|
|
11-18-2009, 12:33 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Possible cylinder throat issue
Hello all. I picked up a brand new 686-6 last week. Put 200 rounds through it over the weekend. Came home and started cleaning and noticed something odd with the cylinder throats. This is not my first revolver, but it is the first time I have seen anything like this.
There are what appear to be lathe or some other machining marks in all 6 throats. It is my understanding that the throats should be somewhat smooth. Mine are not. The chamber areas are though. I went back to the shop I purchased from and took a look at 3 other Smiths they had there. They had a 620, a 627, and a 3” 686+. The throats of the 620 and 627 were nice and smooth, but the 686+ had the same marks as mine.
Can someone else with a recent production 686 check their throats to see if they look like mine? Is this something I should be concerned about? Just trying to figure out if this warrants getting sent back to S&W or if this is the new way they are reaming cylinders.
Last edited by InMotion; 12-02-2009 at 06:40 PM.
|
11-18-2009, 12:49 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane-Australia
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 7 Posts
|
|
That's not normal,Send it back to Smith.Even the face of your cylinder has the machine marks.
Ken
|
11-18-2009, 01:05 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Birmingham,AL,USA
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 1,852
Liked 549 Times in 249 Posts
|
|
The last cylinder I saw that in was a Ruger .357 that had not been finished.As has been said call or send it back to Smith.
|
11-18-2009, 01:37 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 434
Likes: 480
Liked 27 Times in 23 Posts
|
|
the chamber in the lower right is realy rough at the bottom, I'd send it back.
|
11-18-2009, 03:43 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Thanks for the replies thus far guys. It is odd that the gun shop has another one that looks exactly the same. I am wondering if a batch of cylinders didn't make it to the finishing stage of the production line. This also destroys my faith in the "final inspection" process. One would have hoped they at least checked the throat diameter and would have noticed the marks at that time.
I sent the same pictures to S&W yesterday but have yet to hear back from them.
|
11-18-2009, 04:01 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Nicholasville, Kentucky
Posts: 903
Likes: 1
Liked 27 Times in 13 Posts
|
|
I had tool "chatter" marks in the tappered area in the cylinder throats of my 625-9 MG. S&W replaced the cylinder free of charge. It took a couple of months, but the gun shot better than new.
|
11-18-2009, 04:20 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rural NW Ohio
Posts: 3,387
Likes: 5,180
Liked 2,444 Times in 1,097 Posts
|
|
I checked my 686-6 after seeing your pictures. I had difficulty seeing the throats clearly even with a magnifying glass, but they appeared to have a slight tool mark here and there, but not nearly as pronounced as yours.
Andy
|
11-18-2009, 04:45 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowman
I checked my 686-6 after seeing your pictures. I had difficulty seeing the throats clearly even with a magnifying glass, but they appeared to have a slight tool mark here and there, but not nearly as pronounced as yours.
Andy
|
Thanks Andy. It helps if you use an LED flashlight or hold it close to a florescent light bulb. You will then be able to see them really well (if present).
That is mainly what I was looking for……..to see if the marks appear on other owners 686s as well. If others have the same thing, we may be able to find a common denominator between then (serial number range or what have you) so we can address it with Smith. Perhaps I should have posted this in the main forum?
Jim
|
11-18-2009, 04:48 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckloads
I had tool "chatter" marks in the tappered area in the cylinder throats of my 625-9 MG. S&W replaced the cylinder free of charge. It took a couple of months, but the gun shot better than new.
|
Wow, I hope that won't be the case with mine. I am assuming that the entire cylinder was replaced on yours because removing the “chatter” marks would have opened up the throat diameter to outside of spec?
Jim
|
11-18-2009, 05:54 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rural NW Ohio
Posts: 3,387
Likes: 5,180
Liked 2,444 Times in 1,097 Posts
|
|
Jim,
I examined mine again under much better light, and they're OK. What I thought were tool marks were apparently an illusion.
Something else which hasn't been mentioned is the chamfered mouths on your cylinder. I don't think that is right either. I would definitely send your gun back.
Hope things turn out as they should.
Andy
|
11-19-2009, 03:04 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Smith has replied that they would like it sent back to them. I have returned it to the gun shop and it is on its way back. I will let you all know what the outcome is.
Jim
|
12-02-2009, 06:08 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Update. Received the revolver back from Smith today. The paper work states that they replaced the cylinder. The cylinder is definitely a different one. Ironically though this new cylinder has the same marks in the throats! I suppose S&W deems this to be normal and or acceptable.
A bit more disappointing is the fact that there is now side to side cylinder play (not end shake). The cylinder had absolutely ZERO play in any direction when I sent it to them. The play is almost a “wobble” where the cylinder fits on the crane tube.
To illustrate what I am trying to say, take a look at this picture:
Imagine that the red area was a smaller diameter then the green area. You can then picture in your mind how the cylinder “wobbles” on the shaft. This wobble occurs during full lock up.
I really don’t want to send this thing back again. Is having some play like this acceptable? I have not had the chance to measure the actual play yet, but would guess it to be around .005.
Jim
Last edited by InMotion; 12-02-2009 at 06:12 PM.
|
12-02-2009, 07:13 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
There's always a .001"-.002" thousanths play to allow the cylinder to rotate freely, but .005" is pushing it. The play is usually spread out over both bearing surfaces on the yoke barrel though. If the cylinder is doing the "wobble" during full lock up though, I would send it back again. That kind of **** is inexcusable to me. There should be almost no detecable movement at full lock up, other then very minor sideplay. Sideplay is actually rotational movement on the cylinder stop. It is different from what you are describing. It sounds like the yoke bearing surfaces of the crane are now too small in diameter for the new cylinder's yoke tunnel, and is allowing the movement you describe.
|
12-02-2009, 07:51 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Thanks Gun 4 Fun. That is exactly what it seems to me as well. Under full lock up, I think the cylinder stop is nice and tight which holds the rear of the cylinder still, but the front of the cylinder can still move on the yoke barrel, giving the impression of a wobble (there is no rotational play on the cylinder stop).
I will check the side to side play with the cylinder swung open when I get home from work to see if the back side of the cylinder moves as well. This should tell for sure if the entire length of the yoke barrel is undersize or just the front.
Jim
|
12-03-2009, 05:57 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Above the Centre of the Earth
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
The yoke will need to be internally expanded or replaced, I have seen one that had been expanded and it worked just fine, how it was done ... to be truthful - I am unsure.
__________________
"The older I get - the faster I was"
|
12-04-2009, 02:33 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Okay, I think I was a bit over zealous with my “guestimate” of the play on the yoke barrel. Here is what I did:
I measured the thickness of a piece of scotch tape. This came out to be .002. I then wrapped 1 layer over the entire circumference of both ends (bearing surfaces) of the yoke barrel. The cylinder would NOT slide on. This tells me that the total “wobble” play (full left to full right) is less then .004.
I then wrapped half of the circumference with 1 layer of the tape. The cylinder would now slide on the yoke barrel, but just barely. So it would seem that my total wobble is about .002, which should equate to the yoke barrel outer diameter being about .002 smaller then the cylinder inner diameter.
For some reason moving the cylinder around on the yoke barrel “feels” like it is moving a lot more then it actually is. I think I am in the clear.
Jim
|
12-04-2009, 03:54 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
|
|
Jim,
If you have .001" at the rear bearing surface, and .001" at the front bearing surface, that would equate to a total of .002" and would be detectable, but seem much worse than it is, especially when you are already concerned about it.
You need some play to allow the cylinder to rotate when the gun gets heated up from firing, and also to allow the cylinder to turn when it becomes powder fouled. I know the gas ring is supposed to help prevent this, but fouling always gets down in between the cylinder and yoke, which is one reason they are made by the factory to be so easy to disassemble and clean.
I think you are probably fine, but if it keeps nagging at you, have them check it.
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|