350 Legend "timing issues" any more info?

I am smitten by the new X Frame 350 Legend. 50 years ago I stumbled on a secret pot farm and three goons came towards me with axes drawn. A .357 Smith on my hip saved me that day, no need to even draw the weapon. I merely turned around, made Mr Smith visible, problem solved, I skeedaddled out of there and called the Sheriff later.

We know that

a) lawlessness is on the increase these last few years
b) perps get scared when they see a big revolver
c) they've all seen Dirty Harry at least once
d) big wheelguns are big fun, let's face it

Everyone involved is better off if a perp is scared away at the sight of your weapon, as opposed to having to shoot him then go thru all the resulting legal proceedings. Hence the advantage of a big shiny revolver.

So when I started reading that article in the latest American Rifleman by Kelly Young, I got excited. No more searching for the elusive limited production Red Wing in 41 mag. But then I read it all and on the last page we see "timing issues" and "blast to the face" and "back to the factory."
All that really caught my eye. An unpleasant surprise.

I was sure that a little search engine work would dig up the article, and a contact email for Mr Kelly Young. But so far I haven't found either. I wonder if AR keeps its print edition articles off the web these days.

I see that others have picked up on this serious quality issue and raised it here in the forum. Has anyone gotten info back from Smith? Does anyone have more info of any type about this "timing issue" on the X Frame 350 Legend? Has anyone managed to contact Kelly Young? In that past I have written AR and gotten prompt responses. But in the past I remember being able to find AR articles with email address for the author on the web. Maybe those days are over.

Were that a 500 model X Frame, a gas leak back towards the face would have been even more dangerous. This all sounds very serious to me and I wish the author had gone into detail. I don't see how a revolver could leave the factory in a state in which the hammer can strike the primer but have the cylinder bore not exactly aligned with the barrel. What about that extra lug at the front of the cylinder that the author mentions? Shouldn't that lug ensure proper timing and alignment? I have many questions about a revolver that retails for $1600 !

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/694474-recent-nra-magazine-reviews-s-w-springfield.html?highlight=350+legend

While S&W has been know to let some guns with issues out the door by and large the vast majority work fine. J,K,L,N,X or Z frame. I would worry no more about a X frame failing than any other.

A couple of people on this forum already have 350 Legend revolvers and have not reported that or any other problem. There are many 460 and 500 X frames out there and owners that frequent this forum. I have heard of no reports of injuries from any. I have one myself. The X frames use the same timing system as every other revolver they have made since the swing out cylinder models began. I believe the front lock on the yoke system began with the 5 shot model 69 L frame 44 mag and shrouded barrels. (excepting of course the legendary and long gone from production triple lock models). The yoke has been improved and works well. The front lock insures the yoke and front of cylinder are held properly in place to the frame, but really has little to do with the rotational alignment and lock up. That is the function of the stop notch and cylinder stop after the hand and ratchet places the cylinder in place to be locked by those.

No revolver will function correctly if there is zero rotational play when the cylinder stop engages the cylinder notch. JUST NO WAY that the stop can fit its window and the cylinder stop notch that tightly and reliable engage the every single time. I do not know if the one particular gun the author received had an actual timing issue where the hand was not bring the cylinder all the way into position (carry up actually) for the cylinder stop to lock it up, an excess, barrel to cylinder gap or a poorly cut forcing cone (the part that actually causes final 100% alignment) causing it to have some excess gas escape. As the bullet leaves the cylinder its nose engages the forcing cone and the taper in it causes the cylinder to go into its final 100% alignment as the bullet transitions for cylinder to barrel.

I do know that the full blown X frame loads operate at 60,000psi vs the 36,000 of 357, 41 and 44 mags. Which will cause more gas to escape the B/C gap even in the best timed guns. Think about it not only do the X frame calibers operate at 2/3 more pressure than the other magnums they also do it with cases that far exceed the capacities of the others. Far more gas at far more pressure. THEREFORE more escaped gasses. The step from a full blown X frame load is like going from pop gun 38 wadcutter target load compared to a full blown 44 mag.

That, plus the fact that I currently put about as much faith in most of the current gun rag writers as I do most current news casters is why I believe any concern is negligible.

Personally, I check any new or used gun over for proper carry up, lock up, B/C gap etc before firing it. Both for my safety and those around me. But then I don't write for gun rags.

PS As far as a self defense weapon the 350 Legend and any X frame would be a poor choice, size weight recoil recovery are all working against them. for self defense. A 38 special, 357, 44 special or 45 acp are far better choices, for any thing except maybe enraged Grizzly or polar bears.

But, this is all just my not so humble opinion LOL

Good info, thanks. I would of course not take off my beloved Shield Plus PC just to carry an X Frame. The latter would go in a chest rig while the former resides on me all day more discreetly, only comes off when I shower or sleep.

The X Frame would be more of a visual intimidation, and of course something that could in a pinch take game or varmints should the opportunity arise here in our rural area.

It does seem that gun writers have suffered, to a lesser extent, the same deterioration that has turned most journalists now into what I call presstitutes. The quality of writing is a dead giveaway. My high school English teacher is surely spinning in her grave, and even my junior high grammar teacher would be apoplectic. AR at least still seems to be quite well written in most areas.

I still hope I can chase down email for Kelly Young, at least ask why he didn't go into any more details. Perhaps Smith demurred to disclose.

I called Smith to ask about the relatively frequent issues raised here by members with FTFs on the new M&P 10mm. Smith would not discuss the reports here with me. Case by case resolution, they said, send it in. I decided not to buy one yet. No rush.

There are a couple of crotchety machinists in my group of friends who claim that Smith has suffered the same overall quality decline that afflicts many US machining businesses now under disinterested multinational investment banker ownership. I'm not in that camp, but I am listening.

I do believe that S&W has suffered from a lack of quality control that should not happen. Most likely for the same reason ,any other companies who actually produce real goods have. The lack of actual craftsmen. S&W has done a pretty good job of making up for it with the use of various modern methods. MIM parts which are made to closer tolerances than forged parts, multi axis CNC machines, shrouded barrel where the shroud assy aligns with taps on the frame so that barrel rib and sight assembly comes out in time without the need to adjust barrels shoulder to get it to torque up properly with sight in correct location. But, even a few employees with lower actual knowledge and skills or worse lower work ethic than expected in a plant making thousands of gins will result in some getting out that should not.

Examples show up here for time to time. Bad muzzles, machine marks, barrels with messed up rifling, funky forcing cones. It does seem like in the last year or so that the bad examples have tapered off. A few years ago it a lot of mis aligned front sights. But, I will stand with my statement that the majority of their guns are functionally fine.

It does pay to look over any new or used gun, First before buying and especially before shooting. Rarely any hear complaints about S&W failure to correct a problem.. A few, but some people are hard to please. S&W is in the gun business not the fine art business. You want the fine finish of yesterday you going to have to pony up some serious bucks and pay for an example of that old time craftsmanship.

I have a good number of old timers mid timers and some lock and MIM guns. An early 500, a model 69 44 mag with the shrouded barrel and yoke lock up, 2 alloy 325 45 acps, 2 alloy 32 H&Rs and a couple alloy 38 specials. They all work fine. Are they as finely finished as my 1919 455 Triple lock or my premodel guns? No. Are they are beautiful as my 5" model 27-2? No but they are all presentable and function and shot well.

PS While a big old X frame may look more intimating, if you depend on intimidation caused by the size of the gun on some of the wack jobs out there you may be sadly disappointed. If they are not intimidated by having the hole in a 38 caliber bore pointed at them I wouldn't bet on it working because of having a bigger frame. The only way I am going to pack an X frame around in the field is if I seriously plan to shoot something big. Even during elk season the biggest handgun I carry is a 45 colt and there are sometimes grizzly bears in the area I hunt in.

More hunters and campers are killed by falling trees that bears. This is true even in the history of Yellowstone park which has higher than normal amounts of both bears and people.

What gets me is he got the gun back in, I believe, around 3 weeks or so. I bought a new .357 M27-9. 30 shots, then back to factory. (Chip in forcing cone.) 3 months got it back, then the back end of the gun was out of whack. (Wouldn't work on 4 chambers.) Still waiting...It's a real beauty, can't wait to fire more than just 24-30 rounds of .38 spl in it.
That 350 looks cool, but I have no use for one. I'd like to try it out, though.

Proper timing is the most important thing to check on a new S&W revolver, I'd say about 1 in 10 doesn't lock on at least one chamber right from the factory. Before telling me that these stats are way off, please go to your gun store of choice and check a couple of NIB S&W revolvers, every chamber, single and double action. You WILL find chambers that will not lock up properly.

Now most of the time this will not actually be an issue because both in double action and when cocking the hammer for single action, the mass of the cylinder will help rotate it to the correct position anyway, but it still shouldn't be that way. Some people do shoot double action very very carefully/slowly.

Never encountered a NIB revolver from any other brand with a timing issue, but I should add that I have checked a lot more S&W revolvers than any other brand, so maybe that doesn't mean all that much.

I read the article too. Here's my take from the safety of my armchair. Note that I am a late-60 year old wimp without a lot of upper body strength and an aversion to excessive ear-damaging report.

1. This $1600 revolver weighs 71.5 oz. That's before putting the scope or other optic that so many people demand these days. There's a reason people didn't carry the Colt Walkers for very long. Strike 1.

2. The DA pull on this $1600 revolver that S&W sent to a major gun rag is 12 pounds. Since some people just might intend for that gun to be used as a defense against dangerous game, I would suggest that this is too much. The SA pull is over 5 pounds. On a hunting gun. Strike 2.

3. The 350 Legend may be a great cartridge in a rifle (I have no idea), but like other attempts to put a rifle cartridge in a handgun (such as .30 carbine), it suffers from a lot of velocity loss and a lot of flash and blast. The middle power load tested (with EXCELLENT Standard Deviation), was Federal's 180 gr. at a velocity/energy of 1,577/994. However, I checked just one semi-boutique .357 load from Underwood - a 180 gr. at 1400/782, and found a user chronograph result which confirmed it from a six-inch barrel. This will be Strike 3, as explained below.

4. This $1600 revolver, destined for a major gun rag, was allowed out of the factory with a timing issue that stopped the testing after just two shots. You can make all the excuses for S&W that you want, but how do you test-fire an expensive $1600 revolver at the factory without noticing this? Strike 4.

Now: I don't hunt, but I used to really be a revolver guy and was interested at one time in what I thought I could handle if I DID want to hunt or just have a longer-range option for field use. If I'm going to buy a revolver for hunting, and I don't particularly want the high recoil of the big boomers, I will wander down to some outdoor stores near me where they usually have a six-inch 686+ behind the counter. I can examine it. I can measure the barrel-cylinder gap. I can check the action, etc. I can order some high-end ammunition like that Underwood stuff (I only have one experience with Underwood, but it was good). No, it wont be as powerful as the 350 Legend, but it's in a gun I can carry, handle, and shoot well (about 44 oz.). I used to have an early 586, and while I found it a bit sluggish in handling, it's a positive lightweight compared to the Legion, and the .357 isn't nearly as ear-splitting than its shorter cousins when the tube is six inches. As for energy, would anything I shot with it really tell the difference? The 686+ usually goes for about $900 around here. $1600 would buy me the gun and a lot of ammunition to really learn that L-frame well (and remember, cheaper ammunition works just fine for practice in a .357). If I really, REALLY need more energy, there's always the six-inch 629 or equivalent and some more mainstream ammunition (240 gr. at 1250-1300 fps).

Anyway, this is just my opinion. It's how I analyze things, since I'm skill-limited and POOR! Your mileage can, and should, vary.

I certainly agree that sending a gun with issues to the author of a major gum magazine is pretty sloppy and S&W does need to tune up its quality control

I also agree that while the X frames would be deadly on game. it kind of defeats the actual purpose of handgun hunting to use a gun the weighs in near that of some rifles. My Mohawk 600 and 660s with scopes on them are about the same weight as my 8 3/8 500 was with the scope on it.

Under 150 yard which is my skill limit with a revolver and at that distance I would need something to help steady me, I do believe I will kill an animal just as dead with one of my 45 colts as I would with an X frame. If you put a big bullet where it belongs it kills. If you can not put it where it belongs you should not shoot. They are interesting guns though. I have more guns that are interesting than actually useful for any real purpose.

A few years ago Dr. Jinks mentioned that S & W removed "fitters" from the revolver assembly process. My understanding that these were the technicians who did fine-tuning and adjustments after assembly to ensure good function.

You could argue that with MIM action parts being more precise that all you need is "assemblers". Or not.

Mark8 said:

Proper timing is the most important thing to check on a new S&W revolver, I'd say about 1 in 10 doesn't lock on at least one chamber right from the factory. Before telling me that these stats are way off, please go to your gun store of choice and check a couple of NIB S&W revolvers, every chamber, single and double action. You WILL find chambers that will not lock up properly.
....

Click to expand...

I'd bet dollars to donuts that timing inspection is root of the old Hollywood movie routine where gunslingers very slowly and carefully turn, tug, listen, inspect a wheelgun at the store or before the big gun battle. Even Clint Eastwood - known for seeking historical accuracy and language - does this, as in Pale Rider.

I will gain skill in this technique. It sounds like something that could be self-taught perfectly well in addition to themtube university videos. Tonight each of my wheelguns goes on the table for inspection. All have been fired but the Ruger SP101 only two measly shots and the 38 LCR only one cylinder full. I should have been more diligent. Thanks for bringing it up.

I once bought a used Airweight in France for only 75 Euros because the armorer admitted it had timing issues but he hadn't had time to look into it. He'd always been honest with me in other dealings. When I opened it up I found what may have been original factory lubricant in there, which had turned into a stiff wax over the years. I removed it with solvent and re-lubed it with froglube. Timing issues went away.

I must admit that for $1600 I'm surprised at Smith. And I just might take a gander at big Taurus wheelguns. I've owned three in the past and all were reliable.

Darkenfast said:

I read the article too. Here's my take from the safety of my armchair. Note that I am a late-60 year old wimp without a lot of upper body strength and an aversion to excessive ear-damaging report.

1. This $1600 revolver weighs 71.5 oz. That's before putting the scope or other optic that so many people demand these days. There's a reason people didn't carry the Colt Walkers for very long. Strike 1.

2. The DA pull on this $1600 revolver that S&W sent to a major gun rag is 12 pounds. Since some people just might intend for that gun to be used as a defense against dangerous game, I would suggest that this is too much. The SA pull is over 5 pounds. On a hunting gun. Strike 2.
...

Click to expand...

Crikey, in my excitement over the "blast to the face" fiasco I read right thru the horrendous trigger pull without it going into my brain. That is right up there with cheap G3 pattern NATO rifles built in the 3rd world.

Good catch, Sir. And as for our age and skill, you and I are rather alike. God has blessed me with good health so far, and living on a ranch keeps my joints lubed up. But hefting a gun that heavy and squeezing off 12 lb shots would get old fast.

What was Smith thinking? Was it perhaps the Maskachussetts legislation going into effect that dictates minimum trigger pull? I thought that was a reason why Smith left MA. Perhaps the X Frame engineers, down in underground skunkworks, were not given the memo explaining their move to Tennessee.

murphydog said:

A few years ago Dr. Jinks mentioned that S & W removed "fitters" from the revolver assembly process. My understanding that these were the technicians who did fine-tuning and adjustments after assembly to ensure good function.

You could argue that with MIM action parts being more precise that all you need is "assemblers". Or not.

Click to expand...

While J believe that CNC machines, MIM parts, lasers and assembly process changes and the like can produce more precise parts than forging and personnel operated machines. I do not believe they can produce every single part perfectly identical. If you forge 10, 000 frames,, place them in say 10 different jigs that are very nearly identical, then have 10 different CNC machines that are programed the same but have slightly different alignment and wear all with the same cutters with small variations even with in tolerances. Machine the frames for hammer studs, trigger studs, cylinder stop studs, cylinder stop and hand windows, yoke cuts, your pivot holes and bore and tap for a barrel, those frames will have small variances. Then an "assembler" installs a barrel, yoke cylinder, trigger hand, cylinder stop. hammer, trigger return slide, springs etc each with its own tiny variances, and guess what some of them will end up with parts where the variances all stack up wrong with each other and that gun will not work quite right. You might be able to stick 3 rounds in it and have it go bang 3 times. But, it isn't "RIGHT". I bet most assemblers are shown how to install a barrel, another the small parts, another assembles cylinders, another sticks yoke and cylinder assemblies in guns. I would not be surpised if vast majority of them probably couldn't take a frame and all the parts and put them together.

I believe S&W is depending on its processes and technology to try avoid needing actual craftsmen. If each gun once assembled by such a process was ACTUALLY CHECKED BY AN QUALIFIED ARMOUR with the rejects going to a small group of actual smiths to a just out the problems, they would not put be putting out nearly as many guns with small problems.

I do believe the majority of their guns are fine, but they are relying on the customer to find the problems.

I also believe I will still take everything said by most gun writers with a grain of salt. Skeeter is dead.

I believe that in this day and age when someone get there hand on one that should have never went out the door the scream is heard coast to coast. S&W should pay more attention to that fact.

Like I said I have a variety of recently produced guns. I have not had any problems with any of them. Maybe I am just lucky. But, I believe that the majority of their guns are perfectly safe and functional. They are not the shiny example of the gun makers CRAFT that used to exist. Most of the guys with those kinds of skills and work ethic have retired or went somewhere that can effort them. If a 350 Legend X frame was assembled by one of the old timers who knew how it all messed together, was nearly a perfectionist, would assemble every thing just so and make sure it was all perfect, by the time they were finished it wouldn't be $1600 it would be $3200.

murphydog said:

A few years ago Dr. Jinks mentioned that S & W removed "fitters" from the revolver assembly process. My understanding that these were the technicians who did fine-tuning and adjustments after assembly to ensure good function.

You could argue that with MIM action parts being more precise that all you need is "assemblers". Or not.

Click to expand...

This is almost exactly what the owner of the gun shop down a couple miles South of PGH told me. I can't remember the exact day/month I bought the gun I have issues with, some time in last quarter of 2022, but I'd sure like to get it back. I've had another gun sent back twice, another brand, and each time it was under 2 weeks I got it back and it was fine. I would imagine a person familiar with the new S&Ws and had good smithing skills, there just may be a job awaiting him/her at their CS Dept.
Is this revolver an answer to a question no one asked? I'm thinking my .327 Fed Mag that they don't sell ammo for, other than the 20-round boxes of killer self-defense loads? (At high $$$$)
Edit: I meant 2022 up there.

Assuming one really likes the idea of a 350 Legend revolver, and is concerned with the Smith X Frame's very high trigger pull and somewhat spotty quality, choices are limited. It appears that only Magnum Research also offers an alternative, the BFR revolver. At least that's all I've found so far in my NGSE.

If one can believe their specs and talk, the BFR seems to address all the fitting concerns about the X Frame raised so far in this thread, and it costs no more than the Smith. Of course it is single action only. With an unfluted cylinder, it holds 6 shots. Its trigger pull is listed as a reasonable 4-5 lbs

Anybody know of another 350 Legend revolver?

The 454 Casull is a contender cartridge in the big bore revolver category, even Taurus offers it. But capacity is limited to 5 with such a large diameter cartridge. And it has more recoil than the 350 Legend.

Just as with the 410 so popular in Judge and Governor, ammo makers are likely to produce 350 Legend ammo optimized for handguns sooner or later. Or so I like to think. Of course handloading would let you tame that wasted fireball with faster burning powder.

BFR - Big Frame Revolver | Magnum Research, Inc. | Desert Eagle pistols and BFR revolvers

American Rifleman | Review: Magnum Research BFR 350 Legend | Magnum Research, Inc. | Desert Eagle pistols and BFR revolvers

RenoHuskerDu said:

The 454 Casull is a contender cartridge in the big bore revolver category, even Taurus offers it. But capacity is limited to 5 with such a large diameter cartridge. And it has more recoil than the 350 Legend.

Click to expand...

The Super Redhawks in .454 Casull are 6-shot, and they are smaller and lighter than X-frames.

steelslaver said:

If a 350 Legend X frame was assembled by one of the old timers who knew how it all messed together, was nearly a perfectionist, would assemble every thing just so and make sure it was all perfect, by the time they were finished it wouldn't be $1600 it would be $3200.

Click to expand...

That's the interesting thing about Spohr. As revolver afficionados, many here have probably heard of Spohr by now, a new revolver manufacturer in Germany. They started tuning S&W revolvers and are now building their own. But wait a minute, aren't they just S&W clones? Exactly, they're pretty much S&W revolvers, but built with high quality materials throughout and by means of modern industrial mass production methods. No hand-fitting perfectionists involved, just modern manufacturing and proper QC. 100% machined from solid stainless steel, 0% MIM.

Result: Very high quality revolvers based on the S&W design. And now the interesting part: they are about 25% more expensive than S&W PC revolvers, could be a bit more when imported to the US. But still, it's obviously possible to produce high quality S&W revolvers without venturing into Korth territory by simply applying modern manufacturing methods and proper QC, even in high cost Germany.

When I checked the first Spohr revolver, the first thought that came to mind was: Why doesn't the S&W Performance Center build revolvers like these? They're basically reasonably priced high quality versions of S&W products. This is what a PC revolver should be like.

I don't think S&W will improve revolver quality anytime soon, they're focused on other weapons and will just keep producing revolvers at the old plant with little investment. But companies like Spohr und Colt have proven that it's possible to make good, affordable revolvers.

IF S&W simply added a good guallitty check before they wend out the door even if just 1/2 the production guns passed that, another 1/3 needed some fine adjustments and the rest needed some parts replaced and more effort. It probably would not add 25% to the over all cost especially if you factored in the amount of money in shipping and repair that it is costing them now.

When I was doubling the cost I was saying the gun was totally assembled by high quality craftsmen, [polished and old time type of finish

On Saturday mornings I sometimes watch a whitetail show sponsored by Yamaha and Cabelas. I forget the name of it. The guy is hunting with S&W handguns 75% of the time. Recently he used the 350 Legend and liked it. He had a red dot on it and said it was so heavy that recoil and blast were not bad. All that said, his one shot opportunity on a Texas Whitetail was a clean miss lol.

I can see the 350 having a little higher chance of timing anomalies due to tighter extractor hand bearing surface tolerances

RenoHuskerDu said:

I am smitten by the new X Frame 350 Legend. 50 years ago I stumbled on a secret pot farm and three goons came towards me with axes drawn. A .357 Smith on my hip saved me that day, no need to even draw the weapon. I merely turned around, made Mr Smith visible, problem solved...

Click to expand...

I'm glad you prevailed against those criminals.

Those guys only saw your standoff weapon (the gun) vs. their axes. The make, caliber, action, etc. etc. were not taken into account by them.
If you want an X frame just 'cause you want it that's fine. If you want it to intimidate potential bad guys you are on a fool's mission. No serious security personnel use that sort of weapon.