27-9 Classic flame cutting, etc.

[RickB]

I bought a M27 Classic, over six months ago, and have been reluctant to shoot it due to reports of an odd situation with the location of the rear sight "leaf screw"; Smith moved the location of the screw rearward, so the hole is now near the flash gap, rather than being further forward.

The leaf screw is not flush with the top strap, so when the gun is fired, the recess catches the expanding gases and redirects them toward the cylinder, causing a burn mark over each chamber.
Some have scrubbed the burns enough to wear through the bluing, others just live with the discoloration.

I didn't like the idea of cosmetic damage from merely using a $1200 gun, there were rumors that Smith had a longer screw available to completely fill the hole, so when my gun was back in Springfield for (unrelated) warranty service, I asked that they replace the screw. Gun was returned with the original screw and no comment on my request. Upon seeing another reference to a longer screw being available I contacted Smith, and a replacement is on the way.

While it would have been nice if they'd done the install while they had it, I think I can trim a screw to length and install it.

[Jim Watson]

I have burn marks over a lot of revolver chambers, no obvious connection with the sight screw; certainly not on the Colt.

[RoyceP]

Originally Posted by RickB

I bought a M27 Classic, over six months ago, and have been reluctant to shoot it due to reports of an odd situation with the location of the rear sight "leaf screw"; Smith moved the location of the screw rearward, so the hole is now near the flash gap, rather than being further forward.

The leaf screw is not flush with the top strap, so when the gun is fired, the recess catches the expanding gases and redirects them toward the cylinder, causing a burn mark over each chamber.
Some have scrubbed the burns enough to wear through the bluing, others just live with the discoloration.

I didn't like the idea of cosmetic damage from merely using a $1200 gun, there were rumors that Smith had a longer screw available to completely fill the hole, so when my gun was back in Springfield for (unrelated) warranty service, I asked that they replace the screw. Gun was returned with the original screw and no comment on my request. Upon seeing another reference to a longer screw being available I contacted Smith, and a replacement is on the way.

While it would have been nice if they'd done the install while they had it, I think I can trim a screw to length and install it.

I wonder if you have actually fired the revolver to know that this is the case?

I have many revolvers. Some have the burn mark over the chambers. Some don't. I don't know the reason why but for sure I don't think it is because of a screw hole.

[RickB]

I have two other blued, N-frame Smiths, and zero evidence of burning on the circumference of the cylinders. No interest in the new gun being the first.

[RickB]

Screws from S&W have arrived.
Package is marked .010" additional length, so we'll see how it fits.

[RickB]

Old screw came out easily- I'd been warned of loctite -and new one went in easily. The fit is much improved, but the proof is in the pudding, er, shooting.

[44 AMP]

I didn't like the idea of cosmetic damage from merely using a $1200 gun,

If your gun does anything but sit on a shelf, it is going to show signs of use sooner or later.

A friend of mine has a concept he calls "honest wear", and I don't disagree.

There is a difference between abuse or neglect and honest wear from the gun being used.

[RickB]

I totally agree, regarding honest wear, but I have issue with unnecessary damage.
I've owned four other S&W revolvers, three Ns and a K, and I'm cleaning-up another K for a friend this week, and there is no evidence of finish burn on the exterior circumference of the cylinder on any of them, so I was reluctant to accept it as the future for this gun.
It's akin to the "idiot scratch" on a 1911; it's damage, not wear.

[JohnKSa]

The fit is much improved, but the proof is in the pudding, er, shooting.

Well....sorta.

If the burn marks don't show up, that won't really prove anything since you don't know for sure if your particular gun was going to have the burn mark problem even had you left the old screw in place.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have replaced the screw--there's nothing wrong with doing that. I'm just cautioning you against claiming you solved a problem by replacing the screw given that you don't know for sure the problem (specific type of burn mark being generated) was even present in your gun.

[RickB]

Smith & Wesson was apparently convinced that it was an issue?

[44 AMP]

Pardon my confusion, but I'd like a bit more information, to better understand your concern.

the two pictures show what appears to be different lengths of screw in the forward hole. Is one the "before" and the other after you put in a longer screw??

And, you concern is not flame cutting of the top strap, but the fact that the screw not being flush would "redirect" the flame from the cylinder gap back down onto the top front of the cylinder itself? damaging the bluing??

And, you don't know it would be a problem, for certain, only that you think it might be??

It might be camera angle, but from the look of the picture with the longer screw, it still isn't flush, so did you simply reduce the problem, and not fix it, IF the problem actually exists???

[pete2]

It happens and S&W doesn't care to correct the situation. Been this way for 30 or so years. They ain't what they used to be.

[RickB]

"Pardon my confusion, but I'd like a bit more information, to better understand your concern."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31_Q1Jz-k8U&t=25s