Are ALL new S&Ws like this?

[kyguy1]

I'm a big S&W fan, love the pre-lock ones and even some of the new ones. Many of the regular size new ones are too pricey for me, but I've seen some real nice looking older ones in gun stores. Only problem is, I'm a little uncomfortable buying used guns from a shop because I don't know who's used it, cowboyed it, or if it's out of time or something. But I've seen some beautiful blued Model 10s and Model 19's. I know how to test the cylinder lockup of each chamber, cylinder gap, and the trigger push-off, but not sure how to tell much more than that. Guess you just have to guess. But the older Smiths just have an overall better quality look to them than the new. However, some of the new ones are nice. Recently, I looked at a new Model 66 and it was well made but the finish was odd, matte stainless, and also it had a weird double barreled thing. And I really don't like the locks on the new ones but it is what it is. I'm just so nervous about buying a nice looking used one unless it was from someone I really new. But there's no doubt in my mind that the quality is better on older.

[Onward Allusion]

When is the last time you dealt with the regulations and hassles of shipping pistols to a Scandinavian country, or internationally to ANY other country?

Me, never. My wife, every friggin day. She is an equipment manager for one of the world's largest container shipping companies. You were an individual shipping guns to England. Businesses, have little problems shipping to and fro as long as docs are in order.

In this case, the shop is holding onto 2nd quality products and trying to sell 'em as regular goods. The only way I would hold on to 2nd quality products for sale is if I was able to negotiate a credit with the mfr. Wouldn't be surprised if that's what the shop did. Now, they're trying to double their profit by selling defects at full price.

[Brian48]

I bought a new 2.5" 686+ last year. Love the gun, great trigger, but there *IS* a slight cant to right with the barrel. It's acceptable to me though since it's very slight and the barrel to frame alignment is fine. So is the yoke to frame fit. The gun shoots great so I can't complain. It's really only noticabe when I compare it side by side with my '70s era 2.5" Model 19. Makes me appreciate the workmanship of those older guns even more.

[The Kingfish]

I've strongly considered buying a new 686 recently for my first S&W revolver. After reading this thread, I can say I'm happy I went with an old model 65-4 with a 4 inch barrel instead.

[fourbore]

Anyone looking for a gun had better look for him self. I am pretty down on the s&w revolver internal locks, but; fit and finish looked at least as good on S&W as Ruger. I give the edge to ruger on strength and that is not even close. The smith is probably still a smoother out of the box gun. The Ruger is a lot easier to tear down and clean or install a spring kit. That is good engineering vs a lock no body wants.

The performance center stuff looks interesting. It seems like more bling for the buck with fancy two tone finishes and space gun porting options. Interesting options, lock and all, which is a double whammy on a made for bling product. These are advertised as "special tuned guns". The one I handled carefully was not any better than a standard model. Not a problem, not any smoother or lighter - just way different looks. Smoother than a Ruger.

[highpower3006]

Well, this thread got me all hot and bothered! Like Driftwood, I love S&W's, I only have a couple of dozen, but my oldest only goes back to 1901. In checking the gaps on a representitve sample, they all look like his first picture right up until I get into those made in the mid eighties. Starting with my 586 made in 1984 the fit is nowhere near as precise. The only other late Smith I have is a 629 Classic DX (pre MIM made in '92) that also shows the same level of fit as the 586.

Now, I will say that the particular 586 I just mentioned is one of my favorite modern revolvers and it is wonderfully accurate and the sights are centered (as is the 629), so the precise fit of the crane seems to have no bearing on accuracy.

I don't buy new guns and haven't for many years. All my purchases are used and made in person so I can inspect them and decide if I want a particular piece. Since I have interest in new guns, I don't look at them and have no idea it the issues mentioned are endemic to all new S&W's, but if they are the quality control has certainly fallen off.

[James K]

I am not sure about the canted barrels, but the yoke-frame gap is deliberate. In the old S&W system with which we are familiar, the cylinder rotates on two end points - the extractor rod and locking bolt in front and the center pin and the hole in the frame in the rear. The yoke plays no role when the cylinder is closed and in fact can be removed to prove that. But getting everything lined up was a costly process.

But in the new (and far less costly) system, the yoke is held in place by a detent ball. The ball must center properly in its socket, and it cannot do that if the yoke interferes with the frame. So, to prevent interference of the yoke and frame keeping the detent ball from self-centering, the yoke is designed to have a gap. It is probably true to say that the gap is greater than needed and also that it is unsightly. But that is to compare dissimilar systems and different costs. For good or ill, S&W is making using guns, not hand made collectors' items; many of us might willingly pay a hefty markup to have a more aesthetically pleasing gun. But S&W is not selling its guns only to collectors; the "bottom line" may mean little to a well-to-do S&W fan buying a single gun, but it can mean a lot to a police department on a tight budget. And it may mean the difference between choosing an S&W or choosing, say, a Taurus or an auto pistol.

Jim

[NateKirk]

"Why back in my day..."


Whatever. I've never looked that closely at a smith to complain about it. When I'm at work I'm going to take a closer look at the fit and finishing of the newer Smiths, but if it's like James says it's not something to worry about. I'd like to compare it side by side with the Rugers; for some reason I've always liked their revolvers better anyway.

[Driftwood Johnson]

James K

The 686-6 in my photos, that I bought brand new in 2015, does not have detent ball. It has the old fashioned arrangement of a spring loaded plunger that engages a recess in the extractor rod, the same way S&W has done it since 1902. When the plunger pops into the front of the extractor rod, and the spring loaded pin at the rear of the extractor rod pop home, that is the gap that remains. Something is out of kilter because you can see how far to the right I had to crank the rear sight to get the windage correct.

[DPris]

To the best of my knowledge, that ball detent is not standard across all Smith revolvers & models.
In other words, I don't know that I'd attribute a gap strictly to the ball detent, if it's there.
Denis

[Irish Jack]

During the lated 1970s and mid 1980s S&W quality dropped. I was employed by Tomkins LTD of London, England when they bought S&W from Lear-Siglear Heater Co.
I was working in the U.S. Group. This was during the time when the hand alignment and barrel pins were dropped. The Mdl. 29 line was a disaster. They were using robotics to install the barrels. The pneumatic installers would over torque the barrels and spring the frames.

Tomkins was more interested at that time in making a "Glock". The Sigma was going to be their entry into the World Military market. They let most of their top revolver men go. It was a dark day at S&W.

[Driftwood Johnson]

I was in a local shop today and inspected a new 686. Same spring plunger at the front of the ejector rod as mine. I will add that I eyeballed the mating of the yoke to the frame and it was much better than mine.

I had a good look at a Model 629 too. Same plunger at the front of the ejector rod. No ball detent. Yoke alignment was pretty good too.

However I do remember being completely surprised seeing the ball detent on a really big S&W a year or two ago. I seem to recall it was one of the really big X frames, but I cannot be sure.

This will require more investigation.

[kyguy1]

There are some REALLY nice pre-lock 686's still out there, in like-new condition, I'd recommend trying one of those! Or a nice pre-lock Model 10 those are everywhere. I'm personally not a fan of buying used guns myself, but for people who are, I'd take my chances on a nice prelock Smith over a new one.

[FrankenMauser]

If it isn't what you think is appropriate, then it isn't being too picky.

S&W guys are touchy:

Yep.
Proven before, but mostly after your comment, as well.

You should see what they do when I mention the S&W 642 that shot itself so loose in 89 rounds (factory) that I didn't fire it again for 4 years... and then immediately traded it in.

[DPris]

FM,
You got an obvious lemon.

I have a scanditanium .38 Airlite Ti J-Frame that's well over 20 years old & is still in perfect working order.
Has not been fired in the past 18 years, but still.....
Denis

[FrankenMauser]

Therein lies the problem, DPris.
Yours derives from a better period in time.

My 642 was a 2003 model. Mediocre consumer goods is all they were producing at that time. ...Unless, of course, you wanted to pay twice as much to get the custom shop to make sure it actually worked before it left the factory.

[DPris]

Denis

[Crazy Carl]

One of the reasons why I'm "over" anything new from S&W. I'd consider an earlier one at the right price, but the pricing on older S&Ws has gotten so outrageous, that I've lost any interest in them as well.

Kinda like a Python- pretty gun & super neato, but totally off my radar financially. I'd love a 657-5 Classic Hunter, but at the prices they're going for now, I'm over it.

[2123]

I'm a big S&W fan and have many of their revolvers.

In a nutshell, I'll take an older S&W revolver over a new one, any day of the week.

Quality control has been lacking for many years.

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by James K

But in the new (and far less costly) system, the yoke is held in place by a detent ball.

Originally Posted by Driftwood Johnson

I was in a local shop today and inspected a new 686. Same spring plunger at the front of the ejector rod as mine. I will add that I eyeballed the mating of the yoke to the frame and it was much better than mine.

I had a good look at a Model 629 too. Same plunger at the front of the ejector rod. No ball detent. Yoke alignment was pretty good too.

However I do remember being completely surprised seeing the ball detent on a really big S&W a year or two ago. I seem to recall it was one of the really big X frames, but I cannot be sure.

This will require more investigation.

AFAIK, S&Ws still uses the traditional ejector rod lockup on nearly all their revolvers. Last time I looked, only the new Models 66 and 69 had the ball detent. Likely some of the big magnums, too (e.g. .500 mag). The new 66s & 69s also have a 2-piece barrel, so it's possible you'll only find these together nowadays.

[xnaerughiazk]

good thread a 686 in the hand is worth more than a 686 shipped from internet

[Heavy Metal 1]

Perhaps I am out of touch, but are not most manufacturers using CNC machinery where all like parts come out the same?

[DPris]

That's the goal, although not all companies are using CNC the same way to produce the same products.
CNC parts don't come out "all the same", many require additional machining to final form, and tolerance stacking is a factor.
Denis

[Triggernosis]

I'm a S&W fan myself. However, 2 of the 3 S&W revolvers I've purchased within the past 5 years have required a trip back to the factory - one a 317, the other a 642.
I'm kinda done with buying S&W's for a while.

[dahermit]

That's the goal, although not all companies are using CNC the same way to produce the same products.
CNC parts don't come out "all the same", many require additional machining to final form, and tolerance stacking is a factor.

For those of us not in the industry (and/or not in Q.C.), what is "tolerance stacking" and how does it apply to S&W revolvers?