I was told by someone who knows that the F was to let the assy line know which guns got magnum cylinders with the new steel at the time during the transition. Verified by three guys who were in the know at the time.

Looks like there are still a lot of "mysteries around this recall.
I have a 4" 624 that was manufactured in 1985 and is in the serial number range for the recall (AHB3xxx). I have fired about 200 rounds through it over the last two years with no problems. I do not use hot loads and don't intend to. When I found a 6.5" 624 that I was interested in, I called S&W (my E mails somehow do not get through) and was told that they did not have specific serial numbers, just ranges. He also said that if mine had been fired, it was probably OK! That is not reassuring enough to get me to spend $800.00 on another one, but I plan to keep shooting the one I have.

An Update on the Smith recall of 624 pistols to dispel some of the variety of info I've seen here.

Today, I called Smith about my 624 to ask about my S/N and get info from them. The fellow in Customer Service I talked to looked up my S/N and told me it fell within the range of the recall and to send it in. They will provide me with free shipping to and from. I asked if they would send it back if it didn't pass..........No was the answer. They will provide me with a suitable replacement.

Since I didn't want their replacement, I asked if other pistols near to the s/n of mine were sent in and passed? Shuffling of papers ensued and the answer was.......yes, two pistols numbered immediately after mine had been sent in and passed the magnaflux test. So, contrary to info I've read here, Smith DOES keep track of pistols sent in, whether they passed or not, and all numbers therein.

Since I don't want to take the chance mine will be kept, I contacted a gunsmith I have personal knowledge of, David Clements, and told him my tale. He offered to magnaflux the cylinder if I would send him just the cylinder, and tell me the result. If it didn't pass, he said I could probably purchase an N frame 357 mag cylinder (stainless of course) and line bore it to .44 spl. I plan to send David my cylinder for him to check. If it doesn't pass I will take that step of line boring an N frame 357 mag cylinder to the measurement I wish thereby no doubt making it more accurate for the bullets I cast and purchase than the original Smith cylinder.

By the way, I determined that the "F" on the cylinder DOES NOT indicate it passed any test. It is simply a mark indicating that cylinder is for the 624. Smith didn't necessarily mark every one with an "F" but that's what it represented when they did. The ONLY indication a cylinder passed the magnaflux test is the red "C" within a red circle stamped on the box. If you didn't send in a box, you got no indication it passed, other than getting your gun back. Smith does keep a record of these so you can call and, if you get a willing cust support person, can verify pass or fail info. The guy I talked to was willing to spend the time searching paper records to help me, your experience may vary with mine.

I've heard TWO stories about the recall.

One is poor steel.

The other is that the chambers were drilled too deep and can accept 44 mag.

S&W's record keeper said the second reason was the accurate one.

Try to drop a magnum in your cylinder, see if it accepts it. My bet is that if it does, you got a 'recall' gun.

I could never accept an MIM, lock, EDC barreled S&W, so no current replacement would be acceptable to me.

I have all 3 of the 624's.
All have the red C on the box.
The one I am looking at now (4" AHB5742) has a V on the rear face of the cylinder.
If as Mr. Jinks suggests, the steel was not an issue, then why were some 629-1's recalled?
I have one of those too. 6" with a red C on the box.
Here are the markings on the grip frame of my 6" 624.
Nothing I see would suggest a recall marking.

Attached Images

	6.5in624GripFrameMarkings.jpg (282.4 KB, 96 views)
	629-1Label.jpg (180.7 KB, 92 views)

__________________
NEMO
"Everything 44"

It looks as though Smith has expunged the entire history of the 624 from their records. I asked for it and was told the 624 was obsolete and that was why I couldn't get information. Did this happen to other discontinued models historically? I believe the answer is ..... No!

Incidently, Kate emailed me that the cylinder of my pistol, if I was to send it in that is, would be magnafluxed to determine if it was flawed. That implies that the problem was most likely the steel and not the chamber length. That is if you can believe all you hear about this. I will check my unreturned pistol to see if it will chamber a .44 Magnum round if I can find some.

Update: It didn't chamber a .44 Mag and Smith source said that wasn't an issue with the recall. I have sent my cylinder off to a well-respected custom gunsmith who will get it magnafluxed and can line bore a 357 Mag cylinder to replace it if needed. Better than Smith keeping my 624 if it flunked and giving me something else that I probably wouldn't want.

Magnaflux for cracks? Stainless m624 only?

I just purchased a new, unshot m24 /6 1/2" in nickel you guys are scaring me. I got the last one to be found.

If your gun is a 24-? and is modern with a lock, you have nothing to worry about! The guns in question are stainless steel from the mid-1980s.

__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821

Send it in you will get your gun back.....I picked up a 624 earlier in the year and when I called on it they said send it in. They emailed me th shipping labels, I went to my local Fed Ex and off it went. In about 2.5 weeks I had it back. There were no marks anywhere to indicate it was magnafluxed. Not really any paperwork to verify it had a clean bill of health except and an invoice type form that listed the gun info. and a line that said tested.

The recall was only for early 80's 624 stainless pistols due to a shipment of flawed metal they received. I understand from Kate that only one 624 has been found to be bad so far.

Roughly 1-2 years ago a forum member put me in touch with a 624 LNIB and prior to acquiring it I wanted confirmation it was not faulty. The box had the red C in a circle stamped on the end label which would suggest it passed a test but wanting definitive proof I inquired at S&W via e-mail. I received a reply and was given a phone number to call. I talked with a fairly knowledgeable person at S&W however they could not answer all my questions so they asked if I could wait on hold a few minutes and talk with "our historian, Roy Jinks." I transcribed the discussion with Mr. Jinks and basically the problem was NOT faulty metal but that some of the .44 special cylinders were bored to .44 Magnum. The test performed at S&W was simply to try a .44 Magnum cartridge in the chamber to be sure a .44 magnum cartridge did NOT fit into the .44 special cylinder. A .44 Magnum cartridge will fit nearly all the way into a .44 special chamber but there's about an 1/8" sticking out the rear and it prevents the cylinder from closing. In addition S&W did not keep a record of the serial #'s on those guns that were tested and "passed" and does not have a record of the serial #'s that are definitely a problem. Mr. Jinks inferred the problem was rare.

Given the feedback I have seen a number of times from members like morale I suspect the first hand story from Mr. Jinks makes way more sense than the second hand stories about poor quality stainless steel.

After the rumors, gossip, and innuendo ........ well, everything else is just a lie.

__________________
Scoundrel & Ne'er-Do-Well

Have a 624 that I bought used with the "C" marked box. Tried a 44 magnum for fit, slides in far enough to look like it is nearly seated but the cylinder will not close with a magnum.

That makes me wonder how I ended up with a 6" 629 that has a big red C on the box.
Were some of them mistakenly bored for a supermagnum?
(Too bad Charter Arms doesn't keep track of this kind of stuff as I can EASILY fit a magnum into my Bulldog.
It's as if the chambers were bored specifically for a magnum instead of a special.)

Attached Images

	629-1Label.jpg (180.7 KB, 69 views)
	Bulldog-magnum-brass-1.jpg (68.5 KB, 94 views)
	Bulldog-special-brass-3.jpg (61.3 KB, 93 views)

__________________
NEMO
"Everything 44"

Okay, but can you close the cylinder with a .44 magnum in a chamber of that Charter Arm?

__________________
Scoundrel & Ne'er-Do-Well

Yep.
I have gone so far as to load some low loads in magnum brass
and fire them so as to avoid the ring around the chamber.
Look closely at the pictures.
You will see the ring from firing the too short specials.
The chambers are EXACTLY as those in most magnums.
I have no idea how that would have happened in a factory that does not make any 44 magnums.
I would return it if they paid for shipping.
I have done so already once as it came with so much excess headspace it would not fire.
It's a lemon and Charter's service sucks.
I cannot recommend anyone buying a new one.
I was considering contacting the BATF but I don't like them either.

__________________
NEMO
"Everything 44"

Just talked with S&W customer service about a 624, he said if the cylinder is marked F it was checked?

See post No. 61 You have either been spoofed by an employee tired of answering this question or the fellow was a pure idiot.

__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821

He was reading it off a screen, when asked if any other way to check the cylinder, no just check for a F

The 624's were only marked with a red C in a red circle on the box. It is my understanding that the gun itself was not marked.
Recontact Customer Service and ask for Kate Fredette or send her an email. I believe that she is the CS supervisor and knowledgeable about the 624 recall.

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

I think this horse may be dead.

Attached Images

568365ie5zttjn21.gif (4.0 KB, 378 views)

__________________
NEMO
"Everything 44"

I guess my name is on a bunch of posts in this thread so I'd like to recap what I did with my nearly mint 6" 624 that didn't come with a box so the issue of the recall had to be solved.

I had the cylinder magna fluxed after testing to see if a 44 Mag round would chamber. It wouldn't. The magna flux was done in the back of a pickup when I met the owner of the equipment at a restaurant where he wanted me to buy his lunch for the effort. Took about an hour to set everything up and the cylinder passed with no tracks of any cracking. I bought him lunch and off he went.

I sold the 624 after shooting it a bunch.....great revolver and handled all factory and my reloads fine. Just didn't need it anymore and got what I paid for it.

I subsequently satisfied my desire for a custom 44 Spl by having David Clements make one for me out of a Ruger OM 357 Mag I found that was mint and cheap. Obviously, it cost a bunch but it's the best 44 Spl revolver I've ever shot. It was line bored and I shoot only factory or my lead reloads in it and it's very accurate and a delight to look at. David does truly excellent work and is very free with his advice on building reloads for it.

My new m24- is ok it has the loc/mim.

__________________
Plant garlic in the fall

I bought my 624 new in '84 and sent it in for the recall back in the day. I didn't keep the box so there was no way to stamp a red 'C'. But the rear face of the cylinder does bear marks left by a hardness tester, put there as part of the recall:
20220425_190605.jpg