Spotted a 624, need info

[Trooper Joe]

Saw a nice 624 at my local dealer yesterday. Dealer says it is a $1,000 gun but he hasn’t actually set the price yet. It does not have the target grips but that is not a deal breaker for me.

I did a lot of research last night and found a number of comments about the recall involving these revolvers due to some metallurgy issues with some cylinders.

I also saw many positive reviews.

I don’t know if he has the original box or not (if he does I will check for the red “C” indicating that the gun was checked out by S&W).

S&W is closed this week so I have to wait to check with them. Since I am leaving town today, I need to make a decision as soon as possible.

If he has no info on recall compliance, I feel I should get the gun for a lower price and take my chances with the recall issue.

Any help with this will be greatly appreciated.

Trooper Joe

 

[ACORN]

I have a 6-1/2” 624 that has the red c. I found the box after I had called to check with the factory.
I’ve heard a couple different reasons for the recall.
One is the metal was not to spec. The other, and more likely to me, is the chambers were cut too deep, allowing .44 mags to slide in.
Be aware that if your gun is found to be “defective” the factory has no replacement cylinders.
Give them a call when they re-open. If it were mine, now, it would be a non-issue. I’d just shoot mild loads out of it. I have .44 magnums if I want to go “hot”.

 

[Trooper Joe]

Well I picked up the 624 this morning. No box so I don't know if it was checked out by S&W after the recall or not. It is so nice I decided to take a chance (got it for under $1,000).

Cylinder has an "F" stamped on the rear (there is supposed to be some significance about that as far as the recall is concerned). Will call S&W next week and try to find out more about this gun.

Be glad when PhotoBucket gets back up so I can post some better pictures.

Trooper Joe

 

[grizz700]

I would not worry about it. I have one and it has had no problems after several years of shooting. And it was never sent in.

 

[Marshal Tom]

Good score. Love the 44Sp.

 

[Nightowl]

That looks like a 4 inch. I'm not sure if they were included in the recall or not, but from what I have observed from discussions here, very few have been found to be "defective". There is a list here somewhere of the serial numbers involved from guns made in the first 6 months of 1985, if I remember correctly.

 

[Trooper Joe]

That looks like a 4 inch. I'm not sure if they were included in the recall or not, but from what I have observed from discussions here, very few have been found to be "defective". There is a list here somewhere of the serial numbers involved from guns made in the first 6 months of 1985, if I remember correctly.

Thanks Nightowl,

Can't find that list. Maybe someone can post a link directly to it.

As others have posted, I am not too worried about this but just want to fin out if my gun was included in the recall group. I have a new (about two years ago) Charter arms Bulldog, .44 Special that prints 1" groups at 15 yards. I shoot 185 PMC in it and feel that if the CA will handle it this S&W 624 will be OK.

Thanks again for ll your comments gang.

Trooper Joe

 

[s&wchad]

Go to the Notable Thread Index in this section and click on the FAQ's. You'll find this:

624/629 Cylinder Recall

The Skeeter Skelton article in the October 1985 issue of Shooting Times magazine stated: "A steel supplier has just advised Smith & Wesson that they shipped a very small quantity of incorrect stainless steel material (11 bars) to us that was not in accordance with their certifications. The incorrect material was used in the cylinders for some large-frame stainless-steel revolvers, Model Numbers 624 (.44 Special) and 629 (.44 Magnum). The approximately 500 units containing this material were shipped from Smith & Wesson between January 1, 1985 and June 8, 1985. They would be included in the following ranges of serial numbers: ADXXXXX, AEXXXXX, AFXXXXX, AGXXXXX, AHXXXXX, ALVXXXX, N910000 thru N953000."

Skeeter goes on to say that the bad cylinder steel caused the recall of about 21,000 guns to find 500 with improper steel.

Today, Kate Fredette of Smith & Wesson basically confirmed this same info. The serial number range includes:

ADXXXX
AEXXXX
AFXXXX
AGXXXX
AHXXXX
ALVXXX (the “V” is not a typo)
N910000 thru N953000

Recalled guns were shipped between Jan 1, 1985 and June 8, 1985 only. The cylinder has to be checked on these handguns and the only way to know is by checking the full serial number against their records. The problem involves 500 guns shipped during that period.

If a handgun in the recalled range has already been returned to the factory for testing, a red letter “C” that is circled will be stamped on the box label, indicating that the gun passed re-inspection. No marks are made on the cylinder of checked guns, only the red “C” in the circle stamped on the box label.

If your gun is within this range and you do not have a box or know for certain that it has been tested, you should contact Smith & Wesson. S&W’s records prior to 1986 are not computerized, so it takes them a little longer to look up the particulars.

You can E-mail your gun’s serial number to: [email protected]. S&W will contact you regarding the status of your particular gun. If your gun is included in the recall, you'll be sent a prepaid FedEx label and shipping instructions. While E-mail is best, you may also call S&W Customer Support at 1-800-331-0852.

Recalled cylinders are tested by magnafluxing. If your recalled gun does fail, there are no replacement cylinders. S&W will keep your gun and you will be offered the choice of another handgun of equal value or a refund. However, only one gun has failed the test so far … apparently the one sent in by our own dogdoc from Alabama. He says he was offered a 629 as a replacement.

I hope this clears the recall questions up once and for all.

 

[Trooper Joe]

Thanks S&WChad this is just what I needed.

The email link still seems to work so I sent a message to S&W.

Will follow up with a phone call next week.

Trooper Joe

 

[BoCash]

Trooper Joe & all......

Great score. You nailed that one at a fair price. I have more in my 4" than the other 4, but I was glad to get it close to ANIB. I have a 624 in 3", one in 4", and 3 of them in 6 1/2". I love the .44 special and especially the model 624.

The 4" is harder to find so you got a nice prize. When sighting my 4-inch in on sand bags for the first time, I was really impressed with the groups it produced...............as good and occasionally better than the 6 1/2" pieces. Maybe I just reloaded the right recipe that the 4-inch jives with???

Anyhow, thanks for sharing your new find.... Congratulations!!

Bo in western NC (The "FIVE" below- last purchase is separate as it was not around when the 4 were photo-ed)

 

[cherrypointmarine]

Like stated above check and see if it will take a .44magnum round . Mine does , but it's not going back . If I ever sell it I will be up front and say so . But my 624 is not going anywhere , at least until I bite the bullet .

 

[Trooper Joe]

Like stated above check and see if it will take a .44magnum round . Mine does , but it's not going back . If I ever sell it I will be up front and say so . But my 624 is not going anywhere , at least until I bite the bullet .

I checked my 624 and a 44 Mag round will not chamber. My serial number falls in the recall range (AHBxxxx) so I did send an email to S&W. Will call them when they open after the 2nd and see what they say.

Thanks for all the info gang.

Trooper Joe

 

[The Norseman]

44 S&W Special

Wow! I really like that S&W 624 44S&W Special.

It has the S&W Revolver Profile of my S&W "Mountain Guns".

I'm always on the look out for anything S&W 44spl. I really like
that Cartridge. I Reload for it, and its easy to Reload for.

Congratulations!

 

[FlyFish]

I have a 624 in the serial number range for the recall. I wouldn't consider sending it back to be checked for the reasons others have stated, and I've shot it for years with no issues. There remains considerable confusion and disagreement over the "bad steel" vs. "deep chambers" reason for the recall, but whichever it is (I tend to go with the "deep chambers" crowd, which I understand is Roy Jink's explanation), I can't imagine the problem could be all that serious if guns that passed the check are designated as such by stamping a red "C", or anything else, ON THE BOX. (Consider, for example, how they stamp the "M" on the 586/686 recalled/repaired guns, which is a relatively trivial issue.) S&W has to know, as we all do, that guns and their boxes often part company over the years - if the recall was all that important, they'd have marked the guns themselves so there'd be no question.

 

[Big Cholla]

Don't send it back if you want to keep that M 624. Either don't shoot full bore 44 Special rounds or have it recylindered with a 44 mag cylinder. Give me a day and I will check my stash of SS cylinders. I think I have either a 44 Special or a 44 Mag. You could have either at a fair price.

 

[ACORN]

I have a 624 in the serial number range for the recall. I wouldn't consider sending it back to be checked for the reasons others have stated, and I've shot it for years with no issues. There remains considerable confusion and disagreement over the "bad steel" vs. "deep chambers" reason for the recall, but whichever it is (I tend to go with the "deep chambers" crowd, which I understand is Roy Jink's explanation), I can't imagine the problem could be all that serious if guns that passed the check are designated as such by stamping a red "C", or anything else, ON THE BOX. (Consider, for example, how they stamp the "M" on the 586/686 recalled/repaired guns, which is a relatively trivial issue.) S&W has to know, as we all do, that guns and their boxes often part company over the years - if the recall was all that important, they'd have marked the guns themselves so there'd be no question.

Excellent point!

 

[SLT223]

Long chambers? Cool. Sounds like a covert 629 Mountain revolver when a 6" tapered barrel was available.

How would the steel be bad for the 624, but not the 657, 627, 60, 64, 67, 66, 629, and semi auto guns being made at the time?...or was it?

 

[Big Cholla]

I have a new cylinder only (no extractor) that would fit your M 624. The only problem is that it is for 44 mag. IMO, it is OK for you to have this cylinder fitted if that is your choice. Your extractor and internals should fit into this new cylinder without any other than minor fitting. PM me if you are interested.

I am like many others that believe the original recall was really about 44 mag cylinders fitted to a few M 624s at the factory and not lower grade steel being used. S&W probably just didn't want to admit such a junior varsity mistake so they came up with the wrong steel meld being used.

Oh, I forgot to mention that this cylinder is slightly longer than the 44 spec. In fitting the mag cylinder the pistolsmith would have to shorten the shank of the existing barrel and cut a new forcing cone. No big deal......

 

[Trooper Joe]

As I mentioned, my gun does not chamber a 44 Mag round. I agree that this recall must have been a very minor problem and the metallurgy may or may not have been the issue.

The gun has been fired and shows no evidence of any problems.

I am only going to follow up with S&W more out of curiosity than anything else. As I mentioned, if my ammo of choice (PMC 180 hp and CAS ammo) works in my Charter Arms Bulldog gun, I am not worried about using the same rounds in my 642.

Really appreciate all the comments and advise gang.

Trooper Joe

 

[StrawHat]

...I am like many others that believe the original recall was really about 44 mag cylinders fitted to a few M 624s at the factory and not lower grade steel being used. S&W probably just didn't want to admit such a junior varsity mistake so they came up with the wrong steel meld being used...

S&W doesn’t seem to care they deep chambered the 625 in 45 ACP. Why would they care if the 624 was deeper?

Kevin