LE anymore so the companies wouldn't receive any perceived ROI from doing the tests to standard. Lucky Gunner's tests (https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/) at least give you an apples-to-apples comparison.


Any of those 3 loads will do, and do even better out of 4”, assuming you can find them in stock somewhere. I’m partial to GDHP 135, but I’d buy whichever I could find and not lose a moment’s sleep over it.

+1. I'm using the Hornady load in my 681 because it shoots to the sights in that gun and it's generally available.

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

Still trying to figure out what carry ammo I want to use. I'm thinking a mid-range .357 load like the Hornady Critical Duty 135gr, Remington 125gr Golden Saber, or Speer Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel. I don't know how the Gold Dot 135gr Short Barrel .357 performs in FBI-spec gel out of a 4" barrel, as I can't find any data on this that isn't Clear Gel, which I am skeptical of.Negative on Speer Gold Dot .357 135gr Short Barrel from a 4" barrel. Per Speer, it's overdriven, likely to separate and not perform to spec; keep that load to 3" barrels or less. Speer's .38 +P equivalent is fine out of 4" barrels, should perform as designed, and has less recoil.

In .357 the Hornady Critical Duty or Defense loads are both good; the Defense has a little less snap in my hand.

I prefer Remington's Golden Saber because while posting very good numbers it's also, again in my hand, a very comfortable mid-range .357 round to shoot.

The .38 +P equivalents of all these options are also good to go.

[JWintergreen]

There's a thread somewhere either in the Revolver or Ammo section here with a link to Hornady's test of the 135-grain load using 10% gel. It's in their LE section. Other testing is going to be in clear gel; .357 Magnum isn't used by LE anymore so the companies wouldn't receive any perceived ROI from doing the tests to standard. Lucky Gunner's tests (https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/) at least give you an apples-to-apples comparison.



+1. I'm using the Hornady load in my 681 because it shoots to the sights in that gun and it's generally available.

Thats good to hear. Does it shoot to a similar POA as common 158 grain soft point loadings?

[revchuck38]

Thats good to hear. Does it shoot to a similar POA as common 158 grain soft point loadings?

It does in my 681.

[SwampDweller]

So, based on the fact that I did another 412 rounds through this M19 after the light primer strike/failure to fire, do yall think it was just that one Armscor .357 round at fault rather than the gun? Is there a way to tell for sure whether it was the round or the gun after the fact? I do have the casing but I’m not sure which one it is in the box. I will try to get a photo of the box later.

[awp_101]

You've got more rounds after a single failure than I have in total through my 19-9 with multiple light strikes. I'd say you're good to go.

[JWintergreen]

So, based on the fact that I did another 412 rounds through this M19 after the light primer strike/failure to fire, do yall think it was just that one Armscor .357 round at fault rather than the gun? Is there a way to tell for sure whether it was the round or the gun after the fact? I do have the casing but I’m not sure which one it is in the box. I will try to get a photo of the box later.

I would bet the farm that it was the ammo. That round count, combined with that being less than premium ammo, should put your mind at ease.

Thats good to hear about the Critical Duty. I love the Remington 158 grain SJHP, but having a moderate alternative would be very nice. I'll pick up a few boxes when I get the chance.

Back on topic, has anybody else seen any of the new no-lock revolvers out in the wild?

[SwampDweller]

I've got 100 rounds of Remington 125gr Golden Saber .357 Mag on the way. I'll shoot it with my Federal .38 158gr +P SWCHP and Gold Dot 158gr .357, and see how it compares on target.

The Gold Dot .38+P Gold Dot Short Barrel is next in consideration, but I haven't yet ordered or otherwise obtained it yet. I like the idea of using a .357 Magnum rather than a .38, despite possible lack of difference between the two.
At the risk of going outside of the current discussion, I have noticed that, typically, expanding .357 Magnum rounds tend to have a noticeably more deleterious effect on deer and other animals in terms of time and distance before physiological incapacitation, versus similar game with service pistol calibers.

[Navin Johnson]

I've got 100 rounds of Remington 125gr Golden Saber .357 Mag on the way. I'll shoot it with my Federal .38 158gr +P SWCHP and Gold Dot 158gr .357, and see how it compares on target.

The Gold Dot .38+P Gold Dot Short Barrel is next in consideration, but I haven't yet ordered or otherwise obtained it yet. I like the idea of using a .357 Magnum rather than a .38, despite possible lack of difference between the two.
At the risk of going outside of the current discussion, I have noticed that, typically, expanding .357 Magnum rounds tend to have a noticeably more deleterious effect on deer and other animals in terms of time and distance before physiological incapacitation, versus similar game with service pistol calibers.

Calibers, projectiles, and weights of the examples you have observed. Also where was impact and was it through or inside carcass? Was the animal agitated or unaware? I find this stuff fascinating. So many of the interweb stories seem to fit expectations.

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

...I like the idea of using a .357 Magnum rather than a .38, despite possible lack of difference between the two...What makes you think there's a possible lack of difference between .357 and .38?

Also, in case it was missed in my earlier post: Do not use Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel .357 in a 4" or longer barrel, it's overdriven; use their .38 +P Short Barrel variant, it has a solid track record.

[Totem Polar]

My understanding is that the 135 GDHP .357 is fine up to 4” barrels. OMMV. There’s been plenty of discussion on this round. At any rate, it’s not going to come apart at pistol velocities.

[SwampDweller]

What makes you think there's a possible lack of difference between .357 and .38?

Also, in case it was missed in my earlier post: Do not use Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel .357 in a 4" or longer barrel, it's overdriven; use their .38 +P Short Barrel variant, it has a solid track record.

Yes, message received. I took the .357 Short Barrel load out of consideration.

As far as possible lack of difference between .38 and .357, in gel they don’t necessarily look that different in terms of expanded diameter and penetration with good loads.

[WDR]

My understanding is that the 135 GDHP .357 is fine up to 4” barrels. OMMV. There’s been plenty of discussion on this round. At any rate, it’s not going to come apart at pistol velocities.

The velocity difference is only ~ 100fps (from a 2" snub) according to Speers data. 860 vs 960 fps... its not really a "magnum" loading. I doubt that a longer barrel would really drive the bullet hard enough to make it fragment much. It will probably expand more/faster, but also peel back the petals a bit more resulting in less expanded diameter and deeper penetration when fired from a longer barrel. Which really isn't that bad of thing. I swear somewhere I saw someone had put some of the .357 version through a .357 carbine and into gel ( might have been Clear Gel) and it really didn't frag even then.

I've been meaning to pop one through my 16.5" Marlin, but I only have a couple boxes of the .357 load left, that I save for the rare times I carry my 3" Model 60 around town.

The .357 and .38 loads both have been somewhat hard to come by, but the .38 version is somewhat easier to find. I didn't see the .357 version anywhere after covid, until this last year.

[revchuck38]

In Lucky Gunner's testing, the .357 load went 1069 from a 2" and 1184 from a 4". Expansion was picture-perfect from both barrel lengths with no evidence of fragmentation in LG's photos (https://www.luckygunner.com/357-mag-135-gr-jhp-speer-gold-dot-short-barrel-20-rounds#geltest).

Coincidentally, I was doing some chronographing at the range today. The .38 +P version went 850 fps from my M49 and 912 fps from my 3" M64-6. It'd probably be 960ish from a 4".

[Totem Polar]

In Lucky Gunner's testing, the .357 load went 1069 from a 2" and 1184 from a 4". Expansion was picture-perfect from both barrel lengths with no evidence of fragmentation in LG's photos (https://www.luckygunner.com/357-mag-135-gr-jhp-speer-gold-dot-short-barrel-20-rounds#geltest).


That’s about what I thought. I actually prefer the 4” barrel results, but no issues either way.

[jh9]

In Lucky Gunner's testing, the .357 load went 1069 from a 2" and 1184 from a 4". Expansion was picture-perfect from both barrel lengths with no evidence of fragmentation in LG's photos (https://www.luckygunner.com/357-mag-135-gr-jhp-speer-gold-dot-short-barrel-20-rounds#geltest).

Agree that bullet almost certainly isn't going to start fragmenting out of a 4" barrel. Or probably even a 16" as also mentioned.

...but, LG's pictures of their expanded 125gr SJHPs also don't show any fragmentation from a 4" barrel and I think that basically always happens with that load in organic gel.

https://cdn-secure.luckygunner.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/geltest/1024/73a218aa5e094ea6e0140b3887958db7.jpg

I think that's one example of where the wheels should be coming off but don't in clear gel. Their presentation is great, but it's an example of the results being too uneven to use. All five Remington 125gr SJHPs hitting gel at over the spec'd 1,450fps (1,473 average with one at 1,522fps) and not a single one of them shows any fragmentation at all.

[03RN]

Agree that bullet almost certainly isn't going to start fragmenting out of a 4" barrel. Or probably even a 16" as also mentioned.

...but, LG's pictures of their expanded 125gr SJHPs also don't show any fragmentation from a 4" barrel and I think that basically always happens with that load in organic gel.

https://cdn-secure.luckygunner.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/geltest/1024/73a218aa5e094ea6e0140b3887958db7.jpg

I think that's one example of where the wheels should be coming off but don't in clear gel. Their presentation is great, but it's an example of the results being too uneven to use. All five Remington 125gr SJHPs hitting gel at over the spec'd 1,450fps (1,473 average with one at 1,522fps) and not a single one of them shows any fragmentation at all.

Another reason clear gel tests should be shunned

[CZ Man]

I've tested the 125 gr SJHP in clear gel and had fragmentation when shot of out of a 4". The federal 357B load fragmented a lot more than the Remington UMC load.

[jh9]

I've tested the 125 gr SJHP in clear gel and had fragmentation when shot of out of a 4". The federal 357B load fragmented a lot more than the Remington UMC load.

That inconsistency is a large part of the problem. The results don't seem to map to organic gel in any predictable way. Even when you're using slightly different loads that should behave similarly.

I appreciate the desire people like LG have to do these tests, but it really would be more useful to everyone if they just used jugs of water. AFAIK that has some mathamagic that can at least be roughly imputed to bare organic gel.

[revchuck38]

That inconsistency is a large part of the problem. The results don't seem to map to organic gel in any predictable way. Even when you're using slightly different loads that should behave similarly.

I appreciate the desire people like LG have to do these tests, but it really would be more useful to everyone if they just used jugs of water. AFAIK that has some mathamagic that can at least be roughly imputed to bare organic gel.

LE agencies no longer use .357 Magnum, so the ammo companies see no reason to expend resources on testing that caliber. I was surprised that Hornady went to the trouble to do it.

[SwampDweller]

LE agencies no longer use .357 Magnum, so the ammo companies see no reason to expend resources on testing that caliber. I was surprised that Hornady went to the trouble to do it.

I wish more would do it. I’d like to see how the Gold Dot loadings and newer Federal HST do.

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

I'm a fan of Speer's short barrel load in .357. I actually think it's a better choice in some short barrel Ks and Js than its .38 counterpart, superior velocity affording a greater reliability threshold for performing as designed. Out of a 2" barrel, GD SB .38 +P doesn't always make the numbers.

The .38/.357 GD SB (same pill) was designed to hit its penetration and expansion effects between about 860 and 1000 fps. Lucky Gunner's results at velocities above that are appealing, but as others have noted, their use of clear gel media might significantly account for the surprising outcome.

Speer's data indicates that starting around 1100 fps and above "puts these bullets out of their optimum expansion range. Front end fragmentation, rather than true expansion, is the likely result."

More:

"Unlike conventional handgun bullets that completely shatter when overdriven, the Gold Dot nose area can blow completely off yet the base section stays intact for penetration. Not what's required for game hunting or defense, but near-prefect for the very challenging sport of handgun varmint shooting."

Again, above the intended performance threshold of approximately 1000 fps:

"We cannot recommend these bullets for any 357 Magnum application requiring deep penetration and high retained weight after expansion."

Source: http://www.black-talon.org/RKBA/ammo/Speer_357_GDHP_load_data_sheet.jpg

[Totem Polar]

FWIW, my own research showed that the bullet is designed for a window roughly 860 to 1200ish, IIRC. At any rate I am fine with .357 135 GDHP in a 4-inch duty type wheelie. The whole point is not that the bullet is so amazingly awesome and optimal/at its very best out of 2 inches, rather, it’s so well engineered as to still be largely functional in the shorter length, even in the.38+P iteration—unlike most CERs. There is agreement that the slightly hotter 135 GDHP .357 load is a fine performer out of both 2” and 3”… this idea that it suddenly becomes a shrinking violet with another inch just doesn’t peg my meter.

Now, if someone can post proof—from calibrated 10% ballistic ordnance gel, organic—showing that the bullet fragments, under penetrates, or over penetrates to a concerning amount out of 4” (typically running 1175-1210fps), I’ll happily stand corrected. Until then, I’ll A) either not worry about it, or B ) enjoy the enhanced accuracy reputation the round has out of .357 cases in .357 guns over the .38 loading of the same weight and design, or C) both.

OMMV, JMO, IANABE, etc.

As an aside, I’ll take the .357 over the .38 in 2 or 3 inches any day. At 4”, I’m open to either the .38 +P or .357, again, because the bare minimum floor (+/-860) is not a good goal to shoot for (heh). Put another way, I’m more comfortable bumping against the upper limit, than the lower one. Again, JMO.

[revchuck38]

FWIW, I chronoed some of the .38 +P GDSB with other ammo a few days back and posted the results here (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?62987-Miscellaneous-9x19-and-38-Special-Chrono-Data). If that bullet works starting at ~860 fps, it should be good from 3" and longer barrels.

[MountainRaven]

Question: Why not Barnes TAC-XPD? 125-grains at 1200 fps seems like it should be reasonably mild out of a lighter revolver and Lucky Gunner's testing (combined with, among other things, the performance of the TAC-XP out of 9mm where, IIRC, they basically found that pushing the bullet faster, past a certain point, just resulted in more penetration). Not poopooing anything else, just wondering why nobody ever brings it up (if there's a reason).

[Singh]

I really want to believe, I do, but several times burned makes me reluctant to go new until more reviews are in, and they’re mostly positive....Previous experience had already taught me not to be the first in line when the .32UCs hit this forum, despite a serious case of the wants on my part, and history makes me even more confident of that decision....As an aside, I got to look at a 32 UC when I was buying my most recent older M64, since they were in the same case. If the UC had checked out better for me than the old gal, I may well have bought it instead.

Yeah, I'm soured on it. I won't buy any new revolver sight unseen. Let me see three or four so I can find the one that came out the factory door made to spec. .



I don’t know what the answer is. I get that the companies can’t sell a ton of hand-picked, 2k guns. I also understand that the bottleneck is somewhere between development and production, and that’s a drag for the people putting sweat equity into convincing companies to put out new guns with compelling specs..

I think there is so much demand for guns these days...companies are stacking them high and selling them cheap, working fast and dirty, spewing out as many guns as they can and relying on us to be beta testers (the bean counters are also comfortable in the fact that the majority of shooters barely shoot and won't notice problems anyway). That works with striker-fired plastic guns which are very simple to make, but not with revolvers. Revolvers are like mechanical watches that also have to function while enduring mutiple internal explosions.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I think there is so much demand for guns these days...companies are stacking them high and selling them cheap, working fast and dirty, spewing out as many guns as they can and relying on us to be beta testers (the bean counters are also comfortable in the fact that the majority of shooters barely shoot and won't notice problems anyway). That works with striker-fired plastic guns which are very simple to make, but not with revolvers. Revolvers are like mechanical watches that also have to function while enduring mutiple internal explosions.

This brings to mind something that Sully said in his shotgun armorer's class. That a pump shotgun is a collection of switches and levers. I believe that the same applies to revolvers....and I suppose to any manually operated machine, really. Most of the knowledgeable revolver smiths had retired or passed on, and that institutional knowledge was not passed on as the industry focused on semi-auto production.

[03RN]

Question: Why not Barnes TAC-XPD? 125-grains at 1200 fps seems like it should be reasonably mild out of a lighter revolver and Lucky Gunner's testing (combined with, among other things, the performance of the TAC-XP out of 9mm where, IIRC, they basically found that pushing the bullet faster, past a certain point, just resulted in more penetration). Not poopooing anything else, just wondering why nobody ever brings it up (if there's a reason).

Probably just price.

[Singh]

Most of the knowledgeable revolver smiths had retired or passed on, and that institutional knowledge was not passed on as the industry focused on semi-auto production.

Agreed. I think Ruger may be the exception since they started from the beginning decades ago with modern mass-production methods for their revos, and there's less room for mistakes on the production line. And when Ruger makes a mistake in design or execution, they seem to be able to make course corrections quickly. The more traditional design & production methods used by S&W leaves more room for error. That's my hunch, but I could be wrong. But now I think S&W is dipping their toe into mass-production methods for the UC and whatnot, and they're clearly stumbling through that learning curve.

[03RN]

Agreed. I think Ruger may be the exception since they started from the beginning decades ago with modern mass-production methods for their revos, and there's less room for mistakes on the production line. And when Ruger makes a mistake in design or execution, they seem to be able to make course corrections quickly. The more traditional design & production methods used by S&W leaves more room for error. That's my hunch, but I could be wrong. But now I think S&W is dipping their toe into mass-production methods for the UC and whatnot, and they're clearly stumbling through that learning curve.

Im not sure about that. Ruger redhawks still have issues with primer strength.

Not to long ago glock had issues with btf that took years for everyone to figure out.

I don't think it's revolver specific.

[SwampDweller]

I received 100 rounds of Remington Golden Saber 125gr BJHP to try out and perhaps start keeping loaded in my new Model 19 if it proves to be dependable. I was thinking of trying to get to 1k rounds (mostly special) after having that light primer strike with Armscor, but that’s probably unnecessary. It’s just hard to get out of the mindset of “you must have one thousand flawless rounds through a handgun before you can trust it”.

[MountainRaven]

Picked up a 66-8 2.75" that my LGS special ordered for me. Looks like, above the, "Model 66-8," on the box, there's a date of, "011224," which I'm guessing means 1 December 2024. Or maybe it's meaningless.

Anyway. Lock up appears to be super tight with no discernible lateral movement on the cylinder, very little fore-and-aft play. Gun appears to lock up on every charge hole before the hammer falls. Pulled the side plate to install an Apex hammer kit and everything looked fine, but entirely dry. Apex kit install was super easy, only challenge (as someone who has never pulled the side plate of any revolver) was getting the hammer safety reinstalled. If I knew where my feeler gauge went, I'd check the barrel/cylinder gap. But overall, I have a good feeling about it.

Won't be able to check those good feelings for a bit as I'm headed out of town, tomorrow, so... we'll see.

Only problem, maybe, along with being bone dry inside, is the front sight might be slightly bent. But I'm planning to replace that with a gold bead at some point, anyway.

[SwampDweller]

Shot another 200 rounds through the 19-10 today, still going smooth. We are at 842 rounds total through the gun, and 612 since the one light primer strike with one round of Armscor .357.

While I had no functional issues, I did notice something with the Remington Golden Saber 125gr .357. It seems to use some kind of gasket seal or something to seal the primer, and this little circular seal falls out into the gun while shooting. Usually it just sat stuck to the recoil shield, but I could see how easily it could end up somewhere that jams up the gun. I’m not sure when Remington started doing this, but I really don’t care for it. What if it fell into the little window where the hand is?

[MountainRaven]

Picked up a 66-8 2.75" that my LGS special ordered for me. Looks like, above the, "Model 66-8," on the box, there's a date of, "011224," which I'm guessing means 1 December 2024. Or maybe it's meaningless.

Anyway. Lock up appears to be super tight with no discernible lateral movement on the cylinder, very little fore-and-aft play. Gun appears to lock up on every charge hole before the hammer falls. Pulled the side plate to install an Apex hammer kit and everything looked fine, but entirely dry. Apex kit install was super easy, only challenge (as someone who has never pulled the side plate of any revolver) was getting the hammer safety reinstalled. If I knew where my feeler gauge went, I'd check the barrel/cylinder gap. But overall, I have a good feeling about it.

Won't be able to check those good feelings for a bit as I'm headed out of town, tomorrow, so... we'll see.

Only problem, maybe, along with being bone dry inside, is the front sight might be slightly bent. But I'm planning to replace that with a gold bead at some point, anyway.

Alright, I've added three new Smith & Wessons since this:

1- 19-9, b. July 2024. Seems perfectly fine. Apart from the soul-leaking hole in the side.

2- 629-8, b. December 2024. Lipsey's Mountain Gun. Seems fine, apart from what I think is some minor imperfections in the MIM'ing of the trigger, but another user on here thinks might be the flash chroming flaking.

3- 10-10, b. March 2025. Seemed fine at the store, except the front sight wasn't seated properly when it was drilled and pinned. No big deal, I'm going to replace it with a gold bead, anyway (if I can find one).
Got it home and started dryfiring it and have occasional short-strokes. Odd.
Try the other three. Am only able to induce short-strokes with those pistols intentionally.
Wake up this morning, pop off the side plate and see that the double-action sear on the hammer is catching, occasionally, on the trigger, permitting the trigger to travel past the double-action sear without cocking the hammer.
Do some research.
Take the factory hammer from the 66-8 that I'm not using and swap sears. Same problem.
Do some more research.
File about half-a-dozen (two or three at a time) strokes on the bright shiny bit of the double-action sear where it appears the double-action sear is hand-fitted. Problem seems to be solved, though I am able to induce a short-stroke intentionally.
Will continue to dry fire it and see if I get any more unintentional short-strokes, at which point I might send the gun to S&W. Or just buy an Apex Evolution kit for it (which I sort of want to do, anyway).

[Pistol Pete 10]

New S&W revolver. In my experience it will have something wrong with it. Maybe minor, may be really bad. Return to S&W, they may or may not repair it. I won't buy another new S&W.

[SWAT Lt.]

I recently purchased a 632 UC Ti to go along with my 632 UC. The front sight glowed, barrel seemed to be properly aligned, and the action functioned without any glitches. I installed an Apex kit, I like them and dislike the hollow firing pin in the gun, so I don't know if there would have been any light strikes or not (I think the light strikes are mainly occurring with ammo loaded with foreign primers, which I no longer purchase).

I fired 131 rounds of assorted domestic ammo through it yesterday without issue and did not have to adjust the sights. I took my no lock 340 M&P also and found the 632 UC Ti to have less recoil than the 340 with Federal GMM WC, let alone +P JHPs. As a result, I am having a hard time finding a reason to keep the 340. I really like the Ti.

[Rex G]

I recently purchased a 632 UC Ti to go along with my 632 UC. The front sight glowed, barrel seemed to be properly aligned, and the action functioned without any glitches. I installed an Apex kit, I like them and dislike the hollow firing pin in the gun, so I don't know if there would have been any light strikes or not (I think the light strikes are mainly occurring with ammo loaded with foreign primers, which I no longer purchase).

I fired 131 rounds of assorted domestic ammo through it yesterday without issue and did not have to adjust the sights. I took my no lock 340 M&P also and found the 632 UC Ti to have less recoil than the 340 with Federal GMM WC, let alone +P JHPs. As a result, I am having a hard time finding a reason to keep the 340. I really like the Ti.

Thanks for your report. Liked!

[WobblyPossum]

Took my new 432UC Ti to the range today. Of 24 rounds of Lost River 100gr Wadcutters I attempted to fire, I had three light strikes. Two of the three rounds fired on the second attempt but I couldn’t get the third to ignite. Should I contact Lipsey’s or S&W first?

[Hambo]

I have a new 6" 586. Yes, it has the hole. Barrel is clocked perfectly, cylinder gap OK. I shot about 150 mixed .38 and .357. The trigger doesn't feel like an old school action job, but I shot it DA and was very accurate. That's remarkable because I haven't shot very much DA in the last decade. It did have three light strikes on Hambo Ammo 1995 vintage reloads, but so did my .357 Contender, so we'll call that old primers. Like the TC, it shoots very well with 158gr XTPs over H110. Thinking about buying a shorter barreled L frame now.

[APS-PF]

Took my new 432UC Ti to the range today. Of 24 rounds of Lost River 100gr Wadcutters I attempted to fire, I had three light strikes. Two of the three rounds fired on the second attempt but I couldn’t get the third to ignite. Should I contact Lipsey’s or S&W first?

Do you have any other rounds you can try? Last year I had 2 boxes of those wadcutters with high primers in them.

[WobblyPossum]

Do you have any other rounds you can try? Last year I had 2 boxes of those wadcutters with high primers in them.

I don’t at the moment but I can order some other ammo. I’ll hold off on contacting anyone until I’ve had a chance to try some other manufacturer’s rounds then.

[taadski]

I’ve waffled about posting this here, especially as I have pretty limited experience with Smith & Wesson‘s customer service. But I’ll share the two experiences I have had.

About 15 years ago I had a 4 inch model 617 come out of time. It was sent back to the mothership and was returned. The revolver had what can only be described as an exquisite double action trigger when it was sent back; largely from many thousands of rounds being shot through it. It was returned with the timing fixed, but a horrendously rough trigger. I sucked it up and shot the shit out of it (I used it as a steel challenge revolver) and about 15,000 rounds later, the trigger has worn back in to a level similar to how it left. This left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, obviously, but I didn’t draw much attention to it.

Fast forward to a year and a half ago, I purchased a new custom shop 5” 986. The gun seemed fine out of the box, however, I didn’t shoot it extensively until more recently.

Approximately 500 rounds down the tube, it began having some issues. The trigger initially started occasionally staying stuck to the rear following a DA press. This morphed into the trigger not cycling the cylinder at all.

Smith & Wesson paid for the return shipping label and returned the gun to me approximately five weeks later. The notes for the repairs done was “Repaired trigger, repaired yoke”. I called customer service and asked for more details regarding what they’d found and was told that the notes I’d received in the box were all they could share with me. After some discussion and clarification, I asked to speak with a customer service supervisor. I was told that a supervisor wasn’t available and when I asked to have a call back from one, I was hung up on.

At the range the following day, vetting the returned 986, the same problem returned after approximately five cylinders of shooting. I called Smith & Wesson Customer Service again and this time spoke with a very helpful fellow. I shared with him the details of the initial problem, my interaction with his coworker and then the new problems following the revolvers return. He was very apologetic, advised that he was flagging the series of interactions for review and immediately sent another RMA. I was notified by email that they were in possession of the revolver just shy of six weeks ago but I haven’t heard another peep since. The repair is currently still pending. To say I’m frustrated and displeased is a significant understatement.

For perspective, I have a really warm affinity for classic Smith & Wesson revolvers. I learned to shoot with one as a youngster and I currently own a pretty good cross section of them. I don’t consider myself a collector but I definitely appreciate old world craftsmanship and my Smith wheel guns are by a long shot my favorite firearms to handle and shoot to this day.

The above experiences and those of others border on heartbreaking. 😥


T

[Singh]

to the OP, all we have is anecdotal evidence, so take it all with a grain a salt.

I won't buy anything sight unseen. I want check 'em ot first and choose the pick of the litter. Even then, ya never know.




Some more anecdotal evidence for the hopper: I have doubts on 32 UCs, but I saw one at my local shop recently and checked it out. It looked good near as I could tell. Barrel didn't appear clocked. Lockup and timing seemed fine and/or identical to my other 642s. B/C gap seemed within spec (I didn't bring my feeler gauge). Trigger didn't feel gritty like there was metal shavings inside. No gouges on the breech face. Screws weren't buggered so no one diddled with the innards. I couldn't tell if the tritium sight was DOA or not.. The only unknown is whether or not the gun would have light-strike issues as reported with other .32UCs.

[toxophilus]

Previous experiences:

- I bought a used 617 that was shipped across country and after the second outing I discovered that the frame was cracked; issue was much leading around the forcing cone and upon giving it a really good cleaning I saw the cracked frame. S&W honored the request for repair and actually replaced the frame. I did have to send it back a number of months later as it was splattering debris on my hands/face as well as my friend that tried it too; S&W repaired the forcing cone.

- Had a BG-38 that had to go back three times due to the trigger locking up and not returning to fire the next round, luckily it happened only with snap caps, the third time it was due to S&W repair department totally screwing up the frame with gouges, they fixed it but after that fiasco I traded it for something more reliable from Ruger

131936

Latest experience

- Latest online purchase was a 642UC, beautifully made revolver, action is great, sights are wonderful for my aging eyes... however the barrel shroud is canted and it's impacting to the right about 4-5" at 15 yards, I don't mind that it shoots high with those 148gr DEWC but it's obvious that it should be repaired. I even drifted the rear sight all the way to the left but it's still impacting about three inches to the right of the target.

The other target to the left was load testing from a Kimber K6xs; that one had to go back twice to fix the improperly clocked barrel but it's fine now... it seems that we're the QA for gun companies :rolleyes:

131937

[MountainRaven]

After getting my hand numbed by shooting 357 out of my 2.75-inch model 66, I had my LGS order a 27 in. And... yeesh.

27-9. Looks like DOB was September of '24. Serrations on the backstrap of the grip were cut off center. The gap between the ejector shroud and the frame is large enough to drive a Mack truck('s driver's license) through. The trigger fails regularly to catch the double-action sear (a bit like my 19-10 was, but way, waaay worse). And then the trigger has a kind of strange hitch where the trigger gets right before the point at which it releases the hammer and... it just gets stupid heavy. The single action isn't great, either. And it looks like the cylinder stop is beating up the cylinder stop notches.

Needless to say, the gun is headed back to Lipsey's, with hopes that the gun Lipsey's sends to replace it will be better.

[SwampDweller]

After getting my hand numbed by shooting 357 out of my 2.75-inch model 66, I had my LGS order a 27 in. And... yeesh.

27-9. Looks like DOB was September of '24. Serrations on the backstrap of the grip were cut off center. The gap between the ejector shroud and the frame is large enough to drive a Mack truck('s driver's license) through. The trigger fails regularly to catch the double-action sear (a bit like my 19-10 was, but way, waaay worse). And then the trigger has a kind of strange hitch where the trigger gets right before the point at which it releases the hammer and... it just gets stupid heavy. The single action isn't great, either. And it looks like the cylinder stop is beating up the cylinder stop notches.

Needless to say, the gun is headed back to Lipsey's, with hopes that the gun Lipsey's sends to replace it will be better.

I’d like to get with Lipseys to see if, by some chance, they would be willing to exchange my out-of-spec (by S&W’s own words) Lipseys 629 Mountain Gun for a new one after mine has peening on two cylinder stop notches and the front sight bead flying out. How did you get with Lipseys on this?

[willie]

And just think. If these revolvers required hand fitting, they would really be messed up. I examine every new revolver that comes to my lgs. The other two brands have problems too.

[MountainRaven]

I’d like to get with Lipseys to see if, by some chance, they would be willing to exchange my out-of-spec (by S&W’s own words) Lipseys 629 Mountain Gun for a new one after mine has peening on two cylinder stop notches and the front sight bead flying out. How did you get with Lipseys on this?

The LGS ordered the gun from Lipsey's and they contacted Lipsey's when I raised the issues the gun had with them.

Also, they had one of the 632UC Tis in. I handled it and it seemed fine. No aesthetic issues or timing problems I could discern.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I’d like to get with Lipseys to see if, by some chance, they would be willing to exchange my out-of-spec (by S&W’s own words) Lipseys 629 Mountain Gun for a new one after mine has peening on two cylinder stop notches and the front sight bead flying out. How did you get with Lipseys on this?

JEC has posted his contact info here before. I would contact him directly.

[SwampDweller]

JEC has posted his contact info here before. I would contact him directly.

Is it the "info@lipseys.com" email? Or something more individual?

[CarloMNL]

I think it's cloessner@lipseys.com

[SwampDweller]

I emailed @JEC last night regarding my 629 MG with out of spec wear and MIA front sight bead. I asked if I could exchange it for another one, I don’t know how likely that is but I figured it’s worth a shot. I don’t think I can trust the one I have even after repair.

[MountainRaven]

Model 27#2 arrived. DOB in August of 2024. Everything seems fine.

Only minor issues are that the rib on the top of the barrel appears to have been machined off-center on the barrel and the serrations on the front and backstrap are a bit slanted at the top.

The serrations are whatever. I'll either have a grip adapter or other grips that cover the front serrations and my hand will be covering the rear serrations most of the time I'm actually looking at them.

I saw the rib is off-center, because it lines up with one side of the rear sight and not so much with the other, but the front sight itself is offset opposite the rib (and thus inline with the center of the frame and rear sight) and the barrel looks like it's properly clocked and level to the rest of the gun. It's honestly so mild that it bothers my OCD less than the hole in the side.

Or the lack of recessed charge holes.

Or the chinsy top strap checkering.

Anyway, finish seems much nicer than #1 and overall it just seems like a gun assembled by someone who got a full seven hours of sleep the night before and was actually paying attention to what they were doing (and maybe took some pride in their work).

[willie]

There's no excuse for the barrel rib to be off center or for the error with the grip serrations. The assembler must have seen both errors but chose to proceed anyway. These revolvers are expensive and should be free from such. If you do choose to sell or trade it in the future, the next guy would likely reject the revolver if he catches the errors.

[MountainRaven]

That is a problem for future MountainRaven, assuming he ever tries to sell it.

[MountainRaven]

Can add a 432UC Ti to the list of S&Ws that are fine.

Except the Hamre Forge grips have some wobble unless they are torqued more than I think is normal, but that may be a Hamre Forge problem and not a S&W problem.