The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 27, 2017, 10:55 PM   #1
jwise
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 677
New S&W M27 broke!

I recently had my local shop order me one of S&W's revolvers from their Classic line, a 4" M27.

I took it to the range and put some .38s downrange. The trigger was pretty stiff, so I bought some snap caps and dry-fired the heck out of it, trying g to break in the trigger. My M29's trigger is SO much better, and I hoped it would smooth out and lighten up like that one did.

Well, I was dry-firing it when it did something weird (felt kinda like a short stroke) and the double-action trigger pull just stopped.

I took it to my gunsmith (same local shop that ordered it). He took it apart and discovered the hammer stud (pin the hammer swings on) broke! Darn thing snapped clean! It was put back together and boxed up to send back to Smith.

I have the WORST luck with firearms.
jwise is offline  
Old October 27, 2017, 11:48 PM   #2
JMag1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2015
Posts: 173
Sorry to hear that, but it might just mean that you have the worst luck with a currently produced S&W revolver.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
JMag1 is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 01:56 AM   #3
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
Urban legend from back in the early 1970's was if you could find a S&W that could be legitimately sent back to the factory you were golden.

The urban legend part, unverified as far as I know, was that if S&W got the gun back the custom shop took care of the defect and usually checked out the whole gun and polished up the things that needed to be polished up and you got a much better gun back than you'd get if you found good 'stock' S&W.

Don't know if it was really true then but I guess you can always hope they'll check out the whole gun and slick it up a little.

Good luck.
DaleA is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 05:00 AM   #4
UncleEd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2013
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,150
Got a brand new Model 66 in the 1980s.

On its first range trip, on about the fifth round, just a click.

Checked and saw that the firing pin had broken off.

While my gun dealer got the hammer repaired, he
put in a spare K-frame hammer which worked
perfectly.

So JMag1, it's nothing new. Neither are broken
off hammer or trigger pins of which I have encountered
on the older guns.

I actually think having a frame mounted firing pin
an improvement over Smith's older hammer mounted
one.
UncleEd is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 06:19 AM   #5
Carmady
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Location: on the lam
Posts: 1,735
I had a similar experience with a recent (2015?) 642. The trigger was scratchy/sandy feeling ever since I got it. It was consistent, but I thought it might be dry since you couldn't put a couple of drops of oil on the front of the cocked hammer. I started shooting it a lot more earlier this year, and removed the side plate to install a lighter rebound spring in hopes of lightening /smoothing up the trigger pull. It had a broken hammer stud, and I'm convinced it was broken all along because there never was a moment where the trigger instantly changed. I won't go into the rest of the problems with that 642, but I have ZERO interest in buying anything new from S&W again.

And your gun is a 27, a big one made from real metal. Good luck with it.

Last edited by Carmady; October 28, 2017 at 07:13 AM.
Carmady is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 08:14 AM   #6
CajunBass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 6, 2005
Location: North Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 4,766
Quote:
Urban legend from back in the early 1970's was if you could find a S&W that could be legitimately sent back to the factory you were golden.

The urban legend part, unverified as far as I know, was that if S&W got the gun back the custom shop took care of the defect and usually checked out the whole gun and polished up the things that needed to be polished up and you got a much better gun back than you'd get if you found good 'stock' S&W.
That's funny because when I was buying my first handgun, a Model 19 as it turned out, back in the mid 70's, the "old timers" told me not to bother at all with anything new. Just like today, they told me to "get an old one."

I don't know about Smith & Wesson sending a gun back in nicer shape than they got it on a return, but I believe Ruger did with a Security-Six I sent back during that time period. I couldn't really put my finger on anything they did, but the gun just seemed nicer than it was when I sent it back.
__________________
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (NKJV)
CajunBass is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 09:25 AM   #7
SaxonPig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2006
Posts: 1,900
Nothing made by Man is perfect. Machines break. New machines can be faulty. With that said, S&Ws made since 1982 seem to have experienced an unusually high number of failures. Many associated with barrels being off center, loose, of leaving the frame. I would assume that modern materials and computer aided production would make new guns less prone to problems, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

This one is 60 years old and despite plenty of use has never failed.


SaxonPig is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 09:30 AM   #8
UncleEd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2013
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,150
Seeing Cajun Bass' report brings to mind something I've
believed for a long time:

While I love Smith & Wesson revolvers as excellent,
they have never been as excellent as so many make
them out to be, especially the older ones. Nor Colt.

They all have had or do have their faults from time
to time just like every other mass produced item.

And if you read enough or talk to enough people who
have had custom and semi-custom guns such as so
many 1911s, even they have their faults and failures
from time to time.
UncleEd is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 10:31 AM   #9
Armybrat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2009
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 975
That's why I take with a BIG grain a salt those posters who continually badmouth Ruger, Kahr, Remington, & SA.

If I relied on Internet posts about what gun is good for SD, I'd carry a Louisville Slugger.
Armybrat is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 10:47 AM   #10
Carmady
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Location: on the lam
Posts: 1,735
If I had to keep only one of my handguns, it would be a SA XD-S, and it was made in Croatia partly out of a mysterious non-metal substance.
Carmady is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 11:50 AM   #11
Andrewsky
Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2016
Posts: 30
I used to have bad luck with handguns, then I stopped buying junk. And by junk I don't mean cheap, old guns. Sometimes it's newer, expensive guns that have problems.

You should have done a little bit of research and not have bought a modern S&W. They have gone through so many cost-cutting steps that experts recommend buying ones made before the 1980s (personally I like them up until about 1987). You should read the Kuhnhausen K-frame shop manual to learn about the cost-cutting changes they made.

Is your gunsmith a real gunsmith or is he just an armorer? If he knows what he's doing maybe you could talk him into tuning your mainspring to get you a lighter trigger pull.

In the future you must only purchase firearms that have a stellar reputation for reliability.
Andrewsky is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 11:50 AM   #12
DPris
Member Emeritus
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 7,133
Unhappy though I may be with S&W's current revolvers, in fairness to the company this has nothing to do with "new".
It has happened infrequently over the years, old AND new. Can't attribute this one to a QC issue strictly in new Smiths.

The design does allow it to happen, when certain stars line up wrong.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 11:54 AM   #13
Andrewsky
Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2016
Posts: 30
Quote:
That's why I take with a BIG grain a salt those posters who continually badmouth Ruger, Kahr, Remington, & SA.

If I relied on Internet posts about what gun is good for SD, I'd carry a Louisville Slugger.
Ultimately you need to take your choice of gun to the range and prove to yourself that the individual unit you have is reliable. But let's be honest, would you bet on any of those being more reliable than say an H&K or a Beretta? I would not.
Andrewsky is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 02:19 PM   #14
UncleEd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2013
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,150
OK, OK, who let those bottom feeder guys into
this revolver section? Have they no shame?
UncleEd is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 05:28 PM   #15
Armybrat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2009
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleEd View Post
OK, OK, who let those bottom feeder guys into
this revolver section? Have they no shame?
Bottom feeder?



Last edited by Armybrat; October 28, 2017 at 05:38 PM.
Armybrat is offline  
Old October 28, 2017, 06:00 PM   #16
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,819
Decades ago, prior to the internet, the big manufacturers, S&W, Colt, Ruger, Remington, Bear Archery, Ben Pearson, Ford, Chevy, etc., they all had defective items slip through quality control. It happens when you produce hundreds of thousands of units, multiple stations , employees, shifts, etc. There was no internet then so the issues were not as widely known. The good company's back their work. No worries!
shurshot is offline  
Old December 25, 2017, 03:06 PM   #17
jwise
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 677
I just got word a couple days ago from the shop. My M27 is back from the factory. I can't wait to get it in my hands, but it will have to wait until I get back from holiday travels.

I've had guns from Colt, H&K, Sig, etc. go back for warranty work. My shop considers me a test dummy for firearms.
jwise is offline  
Old December 25, 2017, 06:39 PM   #18
hemiram
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2005
Location: Toledo, ohio
Posts: 762
I remember a lot of S&W guns coming from the factory in the late '70's to early '80's with problems. I avoid stuff made during that period, in most cases. My new to me 28 was made in 1971, and looks great, inside and out. Just for grins, we compared it side by side with one made in the early 80's and the older one looks better, is a little smoother, and just seems to be better made. Both are much better than current guns, IMHO, in about every way. I have no interest in any new S&W handguns, poly or metal.
hemiram is offline  
Old December 26, 2017, 04:51 PM   #19
Obambulate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2011
Posts: 582
I have several S&W revolvers from the early to mid 1970's that are wonderful. The 2 recent ones I bought cannot compare in fit and finish, but they have given me no problems. I did inspect each one carefully in person before buying.
Obambulate is offline  
Old December 27, 2017, 12:13 AM   #20
PzGren
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2001
Posts: 1,246
As far as I remember S&W employees that assembled the revolvers were paid a pitiful amount in the late 1980s, something like $3.80 per piece. Quality went down and returns and complaints went up to cut into profits. That is when the assemblers were issued codes that were found on the gun and returns had to be fixed by the assembler without extra pay.
PzGren is offline  
Old December 27, 2017, 06:01 AM   #21
rodfac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,619
Quote:
The urban legend part, unverified as far as I know, was that if S&W got the gun back the custom shop took care of the defect and usually checked out the whole gun and polished up the things that needed to be polished up and you got a much better gun back than you'd get if you found good 'stock' S&W.
Very true. I liked 20 miles from the plant in Springfield at the time and took full advantage of their service. Rod
__________________
Cherish our flag, honor it, defend it in word and deed, or get the hell out. Our Bill of Rights has been paid for by heros in uniform and shall not be diluted by misguided governmental social experiments. We owe this to our children, anything less is cowardice. USAF FAC, 5th Spl Forces, Vietnam Vet '69-'73.
rodfac is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 10:50 AM   #22
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 2,032
Howdy

Regarding the quality of the 1970s Smiths to the earlier guns.

Here is the frame of one of my 1970s era guns. Notice how beautiful the machining is.






This is the frame of a K-38 made before CNC machining came along. Notice how much rougher the machining is.





Does this necessarily mean the 1970s gun is a better gun than the earlier K-38?

No.

Before CNC machining came along, frames were hogged out on pattern cutting millers. An operator would manipulate handles which would keep a stylus pressed against a template to create the complex curves of the hogged out area of the frame. The feed rate of the cutter was not programmed, the operator controlled the feed rate by how hard and fast he moved the handles. This would result in a rough finish as shown, with random milling marks left behind.

CNC machines have the feed rate programmed in, so a much more consistent finish is possible. It is also possible to take a light finish cut at a reduced feed rate to achieve a beautiful finish. It is up to the programmer how much time to allow the machine to cut the cavity. He has to compromise between a 'perfect' finish, or something slightly less perfect that does not eat up as much machine time.

Time has always been money in the manufacturing world.

The interesting thing about the rougher internal finish of the older gun is, it does not matter. Most of the parts rotate on raised bosses on the studs, so they do not contact the rough machining anyway. In a S&W revolver the only part that rubs on the floor of the cavity is the rebound slide. The photo of the rough finish shows a bit of a rub mark, from the rebound slide rubbing over the rough surface for many years.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 11:10 AM   #23
ammo.crafter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2006
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 1,967
S&W

I gather that I should hold onto my Smith model 14 and get rid of the rest of them.
__________________
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson
ammo.crafter is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 10:46 PM   #24
Model12Win
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,854
From all reports, it seems as if current S&W guns are the best made in decades.

OP you got a lemon. Get over it. It happens.
Model12Win is offline  
Old December 29, 2017, 10:37 AM   #25
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 2,032
Quote:
From all reports, it seems as if current S&W guns are the best made in decades.
I beg to differ.

I bought this Model 686-6 brand-spanky new in 2015.






The first time I took it to the range I had to crank the rear sight way over to the right to get windage correct.





Turns out the barrel was canted pushing the shots to the left. The amount of cant is visible in this photo. The barrel will not allow the crane to close all the way. That is just not right. I have dozens of Smiths, some from every decade since the 1850s. (yes, 1850s) A defect like that would never have left the factory before S&W let their quality control get lax.






The only other MIM and lock S&W I own is this Model 617-6, made in 2003. I bought it used a few years ago because I was shooting a plate match and needed to knock down 8 steel targets in 15 seconds or less. Couldn't do that with a six shooter. It's a nice enough gun, but I hate the full lug barrel.






And the quality inside simply cannot match the quality of my Model 17-3 I bought in 1975.







Yes, I am very biased.

And I will never again buy another brand new Smith and Wesson revolver.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08829 seconds with 10 queries