@Stephanie B
Dave Olhasso told me that sending a revolver back to S&W isn’t a guarantee that they’ll fix it, and could make it worse. He’s done work on two of my 686 revolvers, and it was prompt and perfect. The owners of the LGS told me that some people send their brand new S&W’s straight to Dave before they fire the first shot(!!!). Dave is kind of far from you, but there must be a gunsmith who can rectify your B/C issue. Wishing you the Best!
It's stories like this that make me consider becoming a revolver smith when I retire. Or encourage some young people to do so.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
Although a .357 revolver isn't on the front burner, I do check daily to see what pops up. I look mainly at Ruger and S&W to see what is offered. I know what is human designed, made, assembled and sent out the door can be faulty. I've sent a revolver (19) and pistol (59) to Smith back in the 70's. Both were repaired to my satisfaction. Yeah, it was a disappointment they needed service, but I had a feeling I was taken care of when I got both firearms back. But to be in worse shape with a new problem(s), I would be pissed too.
That may what other people feel like doing. But I bought a new revolver from a top-ranked producer of production guns, it cost me over eight bills, and I do not think that I am being unreasonable in believing that a "combat revolver" run. Maybe it would run if I ensured that all carbon was removed from the cylinder face every 100 rounds. But it's not a delicate target gun, it's supposed to be a fighting tool.Originally Posted by FrankB
I know that they all can make dogs. Think back a few years, the GP-100.44s were routinely being sent back. So were the first series of 2020 Pythons.
But I am not going to pay for a gunsmith to do work on a new gun so that it will run the way it should. If it has to go back to the mothership ten times, that's what's going to happen.
Concurs with my experience.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
The current production K frame magnums do not have gas rings in order to allow for a non-clearanced forcing cone. To some (including some folks here) this is not an issue, and they have had zero problems. On the other hand, I have read reports of others that have encountered issues with the guns regularly locking up. This may, or may not, be the culprit here. It could also be an issue with the b/c gap. That is a common qc problem across the board now, it seems.
Older revolver guys/gals may remember the K frame gas ring controversy of the 70s, that involved the gas ring being moved from the cylinder to the yoke. This was done due to the fact that excessive heat and recoil caused the gas ring, on K frame Magnums, to move foward and lock the gun up. This change was very controversial and only lasted a few years.
This is something that folks should be aware of to make an informed buying decision.
Its a shame that the 619,620, and 686 Mountain Guns may never get another chance. It is also sad to see the 64 and 67 out of the lineup.
Here are a few interesting threads from the S&W forum, and a great article from the Revolver Guy Blog.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-rev...new-model.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-rev...nder-bind.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-rev...-cylinder.html
https://revolverguy.com/the-smith-wesson-l-frame-story/
Last edited by JWintergreen; 11-20-2021 at 02:14 AM.
Same here. I bought one of the early “Pro” 1911 9mm Smiths. The slide stop notch was cut so far forward, the slide couldn’t get any momentum to close on a fresh magazine. I compared it to Dave’s (same model), and his was cut in the traditional spot. Sent it back to Smith detailing the issue asking to call me if there were any issues. Got the gun back with a note they refitted the barrel. The gun still wouldn’t close from slide stop. Uh, I hated that gun. It also had that stupid grip safety / firing pin safety. I let one guy shoot it once and all it did was go click. Dave fixed that for me. I wasn’t bothering to deal with SW again.
Great links! This one is hugely informative while making my teeth hurt - the 619 and 620 weren’t 5” guns. (I have both, they are 4”.)
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
Decades ago I bought a new S&W model 34 .22lr, known lovingly as the "kit gun". It was blued, held 6 rounds with a 4" barrel. Just a handy, inexpensive revolver to shoot. Took it out of the box, looked it over and deemed it gtg. Until.....I pulled back the hammer. Gritty. The action was so rough that I could pull the hammer halfway back, release my thumb off the hammer, and the hammer stayed at the half-cocked position. Folly of me to think the hammer would return to the forward, at rest, position.
I bought this revolver somewhere between '79-'88. I debated about sending it back to Smith, even though I had twice been satisfied with their warranty work. I decided to send it to a gunsmith. Can't remember who. I got it back all smoothed out and reliable. Even though it cost me some coin, I felt it was money well-spent.
The mothership is sending a return label, so check back in this space around next February.
Reply With Quote