586 no dash non M Lockup today.

[barnaby]

A friend was shooting a 6" 586 and it suffered from the lockup with 357 125 grain.. I'd read about it when researching the 686 models and "m" stamp.

Took a minute of wiggling and I was able to swing out the cylinder. But during that minute.. that was one useless hunk of metal.

Looked at the primers.. and was able to see the flow around the firing pin.

I explained the fault and the fix. Most likely going to leave it a non M and shoot 38's in it.

Funny parts is we had just been talking up the reliability of revolvers.

 

[71firebird400]

The gun has an issue that S&W will take care of for free; if it were my gun I'd be sending it in. It seems that, in the gun selling community, some have assumed the lack of an "M" stamp to signify rarity or an increase in value. I truly don't understand this line of thinking.

 

[barnaby]

The gun has an issue that S&W will take care of for free; if it were my gun I'd be sending it in. It seems that, in the gun selling community, some have assumed the lack of an "M" stamp to signify rarity or an increase in value. I truly don't understand this line of thinking.

I agree, if the gun says .357 on the barrel, it should be able to shoot all .357. Never know where the gun may end up. I'll work on him today.

 

[snubbiefan]

If it won't shoot ANY SAMMI approved 357 ammo off the shelf....it may as well be an ammo-sensitive semi-auto. Folks that have the nickel or blued examples don't send them home for fear of finish damage and the bushing replacement can be spotted as soon as you swing-out the cylinder. You simply can't pound-out and old bushing and beat one back in without leaving tracks.....small as they may-or-may-not be.

The ND in certain models is surely to be cherished, but sometimes....engineering changes were a good thing and not a bad thing and the 686 is a prime example of that. The MOST we hear about this is that it is simply a bunch of hoop-la that needs to be ignored as long as you don't shoot that one bullet that will lock it up. This is certainly another case of...it can and does happen.

IMHO....send the blame thing home for the fix or sell it and go get a dash 4.

 

[61woody]

I will add that it is more than just the 125 gr bullets. I purhased a no dash this summer and it shot everything great until I put some Hornady Leverevolution ammo in it, locked up twice, primers flowed over the fP. I am plannig on carrying it during deer season loaded with buffalo bore 180gr but it is going to Smith right after the season is over.

 

[gagunner 2]

If a gun isn't 100% reliable it's not worth having.I sent my ND back as soon as I bought it.To get it fixed right, at no cost to you is a no brainer.

 

[snubbiefan]

I completely agree. If the gun is subject to lock-up due to a known problem that has been documented....send it home and get it fixed. I simply will not own a gun that is ammo sensitive. It's not suppose to be a "357-Magnum except for"...it's suppose to be a 357-Magnum period. Anybody can screw-up a hand-load to the point that it won't work, but the gun should not be officially restricted (as in a recall notice) from shooting a certain off-the-shelf commercial load.

I got a little peeved at the rep when I called to send one in...he says..."oh, you have one of those old guns". They followed through by treating it like an old gun. I did not like what they did and I dumped it and obtained a later dash-number. I use to think that having a ND was the cats-pajamas, but it's not. Study the gun, find out which one is the best of the bunch and get that dash-number. Improvements were made up to the you-know-what things that I won't mention. In the 686, the dash 4 seems to be favorite among many.

 

[Coaltminer]

I've got a 581 no "M" that I bought to shoot 38, which it does fine. I've tried 357 factory R-P 158 gr., without a problem, but it will bind with my reloads, perhaps because the primer pockets are looser. I know I'm a little strange, but I'm gonna leave it as is. The magnums with the service stocks hurt, anyway!

 

[g17]

I'd send it in for the fix. I've had ND models that I never had any problem with but I can't think of anything worse than needing it in a defense situation and it lock up.

 

[snubbiefan]

To each his on Coaltminer.....but try a harder primer on your reloads. CCI is known to be one of the hardest I think. I totally avoid them in reloads for that very reason.

 

[Coaltminer]

To each his on Coaltminer.....but try a harder primer on your reloads. CCI is known to be one of the hardest I think. I totally avoid them in reloads for that very reason.

Me too, but for this 581.......hmmm. My loads carried WW Magnum, in RP brass, 14.0 gr. 296, hardly max with 158's. Shot the same in my Python without issue. As far as "the fix," I've heard of some butchery and I'm not taking the chance. Thanks!

 

[marmax]

I have a 586 ND and have been thinking of sending it in but now I wonder if I want too. Does anyone have a pic of this "butchering" fix. I'd like to see what they do to it. I have fired many rounds with no problems including some 125 JHP I reloaded. I do agree that I would like to have a firearm that is 100% reliable with all rounds though. My 586 is not perfect and it has seen plenty of wear but is mechanically sound. I just don't want a bunch of dings in the metal. Thanks in advance.

 

[shawn mccarver]

A friend was shooting a 6" 586 and it suffered from the lockup with 357 125 grain.. I'd read about it when researching the 686 models and "m" stamp.

Took a minute of wiggling and I was able to swing out the cylinder. But during that minute.. that was one useless hunk of metal.

Looked at the primers.. and was able to see the flow around the firing pin.

I explained the fault and the fix. Most likely going to leave it a non M and shoot 38's in it.

Funny parts is we had just been talking up the reliability of revolvers.

Why leave it a "non-M?" They still do that warranty recall work for free, or so I read. You should definitely send it in and have it brought up to spec.

 

[33jayman]

I too would send it in if it were mine.

That being said, I know of other guns that have the same issue. In this other case a buddy of mine had a USFA SA revolver that would do the same thing using Federal primers with light recoiling .38 Special loads (110 grain bullet at 750fps).

I wouldn't be suprised if a soft primer .38 Special would do the same thing in the 586 no dash.

Jay

 

[nipster]

I've never heard of finish issues caused by S&W applying the fix...

 

[Coaltminer]

I remember when the recall was issued, it was about 5 years after production began, sometime in '87 IIRC. It was stated that if the firearm could not be returned to use 38 or 38+p ammunition only. Special kits were sent to armorers and warranty repair stations along with supplies of the necessary parts, which were "hammer noses" and bushings. It's been 25 years since the recall. IMHO, many repair people at the factory may not know what you are even talking about when you contact them. Yeah, I know I'm an opinionated old ****! I have owned dozens of new Smith revolvers from 1969 to present. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[texagun]

I picked up a 6" 586 no-dash about a month ago at the gun show. I called S&W and requested a shipping label to send it in for the modification. It was back in my hands about 10 days later with a new hammer nose and hammer nose bushing. Beautifully done and no problems. It didn't cost me a dime to have it done. Excellent service by S&W for a 28 year old gun that I didn't even buy new.

 

[MikeChandler]

Funny parts is we had just been talking up the reliability of revolvers.

I don't think the defect calls into question the reliability of revolvers! It's a known problem, S&W fixes it for free (including the shipping), and once it's modified it should be as reliable as any other revolver (if cleaned, very near 100%).

If the gun has already been fired, then it's INSANE to not have them repair the defect. Since they're covering the shipping, you might want to talk to them about having other work done at the same time, like a trigger job.

 

[Coaltminer]

As I said, I bought it to shoot 38's, with which it has been 100% reliable, the previous owner(s) didn't get the mod done, either, for 25 years. I bought it Internet and knew it might not have been modded. I've owned several brands of semi-autos that jammed, so what's not to like? It does what I expect it to each and every pull of the trigger, I've carried it and used it as a range gun and don't hesitate to do so. That's insanity? Does exactly what I bought it for, and 581's aren't exactly growing on trees in this area. I own sem-autos, but I'll stick with this. I know about Glock's, MP and own an MP compact, have owned those and Colts, Brownings, Rugers, Smiths, baby Eagle. You are always welcome to your opinion, that's just mine.

 

[lhump1961]

As I said, I bought it to shoot 38's, with which it has been 100% reliable, the previous owner(s) didn't get the mod done, either, for 25 years. I bought it Internet and knew it might not have been modded. I've owned several brands of semi-autos that jammed, so what's not to like? It does what I expect it to each and every pull of the trigger, I've carried it and used it as a range gun and don't hesitate to do so. That's insanity? Does exactly what I bought it for, and 581's aren't exactly growing on trees in this area. I own sem-autos, but I'll stick with this. I know about Glock's, MP and own an MP compact, have owned those and Colts, Brownings, Rugers, Smiths, baby Eagle. You are always welcome to your opinion, that's just mine.

It's your gun and you have to be happy so therein lies the answer. I have a 686 that I sent back for the mod and a 586 that I have not. Both shoot anything I load...if the 586 ever showed signs of trouble (not all did) I would probably send it in but that's just me.