Other than the "We received your firearm" letter, I have heard nothing from S&W.

Kitt and .455_Hunter, I am keeping my fingers crossed that S&W returns your guns and says that they're fine.

If you talk to S&W and your guns are returned, could you take a moment and ask them what would have happened had your 624's not passed the test? What would S&W have done. Would they even have shipped your rare 624 back to you?

Nope, I don't believe S&W will send you back a faulty gun, no matter how rare!! They offer you up a voucher for one of their new *** revolvers!

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

Ok, just found this thread today and will follow it closely since I have (2) guns that could be affected.

624 -(ALUxxxx). This serial number seems safe so no worries there.

629-1 (AFBxxxx) - Uh oh, it looks to fall in the zone. Looks like a call to S&W is in order.

Check with Smith for your own piece of mind but I don't believe the 629's were part of the recall. Just the 624's.

Check to be sure.

Dale53

Thank you Dale but, going by this article, it seems the stainless used in the big bore guns (624 & 629) are affected.

dregg;
I hear you. Dern it, I'm going to have to check my 629 (4") as its probably in that same era. I believe I DO have the box, however. So, here I go again .

Thanks for coming back at me, dregg.

Dale53

Dale, good luck to you....hope it's not affected.

The recall sheet says the last date bad guns were shipped was on June 8, 1985 but my 624 was shipped on June 14, 1985 and they wanted me to send it back to be checked...S&W had a problem with the bad cylinders BUT a bigger problem with their record keeping.

I emailed S&W about two suspect revolvers:

Model 624, product code 108580, serial number AHT316x.
Model 29-3, serial AEY431x.

The response received today:
"Those will need to be sent back and tested, if they were done already they would have a small punch mark on the cylinder."

Alas, no punch marks on either cylinder. Do I send 'em back and risk losing a cherry 3" 624? Ship the cylinder only and hope for the best? Or...?

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

If you send in a 3" 624 and it fails the test S&W keeps the gun and sends you a new gun of questionable "value".

Now what is S&W doing with that 3" 624? Considering the grips alone are worth $150 there must be $400 worth of parts in that failed gun ! You could even sell the faulty cylinder as a pencil holder ! There should be a bunch of 624 barrels, cranes, hammers, and triggers showing up on eBxy !

I just have a feeling S&W is just not grinding these guns up to scrap ! To me the parts are worth more than many of their new guns !

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

GLL:
If the grips are valuable, just remove them before you send the gun in (that takes care of the grips, at least).

I would not keep a gun around and I. certainly would not sell it to someone else if it's suspect. I sure don't want to be responsible for hurting someone, ANYONE. AND, I don't want to hurt my self OR my gun. If is suffers a catastrophic failure, you have NOTHING. At least, if it fails, you will have a new gun. I can't speak for Smith's choice of gun as I haven't been there. However, I have NO DOUBT that I would send mine back (got to check my 629, tomorrow).

Dale53

I have had my 624 for over 20 years--it was a gift from my Dad, bought lightly used. It falls in the recall range and the cylinder is marked only with an F stamp-no punch mark. After over 20 years of shooting it is not going back to S&W. I am relatively unimpressed with the current offerings from Springfield and with my luck they would find my pistol was the only one returned with a bad cylinder. I agree with a previous post-keep it and see if S&W might come up with a better solution.

I got my 624 back from S&W today...It was gone for 23 days counting weekends and the return paper says "inspected/tested & passed" This is the 624 I got from my brother and its never been fired...but at least I know it passed the test even if I don't know what the test was.

Dale:

The"you" in my response was generic and not referring to your gun !

I would still like to know what S&W does with the guns that fail the test ! I would also be interested in just how many have failed ! The parts on these "failed" guns are extremely valuable on the open market ! I would love to have a drawer full of 3" and 4" 624 barrels, hammers,triggers, cranes, etc. ! The only "bad" parts would be the cylinder and frame ! The rest are gold to somebody !

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

Mine came back today and is good to go.

I will have to look for a punch mark. Anybody know where it is supposed to be?

GLL;
I didn't take it personal either. We're just friends here talking...

Dale53

Looking under the extraction star, the cylinder has what appears to be a freshly stuck "M" on one of the webs.

Anybody else have one of these "M"s?

I pulled the grips off my 624 #AHT316x this morning. Rubber stamp "SEP 10 (or 16, or 18 -the last digit is not fully stamped) 1985" with "1085" in black ink marker on both panels.

This doesn't mean that the 624 or components were mfg'd at this time. I'm just struggling with sending a ANIB beauty back to the factory.

FWIW I'll keep the grips, box, etc.

TGB

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

Don't send it back Tom!!!

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

Well, I talked to S&W and my 629 IS in the recall range. I have the box and it is not marked (my two 624's were marked on the box with the required "Red C in a circle"). They are sending me a shipping instructions and I'll send it back immediately.

It has been fired a moderate amount of .44 magnums without issue but I am NOT going to take a chance. If it fails the test, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Regardless, I am NOT going to second guess this situation. It is what it is...

My motto is "Better safe than sorry".

Dale53

I'm inclined to agree with Toroflow1 to not send it back. Here's how I figger it:

According to the SCSW3E, "AHS" and "AHT" prefixes are July production.
The stocks are mid-September production, and are marked "1085".
I figure this unit shipped late in September 1985 at the earliest, three months after the June 8, 1985 recall cutoff date.

So there. I'm keeping it.

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

After revisiting this thread I can only add that this is a perfect example of taking something very simple and screwing it up beyond belief. Quite simply, First, Smith & Wesson should have from the very beginning only required the cylinder be sent back for testing, since that was the only part in question. If it failed then then gun could be sent back for a new cylinder or the customer could do as he pleases from that point on. Second, if the cylinder passed and was returned to the owner it should have been marked under the extractor with the letters "OK", this would have been easy to find and understand. The original magazine article scans I posted are what I carry with me to shows, this seemed like a good thing to do at the time but now I'm not so sure. To much conflicting info from the factory at this point to to be sure what to make of it. The bottom line for me I guess at this point is that if I had one in question I would not send it in or shoot it. I like them enough that I wouldn't walk away from one for the right price, red stamp or not. Sorry for the ramble!

Keith

__________________
kbgrips.com

Glad you guys got some sort of reply from S&W. Called "Kate" and left a detailed message and haven't heard a thing. Tried calling her again over a dozen times to no avail (just to see if she'd pick up the phone) Perhaps she's out sick, on vacation, or simply lets the calls go to voice mail. After waiting a week, I decided to call S&W customer service. Get a guy who sounds confused as to what problem i'm trying to explain to him. He takes some info (my name and phone #) and says someone will get back to me. Well, that other person must be hanging out with Kate.

gonna call again this Monday and request a shipping label for my affected 629.

I have two 624s; AHB41XX with a 6 1/2 inch barrel and ALU04xx with a 3 inch barrel. Both have the "F" stamped on the back of the cylinder. No boxes. I got them lightly used. I shoot them with moderate reloads. Nothing that Elmer Keith would approve. I'll contact the factory to check their status, but if I have to, I'll send only the cylinders and keep the rest. A .44 Special is a damn fine revolver.

I emailed Kate F. this past Monday and asked her about any stamped mark placed on the cylinder to indicate it is "ok". She emailed back and said that their are NO MARKS placed on the cylinder for guns that passed. ONLY the red "C" was stamped on the box.
That was a poor fix to the problem. Not everyone saves their box, my buddy has a 624 and box with a label that fell off. Another friend has a 624 with a box. We looked on the box and peeled off two retail stickers that covered 95% of the faded red "C"/circle. Come on, S&W, you tested the CYLINDER, not the BOX!
My issue currently is to send back two Walther PPK/S's for the present recall - hammer block. They will be putting a punch mark just behind the hammer between the shoulders of the frame.

Just called today about my recently purchased 624. S/N AHB9838. The guy on the phone said it was made in 1986 and was outside the recall range.

I was kind of hoping it was a bad one so I could get a blue 24 cylinder (with the right throats) installed and have a 2 tone on the cheap.

My gun (624) has 0.432 throats!
My 29-4 has 0.429 throats.

So I'm looking at a 624 and ask the seller for the serial number so I can check if it's involved in the recall. Here's the answer I got...

"Rob, May I make a suggestion. Call Roy Jinks and ask for the truth about the 624 recall. The new employees most were not there in 1985. I have checked and this gun will not chamber 44 mag. That is all the recall was for. Don't get your info from the forum. Call Roy for the facts. Buy it shoot it and enjoy it. There was never anything wrong with these guns except that some would chamber 44 mag. If you send in the gun there are no parts. They are out of cylinders."

I'll call Roy on Monday and report back.

There is quite a bit of information here on the forum about the recall, including the serial numbers that were recalled. The official word was that some non standard stainless steel was use for cylinders for about 500 model 624's and 629's around 1985. The ones that were checked had a red C in a red circle on the box. No other markings on the gun. I have a 3 inch with the red C. I recently purchased AHB2869 that was in the serial number range. I e-mailed Kate Fredette, and she responded that it needed to be checked and sent a shipping label to have the gun returned. I took to my FFL on July 1st and it returned on July 12 stating no repair required. I don't think they would be paying shipping both ways to check the gun 26 years after issue if there were not some point of concern. Frankly, I would talk to Kate first to see if they want it back.

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

Yes, I've read all the info about the non-standard stainless steel here in many posts. My point is this is the first I have heard that the problem wasn't the steel but the chambering which allowed 44mags to chamber in .44sp., cylinders,

I spoke with Roy Jinks this morning and he confirmed what the seller I quoted two posts above told me. The only issue with the 624 recall was that some were mistakenly chambered to accept the .44 Magnum round. He said it had nothing to do with the metallurgy. If the gun will not accept a .44 Mag. it's fine. He also said that it would probably be fine shooting the .44 Mag as long as it wasn't a max load but he doesn't recommend it.

From my point of view, if a used gun doesn't chamber the .44Mag. then, all other things being equal, it should be fine. However, if it does chamber a .44 Mag then the cylinder may have been damaged if some one actually fired .44 Mags, which is probably why S&W would ask for them to back to test.

Rob

I sent my 624 back to the factory when the recall first came out in the 80's. The factory did a magnetic particle flux test on the cylinder to be sure that it was up to standards. They marked the box and sent the gun back to me. The gun was not marked but there was a burnished area over one of the chambers which was not there when I purchased the gun and would be consistent with that type of test. I'm not sure where this Roy Jinks information is coming from. Are you sure that you didn't speak to Oliver Stone by mistake?

The Roy Jinks information came from Roy Jinks this morning. I called S&W and asked the operator for Roy Jinks and then someone picked up the phone and said "Roy Jinks, can I help you?". It's easy, try it yourself tomorrow!

Does your gun chamber 44mags? Are you sure it came back with the same cylinder?

Oliver Stone. Now who's being paranoid?

If the problem was that some cylinders were incorrectly chambered to accept .44 Magnum, then the recall would not have involved any 629s, as they are suposed to chamber .44 Magnum.

I own two 624s A 6.5" (AHB 86XX) that I aquired a few years ago and at the time I aquired it, I checked with Kate and she said it shipped after the June 8, '85 date so it was fine. I also have a 4" (AHB 17XX) that I recently purchased and am waiting for a reply from S&W now.

FWIW Both guns have the "F" stamp. Neither will chamber .44 Magnum. I don't have either box.

__________________
Formerly know as Lucky Derby

The first problem with this idea about the 44 mag chambers is that the cylinder on the 624 is too short to accept a normal 44 magnum cartridge. The bullet would stick out of the front of the cylinder and the gun would not fire. The other thing is what would be the purpose of S&W formulating this elaborate ruse about bad steel to hide this mistake if they did indeed make it? It doesn't make any sense. I don't know what they told you on the phone when you called Smith but they may have told you about a plan to retro fit 624's with 629 cylinders and barrels. After Smith identified and corrected the 500 bad guns they had used up all of the extra 44 special cylinders. There was some discussion as to what they would do if the problem went beyond the 500 original guns. One of the plans put forward at the time called for replacing the bad 44 special cylinders with 629 44 magnum cylinders. This would also require replacing the 624 barrel with a shorter 629 barrel. This would essentially make the gun a 629 44 magnum. As it turned out the problem didn't go that far so no conversions of the 624 were made. (Someone out there please tell me you have a 629 stamped 624 on its frame!) This is the only thing I can think of about your conversation with Smith.

You gentlemen are obviously more experienced about these matters than I am. All I thought to ask was if the recall was due to bad metal or bad chambering and he told me bad chambering.

Seriously, I'd appreciate it if someone with more experience than I would pick up the phone tomorrow and call Mr. Jinks and speak with him. Bring up the point that a 44mag. is too long for the cylinder, see what he has to say.

thanks, Rob

This is someone else's photo of the original S&W letter concerning the recall.

Bumping it back up for reference!!!

__________________
GO NAVY!

As long as you bumped it...

It was last July when I was posting my inquiries above about the recall, the call I made to Roy Jinks, etc.

At the time I was looking at two different 624's from different sellers, both were within the recall ranges. I got both serial numbers and emailed them to S&W. It turned out one gun was a "suspect" (my quotes) gun and since the seller didn't have the box to check if it had the red "C", S&W wanted to check it. I passed on that gun since S&W told me the other gun was OK and I ended up buying it.

After rereading this thread tonight I pulled it out of the safe to check and sure enough mine has an "F" stamped between two of the chambers.

FWIW.

For those who might be wondering, here is what the "Red C" looks like. Whatever ink they used does tend to fade. This is the box from my 4" 624 which had a serial number within the recall range.

And this is what a recalled and inspected 629 box looks like:



Despite the label, it is a 629-1

---
Nemo