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 10-17-2017, 11:19 AM
tdan tdan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 505
Likes: 18
Liked 111 Times in 59 Posts
Default

I'm kind of liking steelslaver's barrel tool solution. The only reason the crown of my 69 was so buggered up is that S&W probably uses a hardened steel tool to torque these barrel assemblies together. Really makes me cringe! That said, I noticed no flaws in the rifling. I don't think that they lap the barrel liners after they are installed or the crown wouldn't be so rough. I like the newest ball/crane lock=up on the new 2.75" version. Also seems that Smith wised up and left the serrations off of the top strap of the frame, eliminating the mismatched serrations. Now would I get rid of my 696 no dash for one of these new 69 snubbies?..............I'd have to really think hard on that one!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #52  
Old 10-17-2017, 11:55 PM
BLUEDOT37's Avatar
BLUEDOT37 BLUEDOT37 is offline
Member
SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: N.E. OKLA.
Posts: 6,460
Likes: 5,857
Liked 9,262 Times in 3,478 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdan View Post
The only reason the crown of my 69 was so buggered up is that S&W probably uses a hardened steel tool to torque these barrel assemblies together.
.
That said, I noticed no flaws in the rifling. I don't think that they lap the barrel liners after they are installed or the crown wouldn't be so rough.
.
Now would I get rid of my 696 no dash for one of these new 69 snubbies?..............I'd have to really think hard on that one!
I've never noticed the rifling gouged up either but the muzzle/crown often has a burr at the edge of the rifling/crown. And even when they don't have any burrs the rifling often doesn't have a clean presentation at the muzzle.

I usually chamfer mine to shape them up.

My new revolvers get a couple hundred rounds of jacketed bullets thru them, initially, to break them in & smooth them out.

.

69 Combat Magnum (chamfered muzzle, crown)

(-012a)

.
.

Every gun has it's place & I have no intentions of getting rid of my .44 Spcl. 396NG either, no matter how much I like the M69.

.

S&W 44 snubbies: M396NG-M69-M329NG

(-01c)

.
__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Last edited by BLUEDOT37; 10-19-2017 at 11:08 PM. Reason: .
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #53  
Old 10-18-2017, 07:31 AM
digiroc's Avatar
digiroc digiroc is offline
Member
SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure  
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 585
Likes: 296
Liked 1,182 Times in 374 Posts
Default Model 69 with FastFire 3 ...





I love my Model 69 and it shoots well. I'm considering a Short barrel version for carry.

digiroc
__________________
Shoot Well My Friends

Last edited by digiroc; 10-18-2017 at 07:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #54  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:33 AM
iPac's Avatar
iPac iPac is offline
Member
SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure  
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 1,565
Liked 1,364 Times in 560 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shocker View Post
The lines on mine didn't line up and the front sight was vertical. I doubt that it was even a production spec to have the lines indexed exactly.
On the 2.75 the offending lines were eliminated.
I always try to explain this to folks when they raise concerns of a canted barrel.

Mass produced items will not be manufactured perfectly. If you get a near perfect one, consider yourself VERY lucky. It has been this way for decades. S&W isn't the only offender of canted barrels, I've had plenty of Colts with them too, including Pythons. These "modern" faults can be found clear back to the '60s, so it's not a new phenomenon as many like to claim. I would only put pre-war2 production as in a class of its own. Anything post is subject to modern manufacturing techniques (cheapening).

So when a canted barrel is suspected, you need to examine EVERY aspect of the barrel/frame area and look for errors in milling while paying attention to symmetry. Using the top strap serration alignment to judge barrel straightness is not wise. It's way too easy for variances to cause misalignment, whether the serrations align or not. I think it looks bad when they don't align, but does it affect anything?

It pretty much comes down to what the front sight is like, nothing else. Is the front sight perpendicular? Or you could go a step further and verify the sight slot is positioned perfectly horizontal, allowing the sight to be perfectly perpendicular. Cause sometimes you will get a crooked sight post, but the actual slot is correct and horizontal. This "effect" can be found on my 629-2E which has an overly tall ramped front sight, this gun also had the barrel corrected by Frank Glenn, and the topstrap serrations still don't align, but the sight is straight, well at least the slot is.

So everyone make sure they are accurately judging for a canted barrel. I'm glad to hear S&W eliminated the serrations. That will eliminate confusion, as the serrations are not the deciding factory for straightness.

FYI, a friend of mine who I help with Python advice reached out to me after purchasing a new to him 1964 nickel Python last week. He didn't use my buying guide, and ended up with a Python that is slightly out of time and has a canted barrel. Repair costs will be added to the $2900 original cost. Just an example of a canted barrel clear back in the mid '60s. Still not sure why folks like to pay that money for worn shooters.

Last edited by iPac; 10-18-2017 at 11:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #55  
Old 10-22-2017, 11:12 PM
Gunsnwater Gunsnwater is offline
Member
SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 553
Likes: 526
Liked 330 Times in 184 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelslaver View Post
If I really wanted to remove a shrouded barrel like used by the model 69 I would not use a tool that engaged the rifling. First it would be difficult to make and second it would be hard on the rifling. I think there is a better way to do this.

First get or machine a piece of brass square stock that would fit down the barrel. I would also get some low temp solder that melted below 200f. They make this type solder for various uses usually using some type of tin, lead, bismuth, indium alloy. Plug the forcing cone, mount the in a padded vise by the grip frame with the cylinder removed so the barrel is pointed up. Use a frame wrench made to fit around the yoke cut like a normal frame wrench. Then heat the solder, barrel and the brass square stock to about 250-300f. Pour the barrel 1/2 way full of solder and stick in the bar. Let it cool and unscrew the barrel using a wrench on the end of the brass bar and holding onto the frame wrench. Do whatever, then reinstall.

Remove solder by warming up the gun and scrubbing the bore. With no flux it isn't going to bond to the stainless well in the first place. Only function is to make a perfect mate of the barrel to the brass bar.

Machinist sometimes use this type of solder to mount small odd shaped pieces to something they can chuck up or put in a machinist vise. Do a net search for it, lots available.

Someday I am going to get some that melts around 135f and cast a spoon out of it and then give it to someone to stir sugar in their coffee. LOL
First you say you wouldn't use a tool that engages the rifling, then you describe how to make a tool that engages the rifling. What am I missing?
__________________
A republic if you can keep it
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-22-2017, 11:34 PM
Carrier Carrier is offline
Member
SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure  
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 375
Likes: 87
Liked 210 Times in 112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S&W ucla View Post
Diagram I found online showing 2pc bbl, key in top of frame for shroud, barrel tool.

Shocker, there has to be a better way, lol. Have you heard from S&W if they will help out?

Steelslaver, Wouldn't cerrosafe work? Brownells carries it for making chamber casts.
I always wondered how they did that.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-25-2017, 07:35 AM
Kris Whiteleather's Avatar
Kris Whiteleather Kris Whiteleather is offline
Member
SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finger Lakes of NY
Posts: 54
Likes: 1
Liked 64 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Sorry to disappoint some of you folks, but:

Just got back from 4 days in Florida. Visited 6 gun/pawn shops.

Two of the shops had NEW SW M69s in the case. I was allowed to handle them.

All those model 69s had the ball fully....dropped....into....the....notch.

So either my revolver is the correct design, and SW is sending shoddy work to Florida, or I was correct at the outset: SW done messed up.

Side note: Got to shoot the SW 460VXR while in FL. Not my cup of tea, but man, what a handful. Very fine trigger on it in both double and single action. Ran 6 cylinders through it, belching fire on each shot, before I switched to a suite of 1911s.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-25-2017, 08:27 AM
shocker's Avatar
shocker shocker is offline
Member
SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure SW 69 = failure  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 550
Liked 1,427 Times in 666 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Whiteleather View Post
All those model 69s had the ball fully....dropped....into....the....notch.

So either my revolver is the correct design, and SW is sending shoddy work to Florida, or I was correct at the outset: SW done messed up.
Or the engineers got a learning experience, a good design can still look wrong to a customer. So a revision to center the ball in the notch "just like it should be". Or hide it like the 2.75 did.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #59  
Old 11-02-2017, 07:51 AM
dogdoc dogdoc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 558
Likes: 107
Liked 523 Times in 248 Posts
Default

I would like to a picture of a 69 with the ball all the way in. All the 69s I have seen(5 or so) are not all the way in including a new one I just purchased. I think the ones you saw were flukes. A Smith engineer posted on this a few years ago with the 69 was new I think? Reference page 32 of handloader magazine issue number 293 for a good picture in an article by Brian Pearce.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Failure to Eject and Now Failure to Fire koine2002 Smith & Wesson SD & Sigma Pistols 13 02-06-2015 12:18 PM
Failure, failure Whacker Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles 64 12-22-2013 10:50 PM
My first failure with M&P 45c alde Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 1 05-28-2012 07:20 PM
.38 Failure pre WWI and bad rep of it and 9mm. Why? kip Ammo 40 03-19-2011 09:11 PM
m&p Failure's Jknox87 Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 59 02-21-2011 11:08 AM

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 07:41 AM.


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