Brand new 629 fit and finish seems poor. Thoughts?

I

Invisible Hand

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
30
Reaction score
5
Location
Dallas, Texas
Hey guy's I've been lurking on this forum for some time now and recently picked up a new 629 classic 5". It was a pain to find one and cost me quite a bit but I felt it was worth it.

I'm not sure if I set too high of expectations but from the moment I opened the box at my local FFL the revolver seemed like a used gun... or at least not a $900 handgun. I had read that S&W likes to ship their revolvers dirty so I rushed home to clean it up. My disappointment grew when I noticed several imperfections after spending an hour cleaning it. Below are the two major ones that bug me the most. Being my first Smith revolver I was curious if this was considered "normal".

The right side of the ramp where the front sight sits has what I first thought was dirt but is apparently just a poor finish job. I spent 30 minutes scrubbing away with solvent and a cleaning brush without any effect. I'm afraid to use something more abrasive and make it worse.
A7A274C2_zps7718d872.jpg


The other imperfection may be how they all are and if this is the case please let me know. The left side of the frame where the extractor slides in with the cylinder looks like a four year old with a hammer bent it to shape... I realize there are multiple angles on the interior of the piece but the lines on this just don't look right... Its looks worse in person but I did my best to capture it.

2AAB4DD8_zps676225bc.jpg


Thanks for the input. I apologize for my first post being a nitpick of the guns you guys love. I just guess I was expecting more buying a Smith Revolver when my friend's $300 Rossi is flawless. LOL
 
Register to hide this ad
Your recoil shield is perfectly normal.

The finish on below your front sight is a minor imperfection.

Yes, they cost good money but if you detail inspect even the older models you will see minor imperfections on most of them. It's not a museum grade collectable. It's a .44 magnum hammer of thor in your hand. Go make loud holes in targets at the range.
 
Lol thanks for input. As soon as my ammo shows up I'll go test it out. I just wanted to make sure they weren't cranking out subpar guns as fast as possible given the current demand.
 
I think all is normal. The first SS Smith&Wesson revolvers in the 70's had quite a bit of imperfections compared to the blued versions. Individual guns can be better/worse, but even the earlier models show tool marks, swirls, etc. Enjoy your revolver, try not to be too critical especially under 10x power loop because few can hold up to that examination! :D
 
From the two photos provided, I tend to agree with maximumbob54. However, it's kind of hard to pass judgement without seeing it in the flesh. Kind of reminds me of a stainless Ruger GP100 5"bbl I purchased new a couple of years ago. It actually had surfact rust along the rib at the end of the bbl, almost exactly the same place the imperfections on yours is. It took considerably rubbing with an oil soaked cloth to remove it, and you can still slightly see it if you knew it was there. Also, the serial number is slightly irregular, sort of runs uphill. I know I could have returned it to Ruger for repair, but I decided that the imperfections just didn't warrant sending it back. However, it's your new revolver, and I know that you want to be satisfied and proud of it. Please let us know what you decide to do. The 629 is a fine revolver.
 
As others have said, the recoil shield looks perfectly normal.

I have some similar marks under my gun's red ramp.

It is so small that even someone like me(who is really fussy about a gun's finish) isn't bothered.

Stainless Smiths often have a lot of whorl marks and whatnot.

Sit down to watch your favourite show, make sure the guns unloaded and polish it with Mother's Mag with some old Tshirts.

When the credits roll you'll be a happy man.

Make sure you don't polish the laser etched logo.

My 686+ needed only a few minutes to give it a nice luster.

Look at my review post and see what Mother's can do for you.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/259716-new-686-3-report.html
 
Thanks guys. I think I'll just shoot them an email to see if they think its removable with some more rubbing and what they'd recommend.

This forum is great by the way. I run a car forum and the active and friendly atmosphere here remind me of it. Guns > Cars tho lol.
 
I just got a new one and the cylinder cover looks exactly the same as yours. I hadn't noticed it at first, but after about the third trip to the range I saw it while cleaning and thought, "holy ****, what have I done?" I thought I must have wrecked it somehow, but I started looking at the pics I took when it was fresh out of the box and what I could find online and realized it was normal. I don't think mine has the problem around the sights, but it shoots like a dream and I kind ofthink of it as a work horse rather than the crown jewels. I just got some ren wax in today so I'll see how nice it cleans up. Just glad I didn't take a hammer and try to round out that cylinder cover.
 
JPriest said:
I just got a new one and the cylinder cover looks exactly the same as yours. I hadn't noticed it at first, but after about the third trip to the range I saw it while cleaning and thought, "holy ****, what have I done?" I thought I must have wrecked it somehow, but I started looking at the pics I took when it was fresh out of the box and what I could find online and realized it was normal. I don't think mine has the problem around the sights, but it shoots like a dream and I kind ofthink of it as a work horse rather than the crown jewels. I just got some ren wax in today so I'll see how nice it cleans up. Just glad I didn't take a hammer and try to round out that cylinder cover.
Click to expand...

Thats referred to as the recoil shield, and older Smiths were indeed very slik, and some of them are in fact musuem pieces and many grace the private collections of the fine gentlemen on this forum, that would bother me as well, but like you, my eye can pick up that type of anomoly quickly, and I say anomoly because the design of the recoil shield is a beautifully machined piece of forged steel. That likely does NOT match the design drawings, but that is what we are left with in these uncertain days. Save your money and shop around, you can trade that pooch off for one that pleases your Mark One Eyeball. Billy Magg
My first 629, a Classic Hunter that I also paid too much for, had the rear sight base improperly milled, when they attempted to fix it, they ruined the frame, which they replaced, but the crane to frame fit could only be described as an abomination, so I traded it and 150 cash for a gorgeous 29DX, which I foolishly allowed to get away from me. LOL Billy Magg
 
I know this was a few pages back, but I wanted to offer my opinion.
My normal carry piece is an older model 60, the days when Smith worked the guns by hand.
My wife has a model 60 Lady Smith .357 (pre-safety) and it was done with CNC technology and the finish is perfect.
At Cabela's yesterday, I gazed over everything. The Ruger revolvers where horrible. I mean it looked like they finished them in a hurry.
My wife had her eye on a 637 airweight and although a ton better looking that the Rugers ( sorry Ruger lovers ), even the Smith wasn't flawless.

Unless you buy from the perfomance center, I just believe they just don't make them like they used to. Whether it's the economy, production expectations because people are buying like never before, or profit, it's not the same. But if it works, and I love Smith's because they work, it's a small sacrifice to make if it comes down to a life or death situation.
 
Thank's for the input! You statement about the Ruger's helped alleviate the thought that I should have gone with a Redhawk. I actually just now got around to shooting an email off to S&W about this pistol. I also included a picture of the yolk/ frame gap which I also find some what sub-par.

0
 
Your recoil shield looks normal. I'm not even sure that the shield is what you were talking about. I do see what looks like some scuffs on the frame on the left side, next to the hammer. Not normal if they are scuffs.
As far as "the left side of the frame where the extractor slides in with the cylinder", I have no idea what you are referring to.
 
andyo5 said:
Your recoil shield looks normal. I'm not even sure that the shield is what you were talking about. I do see what looks like some scuffs on the frame on the left side, next to the hammer. Not normal if they are scuffs.
As far as "the left side of the frame where the extractor slides in with the cylinder", I have no idea what you are referring to.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was referring to the recoil shield (didn't know the term lol). Not sure if its a good thing that it's "normal". Those are indeed scuffs near the hammer. The gun has scuffs and scratches all over it. I was more concerned about the things polishing wouldn't take care of. I'm looking forward to their email reply... I would have gladly paid for a performance center 629 but from what I read today it appears those have issues of their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top