What was the problem with the cylinders of the affected Model 624s that made them subject to recall? I guess I was asleep when this episode was going on.

It seems improbable that a low-pressure round like the .44 Special would be worrisome in any N-frame cylinder, even if made of steel only a little better than the average tin can.

Thanks for any info you can provide.

If you send in a 3" 624 and it fails the test S&W keeps the gun and sends you a new gun of questionable "value".

Now what is S&W doing with that 3" 624? Considering the grips alone are worth $150 there must be $400 worth of parts in that failed gun ! You could even sell the faulty cylinder as a pencil holder ! There should be a bunch of 624 barrels, cranes, hammers, and triggers showing up on eBxy !

I just have a feeling S&W is just not grinding these guns up to scrap ! To me the parts are worth more than many of their new guns !

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

GLL;
I didn't take it personal either. We're just friends here talking...

Dale53

Mine came back today and is good to go.

I will have to look for a punch mark. Anybody know where it is supposed to be?

I have a 4" 624 with the AHC prefix, which falls into the recall. I got it without the box so I don't know if its been back to S&W and been checked. Furthermore, I don't care! I shoot it at least 100 rounds a week!

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

Other than the "We received your firearm" letter, I have heard nothing from S&W.

The recall sheet says the last date bad guns were shipped was on June 8, 1985 but my 624 was shipped on June 14, 1985 and they wanted me to send it back to be checked...S&W had a problem with the bad cylinders BUT a bigger problem with their record keeping.

Kitt and .455_Hunter, I am keeping my fingers crossed that S&W returns your guns and says that they're fine.

If you talk to S&W and your guns are returned, could you take a moment and ask them what would have happened had your 624's not passed the test? What would S&W have done. Would they even have shipped your rare 624 back to you?

Adding to the proverbial list of "Things We Will Never Know," it would be interesting to know what percentage of these guns fail the test. I realize the information effectively would be worthless, but still, interesting.

I have yet to decide what to do with my 624. I don't use it a lot, but would hate to retire it.

Looking under the extraction star, the cylinder has what appears to be a freshly stuck "M" on one of the webs.

Anybody else have one of these "M"s?

Got a letter from S&W saying they have receieved my revolver it should be returned in 2-3 weeks and they gave me the customer support center phone number & ext. #. Life goes on...

I emailed Kate F. this past Monday and asked her about any stamped mark placed on the cylinder to indicate it is "ok". She emailed back and said that their are NO MARKS placed on the cylinder for guns that passed. ONLY the red "C" was stamped on the box.
That was a poor fix to the problem. Not everyone saves their box, my buddy has a 624 and box with a label that fell off. Another friend has a 624 with a box. We looked on the box and peeled off two retail stickers that covered 95% of the faded red "C"/circle. Come on, S&W, you tested the CYLINDER, not the BOX!
My issue currently is to send back two Walther PPK/S's for the present recall - hammer block. They will be putting a punch mark just behind the hammer between the shoulders of the frame.

Just called today about my recently purchased 624. S/N AHB9838. The guy on the phone said it was made in 1986 and was outside the recall range.

I was kind of hoping it was a bad one so I could get a blue 24 cylinder (with the right throats) installed and have a 2 tone on the cheap.

My gun (624) has 0.432 throats!
My 29-4 has 0.429 throats.

Glad you guys got some sort of reply from S&W. Called "Kate" and left a detailed message and haven't heard a thing. Tried calling her again over a dozen times to no avail (just to see if she'd pick up the phone) Perhaps she's out sick, on vacation, or simply lets the calls go to voice mail. After waiting a week, I decided to call S&W customer service. Get a guy who sounds confused as to what problem i'm trying to explain to him. He takes some info (my name and phone #) and says someone will get back to me. Well, that other person must be hanging out with Kate.

gonna call again this Monday and request a shipping label for my affected 629.

Well, I talked to S&W and my 629 IS in the recall range. I have the box and it is not marked (my two 624's were marked on the box with the required "Red C in a circle"). They are sending me a shipping instructions and I'll send it back immediately.

It has been fired a moderate amount of .44 magnums without issue but I am NOT going to take a chance. If it fails the test, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Regardless, I am NOT going to second guess this situation. It is what it is...

My motto is "Better safe than sorry".

Dale53

Ok, just found this thread today and will follow it closely since I have (2) guns that could be affected.

624 -(ALUxxxx). This serial number seems safe so no worries there.

629-1 (AFBxxxx) - Uh oh, it looks to fall in the zone. Looks like a call to S&W is in order.

I have two 624s; AHB41XX with a 6 1/2 inch barrel and ALU04xx with a 3 inch barrel. Both have the "F" stamped on the back of the cylinder. No boxes. I got them lightly used. I shoot them with moderate reloads. Nothing that Elmer Keith would approve. I'll contact the factory to check their status, but if I have to, I'll send only the cylinders and keep the rest. A .44 Special is a damn fine revolver.

I pulled the grips off my 624 #AHT316x this morning. Rubber stamp "SEP 10 (or 16, or 18 -the last digit is not fully stamped) 1985" with "1085" in black ink marker on both panels.

This doesn't mean that the 624 or components were mfg'd at this time. I'm just struggling with sending a ANIB beauty back to the factory.

FWIW I'll keep the grips, box, etc.

TGB

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

I'm inclined to agree with Toroflow1 to not send it back. Here's how I figger it:

According to the SCSW3E, "AHS" and "AHT" prefixes are July production.
The stocks are mid-September production, and are marked "1085".
I figure this unit shipped late in September 1985 at the earliest, three months after the June 8, 1985 recall cutoff date.

So there. I'm keeping it.

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

Don't send it back Tom!!!

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

Thank you Dale but, going by this article, it seems the stainless used in the big bore guns (624 & 629) are affected.

Dale:

The"you" in my response was generic and not referring to your gun !

I would still like to know what S&W does with the guns that fail the test ! I would also be interested in just how many have failed ! The parts on these "failed" guns are extremely valuable on the open market ! I would love to have a drawer full of 3" and 4" 624 barrels, hammers,triggers, cranes, etc. ! The only "bad" parts would be the cylinder and frame ! The rest are gold to somebody !

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

I emailed S&W about two suspect revolvers:

Model 624, product code 108580, serial number AHT316x.
Model 29-3, serial AEY431x.

The response received today:
"Those will need to be sent back and tested, if they were done already they would have a small punch mark on the cylinder."

Alas, no punch marks on either cylinder. Do I send 'em back and risk losing a cherry 3" 624? Ship the cylinder only and hope for the best? Or...?

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

After revisiting this thread I can only add that this is a perfect example of taking something very simple and screwing it up beyond belief. Quite simply, First, Smith & Wesson should have from the very beginning only required the cylinder be sent back for testing, since that was the only part in question. If it failed then then gun could be sent back for a new cylinder or the customer could do as he pleases from that point on. Second, if the cylinder passed and was returned to the owner it should have been marked under the extractor with the letters "OK", this would have been easy to find and understand. The original magazine article scans I posted are what I carry with me to shows, this seemed like a good thing to do at the time but now I'm not so sure. To much conflicting info from the factory at this point to to be sure what to make of it. The bottom line for me I guess at this point is that if I had one in question I would not send it in or shoot it. I like them enough that I wouldn't walk away from one for the right price, red stamp or not. Sorry for the ramble!

Keith

__________________
kbgrips.com

Nope, I don't believe S&W will send you back a faulty gun, no matter how rare!! They offer you up a voucher for one of their new *** revolvers!

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

I got my 624 back from S&W today...It was gone for 23 days counting weekends and the return paper says "inspected/tested & passed" This is the 624 I got from my brother and its never been fired...but at least I know it passed the test even if I don't know what the test was.

I have had my 624 for over 20 years--it was a gift from my Dad, bought lightly used. It falls in the recall range and the cylinder is marked only with an F stamp-no punch mark. After over 20 years of shooting it is not going back to S&W. I am relatively unimpressed with the current offerings from Springfield and with my luck they would find my pistol was the only one returned with a bad cylinder. I agree with a previous post-keep it and see if S&W might come up with a better solution.

Check with Smith for your own piece of mind but I don't believe the 629's were part of the recall. Just the 624's.

Check to be sure.

Dale53

Dale, good luck to you....hope it's not affected.

GLL:
If the grips are valuable, just remove them before you send the gun in (that takes care of the grips, at least).

I would not keep a gun around and I. certainly would not sell it to someone else if it's suspect. I sure don't want to be responsible for hurting someone, ANYONE. AND, I don't want to hurt my self OR my gun. If is suffers a catastrophic failure, you have NOTHING. At least, if it fails, you will have a new gun. I can't speak for Smith's choice of gun as I haven't been there. However, I have NO DOUBT that I would send mine back (got to check my 629, tomorrow).

Dale53

dregg;
I hear you. Dern it, I'm going to have to check my 629 (4") as its probably in that same era. I believe I DO have the box, however. So, here I go again .

Thanks for coming back at me, dregg.

Dale53

The problem was reported in the October 1985 issue of Shooting Times magazine by Skeeter Skelton in his "Hipshots" column. I have a few that have the red "C" in red circle stamp on the box, this is how the factory marked the box when the gun was sent back and passed the test. The gun was not marked in any way to show it passed the test, not a very good way to do it IMO but that's how it is done. I have several that were acquired without a box, with these I emailed S&W and was emailed back that they were manufactured after the time of the recall and were good to go.
I have scanned the original article from the 1985 ST article along with a S&W forum post originally from 3/3/07, I carry copies of these with me when "shopping" for reference along with serial numbers of guns I know to be good. Hope this helps.




Keith

__________________
kbgrips.com

Email from Kate today...

Since the original box is unavailable (the guy I bought the gun from does not have it), I guess I will send it off the S&W next week. She included a FedEx charge number as well to cover the shipment. So much for the "F" thing I guess.

The saga continues...

+1...that's what I would do in this situation!

__________________
ken
SWCA #1959

.455_Hunter, A verbal contradiction from a large company is no surprise. May I ask if you mentioned the stamped letter"F" on the cylinder, or did the person on the line bring it up. I've emailed more than once to check a 624 and have never been told that the gun was stamped. I'm pretty sure the information in the 1985 article was just a quote of what had been released from S&W at the time. I find it doubtful that they would mark the guns but then not tell anyone in a press release but mention the red stamp on the box. The reproduced forum post from 3/3/07 was from a person who had also contacted S&W and was given the same information. I don't think I've ever seen a 624 without the "F" stamp, I've always assumed it was done as a way to make sure stainless parts did not end up with carbon steel parts during manufacture, I believe this practice is/was common at S&W. Others on the forum are very knowledgeable on stamps and seemingly insignificant marks and could possibly give you a better answer, I would ask Doc44, your search for answers will probably
end there.

Keith

__________________
kbgrips.com

I'm in the same boat. I bought a 624 within the suspect range and without a box. It has the "F" on the cylinder. I asked whether it may have been previously checked, but the response was that they (S & W)keep no records of which particular serial numbers have been checked!

I have two 624's. I became concerned about the recall and telephoned S&W. I learned that through an error, the wrong kind of steel was used in some 624 cylinders. They have a serial number range but no specific serial numbers. One of mine was in the range but the box was marked when they were checked out "OK". Fortunately, I had the box (I had bought it new) and it was marked so I was in the clear. The other one was outside the serial number range involved.

When you call, have the serial numbers of your gun or guns in hand and they can tell you right away if you have a problem.

Good luck!

Dale53

Not many 24/624s get by me!

As far as the recall a few points:
-I kept close track of the 624 back in the '80s and never saw an official recall notice or advertisement like they had a few years later on the 686. The only notification that I know of was to Skeeter Skelton which he then included in his Hipshots column in 1985 (reproduced above). Considering the 629 (a high pressure magnum!) was part of the recall S&W must not have thought the improper steel posed much of a danger to have not published the notice all over the place. The steel must have been close enough in spec for them not to be very concerned. It sounds like it was just a CYA recall rather than some GREAT SAFETY HAZARD.
-Most S&W customer service reps know little or nothing about the recall, only Kate Fredette seems to have the straight poop. Even Roy Jinks has put forth information that contradicts what was in the Skeeter article, saying there was no steel problem. As far as I'm concerned the low-key "recall" was really a non event.
-I would not send a gun back that has been shot safely in the past. There are too few of the beautiful 624s out there as it is.
-The above is just conjecture on my part so do you own due diligence.

Good luck with your 624, don't try to load it as a magnum, and I think you will be very happy with it.

How did you know it was the GM gun?

Yes, the gun has definitely sent a few down range, so its probably just fine. However, I will let S&W run a detailed serial number check just for s**ts and grins.

The "F" thing is confusing. I had my dad check his 1980's 649 and it had a "V" on the cylinder face, just like your 686.

Who knows???

.455_Hunter, did you ever get a call or email reply from S&W to clear up the confusion on the recall.

Keith

__________________
kbgrips.com

As an alternative to sending your gun to S&W and losing it, is there an independent and trustworthy business that can MPI/Magnaflux the cylinders for you?

I guess I will be calling S%W back on Monday morning...

I have already bought 170 rounds of .44 Special. The gun better be OK.

Kitt, your date of 6/8/85 is/was/might be correct. This only seems to get worse as time goes on. Perhaps they found a larger problem than they thought they had. In emails and phone calls to S&W on several occasions I've never been told of any stamp marking checked guns. All mine have an "F" stamp, I can't remember ever seeing one without it. I would not send a 624 back to them at this point, I would stick it back in the safe and hope it gets sorted out some day. I have several 66s and they all have a "V" stamped on the cylinder in the same way as the 624s have an "F". I think I'll email S&W to see what the new story is.

Keith

__________________
kbgrips.com

S&W needs to step up on this issue and have their Performance Center guys knock out some .44 Special cylinders for these revolvers. Perhaps it would have an impact if we started a petition here and banded the 624 owners together.

I don't currently own a 624, but it's my Grail Gun. I can't see buying one unless it has the box with the magic circled "C". This said, if I had one, I'd gladly pay the Performance Center a few bucks to have them make a rececessed cylinder.

__________________
NRA Life Member

Kate emailed me back today, and mine was shipped after the dates in question.

bis45, the only stainless cylinders in 44 that they have at the factory are for 44 mag. In theory, it's a good idea, but the forcing cone will have to be shortened for the cylinder to clear the breach of the barrel. You'd think that they could make a new cylinder in the performance cylinder if needed, but that doesn't seem to be an option the factory wants to consider.

__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum

I've been following this thread with great interest, since I've been looking for a S&W 624 4" for quite awhile. But it's hard to find one that has some indication that the gun has been checked out and found free of the defective cylinder or the date of manufacture or serial number is outside of the range of potential cylinder. Gun auction boards and gun shows simply do not afford an opportunity to check out the cylinder with S&W. I really don't want to spend the serious money for a 624 only to find out there is a big risk using it, losing it if I send it to S&W, or stowing it indefinitely waiting for a S&W to provide a replacement cylinder, which seems unlikely to happen.

Suggestions? There is a big gun show this weekend and a 624 just might be offered. More than likely, it will not have the box. Really appreciate the OP's question and any help.

Bought mine new in 1986.
Ser #AHBxxxx, box has a red C,cylinder has a F.

That might work, but only if they know the specifications/parameters necessary. Is it simply a matter of voids, improper and spotty heat treating, something else? Only S&W could reliably determine if there was an issue based on their test procedures. I like the idea of just sending the cylinder back, especially if it is of a concern. Offering a whole new gun is mighty generous of them, especially since a lot of 624s were likely acquired on the secondary market and used hard already. If you like one of the new guns, and the free IL doesn't bother you.... . I don't think you can buy an old Ford Escort Molotov on Wheels and expect a new car, now, can you?

I'm just glad the serial number of my LH 3" is in the ALWXXXX range!

__________________
" I said, good DAY! "

My brother bought this 624 brand new and its been in his closet over 20 years and he never fired it.I had to do some serious talking to get him to sell it to me! The #18 inspection sticker is still on the bottom of the grips...I really don't want a new 629...but I don't want to think the cylinder might fail on the 624 either.

I would just send S&W the cylinder if I sent it in at all. If the cylinder is defective, they won't return your M-624, just offer you a new, current gun.

If your cylinder proves to be bad and they won't return it, you can chase down a Model 629 cylinder and have a good gunsmith lathe down the front of it until it fits your existing frame/barrel and yoke. Or, find a Model 627 cylinder and have it rechambered. Admittedly, the -627 cylinder will be harder to find.