64-8 concerns

Good Afternoon All:
This is my first post after lurking for several years. I have two questions I hope to get some help with.

Background: In 2007 I bought a 64-8, 3" RB PC 162504, because it had all the controversial engineering/design changes Smith has produced in the last ten years or so. It has MIM parts, the IL, the frame mounted firing pin, and the two-piece bbl. My idea was to put a thousand rounds of mixed factory/handloaded ammunition through it and see what happened. I stopped at 775 rounds because I didn't think there was much left to learn and I was running short of primers.

What I found: MIM parts...No problems. DA and SA trigger pulls were Ok to start and became excellent. IL...No failures. Frame mounted firing pin...No FTF, but the firing pin indentation on the primer is very small. I gave a friend, who measures things for a living, 10 cases fired in this revolver and 10 cases fired from a 10-4 and asked him to compare the two firing pin strikes. He found the strike from the FM pin to be some what more shallow than the hammer mounted pin, but the big difference was in the volume of the indentation. The FM pin strike only had about 60% of the hammer mounted strike and it was much more cone shaped as opposed to hemispheric. Two piece bbl...did not fall off, but average of 30 6 shot groups from a machine rest was 7.7 " at 25 yards. Several of handloads went over 10". If there is any crown damage or major chunks of rifleing missing, I can't find it. I assumed that the bbl was simply no good and wrote the $350 off to experience. However, talking about this to some of the bench rest crowd, they brought up an interesting question: Is it possible that the FM firing pin is giving inconsistant ignition, which would tend to open up groups?

That brings up question number 1: Has anyone had s similar experience or had any reason to think that the FM pin was giving inconsistant ignition? The only way I can think of to test this would be to replace the factory pin with an Apex or C&S pin and shoot for group again. Has anyone ever done this?

Question number 2: Why does this particular revolver even exist? It appears to be a police or security turn in, but 3" bbls are unususal for security companies and I can't think of a major police dept. buying K frame .38 Spls in 2004, which is when this one was made. When I bought this one there were lots of them at every gun show in Texas. Any information or even wild guesses welcome.

Thanks

Your bench rest Pals are right for a rifle and somewhat with the revolver. The firing pin can be cured for 10 bucks or so with a longer one, on the barrel I would call Smith & Wesson and tell them about it and tell them it is shot from a Machine Rest. I think they will do something about it for you.

Texas1941 said:

Question number 2: Why does this particular revolver even exist?

Click to expand...

Three inch M64s and M65s have been very popular with the various probation agencies over the years, for carry by their officers. Some are now moving to bottomfeeders, so there are a lot of three inch barrel K frame revolvers becoming available.

Firstly, welcome to the S&W Forum, Texas1941!

My similar 4" 64-8 was originally bought by a security company a year or so before I bought it 5/08 from my local store, so it's fairly recent. I picked it because it really looked unissued/unused - and had everything in the box, including a Club 1852 application. My local pusher let me have it for $315 - I should have bought another one. Actually, I was still elated over my new 627 Pro purchase, which was a bit more, of course. While my 125gr JHP homebrew loads were not coincident with the carry rounds, +P 158gr LHPSWCs, they were close enough vertically to POA to be useful, particularly for pinging the SPC metal plates. I could get 2" groups handheld at 12 yd - good enough for my use and super for my recent shooting (I'll be 61 next month.).

At any rate, after nearly a year of shooting it a lot - and as a plinker and SPC revolver, I recalled why I bought it. Now wearing it's OEM Uncle Mike's squared Combats, stoked with Remington R38S12 (158gr LHPSWC +P), and in an open rug within bedside grasp, it's a home defender. Of course, Monday will likely find me unloading it and shoving it in the range bag for some dedicated plinking at the range - it is fun.



I don't know why your 3" is so inaccurate - my 4" does quite well - despite me! Maybe it had soft lead shot through it, filling the grooves. Do you have a 'Lewis Lead Remover' (Brownell's) in that caliber (.38/.357M)? Perhaps that will get your clad/jacketed ammo back 'on target'. If you shoot much lead - they really help - and they aren't very much, dollar-wise. Otherwise, I'd be tempted to let S&W replace the barrel. I assume that the forcing cone/cylinder gap, aka 'b/c gap', is within the S&W spec's of .004-.010". Keep us apprised of your results.

Stainz

PS That lead remover works, too.

7.7" & 10" groups at 25 yards from a machine rest for a 38 are unusually large. Either your gun has a possibly "fouled" barrel, (clean out all lead deposits etc. ), or the chamber throats are unusually large. Normal groups for this gun should be in the 3" to 4" and good groups can be in the 1.5" to 2" range. If your barrel is good and clean, mike the chamber throats. Should be in the .358 to .359 range. Also a rough forcing cone could contribute to the accuracy issue. I don't think the hammer strike has that much to do with the inaccuracy. As long as it reliably goes off instantly whenever you pull the trigger. What hand loads are you suing?

What the gents above said RE: accuracy potential of K frames.
I'd personally be intrigued with trying the erratic ignition solution angle using the longer pin. One thing I've learned is, just because I haven't seen it before doesn't mean it isn't going on! It's a cheap possible fix, and one I'd do regardless. And yes, I've done them in about a dozen now, but typically to cure a full out F/T/F issue. If you do decide to try the longer pin prior to it going back to S&W, please tell us what if any effect it had!
THANKS!

Thanks for the input. I appreciate you all taking the time to reply.

The barrel fouling issue is one I had thought of, because a barrel can appear to be clean and bright but still have a lot of lead/copper fouling. It's a problem that's often overlooked because the stuff can be so hard to see. I cleaned th bore with "Blue Wonder" before I started shooting for group and repeated the process at the end of each session. With a little work, I always got the required "clean patch", but that doesn't mean there isn't still some copper or gilding metal fouling in the bore. I haven't used the Lewis system in a number of years, but it's time to put one on the shopping list.

I should have included full information in the original post, but it was my first one and I felt like I was "running on" as it was. So let me throw this information into the mix:

The forcing cone looks OK. There are no ovious defects. The color of the metal is a little dark, but it is no rougher than usual.

The BC gap is consistant for all 6 chambers. It will easily accept a .005 gage but will not accept a .006 gage.

The chambers (ball ends?), except for one, will accept a .359 pin gage, but not a .360. The one exception will accept a .358, but not a .359. I would rather have them run .357to .358, but I don't think the extra .001 should make that much difference.

The handloads are ones I've used since '69 or '70:
148 gr cast BBWC with 3.2 gr 700-X for 705 fps
148 gr HBWC (Speer) with 2.6 gr 700-X for 690 fps
158 gr cast SWC with 5.0 gr Unique (this is the old Unique, I think the max loads for the new stuff may be less than 5 grs) for 817 fps
All velosity measurements from the 64 in question.

The cast bullets are 1:20 alloy and are sized .358. I didn't cast them myself; they are from a local supplier.

So the plan is to order a firing pin from APEX, because no matter what I can't stand that small firing pin indentation. Then pop the 64 back into the rest and see how it shoots. If there is an improvement then problem solved and I will have learned something new (which happens just about every day) If it makes no difference, the off it goes to Smith. These are cool little guns and like all Ks are a pleasure to shoot. I hate to give up on one. I'll keep you posted.

Oh...one other thing. When I was trying to figure out who might have bought this thing in the first place, I thought of every police agency in the Western World, but I didn't think of probation officers. These revolvers would be perfect for that application, so the way things work, they have probably been replaced in wholesale lots.

Thanks All

Great practical gun 1941!
Keep us up on your progress with her!
Thanks!

3-inch barrels are still off duty backup for local departments. We even have some investigators for the SA Office that use them as a their primary. You fine more revolvers in use with departments that require officers to purchase their guns. Why you may ask? 1st price is lower on revolvers, 2nd LEO distributors usually have them in stock with no waiting, 3rd holsters are cheaper and 4th less to maintain.

luis said:

3-inch barrels are still off duty backup for local departments. We even have some investigators for the SA Office that use them as a their primary. You fine more revolvers in use with departments that require officers to purchase their guns. Why you may ask? 1st price is lower on revolvers, 2nd LEO distributors usually have them in stock with no waiting, 3rd holsters are cheaper and 4th less to maintain.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info; it all sounds right. I hadn't thought of these revolvers as back-up guns because of the weight. Most of the younger police officers I shoot with favor the ultra light revolvers or simiautos. The little Khar PM9 seems popular.

Most of the police officers I have known well were my age and are long retired. Few of them carried back-up guns and when they did it was most often a "Baby" Browning in a second hand cuff carrier. That didn't seem to me to change until Smith released the M-60. Everyone remembers the "Dirty Harry" effect on M-29s, but the rush to buy M-60s, at least in Texas, was even worse. The only way to obtain one was on a police letterhead and even then there was a long wait.

People today are often, rightly, concerned about quality control issues with Smith and Wesson. But there was a time when "Bangor-Punta" and "Lear Siegler" were used as curse words. The first run of M-60s showed really bad QA and some questionable materials. They shipped with cracked frames or developed cracks after very few rounds. The Smith of that day did not have a good customer service reputation and a lot of people ended up very unhappy. It didn't matter though; everyone wanted one and all were willing to pay what ever it cost. There are quality issues today, but there always have been. Over all I think things are better than they were in the '70s and early '80s, and the customer service is now excellent.

From your remarks and information provided by others, I am beginning to believe that there are more revolvers in police service than I had thought. Most of us mainly see patrol officers, who are now usually armed with plastic famtastics, but I am beginning to see that there is more to the story.

Thanks