Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present
o

Notices

S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present All NON-PINNED Barrels, the L-Frames, and the New Era Revolvers


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-29-2010, 06:13 PM
bodyarmorguy bodyarmorguy is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 108
Likes: 19
Liked 114 Times in 34 Posts
Default

As of today, the 10 Model 67-5 revolvers (I thought we had more) were shipped back to S&W with a request to exchange for 67-6 models. Will keep you updated.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-29-2010, 06:20 PM
JMusic's Avatar
JMusic JMusic is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: east tenn
Posts: 90
Likes: 1
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Smile

There's a compound or process problem there. Who ever made the crack about pinned barrels is right. Threads do make the barrel weaker, but nothing like that . Trade fore some 3.5" 27's and call it even.

Jim
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #53  
Old 09-29-2010, 06:24 PM
cp1969's Avatar
cp1969 cp1969 is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,366
Likes: 279
Liked 63 Times in 42 Posts
Default

A pinned barrel would be the weakest of all. Yet, how many of them failed like this.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-29-2010, 06:27 PM
PALADIN85020's Avatar
PALADIN85020 PALADIN85020 is offline
US Veteran
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 10,440
Likes: 3,924
Liked 50,370 Times in 6,009 Posts
Default

Back in the 70's when I was but a callow youth, I had a Model 67 (don't remember the dash number, if any). I had loaded up some .38 specials, but had misread the indicator markings on my beam scale and inadvertently loaded a really hot load of Hercules Unique in a batch of them.

The first round I touched off was an immense surprise. There was a huge fireball, and the gun rocked back in my hand like I had fired a .44 mag. Of course, I stopped immediately. On inspection, the only damage was that the particular chamber in which the round was fired was noticeably bulged. Still, the gun held together in spite of my abject carelessness. I sold the gun to a gunsmith for parts, and learned my lesson about paying very close attention to the details when reloading.

I was, however, very impressed with the strength of the Model 67. I guess they don't make 'em like they used to.

John

P.S. Looking back, I realize that was the only mistake I have ever made in my entire life.
__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #55  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:11 PM
model70hunter's Avatar
model70hunter model70hunter is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sante Fe Trail, Kansas
Posts: 5,350
Likes: 14,441
Liked 6,562 Times in 2,597 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
Yup, those old fashioned pinned barrels were just a waste of money.
And that old fasioned high carbon blue steel that had to be cleaned after use. Was the previous class Wyatt Earp skull whacking with the barrel?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:47 PM
Dregg Dregg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 553
Likes: 16
Liked 320 Times in 82 Posts
Default

Wow, never saw anything like that before.
Corrections here are issued 9mm Glock 19's.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-01-2010, 09:43 PM
cyberiad cyberiad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

I'm certainly no expert in Model 67s but I believe the very latest ones are 67-5s. I have a 67-6 with the 2 piece barrel and the fired case envelope is dated 2008. My 67-5's envelope is dated 2010 so my guess is that if S&W replaces these with the same model they will be 67-5s unless there are 67-6s remaining in the factory. It appears to me the 2-piece barrel (perhaps among other modifications) was the reason for the -6 change and when they went back to the 1-piece barrel they started using the -5 again. However, my theory is only true if the date on the fired case envelopes I have is an accurate guide.

It's interesting to me that despite all the negative comments about the 2-piece barrel these were not.

Last edited by cyberiad; 10-03-2010 at 06:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-03-2010, 02:04 PM
lemeni lemeni is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southeast
Posts: 94
Likes: 4
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Bodyarmorguy, did the two guns with barrel failures have the same three-letter serial number prefix - CNW - ? Did anyone note the serial number prefixes on all of the guns you shipped back? Were they all the same, or did they cover a range of the alphabet? Concerned because I have a 67-5 with prefix CNJ. Haven't had any problems yet, but I haven't shot the gun much, either.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-03-2010, 10:01 PM
John F.'s Avatar
John F. John F. is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 234
Likes: 3,282
Liked 238 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Through a friend in Law Enforcement, I've heard of this happening to Model 66's at his range.

Of interest, these all seem to be striking stainless steel guns...

Hmmmmm....
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-04-2010, 09:31 PM
bodyarmorguy bodyarmorguy is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 108
Likes: 19
Liked 114 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemeni View Post
Bodyarmorguy, did the two guns with barrel failures have the same three-letter serial number prefix - CNW - ? Did anyone note the serial number prefixes on all of the guns you shipped back? Were they all the same, or did they cover a range of the alphabet? Concerned because I have a 67-5 with prefix CNJ. Haven't had any problems yet, but I haven't shot the gun much, either.
Yes, we have a record of the serial numbers but I don't know them off the top of my head. I will find out and post asap.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 10-05-2010, 08:52 PM
bodyarmorguy bodyarmorguy is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 108
Likes: 19
Liked 114 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Yes, they were CNW prefixes.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-05-2010, 10:09 PM
lemeni lemeni is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southeast
Posts: 94
Likes: 4
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Thanks very much for looking that up, Bodyarmorguy. I owe ya one.

And I'm glad no one was hurt. Could've been really bad.


Well, for future readers of this thread, if I ever have a problem with my CNJ 67-5 I'll post about it here. Also, I bought my 67-5 NEW (I'm the first/original owner) just a few months ago.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-06-2010, 12:46 AM
blastfact blastfact is offline
Banned
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Liked 52 Times in 8 Posts
Default

I for one had never seen a barrel shot off a frame. I have introduced wear because of shooting major rounds through pistols. But I have never seen barrels fall off or shot loose. EXCERPT !!!! in the last 20 years.

I chalk it up to college boy engineering begging to be paid more than there worth, cheap *** investor requirements and a complete lack of craft.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-11-2010, 03:32 AM
FHRZR1 FHRZR1 is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I am the Coordinator were the incident with the Model 67 barrels took place. We have a batch of Model 13 S&W that must be older than creation and have fire probably over 60,000rounds with no failures at all. We acquire the Model 64 in 2008 and had four barrels fall off. In 2010 we acquire the Model 67 and two barrels failed. Will advise on the factory response.

Last edited by FHRZR1; 12-31-2010 at 04:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #65  
Old 10-11-2010, 05:59 AM
Stainz's Avatar
Stainz Stainz is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pinson, AL
Posts: 2,106
Likes: 57
Liked 656 Times in 307 Posts
Default

As far as revolvers launching their barrels, recall the infamous early Ruger .44 Magnum Redhawks that did so - that begot the Super Redhawk, even though the assembly fault was corrected. Interesting that the two-piece barrel S&W's were replaced with single piece - and then they failed. There is something else going on here. Whether the subject revolvers were overtightened, mistreated, or dropped, something else is going on here.

I have to wonder if the handling of the failed revolvers had anything to do with said failure, or if that was solely due to something in the manufacturing process. Continued shooting - at night - of a revolver less it's barrel - doesn't speak well of the shooter's attention to details.

I have heard this story before - let's not write-off all current production for a sampling we as yet have no factory feedback on, good or bad. As an aside, the Ruger Redhawk's assembly process was corrected - the threading of their barrels was done more cleanly - and that line is still popular today. I've been there, done that - had a RH & SRH - happily traded/sold them all - and bought two-piece barrel, MIM infested, and evil IL-sporting S&W's as a result - with never a problem. Let's have an open mind at least until we get some factory feedback on this failure.

Stainz

Last edited by BarbC; 10-11-2010 at 11:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-11-2010, 06:58 PM
FHRZR1 FHRZR1 is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Keep in mind that the kids shooting these weapon are raw recruits. Most of them have never fired a revolver in their entire short life. Large number of them have never fired a handgun.
These are recruits going through basic firearms training.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-11-2010, 08:26 PM
cp1969's Avatar
cp1969 cp1969 is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,366
Likes: 279
Liked 63 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stainz View Post

I have to wonder if the handling of the failed revolvers had anything to do with said failure, or if that was solely due to something in the manufacturing process. Continued shooting - at night - of a revolver less it's barrel - doesn't speak well of the shooter's attention to detail.
First, how does one 'handle' a revolver such that the result is the barrel falling off?

Second, if the recruit didn't notice the barrel was gone during the day, that would be one thing but at night, I can very easily see this happening.

Bottom line is, there is nothing the shooter could have done to cause this.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-31-2010, 03:53 PM
FHRZR1 FHRZR1 is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Update:

S&W contacted me regarding the barrel failure issue. Weapons were sent to metallurgy lab for testing. Lab claims that there is nothing wrong with the metal. Cause of failure per S&W is "barrel were over-torqued during assembly".
S&W offered to send back my original revolvers and replace the two with new ones. That was not acceptable by me.
I want all of the revolvers to be replace by steel weapons. Like the Model 15. Our inventory of Model 13's have over 60000 rounds on them. Have never had a failure.
I am still waiting for a supervisor to call me.
I think my request is very fair, considering that I had 6 revolvers barrel failures.
Opinions????
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #69  
Old 12-31-2010, 04:37 PM
skyraider6's Avatar
skyraider6 skyraider6 is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tracy, California
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default another one

Saw this one on Cal-guns today. So how's the S&W custom shop? - Calguns.net
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-31-2010, 04:45 PM
ogilvyspecial's Avatar
ogilvyspecial ogilvyspecial is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9,656
Likes: 1,362
Liked 1,371 Times in 699 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FHRZR1 View Post
Update:

S&W contacted me regarding the barrel failure issue. Weapons were sent to metallurgy lab for testing. Lab claims that there is nothing wrong with the metal. Cause of failure per S&W is "barrel were over-torqued during assembly".
S&W offered to send back my original revolvers and replace the two with new ones. That was not acceptable by me.
I want all of the revolvers to be replace by steel weapons. Like the Model 15. Our inventory of Model 13's have over 60000 rounds on them. Have never had a failure.
I am still waiting for a supervisor to call me.
I think my request is very fair, considering that I had 6 revolvers barrel failures.
Opinions????
Having spent over a decade in Quality in a very large manufacturing process (GM's 3800 V6 Engine Plant) I feel that you are doing the right thing when it comes to suspect "parts." Suspect doesn't mean defective, you have to rely on the data you have on hand when trying to determine if there is a good chance that they might be, defective that is. In this case I would say yes, in spite of the fact that your sample size is very small.

When in doubt, toss, check or swap them out.

What you are attempting to do is something I have done many times myself. When an issue came up I would get the suspect parts out of the system and replace them with parts that have worked in the past. I was able to do this because we failed to reliably follow our FIFO rule, which meant, First In, First Out. Because of this, if the suspect parts had a current pack date from the supplier, I was able to go back to our stock area and try to locate dunnage with older pack dates, basically from a time frame when we had no issues.

The reason I gave a brief explanation of our process is that you are trying to accomplish something along the same lines by going with something you know has worked in the past. A sound tactic that has worked well for me many, many times........
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-31-2010, 04:46 PM
stantheman86 stantheman86 is offline
US Veteran
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,468
Likes: 6
Liked 473 Times in 236 Posts
Default

Interesting, it seems more like an assembly error, Ruger had an "issue" like this that led to the introduction of the Super Redhawk back in the 90's, a change in the lubricant used to screw on the standard Redhawk barrels caused a few to launch themselves downrange. The problem was corrected but the Super Redhawk stayed in production.

I don't think these incidents will be enough to make S&W stop using 2-piece barrels. In todays "production" mindset, be it cars, guns, etc. the manufacturer would rather fix a few "errors" than change a production technique. My '05 Dodge Magnum came from the factory with two bad wheel bearings and I didn't get so much as a "sorry" from Dodge. The dealer just fixed it.

Interestingly none of S&W's blued guns use the 2-piece.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-01-2011, 12:50 AM
luis luis is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Liked 54 Times in 30 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stantheman86 View Post

Interestingly none of S&W's blued guns use the 2-piece.
Current machining technology makes the 1-piece blue barrel cheaper than the 2-piece barrel. A local security company just purchased 150 M10s for $62.50 each less than M64s.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #73  
Old 01-01-2011, 01:22 AM
andyo5's Avatar
andyo5 andyo5 is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Posts: 2,370
Likes: 497
Liked 943 Times in 518 Posts
Default

Not really 'catastrophic' since no one was harmed and the guns can probably be refitted with new barrels.
Catastrophic is more like an explosion which destroys the gun (and maybe also harms someone).
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-01-2011, 02:30 AM
stantheman86 stantheman86 is offline
US Veteran
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,468
Likes: 6
Liked 473 Times in 236 Posts
Default

The security company got 10-14's for over $60 less then the 64's? I'm surprised there's still security companies out there still buying wheelguns......usually it's all Glocks now.

That makes sense, I have seen 10-14's for $450 new, retail, and the 64-8's go for about $500 or so.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-01-2011, 02:43 AM
David LaPell's Avatar
David LaPell David LaPell is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,543
Likes: 667
Liked 6,771 Times in 1,312 Posts
Default

What irks me is that Smith's response here given an early reply is almost on the order of "go pound sand". To me, any response like that when your product disintegrates on the firing line after 800 rounds is unacceptable, but when SEVERAL of your products start to go from a solid frame to a take down model on the line and that customer is a law enforcement agency, where these guns will be used by people who may need them to save their lives is beyond comprehension. I cannot for the life of me I don't know what the quality control department is doing, but it appears that these guns were either assembled after the barrel fitted had a hangover on Monday morning, or it was on a Friday and the guy was heading out on vacation.
__________________
Vaya con Dios
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #76  
Old 01-01-2011, 12:10 PM
H Richard's Avatar
H Richard H Richard is offline
US Veteran
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Central IL
Posts: 22,758
Likes: 18,437
Liked 22,313 Times in 8,245 Posts
Default

I witnessed one of the Ruger Redhawk barrel separations back in the 80's. Came apart very similar to what is shown. The owner sent it back to Ruger at their expense, and it was replaced with a new Redhawk with the built in scope ring mounts and the rings at no cost, "after" they contacted him and asked if he would like them. He has shot the gun many times since with no problems. He was given the same answer, after investigation a fitter over-torqued the barrel.
__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #77  
Old 01-01-2011, 12:47 PM
panther's Avatar
panther panther is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Joplin, Missouri
Posts: 751
Likes: 640
Liked 1,091 Times in 350 Posts
Default

I hope S&W makes this right for you, and I agree that they should replace the whole batch with whatever you feel is a good trade. They should throw in holsters and speed clips, or custom grips too.
I also hope that bad batch of guns doesn't wind up on the used gun market as "police trade-ins" in the next 6 months.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #78  
Old 01-01-2011, 12:48 PM
RIDE-RED 350r's Avatar
RIDE-RED 350r RIDE-RED 350r is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Blossvale NY
Posts: 1,295
Likes: 3,964
Liked 950 Times in 427 Posts
Default

WOW! This is scary and discouraging..... Im a new Smith owner with a 686-6. Wonder if this has been reported with 686's.... I am looking hard at buying a new 67 mainly for my wife to shoot....But now after seeing this, im thinking Ill look for an older pre-enjoyed m67...
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-01-2011, 01:18 PM
luis luis is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Liked 54 Times in 30 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stantheman86 View Post
The security company got 10-14's for over $60 less then the 64's? I'm surprised there's still security companies out there still buying wheelguns......usually it's all Glocks now.
Many states still require non magnum wheel guns unless the user had prior military training (California, Florida, Illinois, SD). The company in question is going to supply guards for banks.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-01-2011, 03:23 PM
Fishslayer Fishslayer is offline
US Veteran
Absent Comrade
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, PRK
Posts: 9,238
Likes: 11,531
Liked 11,249 Times in 3,916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bountyhunter View Post
SW is extremely concerned about finding the defects in their guns... however, they now use their customers to locate them.
Works for Microsoft...

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyraider6 View Post
Saw this one on Cal-guns today. So how's the S&W custom shop? - Calguns.net
First thing I thought of when I saw these pics.Couldn't remember where I'd seen it though. Thanks.

This is all real encouraging since I've recently purchased my first stainless S&W wheelgun. A 686 no dash... 'course, it's fine after 20 plus years, so....

Last edited by Fishslayer; 01-01-2011 at 03:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 01-01-2011, 03:47 PM
mkk41 mkk41 is offline
Banned
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South East , PA . USA
Posts: 5,027
Likes: 485
Liked 1,610 Times in 884 Posts
Default

Yep , Rugers had problems too.

Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #82  
Old 01-01-2011, 03:56 PM
Fishslayer Fishslayer is offline
US Veteran
Absent Comrade
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, PRK
Posts: 9,238
Likes: 11,531
Liked 11,249 Times in 3,916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkk41 View Post
Yep , Rugers had problems too.
I call PS! (PhotoShop) Rugers are built like tanks & that could NEVER happen!
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-01-2011, 04:14 PM
ikor ikor is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 693
Likes: 122
Liked 187 Times in 114 Posts
Default

I work at an Academy just north of these guys and we also use late model M67's for Corrections. Thus far (3 or so years now) we have had issues with strain screws unscrewing themselves but not much else. I do not recall if ours are two piece or one piece barrels at the moment. Our previous M15's lasted some 25+ years and had gosh knows how many rounds (I'd guess 100,000+rd each at least) through them with mostly zero drama until they became so worn that even new parts would not always get them back up and running right.

I'd guess that if I was ordering new DA revolvers today for long term Academy use (I am not the coordinator) I would go with Ruger GP100s in .38Spl and never look back. Elsewise S&W would have to do a Heck of a sales job on me.
__________________
Run Fast, Bite Hard!
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-01-2011, 09:19 PM
mkk41 mkk41 is offline
Banned
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South East , PA . USA
Posts: 5,027
Likes: 485
Liked 1,610 Times in 884 Posts
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4864 View Post
Do these have them? I know S&W is no longer making two piece barrels.
Well , these certainly look like two piece barrels now! LOL
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #85  
Old 01-01-2011, 10:10 PM
Fishslayer Fishslayer is offline
US Veteran
Absent Comrade
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, PRK
Posts: 9,238
Likes: 11,531
Liked 11,249 Times in 3,916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkk41 View Post
Well , these certainly look like two piece barrels now! LOL
The ultimate in concealed carry!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #86  
Old 10-14-2012, 12:14 PM
shawn mccarver shawn mccarver is offline
SWCA Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,907
Likes: 3,513
Liked 6,728 Times in 2,620 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkk41 View Post
Yep , Rugers had problems too.

Do you suppose this is where Ruger got the idea to build the Alaskan model, or whatever their large caliber snub-nose blaster is called?

Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 10-14-2012, 01:21 PM
mag318's Avatar
mag318 mag318 is offline
US Veteran
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,883
Likes: 19
Liked 1,313 Times in 447 Posts
Default

This is a good example why most here prefer the older S&W revolvers.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 10-14-2012, 01:59 PM
BlueOvalBandit BlueOvalBandit is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Anaheim, Ca
Posts: 926
Likes: 204
Liked 445 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkk41 View Post
Yep , Rugers had problems too.


And here I thought that was there takedown model....
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 10-14-2012, 02:04 PM
Krogen's Avatar
Krogen Krogen is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 2,889
Likes: 8,818
Liked 5,226 Times in 1,840 Posts
Default

Perhaps the older ones seem better due to "natural selection." Sort of like my 96 year old aunt has never been sick a day her life. I suspect that's how she got to 96.

Now I'm one who prefers the older guns for a number of reasons, but I have to wonder how many were weeded out over the years.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 10-14-2012, 02:39 PM
chipking's Avatar
chipking chipking is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fredericksburg,Virginia,U
Posts: 349
Likes: 67
Liked 440 Times in 145 Posts
Default

Unfortunately this is not an uncommon issue. I have seen several barrels where there is an actual bulge in the barrel about midpoint in the frame from where where it has been over torqued. If you want to check yours put a tight oiled patch on a jag and push through slowly if you feel a definite letup in resistance just before the forcing cone and then it gets tight again the odds are real good you have an over torqued barrel. Far too many and all in the same spot to be obstructed barrel issues. Stainless is worse than regular steel.
At one time 3 of my 5 Mountain guns had the bulge and my current 625 has it. I shot them anyway without any issues but they are N frames and thicker to start than the K's

--- Chip King ---
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 10-14-2012, 04:04 PM
Wiregrassguy's Avatar
Wiregrassguy Wiregrassguy is offline
SWCA Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AL Wiregrass
Posts: 7,201
Likes: 34,555
Liked 10,739 Times in 3,659 Posts
Default

I've never seen this on a S&W before, but I have seen a similar phenomenon called "stress corrosion cracking." Stainless steel under stress (torqued into position) that comes in contact with chlorine or fluorine (mostly) is subject to it. The CL or FL gets into crevasses in the steel and causes cracking. Add the pressure from the cartridge and the metal cracks through-wall and falls off. The only way to confirm is to have a forensic metallurgical exam done. And, I would highly encourage S&W to do it especially if they are using cutting or cleaning fluids that have CL or FL in them.
__________________
Guy
SWHF #474 SWCA LM#2629
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-14-2012, 05:34 PM
rburg rburg is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Kentucky, USA
Posts: 7,473
Likes: 2,830
Liked 6,261 Times in 2,170 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguy958 View Post
Wonder what the sight picture looked like with no barrel?
How would you know with your eyes closed?
__________________
Dick Burg
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #93  
Old 10-14-2012, 05:51 PM
riverrat38 riverrat38 is offline
US Veteran
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: La Conner, WA
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 8,937
Liked 2,149 Times in 961 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
Yup, those old fashioned pinned barrels were just a waste of money.
But, just think of all the material they saved. :-)
Maybe S&W has got something here. The ultimate belly gun. Fires right out of the cylinder. Maybe all at once!
Actually, this looks like something out of a "Sledge Hammer" episode! Barrel goes further than the bullet.
Maybe Speer can come up with some new "ultra short barrel" ammo!

Rick

Last edited by riverrat38; 10-14-2012 at 05:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-14-2012, 06:07 PM
chud333's Avatar
chud333 chud333 is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 7,897
Likes: 31,497
Liked 22,511 Times in 4,626 Posts
Default

Now maybe some will understand why so many (including)
myself will never buy anything of S&W's made newer than 1980
or so. Sorry but junk is junk. Would like to know who is in
charge of QC these days ??? Pee Wee Herman.....

Chuck
__________________
They hold no Quarter
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 10-14-2012, 08:24 PM
Cruiser RN's Avatar
Cruiser RN Cruiser RN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Yonkers,New York
Posts: 1,001
Likes: 13
Liked 90 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Yep it happens.I had 2 Model 60 357 magnums become frame crackers and barrel launchers using solely factory 38 special ammo.The Model 36 that replaced it had a right canted barrel that took 2 trips to S+W to fix the problem.They finally replaced the barrel and it is all good.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 10-14-2012, 11:52 PM
John F.'s Avatar
John F. John F. is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 234
Likes: 3,282
Liked 238 Times in 92 Posts
Default Good info!

I'd heard of similar barrel failures on SS Smiths before, but kind of let the issue fade out of my conscious thinking...

Thanks for reminding me that I NEVER need to buy a SS Smith revolver!

John
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 10-15-2012, 01:06 AM
sodacan sodacan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 1,099
Liked 5,123 Times in 1,572 Posts
Default

That's what happens when accountants and lawyers think they are gunsmiths.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 10-15-2012, 08:43 AM
photoman's Avatar
photoman photoman is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 522
Liked 1,907 Times in 787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John F. View Post
I'd heard of similar barrel failures on SS Smiths before, but kind of let the issue fade out of my conscious thinking...

Thanks for reminding me that I NEVER need to buy a SS Smith revolver!

John

You're cheating yourself out of the joy of owning a perfectly good weapon by subscribing to the false presumption that all stainless steel S&W revolvers will fail like this one did.
__________________
Centennial Every Day
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #99  
Old 10-15-2012, 11:35 AM
Sarge45's Avatar
Sarge45 Sarge45 is offline
Member
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 55
Likes: 28
Liked 19 Times in 9 Posts
Default

I would suspect over torquing also. In addition, there may be something in their assembly lube that is crystalizing the metal at the threads. Dunno.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 10-15-2012, 12:06 PM
riverrat38 riverrat38 is offline
US Veteran
Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure Model 67 Catastrophic Failure  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: La Conner, WA
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 8,937
Liked 2,149 Times in 961 Posts
Default

The assembler may have over torqued the barrel to get the front sight vertical, rather than re cutting the set back. And, it would be the threads that fail in doing so. A crush fit, which I think is the same thing auto mechanics refer to as a stretch fit, is very critical with respect to torque. It is calculated to be close to the yield point of the steel, under stress of firing, in order to prevent loosening of the joint. Going beyond that point is not good!
I also suspect that the assemblers may be under trained in the theory of this, and are under pressure to meet production goals. Modern bean counting policy is to get the work out, as long as the warranty costs are less then the cost of "doing it right the first time". This is true in almost all large "consumer" industries. But its also why a S&W gun costs $700 and not $2K. Look at how much it costs to have a stock gun "blue printed"! Or how much it costs to build a 200 HP aircraft engine, compared to the same size car engine.
I don't think that the material had anything to do with this failure. Stainless steel is a very tough material.

Rick

Last edited by riverrat38; 10-15-2012 at 12:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
1911, 38spl, 44 magnum, 686, concealed, ejector, glock, gunsmith, idpa, leather, lock, military, model 15, model 19, model 65, model 66, nill, redhawk, ruger, scope, shroud, smith and wesson, taurus, transition, tritium

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
S&W 625-JM Catastrophic Failure/Accident mmhoium S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 203 10-31-2015 12:02 AM
Smith & Wesson M&P Pro Series Destroyed: Catastrophic Failure scorbing Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 34 12-17-2014 05:20 PM
Near Catastrophic failure with the Shield... EnticeTheMalice Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 58 12-03-2014 09:44 PM
The Verdict is in on Colt 6920 Catastrophic Failure parallel Firearms & Knives: Other Brands & General Gun Topics 26 02-15-2010 09:07 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)