I apologize to the Forum

[rmc]

I broke one of the Forum rules and posted a link. This was immediately caught and my post cancelled. That is to the credit of the moderators.

NOT AN EXCUSE - I was trying to get a picture to ask you guys a question, ran into problems, and without thinking posted the whole link instead. For that I apologize.

Now, if I did this right and without breaking any more rules I will attempt to post just a picture of what I was wanted to ask about.

The forcing cone on this Smith seems to be scarred. I checked my Smiths and ALL of them are smooth.

By looking at this pic can anybody tell me if this is a damaged forcing cone or as the seller (a dealer) says this scarring is part of the manufacturing process.



Again, hope I did this right.

rmc

[robertrwalsh]

I am neither a gunsmith nor a machinist, but that does not look right at all to me. I don't even really see a forcing cone there, though maybe that's just me.

[Krogen]

If you're referring to the barrel end, the face if you will, I believe it's a cost-cutting move. As long as it's not the forcing cone itself that's rough, I wouldn't be concerned.

I have a couple of newer Smith's with exactly the same "feature." The OD is sharp enough that I need to watch out during cleaning lest I cut myself. Some older Smith's have a nice bevel on that corner. Doesn't affect the shooting performance at all provided the gap is correct and the charge holes align properly with the bore.

[PA Guns & Ammo]

If you do a search on here, you will see some members having chatter marks on theirs. I guess S&W is slipping in quality control lately.

[markeb]

That's the main reason I look for the older guns.

[Nightowl]

Check the barrel/cylinder gap. If it around .006, and square, then it is probably ok. It looks like it was filed to fit, rather that finished.

[Sconnie]

Originally Posted by PA Guns & Ammo

If you do a search on here, you will see some members having chatter marks on theirs. I guess S&W is slipping in quality control lately.

Originally Posted by markeb

That's the main reason I look for the older guns.

Nah, nothing new. I have a 617 no dash from the early 90's and a 66-2 from the mid 80's with that look. The 617 is worse and the 66-2 isn't quite as bad. If it shoots well forget about it and enjoy.

[Zipdog]

Those are file marks done by the factory to adjust the cylinder to barrel gap. For those of you who think the older guns were always fitted better than the new ones you are wrong. This has been going on at times for a very long time. Ask any gunsmith who has been around a long time who has seen lots of S&W's . No need to believe me.

[OIF2]

I have a 17-3 with file marks about like that. It is superbly accurate; I regularly shoot bullseye at 50 yds using Eley Tenex ammo with it. Don't worry about it; just shoot the darn thing.
Bob

[F75gunslinger]

If it were me, I would consider that unacceptable. To me, $600+ for a revolver is a good chunk of change ( I'm sure it was more ). At that price, I would expect all surfaces to be cleanly machined/ finished and have a quality look to them. That would drive me nuts.

[Bill Douglas]

Originally Posted by rmc

For that I apologize.

Sir, no apology necessary. We only apologize if we have bought a revolver that isn't a Smith and Wesson

[BillyMagg]

Originally Posted by markeb

That's the main reason I look for the older guns.

Exactly right, and for those who proclaim it has always been thus, I was born at night, but not LAST NIGHT??? LOL

many of the older Smiths are almost to pretty to shoot, and yes they are art-work, the quality has def gone down hill, and what is acceptable to the factory is rather sad, ten years ago, we could have assured a gun purchaser that Smith would make it right??? no longer the case I'm afraid???