686 no dash recall....

[Basenjishunt]

Hi Guys,
I have read a bunch of posts on this, but is the consensus that the recall for the early 686's was really just because of the ammo being used at the time causing the issue? I recently got an excellent condition 686 no dash 4" that has been used, and has not been sent in for the recall...If it ain't broke don't fix it? Or send it in to S&W- thanks Tim

 

[SandSpider]

I sent a 686 no dash back to S&W last year. They told me they no longer had all the parts to do the full "repair", didn't give any details. When I got the revolver back, I could see that they changed the firing pin bushing, didn't notice anything else. They also did NOT mark the gun as having been "fixed".

In hindsight, I probably wouldn't send one again unless it had an obvious problem (which mine didn't).

 

[Lonestar57]

I've got a couple of No Dash's. Never had a problem so I never thought about getting the modification. Based on what SandSpider said above it would seem to be a waste of time at this point.

 

[armorer951]

I still have the tools and parts from doing the re-fits for our PD back in the 80's. S&W even provided us with the test fire ammo for the "after modification" testing.

For me, the decision on whether or not to have the "upgrade" done would largely depend on a couple of factors....are you experiencing problems when firing magnum ammunition (gun locks up), and are you planning on carrying the revolver in a duty or personal protection gun?

 

[Muss Muggins]

I sent a 686 no dash back to S&W last year. They told me they no longer had all the parts to do the full "repair", didn't give any details. When I got the revolver back, I could see that they changed the firing pin bushing, didn't notice anything else. They also did NOT mark the gun as having been "fixed".

In hindsight, I probably wouldn't send one again unless it had an obvious problem (which mine didn't).

They're not going to stamp the "M" on the frame unless they changed all the parts consistent with the "M," which they admitted they can't because they don't have all the parts . . .

 

[Marine Corps Air]

This is interesting. As Arte Johnson always said "Interesting, very interesting!" ("Laugh-In" circa 1960)

This was a safety recall based on the field experiences of the hammer nose piercing the primer but the primer did not ignite nor did the round always fire.

The recall involved replacing the hammer nose with a shorter one and also the associated hammer nose bushing in the recoil shield was also replaced. The factory then stamped the letter "M" in the yoke just above the model number and below the serial number.

IIRC, from posts that I have read, we have had one or two similar experiences in the last 2-3 years. If that is correct, there are no guarantees that a similar experience can not reoccur.

I just read a thought stimulating post the other day on a different recall. The author of the post stated that IF someone was injured and the injured party (plaintiff) decided to sue for damages, medical costs or whatever you can bet that the plaintiff's attorney will have done his/her homework and knows about the safety recall. If asked if you also knew about the recall but declined to have the modifications done (it is free), as Ricky Ricardo used to say ("Lucille Ball Show"), "How are you going to 'splain that?"

 

[armorer951]

Just contacted S&W Customer Service and they advised they are still doing the recall work on the 686 models.

Not sure why Sandspider's gun was not refit properly. Seems unusual that the factory would only replace the bushing, and not install a new hammer nose.... and then return it with no M stamp???
Weird

 

[SandSpider]

Just contacted S&W Customer Service and they advised they are still doing the recall work on the 686 models.

Not sure why Sandspider's gun was not refit properly. Seems unusual that the factory would only replace the bushing, and not install a new hammer nose.... and then return it with no stamp???
Weird

I don't know if the replaced the hammer nose. All I could see that they did replace the bushing. To be perfectly honest, I am not happy with what S&W did. I can't explain why, but the "repair" is very obvious. Almost looks like they mis-drilled something, then plugged the hole and re-drilled. I have no other explanation for what I'm seeing, you tell me:

I'm afraid this could potentially affect the resale value of the gun to a picky buyer, so yes, "not happy" is putting it mildly.

This was my last repair interaction with S&W, that's for sure.


SandSpider

 

[armorer951]

The tool has a spring loaded plunger that holds the tool in the correct position for staking, centered on the hole in the bushing itself. In your photograph, it looks like the bushing is installed correctly, but the staking ring on the breechface is off center. The ring is supposed to be at the same depth and concentric around the perimeter of the body of the bushing.

Picture of the staking tool below.

Because of the irregular staking, it's possible that the bushing may not stay in place properly....have you fired the gun to see if it functions normally? Have you contacted S&W about the issue?

 

[Hapworth]

I can attest that S&W is still performing the "M" stamp recall; had it done a few months back. S&W still has the updated hammer nose and bushing, still "M" stamps the yoke, still a warranty repair so the turnaround's fast, still entirely on their dime.

Downside in my case was my L-frame returned with slight hammer bind, overcorrected endshake that appears to be causing rotational bind under fire, and a primer back flow issue with some .357 Magnum that it didn't have prior (and, ironically, was the original issue the recall was intended to fix).

Had it done despite no previous problems because it seemed a good preventative for a defense-ready revolver; still would, on principle, but in this particular case it has me chasing down new issues.

 

[SandSpider]

The tool has a spring loaded plunger that holds the tool in the correct position for staking, centered on the hole in the bushing itself. In your photograph, it looks like the bushing is installed correctly, but the staking ring on the breechface is off center. The ring is supposed to be at the same depth and concentric around the perimeter of the body of the bushing.

Picture of the staking tool below.

Because of the irregular staking, it's possible that the bushing may not stay in place properly....have you fired the gun to see if it functions normally? Have you contacted S&W about the issue?

Ok, that makes sense.

No, I haven't talked to S&W about it. I really wasn't in the mood to wait another couple of months to have them fix their "fix". So far it's held up.

Do you think this can be corrected without making it look worse?

I can attest that S&W is still performing the "M" stamp recall; had it done a few months back. S&W still has the updated hammer nose and bushing, still "M" stamps the yoke, still a warranty repair so the turnaround's fast, still entirely on their dime.

Then I don't understand why they told me differently and didn't stamp my gun.

 

[armorer951]

If they followed the instructions, the "M" stamp is supposed to be placed on the frame, under the yoke body, directly above the model stamp and below the serial number.

Good to hear you have not experienced any problems thus far. Since the issue may be more than cosmetic, I would probably contact them and submit some photos of the staking.

 

[S&W Fan]

My dad bought a 686 in Sept. of 1981. It would bind with certain Federal magnum ammo so it was sent back by the shop where he bought it. Ever since it's been 100%, he carried for it self defense when out on horseback outside of Tucson, fishing, in the car, kept it handy around the house. It served it's purpose on one occassion for him and worked just fine. I've carried it every now and then since I inherited it in 1992. This gun will stay in the family for at least two more generations so I could give a horse's rear end about "collectibility" LOL .

Here's what the stamp looks like on it: