Model 69 - Their explanation

CleanHarry

CleanHarry

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
52
Reaction score
42
What I wrote them:

The ball detent lock-up does not line up. I have seen on the gun forums that others have this problem too. What is your company's position on this? Are you trying to claim it is fine the way it is? Do you believe it works as good as if the ball precisely fit into the seat? It appears to me that it is a design flaw... The question is... Is it fixable? Do you have other Model 69 pistols that are correct?

You have an opportunity to correct your flawed product and create a positive consumer experience. You have an obligation to me to provide me with the quality I paid for and protect your reputation.

If you can't fix this design/production flaw I want you to refund my money. If you can't provide me with a model 69 that is correct I want you to refund my money or replace this model 69 with another model in your product line.

I want you to pay for all shipping and FFL fees.

I will be awaiting your prompt response. Please correct your error. I will be posting this letter on the gun forums I am registered on. I will also be ready to forward to the editor of all of the gun publications. If you treat me wrong... I will report that. If you treat me right... I will report that.

Cordially,

XXXXX XXXXXXXX - owner of 4 Smith and Wesson pistols
 
Register to hide this ad
What Smith and Wesson said...

Dear Customer,

Our position is that it is exactly as designed. Yes, we are trying to explain that it is fine the way it is. Yes, we believe it works better than if the ball fit precisely into the seat. It is not fixable, because it is not broken. Yes, your Model 69 is correct, as well as others we produce.

I'm trying to use this opportunity to explain it to you. I agree that I am obligated to explain the engineering to you to protect our reputation.

Again, your Model 69 is correct. We do not pay FFL fees on newly purchased firearms. I hope you do post this letter on the gun forums to help clear up the perceived issue that does not exist.

Onto the explanation: this is not an issue. The ball detent is not supposed to be centered in the "V". It is in fact supposed to be hitting on one side of the "V" in order to keep the yoke tight to the frame. This is how the detent works.

If the ball detent is not coming into contact with this "V" notch at all, then that would be an issue to send the gun in for.


If further assistance is required please reply accordingly.


Sincerely,

XXXXXX


In case this email does not fully answer your question, or you would like to contact us for any reason, simply reply to this email. You can also get immediate assistance using our Chat support service .
 
It looks like they want to have the ball offset to change the angle holding things together.
They didn't really do a good job of explaining why this is desirable, but it may well be.
If they are all that way, then it is not likely just a case of sloppy work, but a legitimate design feature.
This doesn't mean they will not have unhappy customers.

Best,
Rick
 
It performed at the range...

By the way - I shot it today...
In all fairness, it is fun to shoot. It is accurate with both Specials and Magnums, although as you would expect, firing Magnums stings a little. I really like the ergonomics. The DA, while pretty heavy, is consistent throughout and I was able to achieve accuracy within a few rounds. I have to admit I like it a lot... I wish I had known from the beginning of their intended design... Instead of them letting me do their explaining for them.
 
CleanHarry said:
What I wrote them:

The ball detent lock-up does not line up. I have seen on the gun forums that others have this problem too. What is your company's position on this? Are you trying to claim it is fine the way it is? Do you believe it works as good as if the ball precisely fit into the seat? It appears to me that it is a design flaw... The question is... Is it fixable? Do you have other Model 69 pistols that are correct?

You have an opportunity to correct your flawed product and create a positive consumer experience. You have an obligation to me to provide me with the quality I paid for and protect your reputation.

If you can't fix this design/production flaw I want you to refund my money. If you can't provide me with a model 69 that is correct I want you to refund my money or replace this model 69 with another model in your product line.

I want you to pay for all shipping and FFL fees.

I will be awaiting your prompt response. Please correct your error. I will be posting this letter on the gun forums I am registered on. I will also be ready to forward to the editor of all of the gun publications. If you treat me wrong... I will report that. If you treat me right... I will report that.

Cordially,

XXXXX XXXXXXXX - owner of 4 Smith and Wesson pistols
Click to expand...

Clean Harry
I am glad the Model 69 is shooting up to your expectations. Whew! Did you have previous contact with SW before your email quoted above? I think it was pretty strongly worded for a first contact. A simple inquiry might have gotten the job done. Threatening to flame SW on gun forums seemed a little heavy handed, unless I am missing some history. Frankly, if someone blasted me like that and signed off "cordially" I would tell them to blast off. But, I'm glad you got mostly satisfactory reply.
 
The concern over the ball detent has been discussed on this forum, and I'm sure S&W was aware there was some uncertainty about the design. Many (myself included) felt it could be a manufacturing defect or oversight. I'm glad S&W responded and in a helpful and explanatory way.
 
I am sorry to say that I find the initial letter to S&W to be unnecessarily strongly worded. In light of the numerous complaints I have noticed on this Forum, I am pleased that S&W took the time to respond in such a sure sounding way. This should be posted in every thread in which members have complained that something is wrong with their Model 66 or Model 69 based upon an off-center seat in the V-notch in the ball detent mechanism.
 
CleanHarry said:
What I wrote them:

The ball detent lock-up does not line up. I have seen on the gun forums that others have this problem too...

It appears to me that it is a design flaw...

You have an opportunity to correct your flawed product...

If you can't fix this design/production flaw...

I will be awaiting your prompt response...

If you treat me wrong... I will report that. If you treat me right... I will report that...
Click to expand...

Geez! Have computer, will travel, eh? I am sure S&W is impressed with your ownership of four of their pistols. I am surprised they did not offer to buy them all back from you. I believe I would have. :D
 
Makes sense, their explanation. If the ball is centered there is no margin for error in keeping it tight. With the joint off-center the ball can apply pressure into the joint. I know I am really happy with the performance of my 69!
 
About 20 years ago, when I first saw this type of crane lock, the common explaination for the off set was that the metal wear over time would favor the continued effectiveness as it moved toward the center (deepest) area of the grove. My actual experience with one installed by Alex Hamilton is it works just fine.
 
CleanHarry said:
What I wrote them:

The ball detent lock-up does not line up. I have seen on the gun forums that others have this problem too. What is your company's position on this? Are you trying to claim it is fine the way it is? Do you believe it works as good as if the ball precisely fit into the seat? It appears to me that it is a design flaw... The question is... Is it fixable? Do you have other Model 69 pistols that are correct?

You have an opportunity to correct your flawed product and create a positive consumer experience. You have an obligation to me to provide me with the quality I paid for and protect your reputation.

If you can't fix this design/production flaw I want you to refund my money. If you can't provide me with a model 69 that is correct I want you to refund my money or replace this model 69 with another model in your product line.

I want you to pay for all shipping and FFL fees.

I will be awaiting your prompt response. Please correct your error. I will be posting this letter on the gun forums I am registered on. I will also be ready to forward to the editor of all of the gun publications. If you treat me wrong... I will report that. If you treat me right... I will report that.

Cordially,

XXXXX XXXXXXXX - owner of 4 Smith and Wesson pistols
Click to expand...

I'm glad they explained the design. I think your approach was heavy handed and threatening.
 
Harry: Thanks for getting the scoop on that new design. Given that it is new and fairly odd-looking, I am surprised Smith & Wesson did not publish info about it in advance; e.g., in their on-line catalog.
 
Probably the visual appearance of the offset did not raise any alarm bells at S&W because the feature is placed as intended. Their mistake was either not offsetting the notch quite enough so that it "looks good" or making it "V" shaped in the first place. They might have made it asymetrically shaped to indicate that bearing was required only on one side. But then folk would probably worry that the notch was "misshappen"...

Have looked at about 6 or 7 so far (bought the first one I saw) and they're pretty much identical.

Timing on all has been excellent, BTW! Fairly unusual.

The only drama seen so far on a 69 has been a bore that appears to have rotated mid-way through the ECM rifling process. Sort of a "two-step" set of lands. Probably won't hurt anything, but it looked weird. That example also had almost no forcing cone, but that's not a biggie either if everything lines up well. Very similar to some pre-WWI M&Ps and .32 WCF revolvers I've had.

Shroud can't rotate out of position! Note the large tongue and groove interface above the "V".:
DSC02491_zps9379aca7.jpg


And the ball can't be off much R-L:
DSC02488_zps3afe4ea2.jpg


It's just that the notch looks "off"!:
DSC02489_zpsb73db54e.jpg


Purely a cosmetic thing. If'n I wus Schmit i'd change tha looks...just to hush up folk.

Personally, I think it's a step in the right direction.

And that stupid Model 69 is rapidly becoming quite a favorite. Accurate. Effective DA. Just dang good. Surprisingly so.
 
Last edited:
Ashlander said:
Harry: Thanks for getting the scoop on that new design. Given that it is new and fairly odd-looking, I am surprised Smith & Wesson did not publish info about it in advance; e.g., in their on-line catalog.
Click to expand...

Probably won't ever happen. Gives them the freedom to change things on the fly. Way back when I was an employee (the entire service department early on!) of the US branch of a European handgun manufacturer, we would get no notice of changes to the product line very often. No word at all unless there were dramas. Even changes instigated on this side of the pond. (New models, yes.) Potentially a surprise on every shipment.
 
To those who don't like my strong wording...

"Golly, is this right?"

"Yes."

"Oh, gee, shucks... Ok."

Nah...

I got their attention, asked the questions and got an answer.

For all of us.
 
Re: Op. Glad that S&W was able to satisfy your concerns. And of course a trip to the range especially with a new firearm is always a pleasure, especially when anticipation and expectation is satisfied by on target results.

It is often far better to not impulsively speak/write without due reflection and consideration. Just as a bell cannot be unrung, so words spoken or written in haste seldom reflect ones best nor do they achieve the best result. Proverbs 29:11 aptly speaks to this matter. While this is not the case with S&W, there are shops where such a correspondence would result in an item being placed at the very back of the queue or simply returned to the owner.

Many of those who frequent this site have had correspondence w/ S&W for all sorts of matters. To initiate such correspondence with unwarranted assumption, threat and abuse is not a rational strategy for successfully resolving whatever concern might be at issue. That is true for the individual. That is most assuredly true for the shooting community.
 
I'm still wondering why they even made this gun.Wasn't the mountain series light enough for those who found the 29/629 series too much to pack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Buying a model 69 combat
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
5K
Shibadog
S
6
Grips for model 69.
Replies
15
Views
1K
mtgianni
M
D
  • Locked
* Retracted *WTT Model 19-5 for Model 69 Combat
Replies
0
Views
404
digitalcrocodile
D
G
4.25" 69 vs 4" 629 Mountain Gun
2 3
Replies
58
Views
6K
malph
M
S
Year of production for Model 36
Replies
4
Views
233
Scott S.
S

Latest posts

Back
Top