Did I – or my ammo – damage my Model 60… or was it made this way?

[feralcatkillr]

Hi, all. This is a continuation of my thread, http://smith-wessonforum.com/ammo/313901-buffalo-bore-failure-five-shots-seven-holes.html that I posted in the Ammo forum here. Please read it for all of the background, but here’s a summary:

I bought a Model 60 Pro Series brand new from local the gun shop two weeks ago. My first range session was last weekend and I have only fired a total of 130 factory rounds through the gun, as follows and in this order:

- 25 rounds .38 special Federal 158 gr LRN
- 25 rounds .38 special Remington 158 gr LSWC
- 25 rounds .357 magnum CCI Blazer 158 gr JSP
- 20 rounds .38 special +P Buffalo Bore 158 gr LSWCHP-GC
- 10 rounds .357 magnum American Eagle 158 gr JSP
- 25 more rounds .357 magnum CCI Blazer 158 gr JSP

Then (as you can read in the other thread) I posted some questions here about why the Buffalo Bore performed so oddly (terrible accuracy, separation of gas checks and burn-through of primers) and also e-mailed B.B. who said that it was probably because I fired lead bullets through it and leaded the barrel before I then fired their high-performance ammo, which lead to pressure problems that would explain the primer burn through.

So…… here’s what’s next. Today I’ve been alternating between some solventy patches and some copper brush scrubbing in the cylinder chambers and barrel, and have scrubbed it good and clean. But, because this is more “TLC” time than I had spend so far with this new gun, I just now noticed something. The front-left side of the frame, up by the barrel, is cut away a bit. I’ve attached three photos. When you look directly at the left side of the gun angled 90-degrees, you can see that the frame’s not perfectly straight there and has a bit of a crescent shape.

Next, if you look at the inside of the frame there to the left of the forcing cone, you can see the bit that is cut away and it has sort of a speckled, stipled look. The stipled look kind of looks like welding flux spatter, but much smaller and it’s a consistent texture. And remember, this isn’t something that is on top of or in addition to the frame, it’s cut away out of the frame. However, when you look at the rest of the frame around the forcing cone including the top strap and the right side, it all looks normal. (I attached a picture of that side too.)

So…. What the heck happened here? Did it come from the factory like this, or is it related to an over pressure ammo situation? Recall, I haven’t even really proven that over-pressure hypothesis, and I’ve only had 130 rounds, total, through the gun. Also, the barrel/cylinder gap on the gun is nice and tight for all five cylinders, and consistently angled (doesn’t tip or lean) The cylinder locks up beautifully (tighter than any revolver I’ve ever owned).

On the other hand…. This gun did come from the factory with quite a few other flaws. The barrel is clocked slightly to the left (when viewed from behind), the beveled portion at the top/front of the frame is a bit too far to the right, and the rear sight is machined into the top strap at a bit of an angle (too far to the right, at the front, then corrects itself and comes back more the left at the rear.

These latter issues are annoying but I had decided I was going to live with them because I bought this “kit gun” to be just that: something I always have with me clunking around in the pickup or in a fishing tackle box or in the backpack when camping. I was able to sight it in and compensate for the slightly off-kilter front sight by moving the rear sight to the left, so I wasn’t going to worry about cosmetic things. I was just happy to find a specimen with a great trigger pull, tight lock-up, and to my eye (I don’t have any feeler gauges) good barrel/cylinder gap.

Well now this frame “cut” has come to my attention and I’m not sure what to think. Did it come from the factory like this, or is it something that happened during the first, short range session. If it is some sort of flame cutting, why would it have occurred only way out there on the left side, and not up on the top strap which is much closer?

 

[Muley Gil]

I'm surprised you didn't notice this when you bought your M60.

I don't think the ammo caused the damage.

 

[DCWilson]

When I bought a 649 a few years ago it came with some milling debris (steel threads) wound around the breech end of the barrel and sticking out from the threaded hole into which the barrel was screwed. It didn't have anything like the eroded steel I see in your photos. I just picked off the loose stuff, wiped it down, and put it to use.

There are some airweight models whose cylinder faces have experienced erosion and wear from superhot rounds, but I'm not aware of it happening to stainless frames.

 

[mc5aw]

I could live with cosmetic issues, but not a canted barrel. That revolver should go back for a replacement, with a detailed and diplomatic letter indicating all of the irregularities it has.

 

[Dave T]

My opinion from looking at your pictures is that neither your ammo nor you caused that. The factory did. The words "quality control" don't mean what they used to at S&W (and a lot of other manufacturers as well).

Dave

 

[k20350]

My opinion from looking at your pictures is that neither your ammo nor you caused that. The factory did. The words "quality control" don't mean what they used to at S&W (and a lot of other manufacturers as well).

Dave

Sadly I agree with Dave. I have purchased 3 new S&W's this year and 2 of the 3 have had an issue. S&W fixed both instances to my liking but 66% failure is making me disheartened with my beloved gunmaker. I would send that revolver back for sure. They will make it right.

 

[Steely Dan]

I'm surprised you didn't notice this when you bought your M60.

I don't think the ammo caused the damage.

I could see the instance of me not seeing this.

I would be "blinded" by the thrill of the purchase.

The good thing about this thread for the rest of us is it gives us the knowledge to inspect closer before buying.

My first inclination is the feel.

Then when I get it home and clean it, I start to really look at it.

We need to get into the weeds before we throw down the cash.

Hope the OP gets this straightened out. I've learned new things for future reference.

 

[LeMans]

As said above I seriously doubt you did this as it looks like typical S&W quality control or lack thereof...

 

[andyo5]

Flame cutting occurs only on the top strap. It can only happen where the gas and debris encounter a blind corner. I think the metal missing on the left side is a factory error that went unnoticed. The 'splatter' look tells me that the frame casting was defective from the start. What you are seeing is the raw casting surface. The metal wasn't machined away, it was never there to begin with.
The factories are pumping product out the door so fast now that things like this are becoming quite common. I have had to send new Smiths, Rugers, and Springfields back to the factory for repair/replacements.
The good news is that if you call customer service, explain your issue, and request a call tag for shipment back to the factory; they will be likely to comply.

 

[ralph7]

Second pic looks like a drop on concrete more than anything.

 

[FloridaFlier]

I don't think there is damage from flame cutting. Also, S&W does not post a prohibition against lead bullets. Yes, you coulda-shoulda cleaned it better between range sessions, but the S&W stainless steel needs to be able to handle that.

Personally, I flat out will not keep a gun that I do not trust. Your gun has already failed that test.

I'd send it back to S&W and tell them what you have noticed. Their response will guide your next action. If you love the gun, but still don't trust it, consider having an action job by their Performance Center while it's there.

100% reliable or gone. No in between.

 

[feralcatkillr]

Flame cutting occurs only on the top strap. It can only happen where the gas and debris encounter a blind corner. I think the metal missing on the left side is a factory error that went unnoticed. The 'splatter' look tells me that the frame casting was defective from the start. What you are seeing is the raw casting surface. The metal wasn't machined away, it was never there to begin with.

Original Poster here. Ok, these responses have helped me make up my mind. I will send it back.

It's true, when I saw this at the gun shop I was excited because I'd been looking for one and was mostly focused on the cylinder lock-up and barrel/cylinder gap. Especially the latter because I had read the gunblast.com review by Jeff Quinn where he had to get a new revolver because the gap on his original one was so bad that accuracy stunk. http://www.gunblast.com/SW-60Pro.htm I didn't notice the off-kilter angles and certainly not the missing metal until the first serious cleaning.

To tell you the truth, this is my third S&W ever, all purchased in the last 5-6 years and they all had to go back to the factory. The first was a 642 that failed to fire on 2 to 3 out of every five shots. It came back with a very long list of parts that had been replaced, and a very nice trigger. Great gun now.

Second was a 686 with a severely clocked/canted barrel (again the left) so they paid for shipping and returned it with it tipped to far in the other direction, so I returned it again. Third time was a charm. Beautiful gun now, and honestly I was starting to get the impression that sending items back to S&W was just part of the process of getting a proper Smith nowadays.

But now I have this issue involving the frame (missing metal, and poorly machined top strap/rear sight) which presumably cannot be "fixed" but only replaced. I'm seriously worried that the replacement gun will be worse. I mean, at least this one is a tack driver in terms of accuracy, and the trigger is wonderful.

Dang.

 

[girvin02]

I'm fairly certain that the rough area, to the left of the forcing cone, is non-cleanup of the forging (frame), during the machining process. In other words, there was not enough metal in that area of the forged blank used to machine the frame from. This is most likely a result of the machinist not setting up the forged blank centered to the cutter path - known as a setup part (and to be discarded as scrap in most cases).

 

[feralcatkillr]

I'm fairly certain that the rough area, to the left of the forcing cone, is non-cleanup of the forging (frame), during the machining process. In other words, there was not enough metal in that area of the forged blank used to machine the frame from. This is most likely a result of the machinist not setting up the forged blank centered to the cutter path - known as a setup part (and to be discarded as scrap in most cases).

Yes. This would explain why my gun is The Hunchback of Notre Dame in other regards. It makes me wonder what else could be wrong, and if something inherent to the gun might also the be the cause of some of the signs of over-pressure with the hot Buffalo Bore loads.

I'm going to write S&W a very diplomatic letter explaining that this is three guns that have been returned four times in about five or six years, and will include copies of all the work orders from the other problem guns. As a non-reloader, I've probably also wasted $200-$300+ in ammo and range fees as I went off to do the initial "sight-in" of guns that were later going to have to be returned.

The idea of what they might grab off the shelf -- especially given the current ramp-up in manufacturing to satisfy demand -- worries me a lot. But, this isn't my first rodeo when it comes to returning defective guns, so I don't think it's too much to ask to say, "Please have one of your best people make me a gun I can be proud of."

 

[Dave T]

I was starting to get the impression that sending items back to S&W was just part of the process of getting a proper Smith nowadays.

Sad but I fear it is becoming the truth.

Dave

 

[TAROMAN]

Sad commentary on S&W's current lack of quality control.
A couple years ago I purchased a new 21-4 that had one side of the bottom of the butt roughly beveled off in exactly the same manner as the OP's frame. Of course that was hidden by the factory stocks. It came from Bud's and I accepted it.
Turns out that was the least of its problems. After two trips back to the factory it still wasn't to my satisfaction.
traded that dog straight across for a nice 4" 29-3 and never looked back.

 

[shouldazagged]

I'm afraid this is another element in the case for buying good older Smith revolvers. It has saddened me greatly to see so many reports of slipping QC from a great company. I know that complaints on the Internet get more attention than in the old days, but the OP's 60 is pretty shocking.

I've never bought a new S&W revolver. Every one I've owned was superb. My newest one (I'm down to only two now) was manufactured in 1990, and it's the one to which I literally trust my life.

 

[ranger7]

-snip-
As a non-reloader, I've probably also wasted $200-$300+ in ammo and range fees as I went off to do the initial "sight-in" of guns that were later going to have to be returned. -snip-

This is an item that seems frequently overlooked. Several years ago I had more than one gun from a manufacturer that had a reputation for their guns needing rework after purchase ("fluff and buff" comes to mind). More than one of their guns had to go back multiple times and it was a continuing process of getting the gun to work right and each time you were expected to shoot it in with 200+ rounds. Fans of the company always praised the company's customer service for replacing the gun each time. I soon came to realize I had several times the original cost of the gun invested in "shoot-in ammo" and some shipping charges. This is becoming more of a problem with S&W now that their quality control has slipped and ammo prices have escalated.

 

[feralcatkillr]

OP here again. Here are a couple more photos. The first one from the top view shows how the rear sight, as well as the part of the frame that is beveled away as it slopes down at the front of the frame, is offset rightward. It's off by about two millimeters.

Then the barrel is clocked a bit leftward, but not as much as it looks from the top, because the combination of the left-leaning barrel and the right-leaning rear sight groove combine to make it really look off-kilter.

Second, take a look at that gap at the top of the yoke when the cylinder is closed, between the yoke and the "yoke cut" in the frame. Not having owned a lot of S&Ws before I don't know what "spec" is for that, but the gap on my 642 and 686 are almost non-existent. This seems like the Grand Canyon by comparison.

Thanks for your replies. They help me confirm that I'm not just being overly picky and this truly is bad QC.

 

[Jim Watson]

Sad to say, it is not a very recent phenomenon.
My M640 .38, bought when I learned they were going to .357 Magnum in steel J frames, which would have been in 1995-96, is flawed.
The cylinder flutes are not centered between the chambers.
Embarassingly, I never noticed until after I had the gun engraved and the pattern emphasized the misalignment.

Not as bad as the poor guy who got a 686 with seven shot cylinder having six flutes. Or was it six shots and seven flutes. Either way, it was very strange and formed some very thin chamber walls. They replaced it, of course, but he was still disgusted.